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

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 115-61]

                  AVIATION READINESS: WHAT'S THE FLIGHT PLAN?

                                   __________

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                NOVEMBER 9, 2017

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    28-244                         WASHINGTON : 2018

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                      JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman

    ROB BISHOP, Utah                     MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair  ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             RO KHANNA, California
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
                    Margaret Dean, Professional Staff Member
                    Brian Garrett, Professional Staff Member
                             Danielle Steitz, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
      Member, Subcommittee on Readiness..............................     2
    Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Gayler, MG William K., USA, Commanding General, U.S. Army
      Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker, U.S. Army.......     8
    Nowland, Lt Gen Mark C., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
      Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.......................     3
    Rudder, LtGen Steven R., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation,
      U.S. Marine Corps..............................................     6
    Shoemaker, VADM Troy M., USN, Commander, Naval Air Forces, U.S.
      Navy...........................................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Gayler, MG William K.........................................    58
        Nowland, Lt Gen Mark C.......................................    28
        Rudder, LtGen Steven R.......................................    47
        Shoemaker, VADM Troy M.......................................    35
        Wilson, Hon. Joe.............................................    27

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Mr. Wilson...................................................    71

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Brown....................................................    86
        Mrs. Hartzler................................................    84
        Mr. Wilson...................................................    75

                  AVIATION READINESS: WHAT'S THE FLIGHT PLAN?

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                                     Subcommittee on Readiness,
                            Washington, DC, Thursday, November 9, 2017.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:11 a.m., in
    room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
          SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

        Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this hearing of
    the House Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee on
    ``Aviation Readiness: What is the Flight Plan?'' to order. A
    year ago, this subcommittee heard testimony from each of your
    services about the readiness levels of military aviation.
    Infrastructure challenges, underfunded spare parts, and depot
    backlogs were a consistent theme.
        Aviation readiness challenges do not stop at
    infrastructure--retention and training of critical skills from
    trained and experienced pilots to aviation maintenance
    personnel continues to plague the readiness recovery.
        All of these challenges are competing with no lessening of
    operational demand in the fight against global terrorism and
    with the increasingly aging and overused aircraft.
        Today I look forward to hearing about each service's
    aviation readiness, readiness recovery plans, readiness impacts
    to safety, and where we continue to take risk; calculated in
    terms of both risk to the force and risk to the mission.
        I fully believe that the first responsibility of the
    national government is to provide for the national security of
    its citizens--and that is especially true of our sailors,
    soldiers, airmen, and marines; therefore, it is our
    responsibility as members of this subcommittee to continue to
    better understand the readiness situation and underlying
    problems across aviation and then for us to map a course which
    best assists in correcting any deficiencies and shortfalls.
        And I am grateful to turn to the distinguished gentlelady
    from the territory of Guam, our ranking member, Congresswoman
    Madeleine Bordallo, for any remarks she may make.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in
    Appendix on page 27.]

    STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM GUAM,
               RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
    morning to all the fine gentlemen that are here at the hearing
    today. And thank you for visiting with me so that I could
    become more acquainted with some of your challenges.
        I look forward to hearing about some of the problems that
    you face as an aviation community and hopefully an
    understanding on what the services are each doing and how
    Congress can support efforts to improve aviation readiness
    across the services.
        In 2016, we learned that shortfalls in our service aviation
    programs existed, from degraded maintenance capabilities to
    reduced training hours. And we began trying to address these in
    fiscal year 2017, the NDAA [National Defense Authorization
    Act]. Just as these conditions developed over time, it will
    also take time to build back readiness since these issues, of
    course, did not arise overnight.
        What we are continuing to remedy in the fiscal year 2018
    NDAA are the consequences of years' worth of high operational
    tempo, aging airframes, degraded aircraft conditions, fewer
    experienced air crews, and fewer skilled military and civilian
    personnel to maintain the aircraft.
        The services have responded by identifying the deficits and
    prioritizing personnel, training, maintenance, infrastructure,
    and logistic needs. And the committee has tried to support
    these efforts through budget authorizations and policy
    initiatives in the fiscal year 2018 NDAA.
        However, this committee is keenly aware that these efforts
    are rendered less effective by the continuing impacts of
    sequestration and unpredictable funding through continuing
    resolutions.
        When coupled with reductions in skilled personnel at
    aviation depots, severe challenges in obtaining spare parts for
    legacy systems, late and unpredictable funding due to multiple
    continuing resolutions, and the unrelenting operational tempo
    required by today's complex security environment, it is not
    surprising that we are dealing with readiness challenges.
        So the acquisition of newer aircraft and the modernization
    of our existing aviation systems may bring some relief to the
    stress of our high operational tempo. However, we must ensure
    there is an appropriate balance between rushing to buy new
    aircraft and ensuring that we continue investing in the
    operations and the maintenance of the legacy fleet.
        Providing more funding may help, but it is not always the
    answer. And it has become very clear that consistency and
    predictability in funding is more helpful than increased
    budgets.
        So I welcome this opportunity today to hear from each
    witness about the challenges that they face in their service to
    achieve and sustain aviation readiness and how we in Congress
    may be able to help.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ranking Member Bordallo.
        In connection with today's hearings, I welcome the members
    of the full committee who are not members of the subcommittee
    who are or will be attending.
        For a unanimous consent request to permit non-committee
    members' participation, I ask unanimous consent that a member
    who is not a member of the subcommittee on the Armed Services
    be allowed to participate in today's hearing after all
    subcommittee members and then full committee members have an
    opportunity to ask questions. Is there any objection?
        Without objection, such members will be recognized at the
    appropriate time for 5 minutes.
        I would like to welcome all of our members and the
    distinguished panel of senior aviators present today. This
    morning we have with us Lieutenant [General] Chris Nowland,
    United States Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations,
    Headquarters United States Air Force; Vice Admiral Mike
    Shoemaker, the United States Navy, Commander, Naval Air Forces;
    Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, United States Marine Corps,
    Deputy Commandant for Aviation; Major General William Gayler,
    United States Army, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and
    Fort Rucker.
        General Nowland, we now turn to you for your opening
    remarks.

      STATEMENT OF LT GEN MARK C. NOWLAND, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
           STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE

        General Nowland. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo,
    and distinguished members of the Readiness Subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
    state of aviation readiness across the United States Air Force
    and really this whole committee across the joint force.
        As I personally look back on this opportunity, I realize
    that only a privileged few get the chance to testify in front
    of our country's lawmakers, people with the power to make a
    difference. And I am excited that I can be here today to talk
    about a subject I am very passionate about, regaining full-
    spectrum readiness for the United States Air Force.
        I look forward to discussing with you where we are today,
    steps we are taking to recover, and areas where you can support
    in order to regain full-spectrum readiness soonest.
        For 70 years, our 70th anniversary this year, the United
    States Air Force has provided decisive advantage to the
    warfighter in air, more recently space and cyber domains. Every
    hour of every day airmen support homeland defense, deter
    aggression from abroad, and provide a robust and reliable
    nuclear deterrent.
        However, we are quickly approaching an inflection point.
    Twenty-six years of continuous operations have taken a toll on
    the force and adversaries are beginning to close the
    technological gap.
        Today, our combat-coded units hover around 50 percent
    readiness rate to meet global demands, specifically for high-
    end conflict against near-peer adversaries. In short, the Air
    Force is too small for what the Nation expects of it.
        The Air Force received $5.6 billion in the fiscal year 2017
    request for additional appropriation, and we spent it wisely.
    We were able to fund our top priority effecting readiness--
    growing the force. The funding allowed us to recruit 4,000
    additional Active Duty airmen, which we are using to accelerate
    readiness recovery by getting our planes back in the air.
        We made investments in pilot production to address our most
    critical shortfall, and we outfitted our battlefield airmen
    with the latest equipment to make them more lethal.
        We upgraded our fleet's targeting capabilities and
    increased munitions production. Finally, we funded increased
    levels of accessions, enhanced network security, and repaired
    infrastructure serving as the backbone for readiness recovery
    efforts. These investments will arrest our readiness decline in
    several critical areas. But shortfalls remain in the near term.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2018 lays the
    foundation to restore readiness and increase joint lethality.
    But most importantly, an approved budget with stable,
    predictable funding levels will build the bridge to the future.
        Continuing resolutions and a return to the Budget Control
    Act measures will reverse all the progress we have made to this
    point. With predictable budgets we can finally set the
    conditions necessary for the multiyear process of regaining
    readiness.
        Since 1947, the Air Force has relentlessly provided America
    with unmatched, decisive combat power in times of peace,
    contingency, and conflict. However, our advantage over
    potential adversaries is shrinking.
        Our Nation requires a ready and lethal air, space, and
    cyber force now more than ever. America expects it, combatant
    commanders require it, and with your continued support, the
    United States Air Force will regain full-spectrum readiness to
    ensure our warfighters have an asymmetric advantage in any
    conflict against any foe. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of General Nowland can be found in
    the Appendix on page 28.]
        Mr. Wilson. General, thank you very much, and we appreciate
    your service so much.
        And we now proceed to Vice Admiral Shoemaker.

    STATEMENT OF VADM TROY M. SHOEMAKER, USN, COMMANDER, NAVAL AIR
                           FORCES, U.S. NAVY

        Admiral Shoemaker. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking
    Member Bordallo, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    I am honored to be here along with my fellow senior aviators to
    update you on the state of naval aviation readiness.
        In the next few minutes I will reinforce what I know will
    be a consistent theme from the four of us and was already
    echoed in the chairman's and ranking member's opening
    statements.
        As we talk about readiness and what it will take to dig out
    of the hole we are in, we appreciate your support in making our
    aviation forces whole again and putting us on a better path to
    support SECDEF's [Secretary of Defense's] mandate to increase
    lethality and remain ahead of peer competitors around the
    world.
        In my written testimony I mention Lemoore, California, our
    West Coast master jet base, as a microcosm for our broader
    readiness challenges. And I would like to use our recent West
    Coast carrier deployments as a call to action.
        We are meeting the combatant commanders' requirements for
    ready, lethal carriers and air wings forward, but at a
    tremendous cost to the readiness of our forces at home.
        For example, to get Carl Vinson, Nimitz and Theodore
    Roosevelt ready to deploy in January, June, and October of this
    year, and equip their embarked air wings with the required
    number of mission-capable jets, 94 strike fighters had to be
    transferred to and from the maintenance depots or between F-18
    squadrons on both coasts.
        This included pulling aircraft from the fleet replacement
    squadrons, where our focus should be on training new aviators.
    That strike fighter inventory management, or shell game, leaves
    non-deployed squadrons well below the number of jets required
    to keep aviators proficient and progressing toward their career
    qualifications and milestones, with detrimental impacts to both
    retention and future experience levels.
        Additionally, to get those air wings ready, several hundred
    parts had to be cannibalized from other Super Hornets across
    the force, further decimating the readiness of squadrons and
    adding significantly and unnecessarily to the workload of our
    maintainers.
        From a manning perspective, to fill gaps in those deploying
    squadrons and the 3 carriers, over 300 sailors had to be
    temporarily reassigned from other squadrons, have their orders
    changed or get extended beyond their normal sea tour lengths,
    which hurts our sailors and their families and has cascading
    effects on enlisted retention across the force.
        So what can we do to help improve readiness and quality of
    service? First, consistent, predictable funding that we can
    execute on 1 October is absolutely required.
        Then we must buy back the readiness we have lost from years
    of resource-constrained budgets. Some of it can't be recovered.
    It is corporate memory, like foundational flying experiences
    that we no longer have in a generation of pilots.
        Other readiness shortfalls, like the diminished stock of
    parts on our carriers and at our bases must be replenished.
    Pressurized budgets have forced us to make difficult tradeoffs
    to sustain the readiness of the current force, modernize that
    force to pace the threat, procure new aircraft with high-end
    capabilities and increased lethality, and add the critical
    manpower needed to operate and fight those forces and win, as
    our Nation expects us to do.
        My job as the Navy's air boss is to work as hard as I can
    to give our commanders the resources they need to focus on
    warfighting first, be ready to operate forward, and be
    successful when we ask them to sail or fly in harm's way. I
    hope I can count on your support to deliver that commitment.
        In closing, although we are carefully managing risks at
    home, I couldn't be more proud of the way our incredible
    aviators and sailors are performing with quiet professionalism
    and excellence at sea and ashore around the world today. Their
    service is making a difference for our Nation and we must do
    all we can to keep them ready.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Shoemaker can be found
    in the Appendix on page 35.]
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Admiral. We appreciate so
    much your service.
        General Rudder.

     STATEMENT OF LTGEN STEVEN R. RUDDER, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
                    FOR AVIATION, U.S. MARINE CORPS

        General Rudder. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo,
    distinguished members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee
    on Readiness and other distinguished members, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on the current state of Marine Corps
    aviation readiness.
        I would be remiss if I didn't wish everybody in the room a
    happy Marine Corps birthday. The Marine Corps continues to be
    the Nation's expeditionary force in readiness, and Marine
    Aviation is prepared to surge and fight anywhere you ask them
    to.
        As Deputy Commandant for Aviation, my focus is building
    readiness for combat. It is and it will continue to be my top
    priority. As we build readiness for combat, we will also
    balance modernizing the force, as well as fully investing in
    our maintenance base.
        We watch our ops [operations] tempo very carefully, and
    today we have multiple aviation units engaged around the globe.
    There are F-18s flying combat missions from the land, from
    aboard Navy aircraft carriers, and operating throughout Asia.
        Our V-22s stand ready for combat support of AFRICOM [U.S.
    Africa Command], CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command], and we have
    aviation combat elements operating on amphibious shipping
    throughout the world. We are also dedicated to helping our
    fellow Americans in time of need in support of disaster relief
    operations.
        This is in addition to our standing deployments and forward
    posture in the Pacific, where we currently stand ready to
    support our five allies and multiple partners.
        Since last year as our deployment-to-dwell has improved
    slightly from an average of 1:2 to 1:2.6, this means that last
    year and years prior we had marines deployed for 6 months, but
    they only had 12 months at home to get ready to deploy again.
        This year we are able to keep marines home for
    approximately 15 months, so they are able to gain about another
    3 months of readiness time. Again, minor improvements, still
    short of our target, which would be 6 months deployed and 18
    months at home to prepare for the next deployment.
        Thank you for your support for additional funds we received
    in fiscal year 2017. We have made moderate gains in readiness
    but still not where we want to be. Our readiness recovery
    strategy is built upon sustaining our legacy fleet while
    modernizing new aircraft, investing in our marines, and
    balancing funding into fully funding our readiness accounts.
        We are 43 percent complete with our transition of every
    squadron in the Marine Corps. In the past year, Marine Aviation
    has improved readiness by roughly 15 percent in our modern
    fleet and 10 percent in our legacy fleet.
        We are slowly adding aircraft to our flight line. However,
    we are still about 115 aircraft or about 20 percent short of
    where we want to be.
        On average, hours per crew each month increased by almost 2
    hours this year. In 2016 we were flying at 13.5 hours, roughly
    averaging per pilot. This year we are 15.4. Not where we want
    to be at 16.9, but a slight improvement nonetheless.
        A key part of our readiness recovery is focusing on our
    marines. We are investing in our maintenance marines who make
    it all possible. Last year we identified experience gap at some
    of our maintenance supervisory levers.
        Through an update to our MOS [military occupational
    specialty] manual, we are now tracking prioritized, advanced
    qualifications essential to those positions. Tracking these
    marines within squadrons ensures we keep the right maintainer
    in the right squadron at the right place.
        To further reduce the experience gap, we are offering an
    aircraft maintainer retention bonus to qualified marines that
    have those higher designations. Maintainers who accept the
    bonus remain in the squadron flight line for 2 years
    supervising and growing the next generation.
        To date we have about 350 marines that qualify for this and
    about 130 have accepted. So that is 130 marines distributed
    throughout the Marine Corps that are actually going to stay--
    experienced marines that are going to stay in the squadron
    working on airplanes.
        Also this year for the first time since 2011, we are giving
    a pilot retention bonus.
        So now that we are adjusting our critical maintenance
    manpower we must invest in supply and depot throughput to
    support them. Our maintainers do not have enough parts on the
    shelves to sustain aircraft in the flight line. With Congress'
    help in 2017, again, we funded spares to maximum executable
    levels.
        In the 2018 budget request that is sitting over here, we
    have again funded to unprecedented levels. In the past, in some
    cases we have funded 25 percent where we are supposed to be;
    this year, between the Navy and Marine Corps, funding at full
    levels. We plan to continue this through the FYDP [Future Years
    Defense Plan] for both our legacy as well as our new airplanes.
        Supply depot improvements allowed us to return 30 Marine F-
    18s to the flight line this year from the depot and reset 13
    long-term-down CH-53s. That may not seem like a lot, but out of
    those 13 airplanes came out we have flown over 2,000 hours in
    those airplanes. The 53s their hours have increased more than
    any other community in this past year.
        Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly
    address aviation mishaps. It is our commitment that every time
    we operate an aircraft that it is certified safe for flight and
    ready for the demands we place on it.
        Historically, our mishap rates have been flat, but there
    was an increase in fiscal year 2017. And while there is no
    direct link between low readiness rates and high Class A
    mishaps this year, it has my fullest attention. There is no
    question--no question that naval aviation is an inherently
    demanding discipline, and we cannot discount second- and third-
    order affects of low readiness and lack of training reps.
        Human factors and the pressure to be ready for the next
    deployment comes into play daily. Like any profession, the more
    you practice your trade the better you are at doing it. The
    true metric of health in aviation is aircrew flight hours.
    While we have increased our average flight hours last year, we
    are still below what is required.
        Ten years ago, a pilot averaged 16 hours per month. Today
    it is 15.4, but that is only part of it. Three years ago,
    typically 10 years ago during a 3-year rotation, typically a 3-
    year rotation, those pilots averaged 20 percent more hours
    during that 3-years rotation than the pilots are today.
        Consider the data and add that to the current operational
    tempo. That combined with the challenging environments marines
    operate in, there is a marked difference between being current
    and being proficient.
        Conclusion for me is thank you, again, to this committee
    for all the help you have done over the years. Marine Aviation,
    we continue to improve but it is fragile.
        We need, as you would imagine, stable, predictable funding
    over time, and we need your help as you have in the past to
    fund those readiness enabler accounts and flight air programs
    to sustain the current slight upward tick in readiness.
        Recovery of readiness also means transitioning in new
    aircraft like the F-35 and the CH-53K as fast as possible in a
    fiscally responsible manner. Simultaneously, we are working
    hard to sustain, as you appropriately put out, our legacy
    aircraft.
        Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, we look
    forward--the Marine Corps appreciates everything you have done.
    We look forward to taking your question.
        [The prepared statement of General Rudder can be found in
    the Appendix on page 47.]
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General, and indeed, happy
    242nd birthday to the U.S. Marine Corps tomorrow.
        And we now proceed with General Gayler.

      STATEMENT OF MG WILLIAM K. GAYLER, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL,
     U.S. ARMY AVIATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AND FORT RUCKER, U.S.
                                  ARMY

        General Gayler. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo,
    and distinguished members of the Readiness Subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today and address
    Army Aviation readiness.
        I am grateful to represent the Army leadership and the
    military and the civilian professionals and the courageous men
    and women of Army Aviation who steadfastly serve our Nation
    each day.
        Army Aviation has provided an unparalleled advantage to our
    Nation as a fundamental element of the joint force, and there
    is no doubt that aviation will remain an essential element of
    any combat in the future. However, force structure reductions,
    increased global requirements, funding uncertainty, and the
    requirement to train our forces to a higher level of
    preparedness raise concerns about the overall future readiness
    of Army Aviation.
        Aviation training is tough under any circumstances,
    however, to date, we assess that the fiscal environment,
    coupled with any atrophied maintenance skills or flight hours
    unexecuted have not manifested themselves as a result in
    aviation mishaps, which in fiscal year 2017 remained below the
    both 5- and 10-year averages. However, we watch them very
    closely and are still concerned.
        If current trends do continue however, particularly with
    reduced flight hour execution or funding and combined with a
    requirement to enter into a high threat environment,
    historically we do see a rise in aviation mishaps.
        However, the current fiscal environment and high demand for
    aviation do pose those challenges. Today's units are resourced
    to the platoon level proficiency, which is sufficient for the
    counterinsurgency operations that we have been in in the last
    decade and a half.
        However, to fight and win in increasingly complex
    environments against a more capable near-peer or a peer enemy,
    aviation units would be needed to be at a higher level of
    proficiency at higher echelons.
        As turbulence within aviation subsides we will ask for your
    continued support to assure sufficient resourcing to achieve
    that readiness.
        Readiness also has an equipping component. Aviation
    initiatives to sustain readiness and to meet global
    requirements have come at a cost to our modernization. Budget-
    driven force structure reductions and the current fiscal
    environment have significantly reduced our budget over the past
    6 years and tests our ability to modernize our force and close
    key capability gaps with potential adversaries.
        In the near term, Army Aviation is working tirelessly to
    develop capabilities to ensure that we maintain a competitive
    advantage over any potential adversary. And in the midterm we
    must make very difficult decisions about our legacy fleet and
    about the future of vertical lift to ensure that we provide
    capability to ground commanders that they will need to fight
    and win on the future battlefield.
        The United States Army still retains the most modern and
    best-trained aviation force of its kind in the world, and our
    soldiers, noncommissioned officers, and our officers continue
    to serve this Nation faithfully.
        Army Aviation remains ready to meet any future challenge,
    no matter the complexity or the risk. Certainly stable,
    adequate, and predictable funding would enable us to transform
    into that more capable, lethal, and prepared force for the
    future.
        I thank each of you for your continued support to the
    outstanding men and women in uniform. And I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today and equally look forward to your
    questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of General Gayler can be found in
    the Appendix on page 58.]
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General Gayler, and we
    appreciate your first appearance before this subcommittee, and
    best wishes on your continued success.
        And beginning with General Nowland, a question I have for
    each person on the subcommittee will have 5 minutes, strictly
    maintained by Ms. Dean. And so we will proceed.
        The latest projections for rebuilding readiness are based
    on setting the conditions for readiness recovery. Could you
    please provide examples of the fragility of the recovery
    efforts, how fiscal year 2017 funding has shown results in
    recovering readiness, and how the fiscal year 2018 will further
    readiness recovery? Where are additional resources still
    required?
        General Nowland. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that great
    question. The 2017 RAA [request for additional appropriations]
    really helped the Air Force. We increased our spending in our
    flying hour program. We increased our spending in our weapons
    systems sustainment.
        We increased critical skills availability through people,
    through buying 4,000 more airmen that we could then put into
    it, and then the training resources, our ranges and simulators.
    We also increased spending in those areas.
        So those levers continue to move forward. The 2018 budget
    right now, if enacted, once we get the budget will be good for
    us. The Presidential budget continues to move it.
        The analogy that I would make is we have to grow the force.
    So along those paths, we still have areas of risk. We have a
    pilot-aircrew crisis. Our most highly stressed career field
    right now is AC-130 gunners. So it is just not a pilot crisis,
    but the pilots are our most critical shortage so we will
    continue to work through that.
        Our maintainers, we will continue to work to train our
    maintainers, to experience them so that they can go from three
    level to five level to seven level, which is from technician to
    apprentice to expert. And it takes a while to grow that force.
        Continued budgetary support will allow us to continue to
    close out in fiscal year 2019 and finish our maintenance and
    fill up our maintenance holes where we have there.
        Weapons systems sustainment, as we talked about just like
    the other flags told you, we have challenges. For the most
    part, our weapons systems sustainment is good.
        We are funded at 90 percent with a combination of base
    budget and OCO [overseas contingency operations], but we still
    need to improve, as you and I talked about, the delivery
    mechanism, the logistics is the key. How do we get our parts to
    the far-flung small fleets, such as RC-135s out at Kadena Air
    Base?
        Those would be the areas that the continued budget pressure
    will allow us to continue to move forward with, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And Admiral.
        Admiral Shoemaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we look at--
    I think I will refer to Ranking Member Bordallo's comments in
    the beginning when she said we didn't get here overnight. It is
    gonna take some time to dig out of the readiness hole that we
    are in.
        As I look at fiscal year 2017, that was with the request
    for additional appropriations, that was a relatively good year
    for us in naval aviation in terms of the flying hour account
    and our readiness enabler accounts. But again, it was two-
    thirds of the year our hands were tied a bit while we were
    still under the continuing resolution.
        In fiscal year 2018 both our flying hour account or our
    flying hour account and every one of our enabler accounts is
    plussed-up to levels beyond where it was in fiscal year 2017.
    That is goodness.
        The one area I would continue to focus, and I mentioned it
    in my opening comments, is in the spares, the APN-6 accounts, a
    critical enabler for us to continue recovering readiness.
        So the fragility you referenced, Mr. Chairman, I think we
    just have to have the continued sustained funding over time to
    get us out of the hole we have dug.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Admiral. And General
    Rudder.
        General Rudder. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have,
    similar with our partners within the naval aviation enterprise,
    have fully funded a lot of our accounts to our executable
    levels. And to give you an idea what that looks like, you know,
    in fiscal year 2016 for spares we are at 83 percent.
        For fiscal year 2017, with the additional money you gave
    us, we were able to get to 94, and with the budget that we have
    in now we are going to fund it at 96.
        Now, you know, predictable budget is always good because
    that allows our program managers to put those spares on
    contract. So the quicker we get the full budget, the quicker we
    can get those spares on contract.
        Some of the fragility of it is that as our ops tempo has
    not decreased, we must, one, balance our pilot production,
    which we are doing, and balancing our aircraft.
        And as an example, with our F-18 community, probably 2 or 3
    years ago, you know, we might have had five or six F-18s in the
    flight line, maybe 3 months before they were getting ready to
    deploy. And then we pull aircraft from the flight line, inject
    them into the squadron and deploy them.
        We reduced our squadron deployments down to 10 aircraft as
    a flight line entitlement. And recently to see some of the
    progress, although fragile, we deployed VMFA-251 into Asia with
    12 aircraft, and they are doing quite well with 10 out of 12 up
    on a regular basis.
        So there is some progress being made. Fully funding those
    accounts has been the key to success. Thank you.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much.
        And General Gayler, you are finding out your first time
    here that time can be cut off, but for the record, we will give
    you that question and look forward to your response.
        But so that all of the members of the subcommittee can
    participate, we will proceed with Congresswoman Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        General Nowland and Admiral Shoemaker, both the Air Force
    and the Navy have identified manpower shortfalls in the
    maintenance communities. Now, without a sufficient number of
    trained and experienced maintainers, you will have challenges
    generating ready aircraft to support pilot training and
    operations.
        So can you describe the actions that you are taking to
    address manpower shortfalls in the maintenance community? And
    assuming stable funding and how long will it take to fill these
    gaps? Do we see any of it presently or is it still in the
    future?
        General Nowland. Yes, ma'am. We are experiencing those
    problems. As I said, in our maintenance field we are growing
    4,000 maintainers in 2017 is what we are doing, and we expect
    to close out in 2019 to continue to fill those gaps.
        The other thing we are doing is we are moving maintainers
    where we can into combat-coded units. So for instance, as we
    stand up F-35 units, our training units, we are using contract
    solutions so that we can move our maintainers into the combat-
    coded units. Then as we grow our maintenance and fill our
    maintenance manning, we will then come back and put blue-suit
    maintenance back into those organizations.
        But as they said, it takes a while to grow that capability
    to a three to a five to a seven level, ma'am.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you. And also to you,
    Admiral Shoemaker?
        Admiral Shoemaker. Thank you, ma'am. So I think in the
    aviation ranks, at least in our overall accession program, in
    2017 we increased those accessions 32,000 to 35,200. That will
    take a while to get to the fleet.
        We are living off, I think the largesse of a fiscal year
    2013, a very good recruiting year. Those sailors are all now
    getting to the end of their initial tours and choosing to
    taking shore duty or choosing to separate.
        A couple things we have done to increase the experience
    level and the level of the maintainers in our fleet squadrons
    is a couple policy adjustments.
        One were contract extensions that we offered for sailors on
    sea duty. We had almost 1,000 take that for almost over a year
    each. So that is about 1,000 years of sea duty that we
    increased there.
        The other one was an extension to the high year tenure
    gates, the changes to the high year tenure gates. That also
    added about 1,000 years of sea duty into our squadrons.
        As best we can, we are also trying to recycle and reutilize
    aviation experience in the same type/model/series. So we avoid
    the training requirements and costs as they show up and
    transfer between squadrons. That is an initiative that is
    getting traction in Millington in our Personnel Command.
        The last one is I know in our fiscal year 2018 budget, our
    request is for additional accessions, and I think that will
    help us. It may take a little while to get to the fleet, but we
    will continue to work those policies in the meantime.
        Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you very much. And my last
    question is to General Gayler. Can you share, General, with the
    committee how recommendations from the Holistic Aviation
    Assessment Task Force, which is directed by General Milley, has
    improved Army readiness?
        And can you highlight some of the recommendations that have
    been implemented or that you plan to implement in fiscal year
    2018 and how they will produce measurable readiness
    improvements?
        General Gayler. Yes, ma'am, thank you very much for the
    question. So of course, General Milley tasked Lieutenant
    General Mangum to conduct a holistic aviation task force
    assessment. He came up with 63 recommendations, of which 30 of
    them are completed to date and/or have a plan of action to
    complete. The remainder will be completed by the end of fiscal
    year 2018.
        Most significantly, really, are in the areas of doctrine
    development where we have to align our doctrine to better stay
    linked with a potential future battlefield and with the greater
    Army.
        Also in training we have made great strides in adjusting
    training to bring our forces to a higher level of collective
    training, which would be necessary on a future modern
    battlefield, to include UAS integration, unmanned aerial
    systems integration, and teaming with manned systems.
        Really a third area that is most significant is in the
    maintainer arena. We have some atrophied skills as a result of
    a few events in the past few years.
        So we are focusing very heavily on standardizing a
    maintainer training program, not only to get all maintainers to
    the requisite standard, but also to help further, kind of
    increase their maintenance knowledge. Certainly when they
    achieve a higher rank they would need that certain higher level
    of knowledge.
        So it has been very effective for us, and we look forward
    to completing it.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, General. And I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo.
        And now we proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Nowland, good to see you again. I talked with you a
    little bit about Moody Air Force Base and the A-29 Super Tucano
    training program, began there in 2015 with the Afghan Air
    Force, and I know it is been extended to 2020. Now we are
    training the Lebanese Air Force in a similar program.
        Can you explain how this program works within the overall
    strategy of the Air Force?
        General Nowland. Congressman Scott, great question, thank
    you, sir. This has been a model program, and this is in line
    with the Secretary of Defense guidance that our National
    Military Strategy is in, with, and through coalition partners
    and allies.
        So the Afghan A-29 program has been successful because what
    we have done is we have worked with our government to acquire
    those airplanes and the transfer those airplanes to the Afghan
    Air Force.
        Simultaneously, we brought Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard
    members in to train with the Afghan pilots to get them up to
    speed. And then we have supplemented them once they go into
    Afghanistan with air advisors who are with them taking them
    through their combat missions. We have seen it to be very
    effective in helping to train the Afghan Air Force.
        The Lebanese program is initiated right now. We have also
    done some work with the Lebanese Air Force to help them with
    facilities in Lebanon, and we are moving forward along the same
    model. Our chief believes this is a model of success for the
    future. We will try to continue to build on it.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. I agree with you. I mean, the coalition
    partners, the more assets that we can give them the better off
    we are gonna be. And some have asked how this actually helps
    with U.S. Air Force pilot training and the readiness for that.
    And could you hit on the point of how it decreases pressure on
    U.S. pilot capacity to carry out the sorties in these other
    countries?
        General Nowland. Well, great question again. So for
    instance in Afghanistan, if we have limited capability as we
    look across the region, and if we have an Afghan Air Force that
    can talk to the kandak down to the battalion level and do that
    close air support, that doesn't require F-16s overhead or an
    MQ-9 Reaper overhead. So therefore it is enabling them to be
    successful.
        We are also training their joint tactical air controllers
    so that they can control it so it becomes organic to the Afghan
    Air Force, which reduces the demand on our joint force.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, General. You know, I have to mention
    the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System] and
    the C2ISR [command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance] capabilities. We have all heard that we don't
    have enough of that capacity, and I just look forward to
    proceeding with the JSTARS recapitalization and certainly
    appreciate any support that any of you can give with us in
    filling that gap.
        General Gayler, graduate from North Georgia Military, I
    believe? Is that correct? The delayed risk in infrastructure
    has increasingly degraded aviation readiness.
        Last year, I had concerns about the aging maintenance
    hangars and support combat aviation units. We received the Army
    combat aviation hangar sustainment report, which detailed the
    get-well plan. Are we on track to meet the 80 percent adequate
    facilities rating no later than 2025?
        General Gayler. Sir, it certainly depends on levels of
    funding between now and 2025. We currently have nine Active
    Duty installations that have infrastructure needs that we rate
    as significant.
        And even above hangar facilities we have facility
    requirements for the prevention of corrosion on repair parts.
    In fiscal year 2016 we lost $16.2 million worth of repair parts
    just to corrosion alone.
        And so we are working that very hard to get a steady
    funding stream and priority to that infrastructure repair in
    all the installations, but also specifically for that corrosion
    prevention, which was another holistic task force review. And
    but we do have a lot of work left to do, sir.
        Mr. Scott. General, I have just a few seconds left, but
    specifically with regard to Hunter Army Airfield, can you
    update us on the hangar repairs there?
        General Gayler. I believe I can. We did have one hangar
    that was approved for improvement work beginning in 2022 to be
    complete by fiscal year 2024. The general support aviation
    battalion hangar that is part of that complex is the number one
    priority on FORSCOM's [United States Army Forces Command's]
    military construction priority list. So we are making some
    progress.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, General. Gentlemen, thank you for
    your service. And I yield the remainder of my time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Wilson. We now proceed to Congressman Anthony Brown of
    Maryland.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying
    that recently I visited with the 10th Combat Aviation Brigade
    from 10th Mountain in Powidz, Poland, and what those young men
    and women are doing is phenomenal.
        They are working interoperability issues with their
    counterparts. They are understanding the terrain. And I think
    they are really laying the groundwork for an enduring
    rotational, although one day I would like to see a permanent
    presence of Army Aviation in Europe.
        Doing a great job with the UH-60 and the AH-64. I graduated
    flight school in 1985. The Black Hawk had already been in the
    field for 6 years, and we were anticipating a year later the
    arrival of the AH-64.
        By 2030, the Black Hawk will have been in the field for 50
    years and the Apache for 45. I am sure we will be looking at
    those airframes with the same endearing love and affection as
    today we look at the UH-1, which was the workhorse of Vietnam.
        So my concern is, and my question, General Gayler, is the
    need to shift or at least broaden our focus from what today is,
    you know, short-term readiness to what needs to be more on the
    modernization of the force.
        We haven't heard much, I think, during this Congress, or at
    least I haven't been in hearings where I have heard much about
    the Future Vertical Lift program. Can you talk to us a little
    bit about that replacing the aging helicopter fleet?
        I understand production will start in 2030. And what are
    the impacts to Army Aviation modernization plans and programs
    under the current level of funding?
        General Gayler. So thank you, Congressman. First, in
    reverse, the current level of funding, we are certainly based
    on force structure that we now have as a result of budget
    realities, we are absolutely strapped to meet demand while
    simultaneously training for major combat operations at a higher
    level of readiness and then while balancing modernization.
        So it has kind of forced the Chief of Staff of the Army to
    prioritize readiness as the number one priority. So we will
    continue to ensure that we have ready forces now to meet the
    demand and for the future.
        You are correct. We have lost some modernization spending
    power over the next coming years. And we do have to make
    serious choices to invest in that capability.
        Where we have been left so far at the funding levels is
    incremental modernization. And there is a unique linkage
    between incremental modernization and readiness.
        In order to incrementally modernize our fleets, for example
    the AH-64s, we have to take existing airframes out of
    operational units to induct them into a remanufacture line to
    improve that airframe.
        That impacts readiness because we are taking aircraft from
    operational units on which they should be training. On average,
    across a 24-ship AH-64 battalion in authorization today, we
    average between 20 and 21 aircraft in the field because we are
    forced to incrementally modernize.
        We do have to change that. And the Future Vertical Lift
    program is looking at technologies right now that send a joint
    multi-role tech demonstrator that will conclude in fiscal year
    2019. That will inform what technologies are feasible to meet a
    capability requirement that we have on a future battlefield.
        And then we will aggressively pursue those capabilities as
    we move forward because we do have to maintain the legacy fleet
    viability though, because, as you stated, sir, I mean, these
    Apaches and these Black Hawks will be in our force for a long
    period of time. And we have to keep them viable.
        That is why other parts of modernization are critical to
    us, the Improved Turbine Engine Program to buy back power in
    those airframes, both the Apache and the Black Hawk, are
    critical.
        Now, if we have any CRs [continuing resolutions], that
    overall hurts our ability to work development efforts.
        Mr. Brown. And let me just----
        General Gayler. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Brown [continuing]. Take back my time, reclaim my time.
    Thank you very much. I am concerned about the increasing
    standoff that our forces are now facing, will be facing, and we
    need to make sure that we are improving both the lethality as
    well as the reach of our aviation assets.
        The next question, which I would expect I would get a
    response in writing because I am going to ask a question and I
    don't think with my time remaining you will be able to answer
    it, General Nowland.
        And it is a parochial question. I am in the Fourth
    Congressional District of Maryland. Joint Base Andrews is in my
    backyard.
        I am concerned about the replacement program, the Huey
    replacement program, and if you could give this committee
    assurances that the program will not face further delays and
    that it is on track for award in third quarter of 2018? And if
    not, why not and when?
        It is an old fleet. The Huey--surprised that some of them
    are still in operation--they are having difficulty performing
    their continuity operations, other base missions at Andrews. So
    if you could just give us an update on that program back
    through the committee staff or however that is most
    appropriate, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Brown.
        And we now proceed to Congressman Steve Russell of
    Oklahoma.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    generals for being here today. I guess my question would really
    be for all of you. With respect to flight hours, and General
    Rudder, thank you for talking about last year and this year,
    but could you give us just a brief thumbnail trend of what the
    average flight hours are currently per month for your pilots?
        General Nowland. Congressman Russell, across the United
    States Air Force our flight hours per month are going in the
    right direction. We are increasing them. Across the multiple
    different series that I have----
        Mr. Russell. Well, I know there are a lot of different
    airframes, but yes.
        General Nowland. It is hard. So but in our fighter
    community, trying to keep it apples-to-apples, we are averaging
    about 15.6 in our air superiority and right around 16 or so in
    our general purpose attack.
        Mr. Russell. Okay.
        General Nowland. And that really goes back to our readiness
    aircrew program, which ties simulators and flight hours
    together for their training.
        Mr. Russell. Interesting. Okay, thank you. Admiral
    Shoemaker.
        Admiral Shoemaker. Yes, sir. So I would say we are very
    close to that in aggregate across all type/model/series. The
    strike fighter community is a couple hours below. So about 15
    and a half across in aggregate and maybe a couple hours below
    that for VFA [strike fighter squadron].
        In just general trends if I look over time for the annual
    amount of hours, our TACAIR [tactical aircraft] communities
    have come down from around 250 a year to about right around
    190. So that is a drop from 2011 to 2017.
        Big wing, the MPRA [maritime patrol and reconnaissance
    aircraft], E-6s and P-8s are all have been fairly steady, same
    in our rotary force. So the trend is down on our TACAIR
    community.
        Mr. Russell. Okay. Thank you. General Rudder.
        General Rudder. Yes, thank you, Congressman. It is for our
    TACAIR community they are coming up. So for our F-18 community
    they are hovering around 12.7, not certainly at the 15-hour.
        Now, that is by the nature we do calculations, we take off
    one of our deployed squadrons over there. They are averaging
    from 40 to 50 hours per pilot----
        Mr. Russell. Sure----
        General Rudder [continuing]. A month.
        Mr. Russell. Operational deployment goes up.
        General Rudder. Because there is just--but when you average
    in a squadron that maybe just returned it is kind of getting
    themselves backed up on maintenance step. So we are still
    shooting towards 15. As talked about throughout the Marine
    Corps it is 15.4.
        We still want to get up to 16.5 hours, but there are a
    couple really glimmers of hope out there. And certainly with
    the CH-53, you know, our heavy lift community, they went from 9
    to 13 this past year. So that was a big step.
        Mr. Russell. Better.
        General Rudder. Yes. Thank you.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you.
        General Gayler. Sir, for the Active Component it is 10.8
    hours currently. For our National Guard it is around 6.4 and
    7.8 for the Reserve Component. What we try to achieve is 14.5
    hours per month per crew to reach a collective readiness level
    at the battalion level.
        We could achieve that in our UH and CH-47 fleets. The AH-64
    fleet is somewhat capacity limited because of shortages of the
    airframes and some of the pilots. Thank you.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you. And the other question I have is on
    pilot retention and pilot generation. I know there was a lot of
    hoopla made about maybe bringing retirees in, but really this
    authority was always available as I understand it to the
    services to recall folks that were retired if they needed to.
        Do you see an age gap developing because of accessions of
    new pilots and then trying to retain with incentives and other
    programs? If y'all could speak to that in the time I have
    remaining?
        General Nowland. Congressman Russell, we just received
    greater authorization to do it for a longer period of time. So
    we will be looking at that. I don't anticipate necessarily an
    age gap. The retirees we intend to bring back, number one, we
    will try to fill staff positions----
        Mr. Russell. Sure. Training----
        General Nowland [continuing]. Which would then allow our--
    --
        Mr. Russell [continuing]. Training base maybe also or?
        General Nowland. Yes, sir. And then at training bases, in
    which case when you look at your instructor pilot they all look
    old to you, so, you know.
        Mr. Russell. Yes. Well, and I appreciate that because a lot
    of times, you know, you have captain instructors, which is not
    a bad thing. They are current. They are coming from the field.
    But I was curious on that, so thanks.
        Admiral Shoemaker.
        Admiral Shoemaker. So we heard about the Air Force
    initiative and actually looking at that in our production world
    as well, where we are trying to catch back up, certainly in T-
    45s. Most of you all are familiar with the operational pause we
    took.
        In the general trend across the force, though, I think, you
    know, other than a couple of targeted communities, be it the F-
    18 community and our Growler, advanced airborne electronic
    attack, we are meeting our department head requirements with
    quality.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you. General Rudder.
        General Rudder. As we look across our fleet, we expect
    about a 7 percent fleetwide departure rate on a yearly basis.
        Now, for our TACAIR community, much like Shoe just said,
    you know, we are up around 9.5, 9.9, with the average over the
    year about 9. So we have seen about a 1 percent, 1\1/2\ percent
    increase in this departure.
        So we are approaching it from all angles. We are
    approaching it from our ops tempo, readiness. As you would
    imagine, pilots want to fly. And when they are not flying they
    are not happy so we are trying to increase the readiness out
    there. And again, we are trying to give incentives to keep
    people in.
        But it is a concern. Obviously, when the economy is doing
    good, airlines are doing good, I think to include all the
    helicopter guys and gals out there, they are being approached
    on a daily and regular basis because there is other shortfalls
    out there with our airline partners.
        Mr. Russell. And Mr. Chairman, if I may with indulgence, I
    hate to leave my Army brother, you know, hanging in the wind.
    If he could answer that with your indulgence? Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. Please proceed.
        General Gayler. Thank you, sir, and I will be brief. Yes,
    sir. We have targeted specifically some of the more senior
    qualifications to remain in the operational fleet and we use
    heavily some Department of Army civilian-aged experienced in
    the institutions. So we watch it carefully.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Russell.
        We now proceed to Congressman Don McEachin of Virginia.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
    for being here.
        General Nowland, would you be kind enough to discuss the
    intent behind the Air Force enterprise range plan [ERP], the
    potential benefits of the regional training range approach and
    what the Air Force hopes to achieve as the ERP process is
    completed?
        General Nowland. Congressman, great question, I would love
    to. We believe that the enterprise range plan will make us more
    efficient. So what we need to do is we need to look at our
    ranges holistically. Our ranges are national treasures, and so
    we have got to look.
        Right now the way we command and control them we don't
    create as many efficiencies as we think we can. So we believe
    by creating an enterprise range plan and pooling it together
    regionally we will be better coordinators with our sister
    services as we look at how we can possibly expand the ranges
    and increase investment also in our ranges.
        We have limited investment dollars. Where do we put the
    high-end simulators, into which ranges so we get the maximum
    training value out of every sortie we fly?
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you. And that is a nice segue into my
    next question to Admiral Shoemaker and General Rudder. Can you
    discuss the potential benefits to your services of the Air
    Force consolidating its six regional training ranges? Is there
    a potential to better leverage these ranges to improve training
    across all services?
        And can you also discuss the challenges each of your
    services face in acquiring technologies like threat emitters
    that allow your respective service air components to simulate
    advanced threats?
        Admiral Shoemaker. Yes, sir, thank you very much. As we
    merge the enterprise plan that General Nowland just described,
    our premier training range is obviously Fallon, Nevada.
        And as we introduce new technologies, we are clearly
    figuring out that the airspace limits and the electromagnetic
    spectrum limits are not allowing us to fly our new platforms to
    their full capabilities.
        So it is driving us into a virtual and constructive world
    and we have--moving out with that with a couple of key
    facilities in Fallon right now that will link to all of our
    fleet concentration areas, but certainly tie into our Air Force
    counterparts.
        As I talk about Fallon, one of the things we do, we do
    require, and you mentioned this, sir, were emitters. And the
    ranges out there are working with some very dated systems.
        So when we bring on our new electronic attack airplanes and
    certainly the F-35 to be able to practice and train against
    something more representative of the threats we might see is
    essential.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you. General.
        General Rudder. Yes, thank you, Congressman. I would make
    as a general statement, our ranges in our airspace that we are
    able to operate in on a regular basis should be considered a
    national treasure.
        And anytime that we can increase the efficiency we should
    produce that and protect what we have and when able, when it
    makes sense, expand airspace, even with the crowded airways as
    we know them today.
        There are challenges. We are fortunate to be able to
    participate in great exercises like Northern Edge and Red Flag
    and operate out of Fallon so we--or China Lake or other areas
    around where we can take advantage of their first-rate threat
    systems that allow us to train at levels we need to train.
        And with the F-35 coming onboard on larger numbers, we will
    be challenged in the future to make sure that we have the
    amount of airspace to be able to train with that airplane, no
    doubt about it.
        And we have got to get very progressive on how we think
    about airspace and how we fight this airplane and how we fight
    the network within our range areas because there are competing,
    you know, communication bands out there we need to deal with
    and computing airspace requirements.
        So I would echo with all my counterparts here that range
    space is critical, and the more we think through this and make
    our ranges more complex and more progressive, it will help the
    joint force all the way around.
        Mr. McEachin. I thank each of you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman McEachin.
        We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of California.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the witnesses here today.
        Marine pilots remain short on average about one-third of
    their required flight hours. One-third of the Army's aviation
    force has been forward deployed at any one time over the past
    15 years. The Navy has extended deployments and shortened,
    eliminated, or deferred aircraft maintenance and training
    periods.
        The Air Force does not have enough experienced maintainers
    to sustain good quality aircrafts, not enough available
    mission-capable aircrafts to conduct operations, and airmen and
    airwomen are meeting the minimum training requirements for
    their deployment missions.
        We are not doing our part to keep our service members safe
    it seems. We are sending our sons and daughters into theaters
    of war without fully functioning equipment and inadequate
    training.
        This is unacceptable, obviously. We are willing to spend
    $1.2 trillion modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and yet we are
    unable to take care of more imminent essential matters, such as
    fixing our aircrafts, providing more flight time, time-
    sensitive training, and modernizing aviation infrastructure.
        Are we really prioritizing readiness? Even under current
    budgetary constraints we should be providing our military with
    the most effective training, even if it means spending less or
    just not spending on something else. We can't spend on
    everything. Training should be a top priority.
        To what extent are the services evaluating the
    effectiveness of training to ensure that completed training
    meets its expectations for quality?
        General Nowland. Congressman Carbajal, great question. So
    for the United States Air Force we have made training a
    priority. It is a Secretary of Defense, so regaining readiness
    soonest means rebuilding your operational training
    infrastructure and funding your training lines.
        In the A-3 [Air Staff Operations division] we have stood up
    a whole training division, operational training infrastructure,
    led by two-star Major General Scott Smith, whose sole job is to
    come in and think about it every day and then advocate and work
    with our commanders to make sure we can improve our training
    capability.
        Admiral Shoemaker. Congressman, I think we have been fairly
    successful in at least what our CNO [Chief of Naval Operations]
    has talked about minimizing the extensions to deployments and
    trying to stay within his 7-month goal. And that has been the
    case so far, but obviously real world events will play into
    that.
        As we work our air wings and carriers up, we work through
    the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. And that right now, I think,
    is a good model for us to take the resources we are given,
    although we could certainly, as we have talked about earlier,
    do more as we are working up. But that gives us the ability
    with the resources given to generate the best capabilities for
    our forces moving forward.
        Now, we are accepting risk on the early parts of that
    workup cycle, but we make sure that as we get into the more
    integrated and advanced that we have got the resources they
    need, airplanes, people and flying hour dollars, ordnance to
    deliver so that our energies are focused on those next to
    deploy and on deployment. They are ready. They are certified.
    They are ready and certified forward.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        General Rudder. Yes, I would echo what Shoe just said. It
    is the Commandant's priority to just to make sure that when
    forces go out the door on deployment that they are ready to go.
    And that may come at an expense of some of the remain-behind
    forces. That is where we get the challenge of a ready bench
    behind.
        But our forces before they go forward are given the
    appropriate workup time, and they do get certified before they
    go out each time.
        Back to another point you made, I think where we are trying
    to balance our readiness challenge is, you know, what we have
    done in the Marine Corps and I think all the services, we defer
    buying new airplanes or new stuff, if you will, to pull that
    money into our readiness account.
        So we are balancing both, the really new stuff for the
    capability we need for the future fight with making sure our
    readiness is right so when we do send marines and sailors out
    the door that they have the right gear at the right time at the
    right readiness level.
        General Gayler. Sir, I would echo that it is a balance
    certainly to meet demand and train for the future, assess your
    readiness for both and then to modernize. We take it very
    seriously.
        Certainly every aviator that deploys is incredibly
    competent to the resource levels that they are trained to and
    resourced for. And as we look to assess ourselves and know
    where that risk is, we actually measure our training readiness
    to a higher battalion level level of readiness called
    Objective-T so that we can see where we need resourcing and we
    can see where the risk is.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Carbajal.
        And at this time we will proceed, and that is Admiral
    Shoemaker and General Rudder, I have a question for the record
    that I would like for you to get back to the subcommittee.
        In February, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
    Bill Moran, testified that 62 percent of F/A-18 aircraft were
    out of service. Over 50 percent of the out-of-service aircraft
    were simply awaiting maintenance or parts.
        In this committee report accompanying the House National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 there was
    express support for an alternative source contract for F/A-18
    depot-level maintenance.
        Such alternative sourcing ensures competition, best value,
    and sustainment to be an effective competitive industrial base.
    We have also encouraged the Navy to meet the contract's maximum
    authorization within each year of the contract.
        What assurances can you provide that the Navy plans to
    maximize the number of aircraft authorized by the existing
    alternate source contract for each year going forward and
    supported by this subcommittee in the NDAA report? What are the
    Navy's plans to establish a multi-source competitive
    environment for the F/A-18 depot-level maintenance?
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 71.]
        Mr. Wilson. And again, as we conclude, and it is always a
    delight to be serving with our Ranking Member, Congresswoman
    Bordallo.
        We want to thank General Nowland, Admiral Shoemaker,
    General Rudder, General Gayler. Again, congratulations on your
    first appearance here, for being with us today, and again,
    happy 242nd birthday. Thank you for your service and thank you
    for your personnel for your service to our Nation.
        And we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                November 9, 2017

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                November 9, 2017

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                                November 9, 2017

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

                 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

        Admiral Shoemaker. [No answer was available at the time of
    printing.]   [See page 22.]
        General Rudder. This response is a coordinated Navy/Marine Corps
    team effort and is closely aligned with VADM Shoemaker's response.
    There is one additional depot effort to increase readiness not only for
    F/A-18 but also for all Marine Corps aircraft. The L-3 depot in Canada
    is being utilized to the maximum extent possible. There are currently
    11 aircraft in-work at L-3 Canada. As of November 2017, one aircraft
    has been completed (Drive-In Mod work) and three high-flight-hour (HFH)
    aircraft are scheduled to complete in FY18. The assigned depot workload
    is coordinated between PMA-265 and CNAF (N421) and takes into account
    legacy requirements and the L-3 depot's contractual capability. The
    Legacy divesture effort greatly reduced the number of legacy hornets
    required to go through the depot. The health of our strike fighter
    fleet is a top priority within the Navy and Marine Corps, and the
    health of our industrial base is key to enabling us to achieve our
    readiness objectives. Workload is assigned to the organic and
    commercial depots following close coordination with Commander, Naval
    Air Forces and HQMC, based on current requirements and the depots'
    capacity to complete the work. Existing contracts with commercial
    depots have been performing as expected. There are currently 61
    aircraft in work, and we expect approximately 77 completions throughout
    the remainder of those contracts. As a result, the backlog that
    previously existed (and which necessitated the use of commercial depot
    contracts) has been eliminated, with all aircraft inducted into the
    workflow. Recent reductions in the overall requirement, enabled by
    combining depot events (e.g. HFH inspections with Planned Maintenance
    Interval events), and the steady increase in capacity at organic Fleet
    Readiness Centers, have reduced the requirement for follow-on
    commercial contracts for F/A-18A/B/C/D depot-level maintenance since
    the forecasted requirement can be covered within existing organic depot
    capacities. The Department of the Navy is pursuing several other
    efforts to increase readiness and retain a healthy industrial base,
    including: Preparation of a competitive depot support solicitation for
    Fleet Logistics Center, Yokosuka, Japan, to help meet the requirements
    of forward deployed units. With a planned fiscal year 2019 award, the
    contract will have a base year and four one-year options. The work
    scope will be to perform approximately 11 depot inductions per year,
    for any F/A-18 type/model/series aircraft, and will include Planned
    Maintenance Interval activities, In-Service Repair, and aircraft
    modifications. Utilization of a Multi-Service Management Agreement
    (MSMA) for Contract Field Teams (CFT), an Indefinite Delivery/
    Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract managed by the Air Force. Under
    this competitive contracting approach, approved vendors compete for
    individual task orders, providing CFT to augment squadron and depot
    maintenance efforts to work down the backlog of aircraft awaiting
    maintenance and/or in-service repairs. CFT can provide on-site
    organizational, intermediate/field, and depot/sustainment level
    maintenance support at customer locations both in the continental
    United States, and abroad. This contract also includes Small Business
    set-aside requirements. This effort will be competed among six large
    business offerors using the Fair Opportunity Notice methodology
    outlined in the basic contract. Task orders requiring more than 100
    Full Time Equivalent personnel are awarded to large businesses.
    Engagement with the U.S. Army, Communications-Electronics Command
    (CECOM), to use their R2-3G ID/IQ contract. The R2-3G contract provides
    access to 18 prime contractors and 1,100 sub-contractors. The
    contractors provide services including: technology insertion; system
    integration and installation; fabrication and prototyping; testing and
    certification; studies and analyses; and engineering, logistics, and
    training support. These services can be utilized in support of
    operational maintenance, repairs, preservation, and depot maintenance,
    and are a potential force multiplier for our overall readiness
    activities. Supporting a new Depot Readiness Initiative (DRI). This
    initiatives objective is to aid in the ability to more quickly return
    post Phased Depot Maintenance (PDM) aircraft to a flyable--mission
    capable status after its return to the Squadron. To achieve this end-
    state, this effort will utilize the available Depot capacity to
    complete some tasks that are typically organizational level maintenance
    requirements, while the aircraft is in their specific PDM event. We
    believe this initiative will save time, while increasing both
    efficiency and readiness. This effort will begin with F/A-18 (A-D) with
    the intent to expand to all type model series aircraft in the Marine
    Corps. In closing, the Marine Corps is committed to utilizing all
    options to ensure F/A-18 readiness to support our COCOM and MAGTF
    Commander requirements, and remain committed to retaining a healthy
    industrial base.   [See page 22.]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                November 9, 2017

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

        Mr. Wilson. It is my understanding that the Air Force intends to
    move its current government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) J-85
    engine repair facility from Laughlin AFB to a ``to be determined
    contractor-owned contractor-operated (COCO) facility'' in late 2019.
    Please explain the rationale for constituting a new J-85 repair
    facility at significant cost, during a pilot production crisis for an
    airframe that is scheduled to begin being taken out of inventory in
    2024. Specifically, how does this solution address existing identified
    problems related to availability of government furnished parts and
    components, as well as ongoing engine transportation issues? Lastly,
    please let the committee know if the Air Force has studied the
    potential negative impacts of relocating the primary engine repair
    facilities for T-38s while it is confronted with significant pilot
    production shortfalls.
        General Nowland. Overview: The J85 engine has been plagued with low
    time removals and poor reliability, resulting in negative impacts to
    engine availability. The USAF's acquisition strategy is based on
    securing the services of an experienced Engine Maintenance, Repair, and
    Overhaul (MRO) contractor to improve engine reliability and
    availability to meet current and future pilot production requirements.
        Extensive market research indicates performing the workload at a
    contractor owned facility will create a competitive environment amongst
    experienced engine MRO contractors resulting in the best value for the
    USAF's requirement. Market research also indicates no competitive
    engine MRO contractor environment exists if the workload remains at
    Laughlin AFB. Historically, the vendors who have competed for the
    workload at Laughlin AFB are labor service providers--not engine MRO
    contractors.
        Q1. Please explain the rationale for constituting a new J-85 repair
    facility at significant cost?
        A1: Based on the USAF's cost estimate for engine MRO services at a
    contractor owned facility, we anticipate the price per engine to be
    roughly double the cost of a labor services contractor at a government
    owned facility. This estimate includes the initial start-up costs,
    spread through the contract period of performance. Direct cost
    comparisons are misleading, however, as the requirements between the
    current and future contracts are not the same and the costs of the
    government owned facility are not included in the current contractor's
    costs. Because the past strategy of using labor service contractors to
    conduct on-condition maintenance has resulted in extensive low time
    removals and poor reliability, the USAF developed the current strategy
    to use an MRO contractor with a focus on reliability centered
    maintenance to improve engine availability at a time of increased pilot
    production. Extensive market research indicates performing the workload
    at a contractor owned facility will create a competitive environment
    amongst experienced engine MRO contractors resulting in the best value
    for the USAF's requirement. Market research also indicates no
    competitive engine MRO contractor environment exists if the workload
    remains at Laughlin AFB.
        Q2. Please explain the rationale for constituting a new J-85 repair
    facility during a pilot production crisis for an airframe that is
    scheduled to begin being taken out of inventory in 2024.
        A2: Air Education and Training Command (AETC) intends to fully
    divest the T-38 by the early 2030s. However, Air Combat Command, Air
    Force Materiel Command, NASA, and the USN will continue to fly beyond
    that date. Additionally, Foreign Military Sales countries, which
    represent the largest J85 users in the world, can also leverage this
    contract to address their engine overhaul requirements. Consequently,
    J85 engine support will be required beyond AETC's divestment in the
    early 2030s. AETC's intention to cease T-38 operations further
    substantiates the movement of this workload out of an AETC operated
    facility for the remaining J85 user community. The USAF does not have a
    cost savings analysis but has considered cost in its strategy.
    Accordingly, competition, contract incentives, and increased engine
    reliability are elements in the USAF's strategy to minimize costs.
    Further, direct cost comparisons are misleading as the requirements
    between the current and future contracts are not the same. Overall, the
    USAF's objective is to improve engine reliability and availability to
    meet current/future pilot production requirements at the best value. To
    ensure the most reliable, available, and affordable engine is made
    available for all warfighting customers, the USAF intends to secure the
    best value outcome from an MRO contractor through the power of
    competition.
        Q3. Specifically, how does this solution address existing
    identified problems related to availability of government furnished
    parts and components, as well as ongoing engine transportation issues?
        A3: Engine transportation scheduling issues are not adversely
    affecting production at the Engine Regional repair Center. However,
    market research indicates engine MRO service providers interested in
    competing for this workload are located in urban/industrial areas,
    where transportation is readily available. Further, the FY15-FY17
    average J85 engine non-mission capable for supply (ENMCS) rate is 5%,
    well below the Chief of Staff of the Air Force established requirement
    of no more than 20%. While supply can limit production, rates at this
    level do not explain the engine backlog or lack of production at the
    ERRC when compared to other comparably supply constrained fleets.
    Unlike labor service providers, engine MRO providers are well
    experienced in supply mitigation practices, including reuse and repair
    of parts, cannibalization of parts between engines, implementation of
    reliability centered maintenance, robust supply forecasting practices,
    etc. Additionally, requiring and incentivizing increased reliability
    from an engine MRO contractor will keep engines on wing and in the
    field longer, reducing the aggregate supply burden and ensuring current
    and future pilot production requirements are met.
        Q4. Lastly, please let the committee know if the Air Force has
    studied the potential negative impacts of relocating the primary engine
    repair facilities for T-38s while it is confronted with significant
    pilot production shortfalls.
        A4: To minimize transition risk, AETC has already increased the
    annual production requirement to provide additional spare engines, and
    alternative sources of engine repair will be used as needed.
    Additionally, the USAF's strategy calls for the winning bidder to
    continue operations at Laughlin AFB for a year, allowing establishment
    of J85 expertise and an orderly transition of both equipment and
    personnel to the contractor facility without delaying repairs or
    impacting pilot production.
        The increase in reliability of J85 engines resulting from the use
    of an MRO contractor will enable current and future T-38 pilot
    production requirements to be met. Conversely, the past strategy of
    using labor service contractors to conduct on-condition maintenance has
    resulted in extensive low time removals and poor reliability,
    negatively impacting engine availability and driving USAF's current
    strategy to use an MRO contractor with a focus on reliability centered
    maintenance.
        Mr. Wilson. Please discuss the current status of Class A, B, C
    mishap rates, underlying causes, trends observed in aviation safety and
    your observations on readiness impacts to mishaps? What steps are you
    taking to mitigate readiness impacts on aviation safety? Indications
    are that Class C/Ground mishaps are on a sharp incline, what actions is
    your service taking to address this increase and are there any early
    indications of common factors?
        General Nowland. Any damage or injury to Air Force equipment and
    personnel could have potential readiness impacts; however, lack of
    readiness has not been correlated to causality in aviation mishaps.
    Overall trends from FY13 through FY17 highlighted compliance and
    decision-making as trend items in both Class A and B aviation mishaps.
        Mitigation strategies to address these trends include continuous
    messaging from HQ Air Force and Major Commands as well as targeted
    recommendations to improve guidance, technical orders, training, and
    oversight of flight and flight line operations. In addition, since FY13
    the Air Force implemented 6,941 aviation safety investigation
    recommendations and is currently working towards implementing 2,055
    additional safety investigation recommendations.
        The following table illustrates the last 5 years of AF aviation
    safety mishaps:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The following tables illustrate the underlying causes of Air
    Force aviation Class A and B mishap investigations FY13-17 (note:
    mishaps may have more than one cause):

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        During the period FY 2013-2017, both on- and off-duty ground
    Class C mishaps actually decreased in the Air Force (see table below).
    Off-duty mishap counts decreased 21% and on-duty mishap counts
    decreased 24%. These decreases occurred steadily over the 5-year
    period, suggesting that the decrease is not due to any one factor, and
    is not a statistical fluctuation.
        Since both on- and off-duty mishaps are reportable, the causes and
    risk factors in ground mishaps vary greatly. The Air Force has pursued
    the following recommendations based on analysis of injury types and
    methods:
          Head protection for maintenance personnel--first in
    hangars and then on the flight line
          Stronger fall protection at all locations
          Buddy lifts, hoists and other mechanized lifts to
    decrease lifting injuries

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Wilson. Please discuss the current status of Class A, B, C
    mishap rates, underlying causes, trends observed in aviation safety and
    your observations on readiness impacts to mishaps? What steps are you
    taking to mitigate readiness impacts on aviation safety? Indications
    are that Class C/Ground mishaps are on a sharp incline, what actions is
    your service taking to address this increase and are there any early
    indications of common factors?
        Admiral Shoemaker. [No answer was available at the time of
    printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. In July, a Marine Corps KC-130T crashed during a
    routine flight, killing fifteen Marines and one sailor. The Navy and
    Marine Corps immediately grounded all ``T'' model aircraft--23 Navy and
    12 Marine Corps planes--while investigators determined the cause of the
    crash. I understand that most, if not all, of these aircraft are still
    grounded and that their return to operational status is being hindered
    in part due to limited maintenance capacity. It's our understanding
    that the services have had to shift work among maintenance facilities
    and personnel to accommodate the introduction of the Joint Strike
    Fighter into their fleets. As a result, some older platforms--like the
    C-130--must rely on a single source for maintenance and repair work.
    While I understand that routine, planned and priority aircraft often
    receive adequate support, relying on a single source can understandably
    make it far more difficult to handle work of an unscheduled or
    unpredictable nature--particularly when the maintenance facilities and
    personnel are already facing a full load of regular-scheduled work
    under increasing operations tempo. Please provide a status update on
    maintenance and repair work for the Navy C-130 and Marine Corps KC-130
    fleets.
        Admiral Shoemaker. [No answer was available at the time of
    printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. In light of a situation wherein certain work can
    currently be performed at only one location, what steps is the Navy
    aviation community taking to ensure that unscheduled and unpredictable
    work can be completed as quickly as possible? If industry can offer
    additional capacity in times of great need, do you see opportunities
    for the Department of the Navy to leverage this capability to address
    unscheduled maintenance and repair work, which would in turn enable the
    current organic depots the ability to focus on its routine, planned and
    priority aircraft?
        Please address the current and forecasted impacts to Navy, Marine
    Corps, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve aviation readiness due to
    the grounding of the C-130 fleet and timeline to effect the required
    repairs.
        Admiral Shoemaker. [No answer was available at the time of
    printing.]
        Mr. Wilson. Please discuss the current status of Class A, B, C
    mishap rates, underlying causes, trends observed in aviation safety and
    your observations on readiness impacts to mishaps.
        General Rudder. As I testified before the HASC-Readiness committee
    on 9 November 2017, while there is no single, direct link between low
    readiness rates and high Class A mishaps this year, it has my highest
    attention. There is no question that naval aviation is an inherently
    dangerous discipline, and we cannot discount the second and third order
    effects of low readiness and lack of training repetitions. Every mishap
    is unique. The Marine Corps conducts thorough investigations to learn
    from each mishap and attempt to prevent future mishaps. Our aircraft
    are safe and our training and readiness manuals are refined to ensure
    that aircrew meet prerequisites for demanding flights. 15 years of war
    has not led to a rise in severe mishaps. The Marine Corps averaged 12.6
    class A mishaps per year (a rate of 3.3) from FY02-06, 7.5 class A
    mishaps per year (a rate of 1.9) from FY07-FY11, and 8.8 class A
    mishaps per year (a rate of 3.0) from FY12-FY17. Unpredictable funding,
    late budget allocations, and a habitual pattern of relying on
    Continuing Resolutions continue to have a significant negative impact
    on training, force generation, and readiness. Additionally, the effect
    of inconsistent funding will likely have an even greater toll on
    procurement of future systems, which creates uncertainty for future
    readiness. Gaps in funding require leaders to make hard choices to
    prioritize manning, equipment transfer, and application of training
    dollars. I prioritize support to the operationally deploying units to
    the detriment of force generation and unit level training. Lost
    training time, and regaining readiness generation for skilled aircrew
    cannot be accomplished without additional resources in the future.
    Taking assets and funding away from other portions of the Fleet to
    ensure that deploying elements have everything they need creates
    preventable risk. Unpredictable funding creates a climate where
    commanders have to choose between requirements, rather than choosing
    the order in which to accomplish all requirements. As I testified to
    before, these risk choices have a ripple effect on many facets of
    readiness for units, which will continue for years.
        Mr. Wilson. What steps are you taking to mitigate readiness impacts
    on aviation safety?
        General Rudder. Flight hours are the ultimate metric for a well-
    trained, disciplined, professional force. Flight hours are measured in
    hours per crew per month and form the foundation for aircrew to fly our
    training plan and be a ready force. A healthy squadron is able to build
    readiness for combat by properly maintaining aircraft, and by building
    aircrew proficiency through flight hours and realistic training. Flying
    anything less than the training requirement jeopardizes readiness.
    There are several prioritized initiatives Marine Aviation implemented
    as part of our comprehensive readiness recovery plan.
        Properly-funded enabler accounts: In PB18, the Marine Corps funded
    its readiness enabler accounts to the maximum executable and
    unprecedented levels. For example, from 2007 to 2016 our spares
    accounts were funded to 76%; in PB18 we increased this to 96%. However,
    CRs continue to prevent us from realizing the benefit of this
    increase--we can't make long-term investments, increase production
    rates or start new programs until we have full-year funding.
        Manpower Initiatives: Healthy readiness is generated from properly
    resourced aircraft maintenance and sufficient aircrew flight hours.
    None of this is achievable without a well-trained and experienced
    aircraft maintenance force; therefore, we are heavily investing in
    enlisted maintainers to rebuild a healthy and effective maintenance
    base. Talent preservation is a critical part of this equation for
    Marine Aviation to improve readiness. Last year, we identified an
    experience gap at some of our maintenance supervisor levels as a
    byproduct of the most recent force reduction. In FY18 the Marine Corps,
    for the first time, has initiated an ``Aircraft Maintainer Kicker'' as
    part of a Selective Retention Bonus to retain our most highly-qualified
    and experienced maintainers. To date, 447 eligible Marines have
    accepted the retention bonus--that's 447 highly-qualified aircraft
    maintainers who are on the flight line TODAY that otherwise would not
    have been (e.g. PCS move, separation, etc.). In addition to this, we
    are exploring an adjustment to the overseas tour lengths to ensure
    forward-deployed units have the right people in the right place.
        Maintenance Initiatives: A key initiative is to utilize the depot-
    level to help reduce the maintenance burden in our operational units.
    This initiative will help optimize the maintenance workload between the
    depot-level and unit-level maintenance schedule (beginning with the
    legacy F/A-18s) in order to allow the operational unit to focus their
    efforts on its properly apportioned aircraft inventory. Depots will
    begin performing more organizational-level maintenance (e.g. phase
    inspections, technical directives, etc.) at the depots to ensure when
    aircraft return from the depot the aircraft can be inspected and
    returned to the flight schedule sooner. The Marine aircraft maintainer
    will be the true benefactor of this initiative because this allows the
    unit-level maintainers to properly maintain their assigned aircraft on
    their flightline rather than devoting excessive maintenance-man-hours
    to a post-depot aircraft that typically takes many months to return
    back to the training schedule.
        Supply Initiatives: Supply of parts has been a challenge to Marine
    Aviation readiness. In an effort to make our process proactive and gain
    efficiency, we are adopting an Air Force supply program (Customer
    Oriented Leveling Technique/Proactive Demand Leveling--or COLT/PDL)
    that is designed to stock more parts in both depth and breadth. The
    current Navy/Marine system uses demand analysis for allowancing
    management, while COLT uses marginal analysis to determine the most
    advantageous composition of stock allowances to reduce total number of
    backordered parts over time. Using COLT/PDL, when a part breaks, it
    will generate an allowance increase for all end-use supply locations
    simultaneously--regardless of where the part was physically needed. In
    practice, when one supply center orders a specific part, that same part
    is preemptively ordered for ALL supply centers, rather than wait for
    the same part to break on a different aircraft in a disparate location.
    Performance-based logistics (PBL) contracts is another method being
    applied on a limited-basis for explicit repairable components (e.g.
    gearboxes, rotor blades, drive-train components) with certain type/
    model/series aircraft. In essence, we pay ``up-front'' for a definite
    parts availability rate (e.g. 95%) from the vendor. PBLs benefit the
    customer by incentivizing the vendor to improve component reliability,
    or, at a minimum, improve its availability in the system, thereby
    enabling increased readiness.
        Mr. Wilson. Indications are that Class C/Ground mishaps are on a
    sharp incline, what actions is your service taking to address this
    increase and are there any early indications of common factors?
        General Rudder. These ground-related mishaps are preventable and
    require the attention of all professional aviators and maintainers.
    During FY17 there were more than 70 aviation mishaps reported to
    Headquarters Marine Corps. More than 50 of these were Class C mishaps,
    many of which were ground-related mishaps. Collectively, these mishaps
    resulted in the loss of mission capable aircraft available to
    contribute to combat readiness. This upward trend in Class C mishaps
    prompted us to initiate the Aviation Related Ground Mishap (ARGM)
    Independent Readiness Review. The ARGM IRR identified root causes and
    delivered actionable recommendations that enable Marine Corps Aviation
    to address and reduce the aviation ground mishap rate, preserve
    aviation assets, and fulfill its training and readiness requirements.
    The study found that the rise in aviation ground mishaps is a
    consequence of a less-than optimal maintenance culture shift engendered
    by post-9/11 high tempo operations and are one of many variables that
    are depressing Ready Basic Aircraft rates in Marine Corps aviation. The
    ARGM IRR identified 44 recommendations from which Marine Aviation
    developed 54 actionable initiatives to address the ARGM findings. To
    date, roughly 45% of these initiatives are either complete or ongoing,
    and we will continue to refine and implement the safety initiatives
    over the next 12 months. Examples include:
        Standardization of Aircraft Towing/Movement: Enhanced Wing-level
    aircraft towing training and supervision is required prior to the
    movement of any aircraft. We have implemented standardized ``spot
    check'' inspections across the Marine Aircraft Wings (MAWs). MAW
    inspections and grading criteria for standardization is under review
    and refinement. In addition, we have implemented a new standardized
    grading criteria for all maintenance programs to improve
    institutionalized program compliance across Marine aviation.
        Advanced maintenance management and compliance training: Marine
    Aviation developed the Advanced Aircraft Maintenance Officer's Course
    (AAMOC) in FY16. The first two classes of Aircraft Maintenance Officers
    graduated the course during FY17. We have also developed the Advanced
    Aircraft Maintenance Management Training (AAMT) for our more senior
    enlisted maintenance Marines, along with the Aircraft Maintenance
    Management Center of Excellence at the Marine Aviation Weapons and
    Tactics Squadron-1 (MAWTS-1) Squadron. To summarize, we are evolving
    the maintenance community culture by refocusing our Marines on better
    supervision, standardization, advanced maintenance training and best
    practices. We are re-enforcing a mindset of maintaining and grooming
    aircraft as we build a healthy and experienced maintenance base capable
    of generating the required readiness for combat.
        Mr. Wilson. In July, a Marine Corps KC-130T crashed during a
    routine flight, killing fifteen Marines and one sailor. The Navy and
    Marine Corps immediately grounded all ``T'' model aircraft--23 Navy and
    12 Marine Corps planes--while investigators determined the cause of the
    crash. I understand that most, if not all, of these aircraft are still
    grounded and that their return to operational status is being hindered
    in part due to limited maintenance capacity. It's our understanding
    that the services have had to shift work among maintenance facilities
    and personnel to accommodate the introduction of the Joint Strike
    Fighter into their fleets. As a result, some older platforms--like the
    C-130--must rely on a single source for maintenance and repair work.
    While I understand that routine, planned and priority aircraft often
    receive adequate support, relying on a single source can understandably
    make it far more difficult to handle work of an unscheduled or
    unpredictable nature--particularly when the maintenance facilities and
    personnel are already facing a full load of regular-scheduled work
    under increasing operations tempo. Please provide a status update on
    maintenance and repair work for the Navy C-130 and Marine Corps KC-130
    fleets.
        General Rudder. Introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter and other
    new platforms have had minimal impact on the downing, repair and
    maintenance of the Marine Corps KC-130T Fleet. The Department of the
    Navy has an inter-service agreement with the Air Force to conduct all
    Navy and Marine Corps C/KC-130T propeller overhauls at Warner-Robbins
    Air Force Base (AFB). The Aircraft Mishap Board (AMB), which is
    ongoing, discovered inconsistencies within the maintenance process at
    Warner-Robins AFB. As a result, the U.S. Air Force initiated a pause in
    production and an overhaul of propellers. This is expected to last at
    least through mid-January 2018. The Marine Corps' ability to resume KC-
    130T flight operations is contingent upon the Air Force adequately
    resolving their process and quality issues in order to resume propeller
    production and overhauls. The second subject is in regards to depot
    maintenance capacity at Hill AFB, Utah. The Air Force is dedicating
    Hill AFB to F-35 depot work and transitioning all C-130 depot activity
    to Warner-Robins AFB, Georgia, where Periodic Maintenance Interval
    (PMI) for Air Force C-130s is performed. This transition is scheduled
    to begin in FY18. However, there are multiple alternate locations that
    can perform unscheduled or unpredictable depot maintenance on C-130s.
    For example, unscheduled depot maintenance is performed by Cherry Point
    Fleet Readiness Center, Hill AFB artisans and Warner-Robins AFB
    expeditionary maintenance teams.
        Mr. Wilson. In light of a situation wherein certain work can
    currently be performed at only one location, what steps is the Navy
    aviation community taking to ensure that unscheduled and unpredictable
    work can be completed as quickly as possible? If industry can offer
    additional capacity in times of great need, do you see opportunities
    for the Department of the Navy to leverage this capability to address
    unscheduled maintenance and repair work, which would in turn enable the
    current organic depots the ability to focus on its routine, planned and
    priority aircraft?
        Please address the current and forecasted impacts to Navy, Marine
    Corps, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve aviation readiness due to
    the grounding of the C-130 fleet and timeline to effect the required
    repairs.
        General Rudder. We anticipate that it will take over a year to
    fully return all grounded Marine Corps KC-130T aircraft to service. The
    propeller overhaul process is the only process that is currently being
    performed at one location: Warner Robbins Air Force Base (AFB).
    Unscheduled maintenance and repair work is organic through the Warner
    Robins AFB Depot and contracted through Pacific Propeller International
    LLC (PPI). United Technologies Aerospace Systems (UTAS) is the sole
    manufacturer of new blades, which are sent to Warner Robbins AFB and
    PPI for assembly. UTAS has agreed to increase production until the
    Department of the Navy is able to return all aircraft to service.
    Consequently, the Department will use a combination of Warner-Robbins
    Depot work and PPI overhaul and production of new propeller blades to
    return the Fleet to operational capability. Addressing general Depot
    work, the Department utilizes all resources available to perform depot
    work both organically and commercially. As for the impact on operations
    of the Marine Corps Reserve KC-130T fleet, we currently have two
    operational aircraft and expect one more aircraft to be returned to
    flying status by December 12, 2017. For the remainder of the KC-130T
    fleet, we anticipate approximately six more KC-130Ts to be operational
    by May 1, 2018 and all USMC KC-130T aircraft (12 total) operational by
    February 2019.
        Mr. Wilson. The latest projections for rebuilding readiness are
    based on setting the conditions for readiness recovery. Could you
    please provide examples of the fragility of recovery efforts, how
    fiscal year 2017 funding has shown results in recovering readiness, and
    how the fiscal year 2018 will further readiness recovery. Where are
    additional resources still required?
        General Gayler. For Army Aviation, force structure reductions as a
    result of the Budget Control Act and Sequestration require us to
    balance three difficult and often competing risks every single day--
    meeting today's high level of global commitments, building and
    maintaining readiness for high intensity conflict scenarios, and
    modernizing the force for the future. Each of these competing risks
    impact Army Aviation readiness. For example, reduced force structure
    and today's high commitment levels for Army Aviation significantly
    challenge our ability to incrementally modernize or upgrade aircraft
    for real-world requirements. This results in a reduction of aircraft
    available for training to operational units, which directly challenges
    our units' ability to train and build readiness. Furthermore, reduced,
    unpredictable, or unavailable funding limits our ability to field units
    with updated equipment such as Aviation Survivability Equipment. This
    is due to our requirement to prioritize delivery to deploying units
    only, which hampers training with these systems across the operational
    force. While we are making progress in building readiness, it will take
    time and predictable and sustained resourcing to get us back on course.
        Fiscal Year 2017 funding and the Request for Additional
    Appropriations (RAA) did provide additional resources which were used
    to procure additional aviation platforms such as UH-60M, AH-64E, and
    Gray Eagle Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles. Additionally, we were able to
    commit resources to Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing and
    several Aviation Survivability Equipment needs for active theaters.
    However, operating under a continuing resolution for two-thirds of 2017
    still hampered readiness efforts particularly in two areas:
    modernization and aviation maintenance. Funding via continuing
    resolutions continues to place major modernization programs largely on
    hold, as funds are not available for these critical modernization
    efforts.
        Furthermore, continuing resolutions and incremental funding hamper
    our ability to maintain equipment readiness, as it often results in
    highly variable and unpredictable demand for aviation parts. This
    impact is felt at the unit level where limited funds can restrict the
    purchase of large dollar aviation parts, which results in deferred
    maintenance practices. Deferring maintenance directly reduces the
    number of aviation platforms available for training, which hampers
    readiness efforts.
        Lastly, while it is important to note that funding levels are
    important to Army Aviation's rate of readiness recovery, a return to
    predictable and sustained resourcing is more essential to ensure that
    our recovery is continued and enduring.
        Fiscal Year 2018 accounts are programmed to receive increased
    funding from Fiscal Year 2017 levels, and this level of resourcing will
    improve our readiness recovery. Fiscal Year 2018 flying hour accounts
    are funded at 10.6 flight hours per crew per month for the Active
    Component, 7.0 hours for the Army National Guard, and 6.5 hours for the
    U.S. Army Reserves. Of note, this fiscal year will bring the start of a
    three-year period of increased Aviation Warrant Officer accessions and
    flight school aviator qualifications to generate increased manning to
    the operational force. This critical effort will help alleviate the
    current shortages of Aviation Warrant Officers and enhance readiness
    over time.
        Current funding levels for Army Aviation flying hour programs are
    sufficient to produce platoon-level proficiency which is appropriate
    for counterinsurgency operations in relatively permissive environments.
    As we continue to build readiness and maintain a focus on potential
    adversaries, we will ask for your support to further resource flight
    hour programs to allow Army Aviation units to build and maintain
    proficiency at the company and battalion level--a level of proficiency
    that we must provide our Soldiers to remain prepared for potential
    large scale combat operations.
        Mr. Wilson. Please discuss the current status of Class A, B, C
    mishap rates, underlying causes, trends observed in aviation safety and
    your observations on readiness impacts to mishaps? What steps are you
    taking to mitigate readiness impacts on aviation safety? Indications
    are that Class C/Ground mishaps are on a sharp incline, what actions is
    your service taking to address this increase and are there any early
    indications of common factors?
        General Gayler. Over the past four decades, the Army has
    dramatically reduced the major aviation accident rates. The Army
    Aviation Class A accident rate for Fiscal Year 2017 was 25% below the
    ten-year average rate with Class B and C accident rates consistent with
    ten-year averages. Human error remains the leading causal factor in
    aviation mishaps. In fact, consistent with accidents throughout the
    broader aviation community and historical averages, 76% of all Class A
    accidents in Fiscal Year 17 were determined to be a result of human
    error. Fiscal Year 2017 rates:

        Class A:  .99 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; 10-year rate =
    1.33
        Class B: 1.24 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; 10-year rate =
    1.26
        Class C: 5.57 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; 10-year rate =
    5.27

        In a continuous effort to mitigate risk to aviation operations, we
    identify and monitor several trends that have been prevalent in our
    recent aviation mishaps. The first mishap trend centers on an increase
    in flight training conducted at low altitudes, as these operations have
    inherently higher risk than high-altitude flight. Aviator proficiency
    maneuvering at low-altitudes is essential to defeating the significant
    radar threats we anticipate in any future high intensity conflict.
    Second, high intensity conflict scenarios require collective-level
    proficiency beyond platoon level--a level that was more appropriate for
    counterinsurgency operations. In shifting our training focus to high
    intensity conflict environments, we add complexity to mission training
    as it must be executed at echelons above the team and platoon level.
        We have not witnessed any direct correlation between readiness
    levels and aviation mishap rates. We have, however, experienced a
    decline in flight hours executed over the past several years. While we
    cannot draw a direct correlation between reduced flight hours and our
    current mishap rates, I share the sentiment recently expressed by
    Secretary Mattis when he commented that it would be ``hard to believe
    that we could reduce flying hours and not have a less capable force.''
        Army Aviation units mitigate risk consistent with the manner
    practiced by the greater Army community--through engaged and decisive
    leadership. However, rigorous and realistic training conducted
    repeatedly is the single greatest risk mitigation that leaders can
    provide their Soldiers, as it results in improved aviator proficiency
    and confidence and produces higher readiness levels. We remain focused
    on several efforts that will enable units to more effectively train
    their formations and improve their overall readiness which, in turn,
    should positively impact unit safety.
        First and in line with recommendations made by the Holistic Army
    Aviation Task Force (HAATF) assessment, we are implementing several
    initiatives to improve Army Aviation maintenance. Institutionally, we
    have developed a standardized Aviation Maintenance training program and
    also refined the roles and requirements of aviation maintainers, two
    efforts that will positively impact aviation readiness. Additionally
    and also consistent with HAATF recommendations, we are improving our
    maintenance storage facilities to reduce corrosion effects on aviation
    parts. These efforts will translate into higher aircraft operational
    readiness rates over time and provide units with more aircraft
    available for training, thus improving readiness across the force.
        A second institutional effort to highlight centers on improving
    training throughput at Fort Rucker to increase the annual production of
    Army Aviation Warrant Officers (an over 25% increase over the next
    three years). This initiative will help reduce manning shortages across
    the operational force to better enable training and improve overall
    readiness across the force.
        2017 Army Aviation Class C mishap rates were slightly above the
    ten-year average. We did not, however, observe any significant common
    factors regarding these mishaps. As a branch, Army Aviation is
    mitigating this risk through executing rigorous and realistic training
    with increased frequency.
        Fiscal Year 2017 saw an increase in on-duty Class A ground mishaps
    from the previous year, while experiencing a decline in overall
    fatalities. Overall, Class A on-duty ground mishap rates have remained
    relatively constant over the past five years, while Soldier on-duty
    ground fatalities were the lowest over the past five years. Operating
    or riding in a motor vehicle produces the highest number of Class A
    ground mishaps and also results in the most on-duty Soldier fatalities.
    We continue to mitigate this risk through engaged and decisive
    leadership at all leader levels throughout our formations.
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER
        Mrs. Hartzler. Just last week it was reported that several drones
    were observed over Whiteman Air Force Base. Recently the A-C-C
    commander General Holmes stated the need for the authority to better
    defend against small drones. Even these small drones could cause
    significant damage or worse, the loss of one of our Airmen and the
    aircraft. I am wondering how the Air Force is perceiving and addressing
    this problem.
        a. Have there been any other instances of near collisions between
    small UAS and Air Force aircraft?
        b. Do you see this as a potential impact to flying operations and
    readiness?
        c. Do you think the Air Force has the proper authorities and
    equipment to detect, track, monitor, and mitigate this threat to our
    national assets?
        General Nowland. My counter small UAS team is available to meet
    with your staff to discuss any of these issues in greater detail in a
    classified environment. The Air Force perceives the emergence of small
    drones as both a force protection and a flight safety concern. As such
    we have stood up a team to examine, develop and coordinate solutions
    across the Air Force and in collaboration and coordination with our
    Sister Service and Interagency partners.
        Have there been any other instances of collisions or near
    collisions between sUAS and Air Force aircraft?
        Drone operations (small Group 1 or 2 unmanned aerial systems
    weighing less than 55 pounds, aka sUAS), remain a concern for Air Force
    operations and flight safety. Within the last year, we have taken
    measures to increase awareness and improve reporting through various
    public affairs initiatives and policy guidance. As such, we are seeing
    an increase in reports and sightings around airfields and air
    operations. We think this is a combination of increased proliferation
    throughout the general populace, ideal operating environments around
    airfields, and increased emphasis on reporting. As for specific
    instances of collisions with Air Force aircraft, we have been very
    fortunate not to experience any. However, our sister service (Army) had
    at least one collision incident with a helicopter that we know of in
    New York. There are several instances where drones have affected our
    ability to conduct operations. Although our interagency partners,
    especially the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have been very
    supportive of the Air Force with the establishment of Special Security
    Instructions and Temporary Flight Restrictions over Air Force
    installations and Congress is supportive of the Air Force's national
    defense functions, the legislative restrictions, authorities, and
    enforcement options have not completely curtailed incidents. The most
    recent incident was at Whiteman AFB, MO where a couple of drones were
    observed during a national level exercise which resulted in
    precautionary measures that delayed operations for several hours. Other
    incidents of drones impacting flight operations are at our flight
    training bases.
        Do you see this as a potential impact to flying operations and
    readiness?
        Yes. The impact to flying operations is consistent across both the
    military and civil operations especially in vicinity of airports and
    airfields. The safety issue, although a FAA responsibility, impacts the
    most critical phases of flight, specifically takeoff and landing.
    Unfortunately, the ability to regulate and enforce the approach and
    departure corridors is a subject the interagency and the Department
    recognize as an important issue but we are awaiting FAA guidance on how
    to enforce and enhance airspace integrity and flight safety. The Air
    Force has been focused on protecting assets and resources within our
    installation boundaries. As such the FAA has effectively collaborated
    with the Air Force and Department of Defense as a whole to establish
    special security restrictions, prohibiting drone operations within
    military installation boundaries.
        Do you think the Air Force has the proper authorities and equipment
    to: detect, track, monitor, and mitigate this threat to our national
    assets?
         Authorities: The Air Force appreciates Congressional support to
    expand appropriate 10 USC 130i authorities to all of our installations
    and bases. We are thankful that Congress expanded Department of Defense
    authorities through the FY18 NDAA by including additional covered
    missions such as Special Operations; Major Test and Range Facility
    Bases; Air Defense; Presidential Support; and Critical Infrastructure.
    However, there is still a gap that will need to be addressed, involving
    vital Air Force missions, such as airlift and training (at our pilot
    training bases, for example). The Air Force and the Department of
    Defense appreciates Congressional support to ensure ``hobby drone''
    consumers and operations are aligned to meet more stringent FAA
    guidelines (such as revised definitions and delineations between manned
    and unmanned aircraft and those guidelines imposed on ``commercial
    drone operators'', such as Amazon) in order to ensure flight safety,
    especially in the vicinity of active flight operations. Our overseas
    locations are limited in similar, complex ways and that varies country
    to country based on international agreements and host nation policies.
    NOTE: Whiteman AFB is covered by current legal authorities under 10 USC
    130i.
        Equipment: Our Air Force is working to rapidly acquire commercial-
    off-the-shelf technologies to fill those equipment requirements. We
    have prioritized our most urgent missions at home and abroad to receive
    the first technologies and available systems. From there, we will
    continually evaluate industry innovations for scalable, cost-effective
    solutions that meet Air Force needs and can adapt to an evolving
    threat. Due to complex legal and policy restrictions at most
    installations at home and abroad, the technologies often required to
    accomplish tracking and mitigation could exceed our current ability to
    employ them, so we are taking a methodical approach to fielding
    systems.
        Mrs. Hartzler. We talk frequently about the fighter pilot
    shortfall, but we don't discuss the manning shortfalls in the bomber
    community. I am proud to have Whiteman Air Force Base in my district,
    which is the model example of the Air Force's Total Force Integration.
    It is home to both active and guard bomb wings that work side-by-side
    on a daily basis. Despite the active and guard integration, they are
    still facing manning shortfalls. We see the shortfalls not only among
    the pilots, but among the maintainers. These are the individuals who
    work hard to ensure the B-2 maintains its L-O capability. In order to
    keep up with the high demand for the B-2, the men and women at Whiteman
    are working smarter and staying resilient.
        What is the Air Force doing to address this manning shortfall?
        General Nowland. Our pilot shortage is most severe in the fighter
    community (1,005 RegAF/1,276 TF). By comparison, we are short 135
    bomber pilots (135 RegAF/158 TF). That represents an overall RegAF
    manning of 73% (fighter pilot) and 85% (bomber pilot). Although bomber
    pilot manning is better than fighter pilot manning, we are concerned
    that bomber pilots experienced a more significant % drop in manning
    inventory in FY17 than the fighter pilot inventory. Whiteman AFB
    maintains pilot manning at 98-100% manning throughout the year, and do
    to the sensitive and unique nature of B-2 operations, typically enjoys
    better manning than other bomb squadrons throughout the Air force.
        Furthermore, to address the overall shortfall, the Aircrew Crisis
    Task Force has seven ongoing lines of effort working solutions that
    address pilot requirements, accessions, production, absorption,
    retention, sortie production, and industry collaboration to address
    what we believe is the leading edge of national pilot shortage.
    Specifically, the pilot shortage requires careful coordination across
    the service to increase our ability to produce more pilots without
    creating bottlenecks in the pipeline. In the near term, the Air Force
    must retain aviators to grow its future force, but the only way to
    recover from the pilot shortfall is to produce more pilots by
    increasing the capacity of the production pipeline.
        Mrs. Hartzler. What is the Air Force doing to ensure that we not
    only have enough bomber pilots and maintainers, but that we are able to
    retain these highly skilled individuals?
        General Nowland. Bomber pilots will benefit from the 66 different
    retention initiatives the Air Force is currently working to improve
    quality of service, work/life balance, and monetary compensation for
    aircrew members. For example, each Whiteman AFB bomb squadron gained 5
    administrative contractors in November 2017 to execute scheduling,
    deployment management, training, and other key functions that are
    critical to the mission but do not require pilot expertise to
    accomplish. This action decreases the amount of time the pilots have to
    remain at the squadron and allows them to recapture some of the white
    space on their calendar and make investments in personal development.
    We believe initiatives like these will allow us to improve upon the 44%
    FY17 bomber pilot aviation bonus ``take rate'' in the coming years.
        As for maintainers, we were approximately 4,000 aircraft
    maintainers short a couple years ago. Thanks to approval from Congress
    to grow our end strength, we've been able to largely recover from that
    deficit and are only short 400 maintainers today. Although it will take
    3-5 years for these maintainers to achieve the desired experience
    levels to be considered ``healthy'' again, having more hands to do the
    work will have a dramatic impact on the retention of existing
    maintenance personnel.
        Despite our best efforts, retention of highly skilled personnel
    will continue to be a challenge due to the size of our force, the
    unrelenting demand for airpower around the world, and the draw of
    higher pay and stability that comes from civilian life in a good
    economy.
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
        Mr. Brown. Joint Base Andrews supports contingency operations in
    the capitol region, including support of nuclear missile sites, using
    UH-1N helicopters. Majority of these aging Hueys are from the Vietnam
    era, and these aircraft do not meet the full scope of current
    requirements for range, payload, and speed for continuity operations
    (Andrews) or nuclear response (other base) missions.
        They should have been replaced long ago, and today we are dealing
    with critical threats to our national security. Can you tell us about
    the condition and state of readiness of the Hueys currently flying this
    mission?
        General Nowland. Summary:
        Readiness of the UH-1N community can be further addressed in a
    classified medium. In general, the UH-1N fails to meet mission (speed,
    payload, range) requirements and the community faces challenges due to
    pilot and special mission aviator shortages.
        a. Air Force Global Strike Command:
        The Air Force Global Strike Command retains 23 of the 63 UH-1Ns
    within the Air Force equating to 37% of the total aircraft inventory.
    It is expected that these aircraft will become increasingly difficult
    and expensive to maintain. United States Strategic Command deemed the
    current UH-1N not effective for many missions it supports and falls
    short of key operational requirements. The Department of Defense will
    continue to take action necessary to mitigate UH-1N capability
    shortfalls.
        b. Air Force District of Washington:
        The Air Force District of Washington concurs that the UH-1N does
    not meet requirements for range, payload, and speed. All questions
    regarding status of the UH-1N fleet are deferred to Global Strike
    Command as the lead Major Command for the UH-1N. The Air Force District
    of Washington retains 22 of the 63 UH-1Ns within the Air Force equating
    to 35% of the total aircraft inventory.
        Mr. Brown. Also, could you provide an update on the Huey
    Replacement Program and give the committee assurances that the program
    will not face further delays and is on track for an award in the 3rd
    Quarter of 2018?
        General Nowland. The Air Force is currently in source selection for
    the UH-1N Replacement and expects contract award in the 3rd Quarter of
    fiscal year 2018.

                                      [all]