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

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 115-89]
                          __________________________

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                             FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                       ON

                         ASSESSING THE FISCAL YEAR 2019

                         BUDGET REQUEST AND ACQUISITION

                                REFORM PROGRESS

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 MARCH 20, 2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    30-559                  WASHINGTON : 2019

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                         One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                 WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman

    WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      ADAM SMITH, Washington
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ROB BISHOP, Utah                     JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              RICK LARSEN, Washington
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
    K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
    ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia          JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            JACKIE SPEIER, California
    MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    PAUL COOK, California                RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama               CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          RO KHANNA, California
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            JIMMY PANETTA, California
    MATT GAETZ, Florida
    DON BACON, Nebraska
    JIM BANKS, Indiana
    LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia

                          Jen Stewart, Staff Director
                             Tim Morrison, Counsel
                          William S. Johnson, Counsel
                             Britton Burkett, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Armed Services............................     2
    Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
      Chairman, Committee on Armed Services..........................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Esper, Hon. Mark T., Secretary of the Army.......................     3
    Spencer, Hon. Richard V., Secretary of the Navy..................     5
    Wilson, Hon. Heather, Secretary of the Air Force.................     6

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Esper, Hon. Mark T...........................................    62
        Smith, Hon. Adam.............................................    60
        Spencer, Hon. Richard V......................................    72
        Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac''..........................    59
        Wilson, Hon. Heather.........................................    79

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Banks....................................................    97
        Mr. Coffman..................................................    93
        Ms. Hanabusa.................................................    94
        Mr. Langevin.................................................    91
        Ms. Rosen....................................................    95
        Mr. Shuster..................................................    92
        Ms. Stefanik.................................................    93

     ASSESSING THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST AND ACQUISITION REFORM
                                    PROGRESS

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                               Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 20, 2018.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ``Mac''
    Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
        REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
                                SERVICES

        The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Today, the
    committee will hear testimony from the three service
    secretaries on the administration's fiscal year 2019 budget
    request as well as on their progress in implementing the
    acquisition reforms already passed into law.
        The two are closely tied because both branches of
    government have a responsibility to get more defense value for
    the taxpayers from the money that's spent, as well as a
    responsibility to get innovation into the hands of the
    warfighter faster. Acquisition reform has put more authority
    and more responsibility with the services. We have begun to
    reverse the decline in funding. Now DOD [Department of Defense]
    and the services have to deliver results.
        The budget agreement, which Congress must complete by
    passing the appropriations bill this week, begins to repair and
    rebuild the military. But our adversaries are not waiting
    around for us to catch up. We must reform as we rebuild. We
    must be prepared across the full spectrum of modern warfare,
    from nuclear deterrence to the kind of political and
    information campaigns we will discuss at greater length at our
    hearing tomorrow. And we must measure success by output and
    results rather than inputs and process.
        The budget agreement gives us an opportunity, but the
    legislative and executive must work together to make the most
    of it. Business as usual will not adequately defend the Nation
    in today's world. I know I speak for all my colleagues on this
    committee in saying that we stand ready to do our part to get
    us on the right track.
        I yield to the ranking member.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thornberry can be found in
    the Appendix on page 59.]

    STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
              RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
        And I appreciate all the secretaries being here and I agree
    completely with the chairman's opening remarks. I think he
    perfectly outlines the challenge. There is the tiny little
    hurdle of actually passing those appropriations bills which
    seems to always be like we are just around the corner from
    doing it. That has been going on now for 14 months and it is
    still going on even as we are 3 days away from when it has to
    be done.
        But let us assume for a moment we get that done and there
    is a reasonable amount of money available to the Pentagon for
    2018 and 2019. And this is an enormously important opportunity
    for two reasons, number one, because it is a--well, three
    actually. There is a lot of money there so we have to make sure
    that we spend it wisely, as the chairman said.
        Number two, we face an incredibly complex threat
    environment, so we are going to want to do like 5 million
    things at once and prioritizing is going to be enormously
    important. And, number three, that money is very quickly going
    to be gone because when you look at our fiscal situation as we
    push towards $22 trillion in debt, we have, I think, the guess
    is it is going to be about a $1 trillion deficit this year and,
    of course, the Budget Control Act does have two more years,
    2020 and 2021, to come back into place.
        You never know, but the odds are this is the largest the
    defense budget's going to be for probably about the next
    decade. So we have to make sure that we spend this money wisely
    and we also spend it in a way that does not lock us into sort
    of long-term obligations that can't be met given the fiscal
    restraints that are coming.
        But I think the most exciting and most promising aspect of
    this as I have met and worked with all three of you and also
    the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary and the
    Acquisitions Under Secretary. And I think we have a great team
    together that is really focused on efficiency and is really
    focused on getting the most out of the money we spend and
    trying to make the mother of all bureaucracies, which is the
    Pentagon, work. I just had a good conversation with Secretary
    Spencer about this. I think we are headed in the right
    direction.
        I will just close by saying as we head into the 2018 NDAA
    [National Defense Authorization Act], if there is anything that
    we can do or not do in the NDAA to help you with that
    acquisition reform process, please let us know, because I think
    that is what's going to be most important is to make sure that
    we spend the money as wisely as is humanly possible to meet all
    the challenges that we do face.
        With that, I yield back and look forward to the testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
    Appendix on page 60.]
        The Chairman. The committee is pleased to welcome the
    Honorable Mark Esper, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable
    Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Navy; the Honorable Heather
    Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force as witnesses today.
        Without objection, your full written statements will all be
    made part of the record. And we will be interested in hearing
    any oral comments you would like to make at this time.
        Secretary Esper, we will start with you.

         STATEMENT OF HON. MARK T. ESPER, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

        Secretary Esper. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith,
    distinguished members of the committee, good morning and thank
    you for the opportunity to be with you today.
        Let me say upfront that the Army's readiness across its
    formations is improving, and if called upon today, I am
    confident we would prevail in any conflict. This is due in part
    to the increased funding Congress provided last year. For this,
    I would like to say thank you.
        The Army's mission to defend the Nation has not changed,
    but the strategic environment has. Following 17 years of
    sustained combat, we now face a future characterized by the
    reemergence of great power competition and the continued
    challenges posed by rogue states and non-state actors, making
    the world ever more complex and dangerous.
        To address these challenges, the Army is changing. We have
    a comprehensive plan to ensure our long-term dominance, but we
    must have predictable, adequate, sustained, and timely funding.
    Fiscal uncertainty has done a great deal to erode our readiness
    and hamper our ability to modernize.
        While the Army must be ready to deploy, fight, and win
    anytime, anywhere, against any adversary, the National Defense
    Strategy [NDS] has identified China and Russia as the principal
    competitors against which we must build sufficient capacity and
    capabilities. Both countries are taking a more aggressive role
    on the world stage and either possess or are building advanced
    capabilities that are specifically designed to reverse the
    tactical overmatch we have enjoyed for decades.
        In support of the NDS, the Army is increasing our lethality
    along three focused priorities: readiness, modernization, and
    reform. Readiness is the top priority because only a ready
    total Army--Regular Army, Guard, and Reserve--can deter
    conflict, defeat enemies, and enable the joint force to win
    decisively.
        We are refocusing training for our soldiers to be more
    lethal and more resilient on the high-intensity battlefield of
    the future. We are increasing home-station training, getting
    more repetitions for our formations at the company level and
    below. We are giving training time back to commanders by
    reducing certain self-imposed mandatory training requirements
    not tied to increased lethality and by eliminating excessive
    reporting.
        We have maximized the number of Combat Training Center
    rotations to 20 per year, 4 of which are dedicated to the
    Reserve Component. These rotations are focused on the high-end
    fight, replicating near-peer competitor capabilities including
    increased enemy lethality, degraded communications, persistent
    observation, and a contested environment.
        And while the quality, training, and the esprit of our
    soldiers are what make the U.S. Army the most ready and lethal
    ground combat force in history, our superiority is enabled by
    the best weapons and equipment we can provide.
        As such, my second priority is modernization for future
    readiness. To ensure our soldiers never enter a fair fight, the
    Army is now increasing its investment in modernizing the force.
    Our modernization strategy is focused on one goal, make
    soldiers and units far more lethal and effective than any other
    adversary.
        The establishment of the Army Futures Command this summer
    is the best example of our commitment to the future lethality
    of the force. Army Futures Command will address the key
    shortcomings of the current acquisition system, providing unity
    of command, effort, and purpose to the modernization process.
        The Army has also identified its top six modernization
    priorities for the coming years. Each of these priorities is
    detailed in my written statement and each is the purview of a
    newly established cross-functional team [CFT].
        The purpose of these CFTs is to determine the requirements
    of needed capabilities to ensure all stakeholders are at the
    table from day one and to focus Army resources on accelerated
    experimentation, prototyping, and fielding. In order to ensure
    battlefield success, our doctrine must be updated to reflect
    the threat environment we face and remain at pace with our
    other efforts to modernize our equipment.
        My third priority is reform, freeing up time, money, and
    manpower to enhance readiness, accelerate modernization, and
    ensure the efficient use of resources provided to us by the
    American people. Our reform efforts particularly within the
    acquisition system are long overdue. While Futures Command is
    probably the boldest reform we are pursuing, other reform
    initiatives owe much to the acquisition authorities delegated
    to the services in prior NDAAs.
        Within these authorities, we are reinvigorating the Army
    Requirements Oversight Council, moving major defense
    acquisition programs back to the service, and using other
    transaction authorities to accelerate fielding in limited
    situations.
        A ready and modernized Army is critical to defend the
    Nation, but we must not overlook what makes us remarkable. For
    this, I have outlined three enduring priorities: first, taking
    care of our soldiers, civilians, and their families; second, a
    service-wide commitment, recommitment to the Army's values,
    especially by leaders, to treat everyone with dignity and
    respect; and finally, strengthening our alliances and partners
    by building stronger ties to a number of initiatives. I look
    forward to discussing this with you as time permits.
        With that, let me thank you again for this committee's
    continued support of the Army and specifically the defense
    authorizations and funding increases requested in the fiscal
    year 2018 and 2019 budgets. I look forward to your questions
    and appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important
    matters with you today. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Esper can be found in
    the Appendix on page 62.]
        The Chairman. Secretary Spencer.

      STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD V. SPENCER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

        Secretary Spencer. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member
    Smith, distinguished members, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today and give you the posture
    of the Department of the Navy. It is an honor to sit here
    before you with my fellow service secretaries.
        On behalf of our services, the Navy and Marine Corps team,
    thank you for the effort put forth by Congress in reaching a
    bipartisan agreement and then support by the authorizing
    committees. Let me tell you on behalf of the Navy-Marine Corps
    team, we understand that this put people in the farthest edges
    of their comfort zone and we are wildly supportive of that and
    we thank you for your efforts.
        We look forward to getting those resources as soon as
    possible in order to enhance readiness and lethality in our
    department. These resources will be expended, in focused
    alignment with the National Defense Strategy, building our
    combat credible force.
        I echo what Secretary Esper just said about the need for a
    steady state of resourcing. Today, 94,000 sailors and Marines
    are forward-deployed and stationed using the global maritime
    commons as a medium for maneuver, ensuring the maritime lanes
    of commerce remain free and open, assuring access to overseas
    regions, defending key interests in those areas, protecting
    United States citizens abroad, preventing adversaries from
    leveraging the world's oceans against us, 24 hours a day, 365
    days a year.
        Our budget requests enhance readiness and continue
    increasing the capability and capacity of the Navy-Marine Corps
    team. As directed in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, our
    budget submission supports building a more lethal, resilient,
    and agile force able to deter and defeat aggression by peer
    competitors and other adversaries in all domains across the
    conflict spectrum.
        My priorities for the Department center on three
    categories: people, capabilities, and processes. The ability to
    accomplish our mission relies on people: 800,000 sailors,
    Marines, Active Duty, Reserve, our civilian teammates, and all
    their families. We are building a more lethal and resilient,
    agile, talented, and rapidly innovating workforce as we speak.
        The ability to accomplish our mission relies on having
    capabilities necessary to fight tonight, challenge the
    competitors, deter our rivals, and win. We are investing in the
    modernization of key capabilities and new technologies to
    attain that goal.
        Lastly, the ability to accomplish our mission relies on
    having efficient processes in place that will speed the value
    and the ability to support our warfighters in a more effective
    and efficient manner. We are creating a continuous improvement
    mindset in both our culture, management systems in order to
    deliver performance with affordability and speed.
        I deliver to you today a plan for the Department of the
    Navy with a sense of urgency. We cannot and will not allow our
    competitive advantage to erode. With your guidance, these
    planned investments will provide combat credible maritime
    forces for the future. We will ensure we are good stewards of
    providing these resources, drive efficiency across the
    Department to maximize every dollar, and invest smartly to
    leverage the return on our investments.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Spencer can be found
    in the Appendix on page 72.]
        The Chairman. Secretary Wilson.

      STATEMENT OF HON. HEATHER WILSON, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

        Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, my
    statement is in the record and I would just like to highlight a
    couple of points that is really part of our budget. The first
    is that the Air Force budget for fiscal year 2019 aligns with
    the National Defense Strategy. It recognizes that we face a
    more competitive and dangerous international security
    environment than we have seen in decades. It also recognizes
    that great power competition has reemerged as the central
    challenge to U.S. security.
        In our budget there really are two bold moves and one
    continuing theme. The first bold move is the acceleration of
    defendable space. We need to be able to deter, defend, and
    prevail against anyone who seeks to deny our ability to freely
    operate in space.
        The President's budget reflects an 18 percent increase over
    the fiscal year defense plan for 2019, the 5-year defense plan,
    and that is on top of a 6 percent increase that we presented in
    the fiscal year 2018 defense plan. So accelerate defendable
    space.
        The second bold move in this budget is the shift to multi-
    domain operations. And that is most visible in changing the way
    the Air Force plans to do command and control.
        There is one continuing effort in our budget, and that is
    to keep improving readiness to win any fight any time. That is
    what you expect of your Air Force and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Wilson can be found in
    the Appendix on page 79.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, all. I want to ask each of you to
    respond to, well it will be two questions, but I would invite
    you to be brief because obviously there is a lot of members who
    want to have a conversation with you.
        As the ranking member pointed out, we are talking about
    2019, but we have not yet completed all of the work for 2018.
    We have a defense authorization bill signed into law. We have a
    budget cap agreement signed into law. This week we need to pass
    an appropriation bill to match that.
        I would invite each of you to just briefly describe why
    this appropriation is significant for your service compared to
    a CR [continuing resolution], compared to a sequestration
    level, compared to the President's original budget, whatever
    level you would want to say. But I think it is important for
    members to hear from you directly now, why is this vote this
    week important.
        Secretary Esper.
        Secretary Esper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say
    briefly with regard to modernization, what we call future
    readiness, as you know, there are restrictions under a CR that
    limit us from doing two things, new starts and increasing the
    quantities of munitions among other things. So those are two
    immediate impacts we face right now with regard to materiel
    and, again, preparing for conflict. More broadly, because of
    the fact that we are operating under the CR and we have been
    now for nearly 6 months, it limits our ability to fund training
    exercises, to fill seats at our training base, and has an
    overall impact on the training and readiness of the force.
        The Chairman. Secretary Spencer.
        Secretary Spencer. Mr. Chairman, I can only echo what
    Secretary Esper just said and add something on as far as the
    Navy is concerned. You have heard me speak before what CRs cost
    the United States Navy since they began: about $4 billion
    burned in a trash can.
        But more importantly, we desperately need this new
    appropriations bill to be set forward. The capital assets and
    our cycling of maintenance for aviation, surface warfare,
    undersurface warfare, it is critical, absolutely critical that
    we get a continuous form of funding in order to manage the
    industrial base to put us back on a footing to be out there on
    the seas protecting that that we should do.
        The Chairman. Secretary Wilson.
        Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, first, with respect to
    sequester, the sequester in the Budget Control Act is still the
    law of the land. And I would say that sequester did more damage
    to the United States Air Force and our ability to defend the
    Nation than anything our adversaries have done in the last 10
    years. We did it to ourselves.
        We cut 30,000 people out of the Air Force, reduced by 10
    fighter squadrons, and weapon system sustainment and the
    problems that we are having with pilot retention can really be
    tied directly back to sequester several years ago.
        With respect to the continuing resolution, we are limited
    in we cannot have any new starts of programs. So a lot of the
    programs that are going to take us into the future are just
    still pending, and we will have to execute those in the last 6
    months of the year.
        Particularly with respect to readiness, one of our major
    readiness issues is munition stockpiles. We want to be able to
    expand the capacity of our munitions production and we cannot
    do that until we get this budget through this week. Thank you.
        The Chairman. One other brief question. This committee has
    helped enact significant acquisition reform for the last 3
    years. A lot of that puts more responsibility on you-all's
    shoulders. My question is, based on what you know now, is there
    any area where we really messed up, where we made a mistake,
    where we did something that goes the wrong direction and need
    to be corrected? Obviously, there is going to be tweaks and
    small challenges, but based on what you have seen and what
    decisions you have had to make, et cetera, have we gotten
    anything significant wrong in the last 3 years?
        Secretary Esper.
        Secretary Esper. Mr. Chairman, no, not that I have
    encountered yet. In fact everything that I have had to deal
    with in the 3-plus months that I have been on the job has been
    positive.
        The Chairman. Secretary.
        Secretary Spencer. Mr. Chairman, again, I would say the
    same. There are some fascinating and interesting tools that we
    are using and we are going to use and look forward to use, so
    thank you for those. I would ask for a stabilization period so
    we can digest what we have and have the ability to come back to
    you if we need more, but right now the knife drawer looks full.
        The Chairman. Secretary Wilson.
        Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, there are several things we
    are taking advantage of. The other transaction authorities,
    prototyping, and experimentation are tremendously valuable as
    is the decision by the Congress to push down to lower levels of
    authority milestone decision authority.
        There are a few other things that I would say are strings
    attached that I think might be worth looking at. There is a
    provision in there called Provision 807 on costing and fielding
    estimates that may require it go all the way up to the
    Secretary of Defense for every major acquisition program that
    probably should be put with the milestone decision authority.
        There is an independent technical readiness assessment that
    also may have to go back up the chain. All of these, if you
    push authority down, but you still require some of the sub-
    decisions to go all the way back up the chain may not result in
    the speed that you really want. And then there is another
    Provision 808, which has to do with an acquisition scorecard
    which is a similar kind of issue.
        So I would say, in general these are tremendously helpful.
    We are accelerating our use of them. But there are a few things
    that we need to make sure the details also get pushed back to
    the milestone decision authority.
        The Chairman. Well, I just say we want to work with you in
    identifying those items. But as I mentioned at the beginning, a
    major premise of this reform is to give more authority and also
    more responsibility to the services. That is on you-all's
    shoulders.
        And as you all well know, the world is moving so fast and
    in many ways is so complex and dangerous that we cannot afford
    to not take full advantage of those tools, but also move out
    much quicker than we have been.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was joking with staff up here that I think what we all
    ought to do is the only question we should ask about this
    entire hearing is we should ask Secretary Wilson to tell us
    what she thinks about the Space Corps and we should just have a
    constant conversation about that because I think that would be
    interesting. I will leave that to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Cooper
    actually.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Smith. But the question I do want to ask is where can
    you save money, because I have often said that ever since I
    have been on this committee 21 years it has a very easy-to-
    track theme and that is people come over from the Pentagon and
    tell us all kinds of horror stories about what they do not
    have, about how short they are, about their unfunded
    requirements, about all the money that they need that they do
    not have, and how that lack of money is going to lead to one
    cataclysm after another.
        And I do not discount the threat environment that the
    chairman just described. But if we are going to get to good on
    that stuff, it cannot all be up, up, up, up, up, up, up. There
    has got to be some place in a $700 billion budget where you are
    going, ``Gosh, I wish I did not have to spend that money
    because I would like to spend it over here.''
        So I realize that the odds of you guys actually answering
    this question are remote, but I am going to throw it out there
    anyway. If you would say whether it is a program or whatever,
    where can you save money in each of your services? Where are we
    spending money that we shouldn't be spending money?
        Secretary Esper. So, Mr. Smith, I will go first. I think
    there are three things that come to mind immediately; first and
    foremost is acquisition and acquisition reform. So we believe
    that as we stand up Futures Command and the structure, the
    processes, the culture that we hope to change alongside that
    will result in fewer dollars wasted going forward and actually
    maybe save dollars as well.
        Number two, we are looking at a number of initiatives to
    tackle that problem as well, the problem of savings. One is
    contracting services. So we are looking to maybe save $1
    billion-plus a year for a period of years just by consolidating
    and rationalizing our contracting services.
        Mr. Smith. Are you sure? I mean, as you well know, that is
    a battle that is very, very difficult.
        Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, these are all difficult.
        Mr. Smith. Do you have any sort of quick metric for when it
    makes sense to contract out and when it does not?
        Secretary Esper. Well, I am speaking more directly now to
    services that you may find on a garrison or post where maybe
    you have dozens of contracts all for a small amount of money--
    --
        Mr. Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Esper [continuing]. Where you might be able to
    consolidate those, you can reduce the throughput going through
    your contracting command to handle those and you can find some
    efficiencies there.
        Mr. Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Esper. You are speaking to a different issue,
    which I also agree we can find, and that is contractors. So I
    think the degree which, and this gets to the third point, the
    degree which we can, and I am looking at this now, rightsize
    our headquarters, rationalize them in terms of their functions
    and much like the Congress has done with pushing authorities
    from DOD down to services, how much authority responsibilities
    can we push down to lower level commands and maybe, again, save
    some manpower and resources that we could push back into other
    priorities or back into the field to make sure we have--our
    forces are fully fleshed out.
        Mr. Smith. Are there any programs, you know, any tanks,
    weapon systems, anything like that that you think we are
    forcing on you that probably is not necessary?
        Secretary Esper. We are looking at the entire range of 800-
    plus programs we have. I know that as part of our reform
    efforts we are probably going to look at the lower end of that
    and assess each for return on investment and probably postpone
    or cancel some programs.
        Mr. Smith. Okay.
        Mr. Spencer.
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman Smith, I would say I would
    start by saying process, which is one of my areas that we are
    highlighting. I can address some of the things we are doing
    inside the Department of the Navy right now where we found
    close to $600 million just in de-obligation.
        So changing the thought process and changing the attitude
    on how we actually contract. So when you are through with the
    contract, your work is not done. If, in fact, there is funds
    left over, put them back in the bin, don't send to the
    Treasury. Small moves like that are now starting to save us
    some big moneys going forward. So focus on process across the
    way.
        Acquisition is the other big lever because that is where
    all the dollars are. If you look at the Navy, we have Ford-
    class, Virginia Payload, Columbia, H-53. Those are some very
    sizeable programs.
        Two things that we need to address there. In the long term,
    we need to keep consistency of people involved with these
    platforms. They are long-term, long-lead platforms. We need to
    keep the expertise in place rather than removing people and
    causing seams in information.
        More importantly, the acquisition process, once the
    contract is laid, it certainly is not on autopilot. It deserves
    the attention up and down senior management at all times to
    manage these programs. You will see it I think going forward
    with Ford. We have a new plan here. You heard we put out the
    two-ship buy. This was divined from conversations that started
    back in November with our supplier. And I would almost like to
    say it is a new world in that the way we are approaching this
    and it is a hands-on, very active management style.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, I would identify a couple of things.
    One is the cost of sustainment, which for us is where a lot of
    the cost is for aircraft and let me give you a couple of
    examples. Additive manufacturing as a substitute for very long
    supply chains and that will require some help from you all with
    respect to intellectual property. And other things like
    predictive maintenance so that we can actually drive up the
    ability to have aircraft available and overall reduce the--we
    are going to focus a lot on sustainment cost and what we can do
    to improve our sustainment cost performance.
        The second area I identify would be artificial intelligence
    [AI] tools for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance
    analysis. Right now we have a lot of intelligence analysis, a
    lot of people watching full-motion video. That is not a good
    use of money or time and in that case time is money.
        Mr. Smith. If I may just say, on that point just quickly.
    There is a lot of technology out there and software that is
    getting frighteningly better at being able to look through a
    massive amount of data and find what you are looking for so
    that people don't have to sit there and look at video after
    video. We have so much information. There is no way you could
    possibly see it all. What we need is we need the AI to get in
    there and find what we are looking for in that massive
    database. So that is technology I would really encourage our
    committee to pursue. Go ahead.
        Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir. In fact, we are working several
    projects along that realm. The third that I would highlight has
    to do with the way in which we are doing acquisition. And we
    just released a report on acquisition that includes a number of
    initiatives to systemically reduce the cost of what we are
    requiring, including things like better estimates on what
    something should cost so that we drive down the cost of things
    in negotiation with contractors.
        We have over 450 very large acquisition programs, and when
    we do those things systematically and we invest in our
    workforce who are doing the contracting, we can over time drive
    down cost and some of that is included here. I would also say
    finally that the speed of acquisition, in the case of
    acquisition and manufacturing, time is money and so increasing
    the speed also helps to drive down the cost.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your
    success with Speaker Paul Ryan for appropriations to fund the
    military. Thank you for your leadership.
        I want to thank each of you for being here today. Your
    service, as a grateful veteran myself who has sons and a nephew
    serving today in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, we are joint
    service, your leadership is reassuring to military families.
        Over the years, Secretary Esper, I have had the opportunity
    and have been inspired to visit our Bulgarian and American
    troops at Novo Selo. Last year, it was incredible to meet with
    our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] troops in Poland,
    Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and the Republic of Georgia. I want
    to commend you that I think it is highly appropriate, the State
    Partnership Program, is the State of Georgia with the Republic
    of Georgia. It is a wonderful experience to see so many
    Georgians together. What is the long-term vision for America's
    presence in Europe? What is the right balance between
    rotational and permanent troop presence in Europe?
        Secretary Esper. Well, thank you, first of all, for that
    comment on the State Partnership Program, Mr. Wilson. I agree
    it is a very important program. When I was in Europe recently,
    I had just witnessed the Illinois Guard coming out of Poland.
    They have had a relationship together since 1993 and I had the
    privilege of traveling to Ukraine where I saw the New York
    National Guard training our Ukrainian partners there. And as a
    former guardsman myself, I really appreciate the work that our
    Guard units are doing around the country.
        With regard to your question, that is an issue that the
    Army is looking closely at on a constant basis. When I was in
    Europe, I had the chance to talk with the EUCOM [U.S. European
    Command] commander, General Scaparrotti, about this. Right now,
    there is great benefit to rotating an armored brigade combat
    team to Europe. It provides us the ability to send a highly
    trained, fresh out of National Training Center, ready force
    that is also trained to deploy onto the European continent.
    That is something critical as we find a large number of our
    forces here in United States, the need to train to deploy.
        At the same time, we are also, as part of this fiscal year
    2019 budget, building up pre-positioned stocks and additional
    set in Europe to fall in. And I think over time, depending on
    how we are able to build additional facilities, particularly
    the Poles, to maintain readiness, whether it is gunnery or
    maneuver, it starts changing the equation as to how much we
    would rotate and how much we would permanently station on the
    continent.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, I greatly appreciate that, because to me
    it is peace through strength and to block Russian aggression in
    Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. And for each of you, in line
    with Ranking Member Smith, how are you planning to address the
    emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, high-
    performance computing, directed energy, hypersonics, and
    autonomy? How are you resourcing these technologies within your
    budget request? And each of you, hey, we will begin with
    Secretary Spencer.
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman Wilson, thank you. If you
    look at the National Defense Strategy and you look at the key
    implementation levers when it comes to technology, the majority
    of them are the ones that you just mentioned. We are realigning
    dollars spent in our $18 billion research, development, testing
    budget to align with the National Defense Strategy in order to
    not only capture more dollars into those buckets but to enhance
    the studies and the research that we have been doing so we can
    not only apply it but get it out into the warfighter's hand as
    soon as possible.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, with respect to hypersonics, the Air
    Force budget includes $258 million for fiscal year 2019 for
    hypersonics. For directed energy, it is $280 million. What I
    would also say is that the three of us as secretaries have been
    getting together frequently to have breakfast. The Navy has the
    better coffee. But one of the things that we are doing is
    identifying high-priority areas of research and what all three
    of us are doing in those research areas, our services are doing
    in those research areas, to see where there are gaps, where
    there are overlaps, and where we can build off of each other's
    research including testing Navy systems on Air Force systems
    and it, I think, will start to bear fruit.
        Secretary Esper. Well, it is true the Navy has a better
    coffee. But we are also aligning our S&T [science and
    technology] for fiscal year 2019 and 2018. We have realigned 80
    percent of our S&T funding along our six modernization
    priorities to make sure we get better bang for the buck, better
    ROI [return on investment] for those. Within that, those
    include things such as AI, hypersonics, as Secretary Wilson
    mentioned, where we are trying to collaborate on that in other
    areas such as directed energy where we think collaborating
    together, putting additional funding into this can really help
    us get to the next level with regard to these types of
    technologies.
        Mr. Wilson. I thank each of you. And as the technologies
    change I am just grateful that you are in your leadership
    positions. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ms. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And it is good to see all of you here. Thank you very much
    for your service, for all your efforts right now as we go into
    this difficult period waiting for budgets and appropriations.
    And I want to applaud you on many of the points you have
    already made, but I wanted to talk to you about one that I
    think is dear, at least to I know, Secretary Wilson's heart as
    well as a number of us here.
        Each of your memos discussed recruitment and retention, but
    none of you mentioned that today each of the military services
    experience challenges retaining women to a varying degree, with
    a particularly wide gender gap in operational specialties.
        More women than men, as we know, leave the military at
    various career points. So, concerns persist that this attrition
    will result in a disproportionate impact to mission readiness
    if left unresolved.
        What initiatives is each of your respective services
    implementing to address this gender gap, how are you evaluating
    that, and to what extent is there really a lot of good sharing
    that is going on between the services?
        Secretary Esper, you want to start?
        Secretary Esper. Yes, ma'am. Let me address it a few
    different ways. First of all, I think we see a higher
    percentage of women being selected to enter the Academy as from
    a commissioning source.
        Along those same lines, as you know in the past couple of
    years we have opened up the combat arms branches to women. They
    are doing very well. I have had the chance to visit with them,
    the units they are in in both the National Training Center and
    at Fort Bragg. And at this point under the ``leaders first''
    policy we have dozens of women in the battalions, these
    battalion-size units, over 600 women in.
        So, a lot of expansion happening there; we are expanding
    the number of posts they can travel to as well to make sure we
    have greater opportunity throughout the ranks.
        I think there is a larger point here, too, and it is more
    of a strategic one that I have discussed with some members
    here, and it is one of my major lines of effort in terms of the
    future Army. And that is how do we reform our current personnel
    system to focus it more on talent, an individual's knowledge,
    skills, and attributes with their preferences so that you can
    allow, for example, if a woman wanted to time-out her career
    and start a family, then could come back in and restart the
    clock without any type of promotion penalties or those types of
    things.
        So, I think we need to relook and I know we are internally,
    I've stood up a task force to look at what a future personnel
    system would look like to accommodate things such as you
    described to accommodate greater gender integration and
    opportunity.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Spencer. Congresswoman, as it applies to the
    Navy, I would, again, it is almost getting repetitive but echo
    what Secretary Esper just said as far as what we have for
    options and the ability to entice women to come in and join the
    Navy. All service sectors are open in both the Navy and Marine
    Corps as you know. All specialties are open.
        But when it comes to retention, if you look at our efforts
    in Sailor 2025, what we are doing specifically in the Navy, the
    ability to have an off-ramp mid-career to go do whatever you
    would like to do, whether that is to go off and get a degree or
    go off start a family, go off and do whatever you would like to
    do, and come in without penalty. That has been an active
    program that we have had, quite successful. And we are quite
    pleased with the results that it has.
        Going forward, rest assured the Navy is really looking at
    this, it is game on, because all three of us fish from the same
    pool, and that pool is getting smaller and smaller both by
    qualification and by demographic size. We are going to be
    competing with the private sector, as the economy increases, we
    are going to see more competition there.
        We are going to use every single tool available to us and I
    do believe we probably will be in front of you in the future
    whether it is addressing DOPMA [Defense Officer Personnel
    Management Act] or something along that line so it will allow
    us more flexibility in order to incorporate those people.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Secretary Wilson. Ma'am, we have a higher percentage of
    women in the service than any of the other services and every
    position in the Air Force is open to women. We are also looking
    at different ways to be more flexible about how women and men
    can come in and out of the service depending on their life
    circumstances.
        I would also echo my colleague's comment. I think this year
    we are expecting a higher percentage of women entrants into the
    service academy class than any in history. And I would also say
    that we are, I think, trying to change a little bit the way we
    talk and think about who the protectors are in this country,
    because I think sometimes the way in which we talk about the
    services may appeal more to boys than to girls. And that is
    important, the way we talk about these things.
        And if I asked everyone in this room to think, just close
    your eyes for a second and think about the most protective
    person you know in your life; someone who would do anything to
    keep you safe. And half the people in this room are thinking
    about their moms.
        We are the protectors. That is what the military does. We
    serve to protect the rest of you. And that is a very natural
    place for a woman to be.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and for
    your service to our country.
        Secretary Wilson, first of all, I wholeheartedly agree with
    that last statement you just made and I applaud your effort in
    that endeavor. One of the primary things I try to do on this
    committee is keep Ranking Member Smith happy. And since he has
    charged me with asking you about Space Corps, I guess I will.
        Secretary Wilson. So, that is because he did not want me to
    talk about the KC-46.
        Mr. Rogers. Yeah. President Trump last week endorsed the
    idea of a separate space force. Do you agree with the
    President's assertion that we should form a separate space
    force?
        Secretary Wilson. Last week, the President of the United
    States said that the new National Defense Strategy for space
    recognizes that space is a warfighting domain. I don't remember
    any President ever openly saying that.
        He has relaunched the National Space Council under the
    leadership of Vice President Pence and nowhere is his
    leadership more clear than in the President's budget. And this
    year's budget accelerates our ability to deter and defend and
    protect our ability to operate and to win in space.
        The President wants to consider different ways of
    organizing, and we look forward to supporting him in that
    effort.
        Mr. Rogers. Great. And I would also point out his words
    were we should have a space force; we will have a space force.
    I liked the way that sounded.
        Last week, we had General Jay Raymond testify before my
    subcommittee and he talked about space being a priority and an
    elevation of its priority status within the Air Force. Then he
    also talked about $351 million worth of requirements that are
    unfunded requirements. If in fact space has this enhanced
    priority status within the Air Force, why are those $351
    million worth of requirements unfunded?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, first of all, I appreciate the
    increased top line that came from this committee and from the
    Congress as a whole. We are required by law to put forward an
    unfunded priorities list.
        And what we have done in our unfunded priorities list is to
    accelerate things that are already in our 5-year plan so that
    when you ask us if there is higher top line, if there is more
    money available, what would we do with it and the answer is we
    would accelerate what is already in our 5-year plan and that
    was in three areas. The first was space. The second was nuclear
    modernization. And the third was military construction.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, in your opening statement, you made
    reference to the fact that there was an 18 percent increase
    over the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. But yet, there is
    only 6 percent increase proposed for the 2019 budget. I would
    really like to see those numbers reversed at least for the 2019
    budget. I think more than 6 percent would be a better
    illustration of priority status.
        Secretary Esper, my understanding is that the Army's
    modernization budget went up 14 percent from 2018 to 2019 and
    that is great news. And you have used that money to fund a
    variety of very important programs. But you forgot one--the
    Stryker program. Can you tell me why that is the case?
        Secretary Esper. Mr. Rogers, we are actually putting money
    into the Stryker program based on an urgent operational needs
    request from the commander in Europe. What we are doing is
    improving their lethality and survivability.
        On the lethality front, we are looking at arming them with
    30 millimeter cannons and with anti-tank missiles. I will tell
    you that when I was in Germany a month and a half ago now, I
    had the chance to spend some time on the vehicle and talk to
    the crew and was very impressed by what I saw.
        They will be taking those vehicles through their trials
    over the coming months and we will assess the effectiveness. I
    think in principle I think it is very good where we are going
    with regard to both up-gunning them and making them more
    survivable, survivable in the sense of adding double-V hulls,
    for example.
        Mr. Rogers. What are your long-term plans for the Stryker
    or do you know right now?
        Secretary Esper. Well, right now, we plan to keep them in
    the inventory. I think our focus really is on the next-
    generation combat vehicle. That is one of our cross-functional
    teams and that is viewed more as a replacement, the next
    generation for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, if you will.
        Mr. Rogers. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for coming. So, we have been hearing
    testimony in the committee and a couple of subcommittees
    specifically with regards to the investment in emerging
    technologies from other countries, China and Russia in
    particular, and how that could change the military balance of
    power.
        So, the current S&T budget for the Department as a
    percentage is I think lower than it was when I was first here
    in early 2000s, but right now it is about 2.3 percent of the
    total budget. So, the question I have is, if this is a concern
    and a high priority, the S&T budget does not seem to be
    reflecting that.
        So, for each of you, briefly, can you tell us what your
    plans are for investing in your own S&T budget over the next 5
    years as opposed to just today.
        Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. Let me first say from 2017 to
    2019, we were seeing nearly a 20 percent increase in terms of
    RDT&E [research, development, test, and evaluation] funding, so
    about $8.5 billion to $10.2 or so.
        Alongside that, what we plan on doing is looking at the 80
    percent of the S&T budget and making sure that is fully aligned
    with our priorities. What we found last fall going into this
    that they were not aligned to any particular priority.
        So, I think we expect to get a lot more bang for the buck,
    return on investment, if you will, from greater alignment and
    greater focus. Knowing, of course, that S&T, the RDT&E budget
    is the seed corn for future readiness, we plan to continue
    investing in that because we know that it is critical to
    achieve what we need to achieve in order to be able to meet the
    threats, the challenges that are outlined for us in the
    National Defense Strategy.
        Mr. Larsen. Mr. Spencer.
        Secretary Spencer. I am actually not tremendously concerned
    as far as the overall S&T numbers because when you look at 2017
    compared to 2019, we are up $1 billion in Navy research and
    development.
        From where I came from, the first thing I noticed is that
    we are going to have to really harness the discipline of
    portfolio management. The great thing about having a strategy
    is you do have alignment.
        In the NDS implementation, we have our six lanes of effort.
    We will focus our dollars on those six lanes of effort, not to
    the disregard of other projects that we might have going on,
    but it is going to be a more focused, tailored application of
    funds.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, we had a slight increase from fiscal
    year 2018 to fiscal year 2019 in our S&T budget from $2.5
    billion to $2.6 billion. I would say that my concern is that
    most of that is on the test and evaluation side and not on the
    pathbreaking research side.
        The Air Force has launched a 12-month review of our science
    and technology strategy to look at both where we invest and
    then how we partner with universities and industry to get more
    out of our research dollar and particularly how to spin-on
    technology developments that may have been developed outside of
    national security to get them into our weapon systems.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. And that is probably where you ought to be
    headed. I appreciate the answers here. They are not settling
    for me but I appreciate the answers.
        So, Secretary Spencer, I will just ask you specifically on
    this because of the time. It has to do with EW [electronic
    warfare] and EW EXCOM, executive committee. The Growlers are
    all stationed at NAS [Naval Air Station] Whidbey Island and, of
    course, they are just airplanes until you put a lot of good
    stuff on them and that is all that electronic warfare.
        But we have had problems in the past getting the Pentagon
    to focus on EW more broadly, each service. Air Force dropped
    out of that business for a while, come back in. Army did not
    really have an organic capability till that was stood up in
    about 2006, 2007, 2008 or so because of Iraq.
        Maybe not on behalf of all the services but maybe just
    focusing on your service, can you talk a little bit, help me
    understand what you are doing to support EW EXCOM not just in
    terms of ideas, but to get that acquisition process to move
    faster when we make that investment into electronic warfare so
    that we have things like Next Gen [Generation] Jammers which
    are finally coming online after a lot of time. How can we
    shorten that timeframe?
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman, it is the focus of what we
    are doing right now. As I said it before in another committee,
    one of the secret weapons that took us 3 months to convince to
    come join us was Mr. ``Hondo'' Geurts out of SOCOM [U.S.
    Special Operations Command], and his abilities and his proven
    track record in expediting the acquisition process within
    government confines, that is going up and down the ladder on
    all platforms.
        EW is a key component for not only our Navy-Marine Corps
    team but for our other fellow services on battle force
    management. So, it is a key area that we are working on. It
    develops across the board. We are in conversations at all
    times.
        Again, back to your question as it pertains specifically to
    the Navy, it is our focus. We will get the Next Gen Jammer out
    there ASAP [as soon as possible].
        The Chairman. Mr. Conaway.
        Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Wilson, Secretary Wilson, I have never heard the case
    for who should be serving in our uniforms better put than the
    way you have said that. I do not know if you have noticed but
    it got real quiet in here when you were finishing up your
    statement and I think it is because your words were
    reverberating through the minds of everybody in here. So, thank
    you for that statement.
        And I am blessed to have been reared and raised by a mom
    who fit that category, so thank you for that.
        Secretary Spencer, we had four shipwrecks in 2017. As a
    result the Vice Chief of the Naval Operations and the Secretary
    ordered a review of what was going on, and one of the
    recommendations was that we take that decision as to putting a
    boat in harm's way further up the food chain and not allocating
    resources to a combat commander that were not ready to go
    there. Can you talk to us about where that recommendation is
    and what has been the reaction among the various folks who were
    looking at that?
        Secretary Spencer. Yes, Congressman. Just to add a little
    meat on that, not only did we do a comprehensive review at the
    CNO's [Chief of Naval Operations] level but we also put the
    strategic review in place at my level to go after the root
    causes. And one of the things that is one of the items, the
    recommendations that came out of the Strategic Readiness Review
    was our C2, our command and control.
        And you will soon be hearing a result of the last, I
    believe it was 2\1/2\ months of deliberation we had in the
    Navy, to provide a clear point of view from the commander on
    his ship looking up as to what resources he can ask for, who is
    responsible for providing them, and his chain of command to
    make it crystal clear that responsibilities are in place.
        As far as the combatant commanders go in tasking the demand
    signal, that is in place. I can tell you that robust
    conversations go on at all times. I think it has been
    heightened to a higher level, but interestingly enough, it is
    not so much the generator of the demand signal that is the
    issue, it really comes back to resource funding when it comes
    to surface ships and the Navy and even sub-surface ships and
    aviation for that matter.
        With continual funding, we can get these capital assets
    through maintenance back out into the fleet on a regular
    drumbeat and that will be the biggest solution to providing
    readiness and troop wear going forward.
        Mr. Conaway. Thank you.
        Mr. Esper, Secretary Esper, the fight in Afghanistan, you
    are doing something called the security force assistance
    brigades [SFABs] which seems to be a more tailored approach to
    assistance using maybe more experienced personnel as an idea,
    as a way to try to make sure the brigade combat teams are ready
    to go. But then, it looks like we are asking for those to come
    in on top of those security force brigades.
        Can you talk to us about the operational tempo of that
    security force brigade and why that is more or less than what
    it would be now and the impact it has on your ability to keep
    folks ready to go?
        Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. As you noted, we are standing up
    six security force assistance brigades; five in Active
    Component, one in the Guard. One has been stood up and is now
    in Afghanistan. It began in Fort Benning. The second one is
    being stood up now at Fort Bragg.
        And as you rightly noted, the purpose is to provide
    specially trained ready and equipped forces that can relieve
    infantry brigade combat teams of the challenges of maintaining
    readiness while they are deployed. So, infantry brigade combat
    team is 3,000-plus people. An SFAB is 816 or so.
        And what that does is you can allow better-trained equipped
    forces to train allied or partners at a much lower cost without
    degrading the readiness of a brigade combat team. So, as we
    said, the first brigade combat--I am sorry--first SFAB is on
    the ground now in Afghanistan beginning operations and we are
    anxious to see how well they do.
        And as you noted, there is an IBCT [infantry brigade combat
    team] there currently. I think over time, the purpose is to
    replace and not have a dual capability on the ground.
        Mr. Conaway. So, what would be the operational tempo for
    that security force brigade? How often will they go in and
    fight, coming and going?
        Secretary Esper. I think it would on the same type of
    rotational basis. I don't know that we have determined whether
    it is a 6- or 9-month rotation. That is something I know the
    chief and the staff are considering. But, again, the aim would
    be to replace an IBCT and IBCTs are typically on a 9-month
    rotation.
        Mr. Conaway. So, will they go back to the same spot kind of
    like your special forces guys do to make sure they get familiar
    with the area?
        Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, depending on the need from the
    combatant commanders.
        Mr. Conaway. All right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Spencer, in the last couple of weeks, our
    committee has heard from two combatant commanders, Admiral
    Harris, who testified that he has basically been able to get,
    for the second year in a row, only about half the attack
    submarines that he needs in terms of requirements that he has.
    General Scaparrotti testified last week about the fact that
    they are seeing Russian submarine activity they haven't seen
    since the 1980s.
        In your testimony, you talked about the fact that the
    shipbuilding plan is designed to sort of be able to take
    advantage of industrial capacity, to sort of move more
    aggressively, which is great. I guess the question I want to
    ask is the Block V process is underway right now for the next
    5-year purchase of Virginia-class attack submarines; we had a
    great model in 2014 where the Navy built into the contract an
    option to go higher than the 9 subs that was originally
    requested by the Navy at that point, and they were able to get,
    as Admiral Johnson proudly proclaimed, 10 subs for the price of
    9 by using that option as a way to incentivize the 2 shipyards
    to come in with a better price, which is all about acquisition
    reform obviously that we are talking about here today.
        I have to say, we are getting sort of mixed signals right
    now in terms of on the one hand your visual chart that came
    over with the shipbuilding plan showed capacity in 2022 and
    2023. Obviously, the NDAA last year, my friend Mr. Wittman and
    I, we sent a strong signal that we would like to see that block
    go higher than 10 subs. Yet what we are getting in terms of the
    narrative testimony from the Navy is that they are really just
    proceeding on a two-a-year build rate for Block V.
        So, I guess the question I want to ask is using again a
    successful model, I mean, what is your position in terms of
    using an optional structure to the Block V contract to at least
    give us the ability to go higher given, again, what we are
    hearing from the combatant commanders?
        Secretary Spencer. Thank you, Congressman. The whole
    purpose for the 30-year shipbuilding plan to be delivered
    alongside the budget was to open up an intellectual discussion
    about what is available out in the industry as far as capacity
    goes. And that was the whole reason we included the graphic.
        As you all well know, the three of us sitting here are
    portfolio managers when it comes to allocation of resources for
    specific platforms. What I love to say, I can take as much
    money as you will give me and I will provide as much as I can
    up to industrial capacity, yes. But then, that would disbalance
    the portfolio.
        That being said, when it comes to the Virginia class which,
    by the way, for any of those of you who are interested, it is
    probably one of our best-performing undersea contracts if not
    boat contracts that we have over its period of time as far as
    performance per dollar, yes, we have that option available to
    us.
        Yes, we have the option available to us and we have been
    talking to industry, could we take that up to three boats a
    cycle. Yes, it is there if in fact the resources are there. It
    is the managing of the resources. If in fact through
    reformation I can find another $2 billion within the Navy and I
    can reapply those funds internally to that program or any other
    of the programs, totally available.
        Mr. Courtney. So, that is good to hear. Again, I just want
    to emphasize that when the Block IV was done, the resources
    actually weren't sort of appropriated yet, but it created a
    structure where they were able to expand it as time went on,
    again, with the strong support of Congress.
        And I just want to leave that point with you, that I think
    that hopefully will be the way to incentivize the shipyards as
    well as to give us that option to go bigger, and I know you
    know this, this is a real critical part of the fleet in terms
    of what is happening out there in the world today.
        And just to follow up on that, again, you were so helpful
    during the conference committee in terms of getting the
    continuous production authority which, again, was another way
    to give the Navy some efficiencies in Columbia class. Again,
    the October report that came over really didn't talk about
    using those authorities in 2019. And that is about $380 million
    I think was the estimate of savings that we could get from
    that.
        So, again, you were right there with us in terms of getting
    that language through, and I hope again we are going to take
    advantage of those authorities.
        Secretary Spencer. You will see us take advantage of those,
    Congressman. I think just if I could put a punctuation on the
    comment, in light of the discussions that we have had with our
    suppliers starting last fall, having candid discussions on what
    we need as far as requirements and expedition, and also asking
    what they need to go forward, the discussions now have risen to
    the level of if I need 20 percent savings and I need a year and
    a half taken off, what do you need from me to get there.
        And it is reframing the conversation so we are having a
    true insight as to the availability of production capacity
    within the system. We will exercise all that we can do to make
    sure that that is the most efficient application of dollars.
        The Chairman. Mr. Wittman.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Esper, Secretary Spencer, and Secretary Wilson,
    thanks so much for joining us and thanks for your service.
        Secretary Spencer, just yesterday the Navy announced a
    request for proposals for a two-ship buy for CVN 80 and 81. We
    know that that is a welcomed response by the Navy to the fiscal
    year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act which talks about
    accelerating the pace to get to 355 ships; 12 of those will be
    aircraft carriers, so we deeply appreciate that.
        I think, too, it does several things. It sends a strong
    signal to the rest of the world that we are committed to having
    those 12 aircraft carriers. It is a commitment to the brave men
    and women in the Navy. It is also a commitment to the folks
    that build those ships. I think those are all extraordinarily
    important aspects of what we, as a team, Congress, the
    administration, need to do to make sure we have what is
    necessary going into the future.
        We know, too, that it is been expressed as you said in the
    negotiations and conversations with the contractors that we can
    save at least $2.5 billion by buying these two ships at a time
    and, again, keep us on track to the 12 aircraft carriers that
    we need.
        I wanted to get your perspective on this aggressive and
    innovative strategy you talked about how you all are working to
    save money, but more specifically what do you need from
    Congress as you continue down the road? Because obviously you
    will get these proposals in. What do you need from Congress to
    not only save the $2.5 billion, but hopefully save more in
    looking at buying two of these ships and things that we can do
    to enable the Navy to implement even more aggressively this
    strategy?
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman, I appreciate tremendously
    your support and your subcommittee's support and the support in
    this room when it comes to the capital assets the Navy is
    looking at.
        When it comes to actual additional authorities they are
    going to be de minimis believe it or not. We have what we need
    to go forward. When it comes to funding of the two ships, we
    will come before you asking on the financial side for a path
    forward in that way.
        But we really do believe that what you have given us when
    it comes to specifically surface ships, we have the authorities
    we need to go forward. Again, I go back to the understanding
    that we have presently in place, which was if we can find
    dollars in our reformation process, we can reallocate those
    dollars, coming to you obviously for approval, to put towards
    different platforms. That will be a battle cry within the Navy.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you. Thank you.
        Secretary Wilson, I do want to talk a little bit about KC-
    46A, not to leave that off the table but to put in perspective,
    here is a platform that has been flying since 1981 and it has
    already been delivered in a tanker configuration to two of our
    allies just last week. We saw, too, Boeing reported the KC-46A
    program had two category one deficiency reports--one in the
    remote vision system and the other in the centerline drogue
    system.
        Are these deficiencies behind the Air Force's report last
    week that they are going to revise the timeline for first
    delivery? And if not, tell me the impact of these deficiencies,
    and it is not just these system deficiencies but it is also
    getting the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]
    certifications which I believe are still on schedule. But if
    you will give us an overview about where things are, because
    Boeing are still saying they are going to deliver on time, the
    Air Force changing the timelines, can you give us a perspective
    on where things are?
        Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir. Boeing is saying that they are
    going to deliver in the second quarter of 2018. The Air Force
    thinks it is more likely to be late 2018. And Boeing has been
    overly optimistic in all of their schedule reports.
        There are a couple of things that impact this. One is they
    have had flight test delays, so the flight test, the FAA flight
    testing has not gone as fast as Boeing anticipated it would.
    And the Air Force was skeptical about its schedule when it was
    put forward.
        As you mentioned, there are two critical deficiencies, one
    being the remote vision system and the second being a drogue
    disconnect that they are working on fixing. The Under Secretary
    of the Air Force went to Seattle last week for a deep dive with
    Boeing, and we have asked them to put their A team on this to
    get the problems fixed and get the aircraft to the Air Force.
        Mr. Wittman. Okay. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome to the Secretaries Esper, Spencer, and Wilson.
        Secretary Spencer, my question is for you. 2017 was
    challenging for the Navy, particularly with regard to the
    maintenance of the fleet. Numerous articles and GAO [Government
    Accountability Office] reports discussed the maintenance
    backlog for surface and submarine vessels.
        I continue to be perplexed at the Navy's mixed messaging on
    the state [of] readiness in regards to depot-level ship repair.
    The 2017 Strategic Readiness Review highlighted that the
    constrained ship repair capacity is inadequate to meet the
    demand. Yet when we asked if the ship repair capability was
    insufficient to meet requirements in the Pacific, the response
    was that the Navy did not agree with this.
        With 60 percent of our naval fleet operating in the Pacific
    region, what is the Navy's plan for depot-level ship repair in
    this area and is it a priority?
        Secretary Spencer. Congresswoman, we have had discussions
    on this and I appreciate your question. Obviously, depot-level
    maintenance is key to the Navy. You have heard me earlier as I
    was answering questions that we need to get the proper
    resourcing facing off our ability to access availabilities in a
    timely manner to get what I call the battle rhythm of
    maintenance and ships out in the fleet back to normal.
        We believe that in the North American market, with going
    back to appropriately funding availabilities and having the
    discipline to access those availabilities, we do have the
    capacity to get the fleet back on its feet and out the door.
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Secretary, then would you say it is
    adequate or inadequate?
        Secretary Spencer. Between public and private, I believe it
    is adequate.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Another question I have for you,
    the fiscal year 2018 NDAA also required the Navy to report to
    this committee on depot-level ship repair in the Western
    Pacific. Earlier this year, I asked that you provide periodic
    updates on the progress. So, what is the status of this report,
    and when do you expect for the report to be completed and
    transmitted to this committee?
        Secretary Spencer. I would hope that this report,
    Congresswoman, be ready by the end of spring, giving you the
    update that you need about the assets available.
        Ms. Bordallo. Good. Good. All right. My second question,
    Secretary, in 2011 the DOD made the ``net negative'' commitment
    to reduce land holdings on Guam as part of the relocation of
    the U.S. Marines from Japan.
        Last year, the Navy submitted a report to this committee
    regarding the status of net negative, which included eight
    additional parcels pending transfer to Gov-Guam [Government of
    Guam] totaling some 114 additional acres. This commitment for
    the military to hold less land on Guam is key to maintaining
    support within our civilian community. So, will you commit to
    providing me and the committee with an update on the status of
    the Navy's efforts to return these eight parcels?
        Secretary Spencer. I will.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. And additionally, I introduced the
    Guam Land Return Act yesterday that included seven additional
    properties requested by Gov-Guam agencies and Guam families for
    consideration as part of the net negative pledge. So, will you
    commit to reviewing these parcels for me?
        Secretary Spencer. We will commit to review it,
    Congresswoman.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And I still have a little time.
        This question is for the panel as it relates to your area.
    After years of concern regarding readiness shortfalls and the
    impacts of sequestration, I am concerned that the 2019 budget
    request may not appropriately balance long-term readiness
    recovery through modernization with near-term efforts through
    sustainment and maintenance.
        So, with regard to the fiscal year 2019 budget, how will
    the request support near-term readiness recovery and are there
    specific areas in the operations and maintenance accounts such
    as weapon systems and so forth. Could you help with this
    readiness recovery effort?
        Secretary Esper. Ma'am, we are putting substantial sums of
    money into both O&M [operations and maintenance] for near-term
    readiness and, of course, additional dollars for modernization
    account as well, double-digit spending if you will. And so, we
    are confident that this funding is sufficient for us to lay the
    groundwork to build the next generation of fighting vehicles,
    aircraft, et cetera.
        At the same time, the essential piece for us, we believe in
    the Army is to reform the current acquisition process. So, we
    are putting a lot of effort into that, most notably the Army
    Futures Command which started this summer which will help us
    maximize every one of those dollars.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And for the Air Force, I have no questions. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here this morning. And my first
    question will be for Secretaries Spencer and Wilson and then a
    couple of follow-ups. And I think I know the answer to this but
    it's important to put it on the record.
        Under the previous administration the number one stated
    mission of the various branches, well, of the Department of
    Defense, was the nuclear enterprise and its role in providing a
    strategic nuclear deterrent.
        Can you confirm that under this administration and under
    your stewardship, for the parts of the triad that are under
    your purview, that that continues to be our number one mission?
        Secretary Spencer. I can confirm to you, Congressman, that
    for the United States Navy in our understanding of the total
    NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] and National Defense Strategy, it
    is. And I can show you by data what I mean by that. The number
    one acquisition program in the United States Navy is the
    Columbia platform, which is the undersea leg of the nuclear
    triad. And that is our primary focus for the primary platform.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, one of our core missions is the
    nuclear deterrent and I believe that a safe and secure and
    reliable nuclear deterrent has helped to keep the peace since
    the Second World War. In the Air Force budget we are
    responsible for two of the three legs of the triad. Our budget
    includes the modernization of a long range standoff weapon
    which is the replacement for the air launched cruise missile,
    the modernization of the B-52s, the continued development of
    the B-21 bomber, as well as the ground based strategic
    deterrent, which is the replacement for the Minuteman III.
        The one part that is not often focused on in the nuclear
    deterrent, but is funded in our budget as well as the Navy's,
    is nuclear command, control, and communication and that part is
    also modernized in this 5-year period and it's an extremely
    important part of the nuclear deterrent.
        Mr. Lamborn. Would you go as far as to say that these
    things you just described are your number one mission or at
    least that nothing is higher than those missions?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, I would say nothing is higher than
    those missions. The Air Force provides global reach, global
    power, global strike, global mobility. So we provide a lot of
    things to the joint force, but there is nothing higher than the
    nuclear deterrent.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I appreciate those answers. And
    Secretary Wilson, I am really glad to see that we are going to
    have more money in the upcoming budget for nuclear
    modernization and for catching up in space. Will there have to
    be trade-offs though with the rest of your budget to accomplish
    those things? Or will that be able to be done with new money?
        Secretary Wilson. So with respect to the nuclear deterrent,
    as I mentioned we are doing modernization of two legs of the
    triad and also nuclear command and control. With respect to
    space, we are not catching up. The United States of America is
    the best in the world at space.
        And our adversaries know it. In any future conflict, we
    expect that they will seek to deny us the use of space as part
    of the--in any crisis or conflict. So, what we are doing in
    this budget is accelerating our ability to defend our assets on
    orbit.
        The Air Force operates 76 satellites, of those 30 are GPS
    [Global Positioning System]. We are moving to jam-proof, or
    jam-resistant GPS. We also operate satellite communications,
    about 25 of the 76 satellites are satellite communications. We
    are moving towards jam-resistant satellite communications. So
    across the board and then we have things that we are doing to
    defend other assets on orbit. So we are moving to defendable
    space so that we can deter and defend our assists on orbit,
    which we did not have to do when we initially built this
    architecture. It's a challenge, but we are meeting that
    challenge.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And I am really glad to hear that. To
    accomplish that and the acceleration you talked about, and I am
    totally in support and really happy to see that. But do you
    anticipate any trade-offs to get there or not?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, there are always trade-offs in any
    budget. We deeply appreciate the increase in the top line for
    defense, which has allowed us to meet many of our missions and
    try to do so cost-effectively, because our obligation is to
    take every dollar that you have appropriated for us and try to
    do the best we can to defend the country.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Tsongas.
        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good morning to our witnesses. It is good to have you
    here. Secretary Spencer and Secretary Wilson, I first wanted to
    address the ongoing physiological episodes occurring in the F/
    A-18 community and increasingly in other aircraft throughout
    the Navy and the Air Force.
        There have been two recent incidents that underscore the
    urgency and persistent nature of this issue. In January, an EA-
    18 Growler aircraft experienced a failure in the environmental
    control system causing temperatures in the cockpit to plunge to
    negative 30 degrees, resulting in a layer of ice covering the
    instrumentation and windows, rendering the pilots almost
    completely blind according to the report.
        Both pilots survived, but suffered serious frostbite
    injuries. Most recently, two Navy F/A-18 pilots died after
    ejecting from their aircraft near Naval Air Station Key West
    just last week.
        Now, while the cause of this latest incident has yet to be
    determined, I am gravely concerned not only about our efforts
    to correct this ongoing problem, but also about the impact it
    may be having on the recruitment, retention, and confidence
    level of the pilots we ask to fly this aircraft. It is vitally
    important that we get to the root of this ongoing problem as
    soon as possible.
        And in particular, Secretary Spencer, I encourage the Navy
    to maintain the constancy of effort and expertise to help get
    at the bottom of this and help solve it. It is just a
    statement. It is something we have been monitoring in the
    Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee.
        I hear from families quite often about it. And in a recent
    meeting with the Chief of Naval Operations there was a young
    pilot in the room who herself had had three physiological
    episodes while flying for the Navy. So something we have to
    stay on top of and just wanted to make that statement.
        Switching topics, Secretary Esper, I commend you and Army
    leadership for establishing a Futures and Modernization Command
    within the next year. Too often, too many years and too many
    taxpayer dollars have been misused in developing capabilities
    that the military services ultimately determine are no longer
    relevant in the face of rapid technological change and a
    changing threat environment, oftentimes just as you are about
    to make a very important investment and move forward.
        This problem impacts all the services, but two recent
    examples are top of mind: the Army's network modernization
    strategy and the Air Force's follow-on JSTARS [Joint
    Surveillance Target Attack Radar System] program. The services
    may well learn from programs that are cancelled or head in a
    new direction.
        But the amount of time, the amount of money, and in
    particular the amount of talent we waste in learning those hard
    lessons is of great concern, particularly, when the reasons
    behind these course corrections were foreseeable, had our
    Nation's greatest innovators had a seat at the table. So with
    that said, Secretary Esper, how do you aim to get at this
    problem through the proposed Futures and Modernization Command?
        How will the command work through anticipating what
    capabilities we will need in the future? The threats are not
    always as unknown as sometimes suggested. And equally
    important, what capabilities our adversaries will have in a way
    that is better than our process.
        And you said today, the focus is to save money, but to make
    sure we are more effective, more lethal, you have a more
    effective, more lethal Army. How do you see the Futures Command
    and modernization command achieving that goal?
        Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, the Army Futures Command
    will likely do two things. One, we'll have the talent inherent
    from both military and civilian to look deep into the future
    about what the strategic threats and the operational
    environment may look like. That in turn will help inform the
    material solutions that we may need in that future state. And
    like----
        Ms. Tsongas. How will that change compared to what you do
    now? What will be different about that?
        Secretary Esper. What we find now is that capability--the
    need to look into the future often gets lost because of the
    demands of the present. And by putting that responsibility in a
    separate command, and just focused on the future, the sense is
    that we will have greater focus on the future and not get lost
    by the present.
        There will be another organization responsible for
    maintaining focus on the near fight. The other part of what
    Futures Command will do, of course, is to consolidate the
    entire acquisition process, achieving unity of effort and unity
    of command, which is essential to holding people accountable
    and to making the system as efficient and as effective as
    possible.
        And in that way we can line up everything under a single
    commander, whether it's from the concept to the requirements
    process, to the material development plan, all the way through
    engineering, manufacturing, development, sustainment, testing,
    et cetera.
        We will bring all those people together upfront. And more
    specifically to the point you raised, and we are doing this now
    in the cross-functional teams, is we bring everybody to the
    table early, to include the private sector and academia where
    need be, to get those best ideas that are happening out there.
        Ms. Tsongas. I think it requires a deep dive, and to do
    that you have got to have people whose job and life has been
    focused on looking ahead.
        Secretary Esper. That is right.
        Ms. Tsongas. And not just solving a near-term problem as
    has been too often the case. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Spencer, this is more of a request. I know that there
    is a proposal to draw down either the Mercy or the Comfort, one
    ship operates on the east coast, one in the west. If those
    current ships are not the right platform for the mission, I can
    certainly understand that. They are very old. But I just want
    to reiterate my support for that mission and tell you that when
    I was in Djibouti, the Chinese had a hospital ship over there.
    Certainly providing health care to countries I believe is a
    vital part of our soft power.
        And look forward to meeting with the Navy about how they
    intend to carry out that mission if the Mercy and the Comfort
    are not the right platforms for that.
        Secretary Spencer. Rest assured, Congressman, that is front
    of mind. 2021 is when we have our first decision point, but
    obviously we are going to address it prior to that.
        Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
        Secretary Spencer. We will keep you informed.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Secretary Esper, Fort Stewart, we have plenty of room for
    another security forces brigade or a full brigade. I hope that
    you will consider Fort Stewart for any additional platforms or
    teams I should say. Obviously very close to the Savannah Port.
    Easy getting in and out of there. And we would love to have the
    additional men and women in Georgia.
        Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Scott. Madam Secretary, Secretary Wilson, you talked a
    little bit about sustainment, the 3D manufacturing, additive
    manufacturing, predictive analysis, and how we can use that for
    sustainment operations and speaking of acquisitions. Would you
    expand on that a little bit and include in that how we are
    going to handle the intellectual property contracting and the
    data?
        It seems to me that no private sector company would pay
    somebody to develop a computer program for them, and then find
    out at the end of the contract that they didn't actually own
    the program, and how the Air Force is addressing those issues?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, with respect to intellectual
    property, this is one where we may need to work with the
    Congress. We are pushing the limits of our negotiations on
    intellectual property on new contracts upfront.
        What we do find is that when we are trying to maintain
    older equipment, when we go out with requests for parts, that
    many of the manufacturers are no longer in business and then we
    realize we don't have the intellectual property for the door
    handle on the back door of a KC-135.
        And so, we then--and in some cases, the A-10 is one
    example, the prime contractor is not even in business anymore.
    So we are actually trying for our contracts going forward to
    get more of the data rights over time.
        There are a lot of different ways to negotiate that. But if
    we can do that we think we can reduce the cost of sustainment
    over time by keeping competition in place and by being able to
    get other people to build parts when companies go out of
    business, which they do over the 20-year or 30-year period for
    a piece of equipment.
        With respect to additive manufacturing and advanced
    manufacturing in general, we think it has tremendous promise
    for maintaining weapon systems and for the long logistics
    pipeline. So instead of having 30,000 parts, you have material,
    and you can make the parts as you need them. We think there is
    tremendous opportunity there.
        Mr. Scott. Yes, ma'am. I represent Robins Air Force Base,
    and with the CNC [computer numerical control] machining and 3D
    printing that can be done, as long as you have got the
    schematic and the raw materials you can manufacture the part
    right there as you need it.
        So, I certainly appreciate all of your service. Look
    forward to continuing to work with you. And with that I yield
    the remainder of my time.
        The Chairman. Mr. Norcross.
        Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
        Last year, we had General McDew, TRANSCOM [U.S.
    Transportation Command] commander, talk about some of the
    challenges he faces each and every day. And one of the items he
    talked about that keeps him up at night are the refuelers, we
    heard some questions earlier today.
        We go back in time, late 1950s, our KC-135s came online.
    And in the early 1980s, the KC-10s. We have been looking at a
    replacement plane for those refuelers for about a decade.
        Secretary Wilson, we are here talking about acquisition
    reform. Given that the dates for these KC-46s have slipped from
    August of 2017 to January 2018, we are not sure what exactly
    the timeframe is now.
        What would you do differently in the acquisition process to
    avoid some of the issues that we are looking at right now?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, one of the first things to point out
    is that it is a fixed-price contract with Boeing. So they are
    not getting any more money from us.
        Mr. Norcross. But the timeframe?
        Secretary Wilson. But the time is an issue and schedule is
    an issue. When they had the last slip of schedule we got
    consideration from them, so they gave us--they basically
    compensated the government for their lateness on the schedule.
        I expect that that will be an issue in the coming months
    with Boeing as well for these most recent slips. We will also
    probably have to keep the KC-10s on longer unless they are able
    to catch up with producing aircraft once they get the line
    clear and get these problems worked out. And I expect that we
    will be working with them on that as well.
        Mr. Norcross. But in terms of moving forward, what would
    you have done differently if we faced the challenge of picking
    a new contractor today? Would you have structured it different?
    Would you put certain deadlines? I mean, this is a serious
    issue as you well know, as anybody who flies a plane knows. How
    could we avoid it next time?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, I do think that there is a place
    here for fixed-price contracting. And I think that in this case
    having done a fixed-price contract with Boeing was the right
    thing to do. And they are not--and we have other contracts
    where quite frankly I think we have more risk and we don't have
    a fixed price.
        I do think that in this case, one of our frustrations with
    Boeing is that they are much more focused on their commercial
    activity than they are in getting this right for the Air Force
    and getting these airplanes to the Air Force. And that is the
    message we took to them in Seattle last week.
        Mr. Norcross. So as you pointed out, there is a fixed price
    in--from the dollars and cents that is great. But extending out
    the two craft that we talked about, three additional years at
    minimum?
        Secretary Wilson. I----
        Mr. Norcross. You wouldn't change a thing in----
        Secretary Wilson. No, I share your frustration, sir. I was
    not here at the time and I guess I have not thought in deep--I
    am not the kind of person who thinks about what I would have
    done in the past had I been here.
        I do not really think that way too much. My focus right now
    is to get the aircraft from Boeing and get them up there
    flying, so that we can modernize the fleet. We currently have
    457 tankers; that will grow to 479. And as the KC-46 comes
    online, we will retire the KC-10s.
        Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Byrne.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Spencer, good to see you. I listened very
    carefully to your opening remarks and I appreciate two words I
    heard loud and clear, one was people and the other was,
    urgency. In your written testimony you say that the 30-year
    shipbuilding plan sets, quote, ``The conditions for an enduring
    industrial base,'' close quote.
        Industrial base is people. The people that work at the now
    just seven shipyards to build the Navy, the Navy ships.
    Unfortunately, your acquisition plan for small surface
    combatants fails to provide for an enduring industrial base. In
    fact, it will erode the industrial base for those ships. The
    Navy requested only one littoral combat ship [LCS] for fiscal
    year 2019 before the transition next year to the frigate.
        Now, the threshold problem is that Navy was supposed to
    have gotten the frigate done for fiscal year 2019. And that
    predates you. But you used the word urgency, the Navy has not
    had urgency about this. So we are in the conundrum we are in
    right now because of a lack of urgency. And I have to tell you,
    Mr. Secretary, since you have come onboard I haven't seen the
    Navy pick up the urgency on this program.
        In fact, I see the opposite. I think you are slowing down.
    In fact, some people from the Navy have been to the shipyard in
    my hometown and said they want to know what happens if it
    slides further from fiscal year 2020.
        So, I think the urgency is missing there. Both of these
    shipyards that are making LCSs now are telling us that if we go
    to one littoral combat ship that they will have a dramatic
    erosion of the industrial base.
        They will lay off thousands of shipyard workers and would
    look at the prospect of losing one or both of those two
    shipyards, shrinking the number of shipyards from seven to
    five. That is the industrial base.
        Now, Admiral Neagley, who is the LCS program executive
    officer, I know you have renamed that program, but he was at
    the time when he said this. He has testified that the optimal
    sustaining rate for both shipyards is a total of three ships
    per year, and that is where we have been authorizing and
    appropriating in the last several years.
        At the beginning of this month, Assistant Secretary Geurts
    said before this committee that, quote, ``Certainly, one LCS a
    year is not near the optimal rate,'' close quote. And said
    further, ``That this will probably cause some work turndown in
    those yards as we build back into the frigate,'' close quote.
        And you yourself said to the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee just a little while ago that the purchase of a
    single LCS was, quote, ``Not optimal,'' close quote. Okay. You
    may say that you are concerned with the enduring industrial
    base, but it seems to me you have overlooked the industrial
    base problem we are facing this year.
        So please tell me, sir, why we in Congress should accept a,
    quote, ``not optimal,'' close quote request for the littoral
    combat ship program.
        Secretary Spencer. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I
    could not disagree with you more about urgency and I would like
    to invite you over for lunch and show you the programs we are
    doing.
        We are going to bring the frigate on from first discussions
    in 2018 to contracts award in late 2019 and get that thing out
    the door in 3 years after that. I would like to see a
    comparison to any other platform we have done on that timeline.
        And that is what is happening under my tutelage just so you
    know. But to address the question at hand which I totally agree
    with you, we have to have a balanced flow through the
    industrial base.
        The way that we are looking at it now, I can only deal with
    what I am funded directly in the budget request. If in fact,
    and we have had success right now of finding the dollars in
    reformation inside the Department, can I allocate those dollars
    for other platforms.
        I am being told, yes, now, I can do that. And that is what
    we are doing. If you look at the $650 million that we actually
    extracted from de-obligation discipline, that would be an
    example of something that could be put towards another
    platform.
        That is the portfolio management we are struggling with. I
    totally understand where you are coming from. I am working
    within the confines that I have. Is my desire to keep everybody
    healthy? Yes it is. Will we work to get everyone healthy? Yes,
    we will do everything within our bounds.
        Mr. Byrne. Well, I appreciate and I accept your offer for
    lunch, by the way. Be happy to come over there. I was listening
    to some of the questions to Secretary Wilson. Ten years ago
    last month, the tanker was awarded to a different company, a
    company that has produced a tanker that is fueling American
    jets when we are working with our allies in NATO in Australia.
        If we had gone with that company, we would have a tanker
    right now. You have got programs at Wisconsin and Alabama that
    will produce your frigate for you, right now. You do not need
    to go to other companies.
        So I can't wait to have our lunch because I look forward to
    talking to you about how we can avoid the mistake the Air Force
    made when they did what they did on the tanker program, so that
    we can have a frigate quicker and substantially under the cost
    that we are hearing from the Navy. With that I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Moulton.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a question about, we have had a lot of talk about
    cyber and artificial intelligence, and we mentioned briefly the
    conflict in space. We have not specifically mentioned China's
    development of anti-satellite weapons and how they now claim to
    be able to take out the majority of our satellites within 28
    hours, 48 hours rather at the beginning of a conflict.
        These are game-changing developments in our strategic
    balance. My question to the service secretaries is how are you
    working to address these as a whole? And how are you
    coordinating your development of AI, of cyber capabilities, of
    autonomous vehicles, and whatnot amongst yourselves?
        Secretary Wilson, would you start?
        Secretary Wilson. Thank you, sir. Let me start out with the
    cyber side. In our budget, we actually look at what are the
    biggest challenges we are facing on cyber. One of them is the
    area of joint cyber warfighting.
        And for us, we actually have $71 million in our budget for
    joint cyber warfighting command and control systems. And so,
    that is intended to meld together the different cyber tools we
    have so that a commander can see everything and be able to
    apply those to the fight.
        With respect to space and your comment with, specifically
    with respect to Chinese capabilities, without going into too
    much detail the things we worry about are jamming, direct
    ascent anti-satellite weapons, which the Chinese demonstrated
    in 2007, and they also have claimed certain co-orbital
    capabilities. Our job is to ensure that we deter any attack on
    our satellites, we are able to defend when someone attacks our
    satellites, and we are able to continue to operate in spite of
    any country's attempt to interfere with satellite
    communications.
        There is not a military mission today that does not in some
    way depend on space. And I think all of us at this table
    understand that. And it is our obligation to accelerate our
    ability to defend those assets on orbit and to make clear to
    any adversary that if they attack us in space, we will respond.
        Mr. Moulton. Madam Secretary, you said earlier that it is
    clear to our adversaries that we are the unequivocal leader in
    space. Do you feel confident today that we have the resources
    to defend against such a Chinese attack?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, I would like to go into some detail
    with you in classified session on that matter if I could.
        Mr. Moulton. Okay.
        Secretary Spencer.
        Secretary Spencer. If I look at earlier in the testimony
    that we were here, Secretary Wilson hit the nail on the head.
    We as three secretaries are meeting with regularity, and one of
    the first programs that we decided to focus on was S&T.
        We put our top three or four programs that we are working
    on, and ironically, I think three of them overlapped. And we
    are now working with Mike Griffin and others to see how we can
    best pool our dollars to make sure that we are going in the
    most effective and efficient manner most expeditiously, rather
    than going up three stovepipes separately.
        Mr. Moulton. Secretary Spencer, China has made an
    unequivocal statement that they intend to be the world leader
    in AI, in artificial intelligence, by 2020 or 2030. Are you
    prepared to counter that statement? Do you think----
        Secretary Spencer. I think we have to. And we have to put
    the resources against it. If I look at the assets available to
    us, the Naval Postgraduate School is a fine example. It's a
    national treasure that we need to leverage in this area.
        Mr. Moulton. Secretary Esper, if I may change subjects
    briefly because I am running out of time, I am concerned about
    numerous reports that my office has received about a reduction
    in training standards of our ground forces.
        Now, this applies, Secretary Spencer, to reports we have
    heard from the Marines as well. But if you could answer, do you
    intend to allow any reductions in training standards, which
    seems to me would counter the emphasis that you have put on the
    need to have a ready force?
        Secretary Esper. Thank you, Congressman. We are not
    reducing training standards. If anything we are increasing
    them. For example, we are looking at a new physical fitness
    test that will improve across the board the physical fitness of
    our soldiers and prepare them for the demands of combat.
        We are looking at a change to basic training that would
    extend it and also put additional skills in there and a
    crucible type exercise at the end. So there are a number of
    things that we are doing to enhance the readiness of the
    soldier both physically and tactically and with their skills so
    that they are ready----
        Mr. Moulton. Secretary Spencer, can you just comment
    quickly on the reports of the Infantry Officer Course in the
    Marine Corps lowering the standards?
        Secretary Spencer. Yes, no standards are being lowered,
    Congressman. One of the things that we did do was we amended
    the actual logistics on how people go through the IOC course,
    but standards remain the same.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. McSally.
        Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to first note for the record that I remain strongly
    opposed to the Army's decision to close down Apache battalions
    in the National Guard while at the same time growing attack
    aviation battalions from scratch in the Active Duty force.
        As I have said many times, this wastes millions of dollars,
    thousands of years of specialized experience invested in
    hundreds of pilots and maintainers. We went to the mat to fight
    for more resources for our military over these last months.
        And the very week the budget deal was signed into law, a
    combat ready unit in Arizona was told to transfer its Apaches
    and shut down. And a Pennsylvania company will come home from
    deployment and lower their flag.
        I don't want to take the rest of my time to hear again the
    justification for this decision, but I want to note for the
    record my very strong opposition.
        On to another attack asset. Secretary Wilson, 2 years ago
    we sat in a similar hearing with previous Air Force leadership
    arguing strongly about the need to keep the A-10 Warthog. We
    won. Since then the A-10 has been pivotal, shwacking ISIS
    [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria], deployed to the European
    defense, been ready south of the DMZ [demilitarized zone], and
    we have now been sent back to Afghanistan.
        I am grateful for your support for this critically unique
    capability, including funding for the A-10 in the last two
    years' budget request and the commitment to the re-winging of
    the remaining 109 of the 281 A-10s that need it.
        There have been some reports though that divestment will
    still commence in a few years and other public statements
    saying it will fly well into the 2030s and beyond. So can you
    state for the record how long you plan to have the A-10 in the
    inventory?
        Secretary Wilson. Ma'am, we expect the A-10 to continue
    flying at least until 2030. The fiscal year 2018 budget, if the
    omnibus comes out in the way that we expect it to, will restart
    the line for the re-winging and will include enough money for
    about 4 more re-wings on top of the 170-plus that are already
    re-winged.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget request includes $80 million
    for additional re-wingings of the A-10. We will go out for a
    bid, but we think that will get us between 8 and 12 more in
    fiscal year 2019.
        Ms. McSally. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. And I
    want to--I know you mentioned in your testimony but if you have
    any insights on in order to conduct the National Defense
    Strategy, we are down to now 55 fighter squadrons, we used to
    have 134 fighter squadrons around Desert Storm, and many of
    those squadrons are actually 18 PAA, primary aircraft assigned,
    versus the 24 PAA we had in the past.
        So how many fighter squadrons do you think you need in
    order to execute the National Defense Strategy?
        Secretary Wilson. Congresswoman, we currently have 56
    fighter squadrons. We have just gone through a 53-day deep-dive
    exercise on readiness. And we are also looking at the total
    number of squadrons required to execute the National Defense
    Strategy.
        And so, we are doing that over this year leading up to the
    fiscal year 2020 POM [program objectives memorandum]. I would
    say that one of the things on readiness that we are really
    focused on is the 301 operational combat squadrons and how do
    we better support the structure that we have.
        The guidance in the National Defense Strategy was to
    increase capability before we increase capacity. In other
    words, make sure we have got ready forces now before we just
    try to expand force structure.
        Ms. McSally. Great. Thanks. So you expect when you will
    have a sense of how many squadrons you----
        Secretary Wilson. Ma'am, I think we need to do that in
    preparation for the fiscal year 2020 budget submission, which
    for us is the over the next 6 months.
        Ms. McSally. Okay, great. I know there has been some
    discussion as to whether that will, as you are growing, if we
    keep the A-10 into the inventory which I appreciate, well into
    the 2030s whether that will be the nine squadrons that we
    currently have or going down to the six.
        I am concerned at the rate that will be re-winging the
    remaining 109 that we are going to have a bathtub and lose that
    capability, so can you comment at all about where that fits in
    there, and are you looking to build squadrons back from 18 to
    24 PAA in the process?
        Secretary Wilson. Ma'am, one of the issues on 18 to 24
    aircraft per squadron is what does it do for readiness,
    particularly when you do split operations which you understand
    better than--certainly better than I do and a lot of other
    people.
        And that is one of the things we are looking at when we are
    going into a high-end fight. And one of the things we have seen
    is that over the last 17 years we have been cannibalizing the
    Air Force to roll forces forward on a mature infrastructure and
    command and control.
        That is not what we are being asked to do in the new
    National Defense Strategy. So how do we organize ourselves for
    that high-end fight, and it affects A-10s as well as all of our
    other aircraft.
        The other thing that I would also mention with respect to
    squadrons is that we have the continued funding in our budget
    for the light attack aircraft, which is not a substitute for
    the A-10, but could expand the number of squadrons that we have
    in this 5-year period.
        And our intention is to try to use light attack aircraft to
    reduce the operating tempo on fourth- and fifth-generation
    aircraft that should be focusing on training for the high-end
    fight.
        Ms. McSally. Great. Thanks. I am over my time.
        The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank you all for being here. All of you have mentioned
    that we need to take the necessary steps such as investing in
    modernization and further improving the acquisition process to
    ensure our service members have the best capabilities and
    training for mission success wherever they go.
        However, one of the most important responsibilities is not
    just that they are ready to fight, but ensuring that they are
    healthy and fostering positive morale and well-being. And a
    part of that is looking at the conditions of their daily lives.
        We are focusing on modernizing our capabilities, but I also
    want to make sure we are also taking a close look at the
    conditions where our service members eat and sleep. For
    example, I represent Camp Roberts in my district. It is a
    National Guard base where they train and house soldiers and
    Marines year-round. Many are trained and housed at Camp Roberts
    before they are deployed. And what concerns me is that they are
    allowing these service members, we are allowing these service
    members to sleep in facilities that are World War II era. And
    many of which I believe should be demolished and replaced. Some
    of these buildings are contaminated with asbestos and honestly,
    I believe this is unacceptable. I am fully aware these
    conditions are prevalent among a number of bases and
    installations.
        And I understand military construction funding is all but
    vast. But as we look to modernizing the military, this is an
    area that cannot be ignored. Is this something that services
    are focusing on? Is there a capital improvement plan? Are there
    any timelines where our investments are focused as priorities?
    And how are we ensuring that our service members are not just
    being provided the best equipment and training, but the best
    accommodations?
        Secretary Esper. Thank you, sir. I will take a response to
    that question first. As I travel around the Army, and I have
    done a lot of that in the last 3 months, I spend a lot of time
    talking with soldiers across all components. And in my
    conversations with soldiers, we talk about these types of
    issues. And with regard to the Guard, I know there are those
    concerns out there with regard to facilities. So, I am not
    familiar with the situation at Camp Roberts. What we do do is
    endeavor as we look at our military construction projects to
    make sure that we bring all of our soldiers' living conditions
    up to a certain standard. I think the Guard prioritizes within
    their component, but this is something I will take back and go
    look at Camp Roberts and find out the specifics there, because
    I have not heard about this situation.
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman, as far as your Navy-Marine
    Corps team, when we talk about quality of life and specifically
    infrastructure, interestingly enough, when I talk about
    infrastructure and address it, it is under the readiness
    column. We truly believe that not only well-being of our
    people, well-being of our equipment, et cetera and the
    infrastructure that supports it is a major component of
    readiness. It has always been an anathema to me that we fund at
    70-plus percent.
        We have moved it up. We are going to fund this year at 80
    percent of the needed requirement.
        But, this is where we get down to the painful nature of
    portfolio management as to where dollars should go. It is
    readily apparent not only with our soldiers but out in the
    Pacific Northwest at the shipyards, we went and saw people who
    are working on lathes with tents over them because of what was
    falling off the ceiling above them. Thank God we have workers
    that can actually put up with those conditions and keep
    producing for us, but we have to focus on the infrastructure,
    yes.
        Mr. Carbajal. The last thing I will ask all of you and if
    we run out of time, if you could get me some answers, you know,
    we always hear about the continuous process improvements that
    all the branches are taking to modernize, to modernize our
    acquisitions process, all kinds of things that we are doing.
    But because of change of commands, how do you ensure that there
    is continuity of implementing priorities and implementing these
    continuous process improvements within personnel so that they
    could withstand change in their commands at different levels?
    How do you case manage that as branches?
        Secretary Esper. If you are talking writ large,
    Congressman, what we do is we have very established metrics, if
    you will, with regard to readiness that assesses training,
    equipment readiness, personnel deployability, et cetera with
    hard metrics that we continue to try and make more and more
    objective.
        We do the same with regard to infrastructure in terms of
    the conditions of barracks or quarters or buildings. And, so
    the enduring piece of that is of course those metrics
    complemented by the fact that, you know, as the civilian
    workforce, which is fairly steady and not changing as much as
    uniform military, gives us also the means to track and ensure
    there is continuity throughout the process.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, I am out of time. If you can get
    me that in writing, I would appreciate it.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        The Chairman. Mr. Kelly.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretaries, for being here. It is quite an honor to have all
    of you here at the same time.
        First of all, Secretary Wilson, I disagree that 50 percent
    of us would have thought of their mothers. I think that number
    would be closer to 90 percent, if not greater. And I truly mean
    that. They are the protectors of all our families and I think
    your number--I think it was well said but I think the numbers
    were too low.
        Second, Secretary Esper, I want to go back to the Apache
    issue. You cannot do 18 ships in a Guard unit and 24 in an
    Active Duty unit and tell me that they are the same. That is
    just not true. If we are going to buy this One Army, we have
    got to look the same across the board. We can't do it with
    Charlie models while the new Active guys get Echo models, that
    doesn't work.
        And so, we have the best maintainers and pilots in the
    world in the Army National Guard, Apache pilots. They have more
    experience and our maintainers have more experience than their
    Active counterparts and I would just ask that we really push to
    make sure that we do not do away with that combat aviation in
    the Army. And I know you are all working on it, but I think ARI
    [Aviation Restructure Initiative] got it wrong and I think the
    18 versus 24 ship is not a fix and I think long term it is
    going to cause issues. So, I just hope you will relook that.
        Second, I want to talk about engineers. We have been
    talking about new engineer equipment since I joined and got
    commissioned as an engineer lieutenant in 1988. And we are
    talking about new short gap crossing and wet gap crossing and
    all those things and we have all kind of plans and equipment,
    but we have never implemented any of those. And so, we still
    have the same bridges that we had when I was a second
    lieutenant in 1988, the same AVLB [armored vehicle launched
    bridge]. There is technology that is stronger, lighter, quicker
    that we can do.
        Sometimes though I think we forget about our engineer, our
    gap crossing, and if we do not have mobility or freedom of
    movement, we cannot do anything. And so, I hope that the Army
    will look at not just talking about what the new plans for our
    mobility is, but look at the bridging requirements that we have
    in some theater of operations. We won't always fight in Iraq
    and Afghanistan.
        And, I really do not need a question. I hate that. But, I
    think you are doing a great job. Continue that, but those are
    two things. And, I do want to touch one more thing on as far as
    how we live as the Guard; let me just tell you, many times when
    a Guard unit mobilizes, they live in lesser conditions that the
    Army would not even live in. And if it is because we are
    practicing being remote, I am fine with that as my 155 soldiers
    are about to do at Bliss. But if the Active Component is not
    doing the same thing, we need to fix that. And we do not need
    to ask the Guard guys to live in tents when the Active guys are
    living in nice barracks.
        So, I just want to make sure it is for the right reasons
    and thank you so much for your service.
        Secretary Wilson, ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance], the JSTARS, that is a mistake. Let me tell
    you, when you have a thirst for intelligence as all our
    services have and we are talking about taking a platform out of
    service to have something that replaces it in 2035, yet the
    requirements are not going down, that is not an acceptable
    answer for a guy who lives and dies by the intelligence on the
    ground.
        So, can you tell me there is a plan in place to do
    something for the intelligence that JSTARS is currently
    collecting between now and 2035 when the replacement starts
    coming online?
        Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir. One of the things that makes
    this possible is in fact the assessment that we will continue
    to fly JSTARS through the mid-2020s. So what we are doing here
    comes in three increments.
        The first increment is kind of now to 2023 where we will
    have the current JSTARS. We will build additional MQ-9 Reapers
    that have ground moving target indicators. We will modernize
    the E-3G AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System] system
    including support for the new ground moving target indicator
    software and we will enhance their Link 16 capability which has
    to do with their communications as well as building additional
    space-based capability with the National Reconnaissance Office.
    So, that is the first increment.
        The second increment starts in----
        Mr. Kelly. If I can let you finish the other, I will just
    tell you, I think there is still an ISR capability gap from
    2025 to 2035 that we can't afford and I am sorry, but I wanted
    to get with Secretary Spencer real quickly.
        This hospital ship is a big deal and the same thing, we do
    not need to be talking about what we are going to do in 2021
    about removing something from the inventory. We need to have a
    replacement before we remove that, whether that means upgrading
    what we currently have or getting something else.
        My understanding is, and I may be wrong, tell me if I am,
    is that we have a national security requirement for two
    hospital ships, yet we are not going to meet that starting in
    2021 because we are retiring one of the two hospital ships, and
    again, that is a capability gap in soft power and also serving
    our ally or serving us at a time of war.
        Just can you assure me we are not going to have a
    capability gap in hospital ships?
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman, I can. Much like the
    Ticonderoga, it was coming up for decommissioning and we put a
    SLEP program, a service-life extension program on. We will
    address this and make sure that we do not have the gap.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank each of you for not only your service to
    our warfighters and their families, but also to each of you for
    your prior service in uniform. Thanks for being here today.
        Secretary Esper, it was a pleasure meeting you, sitting
    down with you 2 or 3 weeks ago in my office. I would like to
    follow up on the Army Futures Command and ask you a question or
    two about that.
        You identified that as one of your three priorities to
    improve modernization. You said today as well as in your
    written statement, it is integral to reforming our acquisition
    process. Your Under Secretary McCarthy has sort of
    characterized it as a realignment. You have characterized it as
    a consolidation. General Murray testified last month on the
    Senate side. He testified that it is projected, the Army
    Futures Command is projected to be at least initially
    operationally capable by June or July of this year and fully
    operational next year.
        When are we going to see a concept plan or some other
    document that sort of, at least in an outline form, lays out
    the purpose, the organization, the resources, what the
    realignment and consolidation might consist of? When will see
    something like that?
        Secretary Esper. Sir, the Under Secretary of the Army will
    be coming up this week to brief the committee staff on it and
    members who are interested.
        Mr. Brown. Great. Well, while you are here, can you make
    your best elevator pitch? Because there are some skeptics,
    there are a lot of supporters, what is the pitch, why a new
    command and new processes and not just improving current
    processes in existing commands?
        Secretary Esper. Well, I think--I do not need to cite some
    of the past failures the Army has had with regard to major
    acquisition programs. When you look at the various reports that
    have come out in the past such as the Decker-Wagner report and
    testimony of experts in committees such as this over the years,
    they cite a number of consistent items, first of which is a
    requirements process which is unwieldy and is in some ways
    never-ending. And they speak to a culture of risk aversion, and
    they speak to a lack of accountability. So those are just three
    things. There is a longer list, of course.
        What the Army Futures Command proposes to do is to take
    these disparate functions that are currently spread out across
    the Army and align them. So you could either say you are
    aligning them or you are consolidating, but the bottom line is
    you are putting under a single commander who is now responsible
    for materiel acquisition from concept all the way through
    production.
        Sustainment will remain with Army Materiel Command. And so
    that is what you have. So, you have a single person
    responsible. You have accountability. You have unity of effort,
    so now a single commander can work that technology from, again,
    concept S&T, all the way through. You can utilize the lessons
    we have learned so far with regard to the use of the cross-
    functional teams whereby you bring everybody to the table at
    the beginning of the process. You bring the PMs [program
    managers]. You bring the contractors. You bring the budget
    folks. You bring the testers all the way around and you make
    sure they sit at the table when we discuss requirements then
    and there, so that you don't get requirements----
        Mr. Brown. But, we will see something next week?
        Secretary Esper. You will be briefed if you want and
    certainly the staff will be briefed this week on some of the
    details.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you.
        Secretary Spencer, I had some of that good Navy coffee. I
    was aboard the USS Gonzalez just last week in Norfolk. And I
    was on the bridge. I was on the bridge on that destroyer. Last
    year I was on the USS Nimitz, and as you know that space is
    very busy, a bridge on a destroyer or an aircraft carrier. It
    is sophisticated, a lot of requirements, a lot of technology, a
    lot of moving people.
        That same day I visited a simulator, a bridge simulator,
    and we looked at the USS Porter scenario which happens in the
    Strait of Hormuz and now they will be training on the
    Fitzgerald and McCain simulation.
        My concern that I want to raise to you is I was struck by
    the disparity in the level of, let us say, modernization on a
    real deck or bridge and the lack of sophistication in the
    simulators. It would be like asking an F-35 pilot to train on a
    F-4 Phantom simulator. I would just ask that you take a look at
    that and as we are fielding a variety of vessels in the Navy
    that we give our seamen an opportunity to train in what I think
    would be a more realistic scenario, which is a space that more
    closely resembles what they will actually be driving on the
    high seas and in the narrow straits.
        Secretary Spencer. Congressman, I look forward to inviting
    you over probably this fall to see some of the new training
    aspects that we are going to introduce to the fleet. The CR
    [Fleet Comprehensive Review] that was signed out by the CNO
    addresses our biggest dollar request out of the CR which is
    bridge commonality, to bring the technology amongst all the
    surface ships we have into some sort of uniformity and the
    training that go along with that.
        Mr. Brown. Great. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank each of you for your service. You are
    serving at an incredible time. This is the time where Congress
    will be reversing the cuts and diminishing of our capability in
    our military and providing funding for the purposes of
    rebuilding, trying to address the issue of readiness, trying to
    address the issues of stalled modernization and then look to
    the future as to what other modernization that we need to do.
        Now some of our programs that we have currently ongoing,
    Madam Secretary I want to ask you a question about the F-35, a
    couple of questions. One, you know, as you know as we look to
    the F-35, one of the major criticisms are cost, and that
    relates both to production and to sustainment. We always think
    of a to-do list with respect to the contractors that are
    involved, but what things should we be looking to that are our
    responsibility that we could do better to help reduce those
    cost with the F-35, both in sustainment and acquisition.
        And then secondly, the Nuclear Posture Review recommends
    that the United States retain the longstanding ability to
    forward deploy dual-capable aircraft. Part of that is dependent
    upon our NATO allies and right now our NATO allies are going
    through the process of determining whether or not they
    participate in the F-35 in its dual-capable aircraft
    capability.
        Right now, Belgium is in the process of making a decision
    that may not go in our favor, and certainly would affect that
    ability. So if you could give us a description of what should
    we be doing on--what is our to-do list with respect to reducing
    cost. And secondly, on the dual-capable aircraft, what else
    should be on our to-do list to ensure that our allies
    participate and that we are able to keep that important
    capability of forward-deployed aircraft?
        Secretary Wilson. Thank you, sir. With respect to the F-35,
    there really are two pieces; one is the purchase price and the
    second is sustainment. With respect to the purchase price, for
    the F-35A by fiscal year 2019, we expect the purchase price to
    be less than $80 million a copy for the F-35A, which actually
    compares favorably with fourth-generation aircraft. So the
    capability that we get with the F-35, particularly when you
    combine it with other systems in the air, is actually quite
    good value for the money.
        We are continuing to drive down the cost of purchase, and
    as you know, this is a joint program that is managed by the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense for all of the services. But
    I have been pleased to see their seriousness in their
    negotiating with Lockheed Martin to drive down the cost of the
    purchase price.
        We are now shifting to look at the sustainment issue. And I
    think as customers for the F-35, we have been a little bit
    frustrated at how quickly or not quickly we have moved forward
    to look at sustainment and making sure that we have the parts
    and competition for parts going forward to drive down those
    costs.
        I think the F-35 is probably a good example of where we can
    use new ways of getting parts and supplies, and we had a
    discussion about that here before on intellectual property, and
    new ways of doing advanced manufacturing and advanced
    logistics, predictive maintenance to drive down the cost of
    sustainment and to get airplanes in the air at a cheaper cost.
        With respect to the allies and the dual-capable aircraft,
    if I could take that question for the record, I will get you a
    more full answer.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Mr. Turner. Thanks. Now turning to the Army, Mr. Secretary,
    part of our European Reassurance Initiative also included
    forward deployment of capability, and we found in undertaking
    that that a number of the allies did not have infrastructure
    that would allow basic equipment to move across their borders
    or even through their country, which of course inhibits our
    ability overall to defend that territory.
        As part of that, the European Reassurance Initiative had a
    number of costs that the United States taxpayer was billed to
    fix those things. How do we capture what those bills were and
    make certain that our allies fix those permanently?
        Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, you outlined a very critical
    problem with the European theater, as I have been able to talk
    to units that come back from training there and during my
    visits there, you are correct. There are infrastructure
    challenges that prevent or inhibit intra-theater movement, so
    it is everything from inadequate bridging, paperwork,
    insufficient road networks. And I have talked to European
    allies about it and I know it is something they are addressing.
        With regard to dollars in ERI [European Reassurance
    Initiative] or EDI [European Deterrence Initiative] that goes
    specifically to that, I am not familiar with that, so what I
    would like to do is take that back for the record and get you
    an answer.
        Mr. Turner. Great, thank you.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Mr. Turner. Madam Secretary, we undertook a study on Space
    Corps that is in the [inaudible] National Defense Authorization
    Act. We expect that report to come out. What are some of the
    things that you would expect to be in the report?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, we gave you kind of an update on
    where we are in doing that assessment, but the assessment won't
    be complete until August. But I think one of the areas where we
    are making a lot of progress right now is focusing on
    acquisition, and Space and Missile System Center out in
    California is leading that effort to look at how do we move
    faster with acquisition in space and then how do we
    systematically focus on innovation in the area of space.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gallego.
        Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        This is a general question for the panelists. Russia will
    likely never actually present us with an Article 5 violation,
    instead they will act like petulant little teenagers as I have
    said this before many times in this committee and just try to
    do just go below a full invasion, but enough to I think cause
    havoc for our allies, whether it is hybrid warfare or other
    pre-stage invasion plans.
        So what are we doing specifically to fortify ourselves, our
    NATO allies as well as our near-NATO allies, such as Sweden and
    Finland, in preparation for some type of action of that nature
    that Russia would likely take? And we could just start with
    Secretary Esper and move to the right.
        Secretary Esper. Well I think as we have discussed, funding
    such as the European Defense Initiative gives us a lot of
    additional funds to conduct these heel-to-toe armored brigade
    combat deployments every 9 months to and from the European
    theater. That provides great assurance to our allies where they
    are deployed.
        We also have forces deployed in Poland providing
    reassurance and deterrence there, particularly in critical
    elements. We support some of the enhanced forward presence
    packages in the Baltics. We are conducting multinational
    training at the Joint Maneuver Readiness Center in Germany. I
    had the privilege of being there where a Polish brigade was
    conducting multinational training with a U.K. [United Kingdom]
    Recce [Reconnaissance Corps] unit, Italian artillery unit, U.S.
    forces stationed under it.
        So we are doing a lot of things from the training aspect to
    deployment. I spoke earlier today about how we are upgunning
    Stryker vehicles and putting in an additional brigade combat
    team set in Europe, again to further enable our employment of
    forces in theater and further deter any type of Russian bad
    behavior.
        Mr. Gallego. Great. Secretary Spencer.
        Secretary Spencer. Looking at Secretary Mattis' compete,
    deter, win, he has his three primary drivers which are combat
    credible forces, a constellation of allies, and reform. Under
    constellation of allies, I can tell you, the Department of the
    Navy has been working very closely with both allies and
    friends, specifically when it comes to the Russian irritant. If
    I could bring you into a different environment, I can tell you
    things we are doing with Norway, the U.K., et cetera, but well
    known that we are talking to them actively, supporting them any
    way we can both in training, equipment, strategy, and policy.
        Mr. Gallego. Secretary Wilson.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, I will just add to that, the
    National Defense Strategy is driving what the Air Force is
    doing and the refocus on both the Russian and the Chinese
    threats in addition to the European Defense Initiative, or
    under the European Defense Initiative which my colleagues
    mentioned, the Air Force is putting an effort this year into
    five bases which would be forward bases that we would rotate to
    in the event of conflict in Europe.
        We also have a bomber presence that we have been rotating
    through and exercises in Europe and I think those are part of
    demonstrating to our allies that we are good allies and
    partners and countries that have allies thrive and those that
    don't have allies do not.
        Mr. Gallego. Thank you.
        Secretary Wilson, I just actually met with the former
    Supreme Allied Commander General Breedlove and he published an
    issue briefing calling for a significant beefing up of our air
    defense plans and capacity in the NATO airspace. What are you
    proposing to enhance our capabilities and capacity to respond
    to threats--to those threats and to our allies also?
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, our budget proposal includes I think
    it is $11 billion total for next-generation air dominance. It
    is a family of systems approach that intends to be able to gain
    air superiority including in contested domains, which is what
    we find in Europe and also in the Indo-Pacific. In that family
    of systems, there will be renewed emphasis on electronic
    warfare which we do in concert with our allies from the Navy.
        But when you think of air dominance and air superiority, no
    country can put a wooden block over in its airspace. It is more
    like Swiss cheese. And our effort as an Air Force is to try to
    exploit the holes and take down those air defenses so that we
    can operate as a joint force in Europe.
        Mr. Gallego. Thanks. And Mr. Spencer, if we control the
    sea, we control, obviously, our fate. Specifically talking
    about Russian aggression, what are we doing right now in terms
    of our wider national security strategy to make sure that we
    have dominance in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, and the Wadden
    Sea to counter what I would say is Russian aggression right now
    for later stage war?
        Secretary Spencer. Topically, Congressman, I can address
    some things right now, but I would like to do it in a different
    environment. We can get much more granular. But needless to say
    it is both in the air, on the sea, and under the sea where we
    are focusing on all movements in that area.
        Again, in concert with both our other two services when it
    comes to on land, in air, it is a fairly well tightly woven
    tapestry.
        Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gallagher.
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There was a comment made at the beginning of the hearing, I
    do not know if it might have been the ranking member, but to
    the effect of this will likely be the largest the defense
    budget will be over the course of the decade. I hope that is
    not the case because that means we would have failed in our
    effort to rebuild the military. And I just bring that up to
    suggest that the topline fight, while we may have won an
    initial skirmish here, is going to be increasingly important
    and more difficult precisely because we are giving you more
    money going forward, and we are going to need your help in
    making the case.
        And I would like to follow up at some point on Moulton's
    question about lowering of standards for IOC [Infantry Officer
    Course] because it is my understanding that we have got rid of
    the initial INDOC, but I don't want to spend much of my time on
    that.
        Secretary Spencer, I would like to ask about the 30-year
    shipbuilding plan because I do think it is an unusual document.
    And, by that I mean, on one hand, in no uncertain terms, it
    states that a plan to achieve today's warfighting requirement
    in three decades represents an unacceptable pace with the
    worldwide threats that we are facing.
        And I just want you to elaborate if you can on the factors
    that make this plan unacceptable from the Navy's perspective
    and why the Navy put forth a plan in the first place that
    failed to meet this basic threshold.
        Secretary Spencer. The whole reason for that document to be
    put out there, Congressman, was to have the discussion that we
    are having right now. We wanted to put forth the two curves
    that we talk about in that document. One is a curve that is
    sustainable within the budget and portfolio management that I
    have been charged with, and two, if in fact we wanted to
    enhance that curve, it allowed you to see where the industrial
    capability was to tackle that.
        I cannot sit here and balance, to be very frank with you,
    the portfolio I have, or I will rephrase that. I believe we
    have balanced the portfolio we have in the best way we have
    with the resources available to us, even with the top line you
    have provided us in that plan. Could we do it better, could we
    do it stronger if in fact there were the resources? Yes, we
    could.
        Mr. Gallagher. But does the Navy believe that it is in fact
    unacceptable for us to get to 355 ships in three decades, in
    less than three decades or?
        Secretary Spencer. If we are charged with the task that we
    are charged right with now, it is going to be difficult, yes.
        Mr. Gallagher. Okay. And then just on what my colleague,
    Mr. Byrne, brought up. I know we have had this conversation
    many times, but I just do want to emphasize that if we zero out
    additional work as we are currently at risk to do, as in no
    congressionally added LCS or EPFs [expeditionary fast
    transports] and no foreign military sales in fiscal year 2019
    to fill the gap, in your opinion, Mr. Secretary, would only one
    ship of any class, in total between the two yards be an
    acceptable outcome with respect to the health of the industrial
    base?
        Secretary Spencer. That is what I was speaking to
    Congressman Byrne about is, again, it is in our purview to find
    the resources necessary to balance the health of those--any of
    the industrial base that we have. Does one work? No, one is
    definitely not optimal. Can we sit here within our bounds and
    try to move foreign military sales to the left? That is a
    lever. Do we have the ability to actually find resources to
    fund a different platform internally within our budget? That is
    a lever.
        Those are the things that we will be looking at.
        Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that and really look forward to
    working with you on that. I think as I have said to you many
    times, we all want the same thing. We want a robust and open,
    we want the best frigate possible, and we want to keep the
    yards alive, to make that competition robust, and also to make
    good on the investments we have made there.
        Secretary Wilson, there was a memo reportedly directing the
    Air Force to share less with the public. I am paraphrasing
    grossly, I apologize, but I am running out of time. But I am
    sure you are aware of the memo, and I just want to know, did
    concerns driving that memo originate within the Air Force or
    were they in response to external direction in the Department?
    And if so, have the other services received the same direction
    to be more closed-mouth for whatever reason, perhaps
    operational security?
        Secretary Wilson. That memo came from the Chief of Staff
    and I, and it has to do with operational security. We have an
    obligation to be transparent, but not with things that our
    adversaries could use against us. And it was time to do a reset
    and a retraining of our commanders and public affairs officials
    which we have done.
        Interesting to me, the press did not know that we had done
    the reset until they found the memo, so it obviously did not
    affect how we were engaging with the media. What we do need to
    make sure is that our commanders do not release operational
    details that are classified or that could help our enemies.
        Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that. I think we all want the
    same thing. At the same time though, and I know I have said
    this to the Navy before, we are really going to need your guys'
    help in making the case publicly for what the fleet of the
    future looks like, what Air Force of the future looks like, so
    that we can have that public support to make the argument for a
    higher top line in a very difficult security environment going
    forward. With that I yield.
        Secretary Wilson. That is my intent, sir.
        The Chairman. Mr. Hice.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Esper, let me start this with you. In your
    written testimony, you stated that an important part of the
    Army's effort to maintain readiness for major combat operations
    includes this security force assistance brigade.
        Can you explain further as to why SFABs are so important
    for readiness in the Army?
        Secretary Esper. Yes, Congressman. If you look at what the
    situation has been in the last several years as we had provided
    assistance and training to our Afghan partners, what that has
    done is consumed an infantry brigade combat team, 3,000-plus
    personnel who are separated from their command, not conducting
    the missions, and therefore quickly losing their readiness. And
    in the context of what we face now, consistent with the
    National Defense Strategy, less prepared to fight these high-
    end fights if you will.
        So the solution, the idea of the Chief of Staff, was to
    create a security force assistance brigade that requires fewer
    troops, in this case 816 versus 3,000-plus, that were also
    especially trained and equipped to do this type of training.
    And the personnel are specially selected. They have already had
    a company command or battalion command and so they come with it
    with their own skills as well, and the view is that this would,
    again, relieve the demand and therefore help preserve the
    readiness of our infantry brigade combat teams that have been
    doing that type of training for years now.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you. And I would just urge as well your
    consideration for Fort Stewart on that. I think we are well
    prepared for that.
        Let me ask each of you. Let me do this each of you real
    quickly because all of you have mentioned the problems with
    acquisition. Of course we have made great strides in trying to
    deal with acquisition reform on this side. But each of you have
    mentioned it and I have done a little bit of research and it
    seems that the Section 809 Panel has come out with some
    interesting ideas to try to streamline the process.
        So my question is, are each of you looking at their
    recommendations?
        Secretary Spencer. Yes, Congressman. I can tell you that we
    are. Secretary Wilson hit on something that we are really kind
    of drilling down in the Navy and that's OTAs, other
    transactions. We have had that ability to do that and it has
    always kind of intrigued me that we have not grasped that with
    greater vigor. And I think it really is just an educational
    process amongst the acquisition professionals.
        Secretary Esper. Okay. So we are making much greater use of
    OTAs for examples as well. I will tell you from over fiscal
    year 2017 and fiscal year 2016, we have seen a 60 percent
    increase in our use of OTAs. It reinforces the approach, the
    new approach we are taking whereby we prototype, test, fail,
    prototype, test, fail, repeat until we, again, refine the
    requirements and really get a good understanding of the
    technology. So that authority has been very helpful.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, with respect to other transactional
    authorities, our light attack experiment was done under other
    transactional authority and we went with four pages of
    requirements. We went from a letter of invitation to having
    aircraft on the ramp to test in 5 months. But it is not just
    light attack. We are doing it in command, control,
    communication, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. We
    have a consortium through the Air Force Research Lab that have
    plug-and-play capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance.
        We have more than 70 companies involved in that effort. We
    use an other transactional authority for that. And we also put
    together what we call a space enterprise consortium. We
    announced it in January. We put $100 million into that pot to
    do other transactional authority agreements to get some
    innovation going and prototyping into space. We now have, in 2
    months, we have over 100 companies that are part of that
    consortium using other transactional authorities.
        Mr. Hice. So you are looking at those recommendations?
        Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir, we are.
        Mr. Hice. Okay, all right. And Secretary Wilson, you have
    already hit on this, so let me hit on the other two secretaries
    as it relates to cybersecurity and cyberwarfare priorities, how
    have you prioritized this in the fiscal year 2019?
        Secretary Spencer. It is definitely a priority. If you look
    at both the Navy and the Marine Corps, Navy Digital Warfare
    Office, the Marine Corps, the Cyber Warfare Office. We are
    totally front and center on it, staffing it and standing it up.
        Mr. Hice. Okay.
        Secretary Esper. Sir, I was very pleased when I came into
    this job a little over 3 months ago to find that the Army has
    stood up an Army Cyber Command. We have a cyber MOS [military
    occupational specialty], a cyber branch. We are building
    capabilities. We have 42 teams across the Army right now with
    another 21 coming onboard in the Guard and Reserve, and then
    thinking about how we employ them in our formation, so the Army
    is all in on cyber and we are putting the monies necessary to
    make sure that we can conduct both defensive and offensive
    operations.
        Mr. Hice. Well, I am glad to hear that. Obviously, what is
    happening at Fort Gordon with the cyber command is enormously
    critical and we all know the importance of cyber across the
    board, so I thank each of you for that.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bacon.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
    leadership here today and what you are doing.
        One of the things that we put in our NDAA priority list out
    of our offices are trying to speed up the delivery of
    electronic warfare capabilities. For example, the replacement
    of the Compass Call. So I look forward to working with you on
    that, because I think it is really needed. We have very old
    airframes flying out now and they are used nonstop every day.
        My first question to you is we talk to the service chiefs,
    they say our readiness levels are the lowest they have been
    since 1977. Now, with the new NDAA we have upped spending by 10
    percent and if we can hold this with inflation over the next 2,
    3, 4 years, what is your prognosis on when are we going to get
    healthy again? Is it going to take 3 years, 5 years? If we can
    hold it with this spending level with inflation.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, we are actually, and I mentioned it
    before, doing a deep dive on readiness to see if we can
    accelerate the readiness recovery, particularly with the
    frontline forces, the blunt forces if you will. I would say for
    the Air Force, readiness recovery is first and foremost about
    people. We lost 30,000 people in the Air Force in the wake of
    sequester, and we have hollowed out a number of units,
    particularly on the maintenance side of things, but also on
    logistics, and so we need to put people back.
        We are recovering on the maintenance side, but now I have
    got to season those people from being apprentices up to being
    master craftsmen. The second area is parts, spare parts, and
    spares. So we are putting a fair amount of money into that. And
    the third has to do with training, and having the right
    simulators and the right ranges to be able to train and prepare
    for the high-end fight.
        I think we just got this report from the readiness task
    force that we stood up, and I may have more information to
    share with the committee once we completely digest it as to how
    we think we can get back to readiness faster.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
        Secretary Spencer. If I am to look at the Navy, sir, every
    single major readiness account is funded either to 100 percent
    or industrial capacity except for infrastructure which is
    funded at 80 percent. The easiest algorithm to use for the Navy
    is cycle, deck-to-dwell, so we want to make sure we can get
    back on a deck-to-dwell both the Navy and Marine Corps for the
    quality of life for our sailors and Marines. And the same goes
    for our capital assets, to get them back into availabilities on
    a regular basis, hold the discipline of keeping those calendar
    days in place while also managing the demand signals from the
    combatant commanders.
        But I would say 2020 is probably the target we are looking
    for.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you. That is better than I thought.
        Secretary Spencer. That is not without a lot of work,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Bacon. We like you working hard.
        Secretary Esper. Congressman, the Army is more ready today
    than we were a year ago, that is the good news and that is due
    in large part to the support of Congress. Going forward, we
    anticipate meeting our readiness goal or the Chief does in the
    fiscal year 2021 to 2023 timeframe. That is assuming that we
    get predictable, adequate, sustained, and timely funding. So as
    we have talked earlier, the challenges of CRs is it inhibits
    that type of readiness growth.
        But we are on target in terms of people, equipment
    readiness, the training we need to conduct, and of course a lot
    of the moneys for fiscal year 2019 will go into upgrades and
    other improvements that we need to meet the National Defense
    Strategy. Again, that is barring no change in demand as well.
        Mr. Bacon. What I want to do is just make a point on this
    next topic I want to bring up. Each of you have installation
    authorities or are taking care of installations, say in Europe.
    One thing that has come to our attention is some of our
    installations in Europe are dependent on Russian gas, which
    does not make sense because they are why we are there and if
    hostilities or tensions rose, you could expect that gas to be
    shut off.
        So I just wanted to ask you to maybe take a look at that
    and see what kind of resilience we need there; it was in our
    most recent NDAA to analyze.
        Secretary Wilson, how are we doing on the pilot shortage,
    for one; and two, if I could, it's a related question, how do
    we know the bonus works, because when I ask the Air Force this,
    they will say well, this is our retention, but we do not know
    even if we did not have the bonus how many of those would we
    have retained anyway. Because I think there are other factors
    than the bonus such as new aircraft, flying time, and all that,
    so I appreciate your insights.
        Secretary Wilson. Sir, with respect to the pilot shortage,
    we were 2,000 pilots short at the end of the last fiscal year.
    Just so everyone understands, we take that risk, we underfill
    pilot positions in staffs and we are more than 95 percent
    covered in our cockpits. So we put people in our cockpits to
    keep our readiness high.
        We are trying to solve this with really two parts. One is
    to produce more pilots. We have a national shortage of pilots
    and the airline industry is hiring over 4,500 pilots a year,
    and it is very hard to get into an airline cockpit now unless
    you come from the military and a small number of crop dusters
    and other things. So we have got to produce more pilots.
        In fiscal year 2016, we produced about a thousand pilots.
    We are trying to grow our pilot production to about 1,400 a
    year. Second is retention and some of it is financial. Most of
    it is non-financial and quality of life, quality of service,
    and I am happy to follow up with you.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
        And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Cheney.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wonderful to see
    everybody and I appreciate your sticking around to the end or
    close to the end here.
        Secretary Wilson, my first question is for you. We have
    worked very hard to make sure that we are lifting those things
    that have handcuffed--in ways we have handcuffed ourselves,
    things like beginning now the process of getting the resources
    the military needs in order to begin to rebuild.
        One of the things I am very concerned about though is the
    INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty and the ongoing
    danger frankly that we put ourselves in. We heard just last
    week in open testimony here the extent to which our obligations
    under the INF Treaty are constraining research and development
    of hypersonic capabilities.
        So, could you talk a little bit about that issue in
    particular and how we get to a place where we recognize we are
    now the only nation in the world that is constrained by the INF
    Treaty, and how we get ourselves out from under that situation.
        Secretary Wilson. My colleague--my other colleagues may
    want to comment on this. I do not think it constrains our
    hypersonic research or our other research.
        Ms. Cheney. Maybe we can talk about that separately.
        Secretary Wilson. Yeah.
        Ms. Cheney. But last week, the open session testimony was
    very much that it has an impact and constraints because we
    conduct our research in a way that we are sure is not going to
    violate our obligations under the INF Treaty when deployed.
        Secretary Wilson. And let me take that one and get back
    with you.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Ms. Cheney. Second question, cyber and I appreciate very
    much the efforts and the points that you have made in terms of
    stressing what we are doing, all three secretaries, with
    respect to cyber. But we as a committee remain deeply concerned
    about the lack of a cyber strategy from the administration. And
    we are now 14 months in. We welcome the National Security
    Strategy, welcome the National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear
    Posture Review, but I would really like to hear from each one
    of you how you can be confident that you are in fact building
    the kind of force we need, kind of modern force we need in the
    absence of an overall cyber-operation, cyber-deterrent
    strategy. Secretary Esper.
        Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, we fully recognize the
    threats that are out there. We are doing everything we can as I
    meet with the leads of the cross-functional teams, what I am
    reinforcing to them is that at their level making sure that all
    of our systems are both hardened and resilient. At the same
    time, as we discussed, I am looking at how we address cyber on
    the battlefield to ensure that we are defensibly protected and
    have offensive capabilities.
        And then of course, there is the enterprise side of our
    networks making sure they are protected as well. So we are
    doing everything we can within our scope of authorities and
    what I have under title 10 at this point.
        Secretary Spencer. Congresswoman Cheney, it is a challenge.
    I will be very honest with you. I am looking down here, the
    Navy has $448 million over the FYDP for cybersecurity efforts,
    everything from hardening HM&E [hull, mechanical, and
    electrical] to base hardening, and then if we look at the
    Digital Warfare Office, $27 million in fiscal year 2019 and
    going up from there.
        We are doing what we can, but to be very frank with you,
    when it comes to the personnel side, we are going to have to be
    very creative to get the minds that we need to actually attack
    this and get down to it. We are going to have to come to you
    probably for some relief on DOPMA. We are going to have to have
    on and off tracks, we are going to have to have different
    abilities to attract people to get them in and after the
    problem.
        But as far as dollars and activity right now, we are
    focused on protection primarily and secondarily offensive
    actions.
        Secretary Wilson. I would highlight three things. One is
    that we are prioritizing. The first is we are charged by Cyber
    Command with producing 39 cyber mission teams, and we are on
    track to do that. In fact I think they all become fully
    operational this year. The second is when we look at what are
    the most important things we need to do, one of them is our
    network infrastructure is pretty old. We are shifting to
    enterprise IT [information technology] as a service so that we
    move a lot of the kind of enterprise IT, our email and those
    things to companies that provide that and taking our 1,700
    cyber people who are in uniform and putting--training them to
    be more cyber defenders, so we use their skills in a way that
    is beyond what they serve me in the help desk.
        The third thing has to do with cyber operational
    improvements, and the fiscal year 2019 budget for the Air Force
    puts $900 million into more tools and mission defense teams, to
    improve our cyber protection for our bases, but also for our
    weapons systems.
        Ms. Cheney. I thank you all very much for that and again, I
    know you are doing the best you can, but I think that it is
    very difficult to justify the fact that we are now 14 months
    into this administration, facing the kind of grave threat that
    we face, in particular from Russia and China, and have no
    official cyber policy. So we will continue to focus on that as
    a committee. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gaetz.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wilson, thank you for coming to my district
    recently to recognize the valor that was displayed downrange by
    several of my constituents. And I appreciate the time you spent
    with me during that visit.
        You will recall we discussed the Gulf Test Range in the
    eastern Gulf of Mexico and the fact that we currently enjoy
    Military Mission Line that preserves the eastern Gulf for that
    test and evaluation mission. As I sit here today, some of my
    colleagues are taking the position that that line ought to move
    further east, creating less space for the Air Force and the
    Navy in particular to engage in the training and testing
    mission that is so essential.
        You indicated to me at that time that there was no space
    between your view and the view that General Goldfein has placed
    into the record that the Air Force needs absolutely all of that
    space going forward for the missions that we have planned and
    those that we anticipate in the future.
        Has there been any change in the Air Force's view on that
    matter?
        Secretary Wilson. No.
        Mr. Gaetz. And can you describe for me some of the
    consequences, particularly as it relates to munitions testing,
    if we were to have less space as some of my colleagues have
    suggested?
        Secretary Wilson. We do testing of missiles off of Eglin as
    you well know, but we also do training over the Gulf. And I
    think, you know, I happen to believe that we should be able to
    exploit natural resources of the United States for our
    prosperity, but we also have to maintain our national security.
        If there are ways in which to do that going forward that
    allow for both of those things, of course the Air Force is very
    open to that. But once we lose the ability to train,
    particularly in fifth-generation aircraft and hypersonics and
    other things, it is very hard to get back, so we are very
    cautious about that.
        Mr. Gaetz. Has the Air Force reviewed any plan from the
    Department of the Interior or any other element of the United
    States Federal Government that would alter the position of the
    Military Mission Line that would still preserve the important
    work that you have described?
        Secretary Wilson. I have not personally myself.
        Mr. Gaetz. Are you aware of anyone within the Air Force
    that has been presented with such a plan to alter the Military
    Mission Line?
        Secretary Wilson. I do not know, but I can take that
    question for you.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Mr. Gaetz. And Secretary Spencer, I am also aware that the
    Navy utilizes the Gulf Test Range. Just this last week I spent
    time at Boca Chica Field and they were incredibly proud of the
    unique assets that the Navy has that maybe would not be able to
    be used in every setting, that is unique to some of the assets
    we have in the southeastern Gulf.
        Would a movement of the Military Mission Line concern the
    Navy?
        Secretary Spencer. It would. And I will tell you that
    professionally, there is no light in between Secretary Wilson
    and myself on this position.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you all. I would just end related to
    some discussion you all had with Mr. Bacon and Mr. Gallagher.
    At some point this week, we are going to pass or we are going
    to finally finish the fiscal year 2018 funding for the
    military. And we know how much will be spent in 2019 because of
    that budget deal, but it would be a mistake for any of us to
    leave the impression that this cap agreement and the money that
    flows from it fixes all our problems. It does not.
        And I recognize the point. We do not want to give the enemy
    our playbook and show our vulnerabilities, but on the other
    hand as Mr. Gallagher pointed out, we have got to talk frankly
    to the American people if we are going to have public support
    for continuing to work to finish our problems.
        And a lot of that responsibility falls on each of you for
    your respective services. So I just want to emphasize, we have
    got to manage expectations a little bit here. Not everything is
    fixed because we have a substantial increase in one year. The
    problems run deep and the closer--I see it. The closer you
    look, the deeper the problems are. And it is really important
    for each of you all to talk frankly about those problems and
    about what it takes to fix them.
        And Mr. Secretary Spencer, I just want to--I think your
    ship plan helps highlight that and I did not really know what
    was going on, I appreciate your explanations today. I think
    that shows the difference between what we say and what we are
    actually doing. And I think that is a useful thing.
        Ms. Murphy coming in late. Do you have a scintillating
    question that is just going to change the world?
        Mrs. Murphy. I am not sure that my question will change the
    world, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to get it in for the record
    if that would be okay.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Mrs. Murphy. Thank you. I, of course, I want to thank you
    all for appearing before the committee today and I also wanted
    to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this
    hearing on such an important issue. I wholeheartedly agree that
    the Department's traditional acquisitions process is too slow
    and cumbersome especially given the life cycle of tech today.
        Secretary Esper, I appreciated the opportunity to meet with
    you recently and I know that the Army is currently evaluating
    potential locations for its new Futures Command. Can you
    elaborate on the search process and highlight a few of the
    qualities that you feel are essential for this new
    headquarters?
        Secretary Esper. Yes, Congresswoman. The task force has
    developed a course of action for Futures Command and has
    completed that task. They are now developing a set of criteria
    upon which we would consider locations for the actual Futures
    Command. So that will be coming to me sometime in the next week
    or two for approval. And then beyond that point, we will start
    putting locations through that filter and seeing how things
    come out.
        There will be a number of factors, I think one of which of
    course will be easy access, quick access to very good civilian
    talent, so we could leverage those types of folks from
    academia, from industry, whatever the case may be in terms of
    either thinking about the future or thinking about materiel
    solutions that we need down the road.
        Mrs. Murphy. Thank you. And as you may know, I represent a
    district known for its growing prominence in the high-tech
    clusters of innovation such as modeling and simulation as well
    as world-class educational opportunities. The very things that
    you are talking about as far as the civilian workforce that is
    talented, hooked in with the second largest research and
    development university in the country. I think that it is
    critical that the Army Futures Command is located in such a
    center of excellence to capitalize on the existing academic,
    business, and workforce infrastructure.
        So thank you and I will yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. It is an important
    topic. Thank you all for being here, for answering our
    questions and for our chance to work together in the future.
    The hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 20, 2018

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

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 20, 2018

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 March 20, 2018

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

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN

        Mr. Langevin. In previous committee hearings, we've been told how
    AI and machine learning are helping to process, exploit, and
    disseminate enormous amounts of ISR data, and how we are working
    towards an increase in autonomous systems to provide logistics to
    forward units. These advancements need to continue, but I am also
    interested in how the services are using machine learning and
    automation to deliver cost-savings through better business practices
    and enhanced decision-making. Can you each describe how you are
    leveraging these technologies for internal benefit, not simply
    battlefield gains?
        Secretary Esper. There are several areas where the Army can use
    Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) to improve business
    practices and to enhance decision-making.
        Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning will be a critical
    part of the Army's Synthetic Training Environment (STE). Artificial
    intelligence (AI) and Virtual Humans with high fidelity Human Behavior
    Representation will be a critical part of the STE to create realistic
    autonomous or semi-autonomous Units (e.g., Blue Forces, Opposing
    Forces, and Role Players) that enable high quality training while
    reducing the overhead manpower requirements necessary to run an
    exercise. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning capability will
    be integrated into the Squad/Soldier Virtual Trainer's Heads Up Display
    3.0 to enable rapid terrain and data analysis; rapid and predictive
    decision making for Soldiers and squads through enhanced perception and
    target recognition; and AI allows for a ``thinking and improving
    enemy'' during training which will allow Soldiers and squads to hone
    their cognition skills at a much quicker rate. AI allows for
    exponential improvements with each train, rehearse, and fight event.
        The Army is also using AI/ML to enhance acquisition training for
    contracting operations and to develop individual competency models that
    can be used to map people to projects. The Army is taking a simulation
    with an integrated AI approach to create avatars that can interact with
    humans in a natural way to help them learn and improve acquisition
    functions, such as face-to-face contract negotiations, thus essentially
    tailoring workforce training by expanding adaptive instruction to
    training that would result in time savings and an increase in
    productivity in the workforce.
        The Army is using big data, predictive analytics, and artificial
    intelligence to improve demand forecasting and understanding readiness
    drivers in the supply chain, leveraging conditions based maintenance to
    predict maintenance requirements, optimizing the use of air transport
    in Second Destination Transportation requirements, and applying data
    science to find contracting efficiencies
        Also the Army is leveraging the advancements in AI/ML for cyber
    defense operations by developing automatic vulnerability detection,
    prevention, and remediation methods to provide proactive, network-
    level, rapid defense. We need to be able to identify and distill
    threats in real-time, and find the needle in the haystack. The Army
    expects to realize cost savings and improve decision-making by
    leveraging these technologies.
        Mr. Langevin. In previous committee hearings, we've been told how
    AI and machine learning are helping to process, exploit, and
    disseminate enormous amounts of ISR data, and how we are working
    towards an increase in autonomous systems to provide logistics to
    forward units. These advancements need to continue, but I am also
    interested in how the services are using machine learning and
    automation to deliver cost-savings through better business practices
    and enhanced decision-making. Can you each describe how you are
    leveraging these technologies for internal benefit, not simply
    battlefield gains?
        Secretary Spencer. The Department of the Navy (DON) is committed to
    improving the performance and cost effectiveness of its business
    processes and decision making through better use of data and advanced
    analytics. Machine learning offers clear benefits distinct from the
    promise demonstrated in warfighting mission areas. DON application of
    machine learning have focused on supply chain management consistent
    with our urgency to improve current readiness. These efforts are in the
    proof of concept phase and include:
          An algorithm was developed that automates an optimization
    in the allocation of aircraft parts. This algorithm allows the supply
    system to generate more immediate aircraft readiness, without any
    additional direct costs.
          Custom analytics was developed to monitor engine
    performances and revise maintenance schedules optimizing Military
    Sealift Command (MSC) engine plant operations.
          Machine learning software, using data from facility
    control systems, was utilized to deliver energy efficiency, predictive
    maintenance and operational savings.
          The integration of data from fuel sensors, flow meters,
    and transponders was automated to provide near real-time fuel
    consumption and levels. Machine learning is being incorporated in this
    process to increase efficiency in fuel distribution and storage.
          Advanced analytics was used to assess DDG-51 ship class
    readiness focusing on customer outcomes, improving supply support and
    increasing operational readiness.
        To expand analytical proofs of concept across more business
    functions and accelerate broader adoption of promising machine learning
    use cases, the DON has established a dedicated function under the Chief
    Management Officer to advance the enterprise use of data and analytics
    in decision making and reform.
        Mr. Langevin. In previous committee hearings, we've been told how
    AI and machine learning are helping to process, exploit, and
    disseminate enormous amounts of ISR data, and how we are working
    towards an increase in autonomous systems to provide logistics to
    forward units. These advancements need to continue, but I am also
    interested in how the services are using machine learning and
    automation to deliver cost-savings through better business practices
    and enhanced decision-making. Can you each describe how you are
    leveraging these technologies for internal benefit, not simply
    battlefield gains?
        Secretary Wilson. At this time the Air Force prioritizes
    researching technologies that will give our warfighters an asymmetrical
    advantage on the battlefield. The technology required to improve our
    business systems exists now in the commercial sector. Rather than
    develop our own unique systems we are in the early stages of adapting
    our business processes to rapidly acquire commercial or commercial-like
    technologies.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SHUSTER
        Mr. Shuster. The Army has been conducting a service-wide Munitions
    Readiness Study to ensure our inventories are sufficient to respond to
    future potential threats and conflicts. I understand that the Patriot
    Air Missile Defense Systems employs a mix of missiles to address a
    range of threats. The Guidance Enhanced Missile-TBM known as the GEM-T
    constitutes a significant portion of that inventory. Can you please
    comment on the Army's FY 2019 budgeting plans to recertify the
    inventory of over 1,300 missile to sustain adequate numbers of GEM-T in
    the face of emerging air and missile threats?
        Secretary Esper. The Army continues to increase Guidance Enhanced
    Missile-T (GEM-T) inventories with $12.97 million in the budget request
    for FY19 in support of GEM-C to GEM-T conversions. The Army has
    programmed GEM-T recertification starting in FY20 to ensure safe and
    reliable missiles.
        Mr. Shuster. The Army All Terrain Heavy Crane provides mobility,
    survivability, and counter-mobility support across the entire range of
    theater operations supporting Route Remediation Units, Maneuver Brigade
    Combat Teams, and Expeditionary Engineer Brigades. The crane provides
    the capability to load and unload containers, support base camp
    construction, and force protection. Although the Heavy Crane is a
    commercially off the shelf item, the modifications for Army
    requirements necessitate a specialized and separate workforce. How is
    the Army planning to address funding for the All Terrain Heavy Crane in
    FY 2019 and meet minimum production going forward?
        Secretary Esper. The Army is focused today on readiness and our six
    Modernization priorities to ensure our greatest capability gaps are
    addressed as soon as possible. The Army plans to procure as many All-
    Terrain Heavy Cranes as necessary to ensure operational requirements
    are met as opposed to focusing on a minimum sustainment rate. In Fiscal
    Year 2019, this equates to a funding request that procures eight All-
    Terrain Heavy Cranes, supporting eight Engineer Companies.
        Mr. Shuster. The Navy trains between 550 and 650 rotary-wing and
    tilt-rotor pilots annually for the Navy, Marine Corps, U.S. Coast
    Guard, and Foreign Military Partners at Naval Air Station Whiting
    Field, Florida. TH-57 Sea Ranger has been the training platform for
    over 30 years, averaging approximately 70,000 flight hours annually. In
    the Navy's RDT&E Budget Justification Book, it states, ``The TH-57
    Training System is experiencing obsolescence, diminishing manufacturing
    sources and material shortages, training capability gaps (as identified
    in the Capabilities based assessment Naval Aviation Undergraduate
    Flight Training), and increasingly expensive operating costs related to
    aging aircraft issues.''
        What is the current readiness status of the TH-57 aircraft, and is
    that readiness status impacting the Navy's ability to train Navy and
    Marine Corps helicopter pilots?
        In 2007, the Navy identified the replacement of the TH-57 as an
    ``Urgent Need.'' Is its replacement still an urgent need, and what is
    the impact of continuing to delay acquiring a replacement for the TH-
    57?
        Is the Navy on track with its program office and funding for a
    planned release of the TH-57 Request for Proposal in January-March 2019
    with award October-December 2019? If not, what can this committee do to
    assist?
        Secretary Spencer. Current TH-57 inventory is 80 percent of the
    original inventory and is spread across two distinct models (Bravo and
    Charlie). Each model has unique maintenance and supply requirements,
    and supports specific portions of the Advanced Rotary and Tilt-Rotor
    Training syllabi. Only 95 percent of the rotary and tilt-rotor pilot
    training requirement is being met given the available aircraft
    inventory and aggressive maintenance and supply management posture that
    is needed to produce training ready aircraft. Training shortfalls will
    be exacerbated by a 15 percent increase in student helicopter/tilt-
    rotor pilot demand that begins in FY 2019 and is realized through FY
    2025. Aging aircraft issues and parts obsolescence continue to impact
    aircraft readiness status. There is still an urgent need to replace the
    35-year-old TH-57. The immediate issues of obsolescence, diminishing
    manufacturing sources and material shortages are being managed, but the
    ability to maintain the late 1970's era avionics will not last past the
    end of FY 2025. Thus, deliveries of a replacement training helicopter
    are needed to start in FY 2020 in order to divest of the TH-57 as soon
    as technically and programmatically feasible. A delay in acquiring a
    replacement will erode aircraft availability as mission essential
    avionics begin to fail without the ability to effect repairs. In
    addition to cited sustainment challenges, the TH-57 cockpit
    configuration lacks relational relevance to fleet aircraft and degrades
    training or presents training gaps attributable to a lack of modern
    aircraft technologies and interfaces. The Navy is on track to release a
    Request for Proposals (RFP) in January-March 2019 (Draft RFP to be
    released October-December 2018 (Q1FY19)) and contract award in October-
    December 2019 (Q1FY20), which would be at risk under a Continuing
    Resolution. No assistance is required with managing the acquisitions of
    the new helicopter, associated training systems, or maintenance support
    systems.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
        Mr. Coffman. How does the Air Force plan to acquire light attack
    aircraft following the OA-X experiment. How quickly does the Air Force
    plan to seamlessly transition from experiment to acquisition, and would
    Congressional funding help in FY19 to speed up efforts?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is currently developing and
    reviewing potential rapid acquisition alternatives for the light attack
    aircraft. Of particular focus are rapid fielding and rapid procurement
    strategies that leverage existing capabilities and emphasize little or
    no development.
        At this time, Air Combat Command is finalizing the requirements for
    the light attack aircraft with a focus on operations in permissive
    environments. Also, the Air Force continues to examine force structure
    and funding options for this potential acquisition program. As the
    acquisition strategy is refined, the funding required to support the
    procurement of aircraft will be solidified.
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
        Ms. Stefanik. I understand the Army is making significant progress
    on the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP)--the Army's stated top
    aviation modernization program. ITEP will provide the Army with the
    next generation engine for the Black Hawk and Apache helicopters. The
    ITEP engine will increase power by 50 percent and fuel efficiency by 25
    percent, saving the Army billions of dollars while providing
    significantly increased capabilities for the Warfighter. Does ITEP
    remain the Army's number one aviation modernization priority? What is
    ITEP's near and long term development timeline? Are you planning to
    adequately fund ITEP in FY 2019 and beyond?
        Secretary Esper. Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) remains a
    top priority for our current fleets, providing our attack and utility
    helicopter fleets with significant increases in performance, fuel
    efficiency, and sustainability. ITEP is a bridge from our highly
    capable current fleets to Future Vertical Lift (FVL) platforms and has
    the potential to power certain FVL variants. We believe ITEP will
    achieve milestone (MS) B by 1st quarter Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19), which
    will allow development, building and testing of the capability. We
    anticipate that ITEP will achieve MS C in FY24, which will enable low
    rate initial production and initial operational test and evaluation to
    support initial operational capability in FY27. ITEP is fully funded in
    FY19 and across the Future Years Defense Program.
                                     ______

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HANABUSA
        Ms. Hanabusa. For fiscal year 2019, end strength for each of the
    services is expected to increase. It is estimated that total active
    duty end strength would go from 1.32 million service members to 1.37
    million, and the reserve component increasing from 817,000 to 821,000
    service members. How did DOD determine by what amount each service's
    end strength would increase? Can you provide the number that each of
    your respective services are increasing by? What type of skills are
    being sought for new service members for each of the services?
        Secretary Esper. The Army seeks to continue increasing end strength
    at a rate that allows growth in critical capabilities while maintaining
    readiness and quality standards in both accessions and retention. For
    Fiscal Year 2019, we are requesting an increase of 4,000 in the Regular
    Army. This increase is based on an analysis of the end strength the
    Army will require in order to fulfill the demands set forth in the
    National Defense Strategy. The Army will use the requested growth to
    increase capacity in capabilities like air defense and long-range field
    artillery, as well as combat enablers. Questions regarding other
    services of the Department of Defense are best answered by the Joint
    Staff and/or the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), as they have
    greater visibility over the other services' end strength increase
    efforts.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Secretary Spencer, in your testimony you mention that
    ballistic missile submarines are ``the most survivable leg of the
    nuclear triad.'' Can you elaborate on this statement and why you feel
    that this leg of the triad is superior than the other two?
    Additionally, if the two remaining legs of the triad are not as
    effective and/or adequate, shouldn't modernization focus on improving
    on and expanding the superior method, which you deem to be the
    ballistic subs? Given the tremendous costs involved in ensuring the
    effectiveness of our country's nuclear capabilities, how can you
    justify continuous investment in the dated and less effective
    components (i.e. land-based ICBMs and B-21 bombers) of our nuclear
    triad?
        Secretary Spencer. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reaffirms
    that the triad's ``overlapping attributes ensure the enduring
    survivability of our deterrence capabilities against attack and our
    capacity to hold at risk a range of adversary targets throughout a
    crisis or conflict. Eliminating any leg of the triad would greatly ease
    adversary attack planning and allow an adversary to concentrate
    resources and attention to defeating the remaining two legs.'' The NPR
    also reaffirmed the need to recapitalize each component of the triad.
    It states that the cost to recapitalize, ``while substantial, are
    moderate in historical terms and represent a small fraction of the DOD
    budget.'' SSBNs are one of three complementary legs of the strategic
    deterrent triad. On patrol, SSBNs are virtually undetectable. The
    COLUMBIA Class Program is Navy's number one shipbuilding and
    acquisition priority. The Navy is taking the necessary steps to ensure
    the COLUMBIA SSBN is designed, built, delivered, and tested on time
    with the right capabilities at an affordable cost.
        Ms. Hanabusa. For fiscal year 2019, end strength for each of the
    services is expected to increase. It is estimated that total active
    duty end strength would go from 1.32 million service members to 1.37
    million, and the reserve component increasing from 817,000 to 821,000
    service members. How did DOD determine by what amount each service's
    end strength would increase? Can you provide the number that each of
    your respective services are increasing by? What type of skills are
    being sought for new service members for each of the services?
        Secretary Spencer. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) directs the
    building of a more lethal, resilient, and agile force to deter and
    defeat aggression by great power competitors and adversaries in all
    domains and across the conflict spectrum. As such, the NDS determined
    the Military Services' end strength growth. The Active Navy end
    strength growth of 7,500 in FY19 is represented by the following skill
    sets: Student Billets; Officer/Enlisted Transient Prisoner Patient
    Holdee billets required to support Fleet Manning Wholeness; Littoral
    Combat Ship billets; 2 Cruiser crews; SOF Growth; Osprey aircrews;
    Recruiters; Expeditionary Sea Base crew; and Surface Warfare
    Comprehensive Review manpower recommendations. The Reserve Navy end
    strength growth of 100 in FY19 is represented by the following skill
    sets: Maintenance manpower for 2 new fleet logistics aircraft; Officer/
    Enlisted Theatre Anti-Submarine Warfare billets; and Fire fighters/EMS
    crews to augment base support billets. The Active Marine Corps' end
    strength growth of 100 in FY19 is represented by the addition of
    general combat service support skills (e.g., logistics, utilities, and
    supply) as well as data/cyberspace and intelligence enablers
    specifically trained to support Marine Special Operations Forces. These
    skills will provide required enabler support for existing Marine Corps
    Special Operations Command operational units. There were no Marine
    Corps Reserve Force end strength increases in the FY19 Budget Request.
        Ms. Hanabusa. For fiscal year 2019, end strength for each of the
    services is expected to increase. It is estimated that total active
    duty end strength would go from 1.32 million service members to 1.37
    million, and the reserve component increasing from 817,000 to 821,000
    service members. How did DOD determine by what amount each service's
    end strength would increase? Can you provide the number that each of
    your respective services are increasing by? What type of skills are
    being sought for new service members for each of the services?
        Secretary Wilson. Our FY19 budget request builds on the progress we
    have been making in 2018 to restore the readiness of the force,
    increase lethality, and cost-effectively modernize by continuing our
    growth to 680,400 Total Force Airmen--329,100 Active Duty, 107,100 Air
    National Guard, 70,000 Air Force Reserve, and 184,200 Civilians*. The
    growth will accelerate our readiness and provide more lethal Airmen to
    protect and defend our Nation. Our budget prioritizes long-term
    competition with China and Russia in alignment with the National
    Defense Strategy and moves the Air Force in the direction of multi-
    domain operations.
        The Total Force military growth between FY18 and FY19 is 4,700. The
    4,700 end strength growth includes 4,000 Active Duty, 500 Air National
    Guard, and 200 Air Force Reserve. The growth, as represented in the
    FY19 accession plan, consists of 1,600 for aircraft maintenance; 1,160
    for logistics, medical, and support career fields; 400 for rated and
    pilot production; 270 for operations in space, cyber, and others; 240
    for intelligence; 220 for career enlisted aviators; and 110 for
    Battlefield Airmen. This growth in Active Duty end strength is a part
    of our deliberate strategy to improve the manning in Air Force units.
        The 500-growth for Air National Guard includes 100 for aircraft
    maintenance; 100 for logistics and support career fields; 270 for
    operations in aeromedical evacuation, nuclear deterrence operations,
    rapid global mobility, global precision attack, and others; and 30 for
    intelligence.
        Air Force Reserve's 200-growth includes 115 for security forces, 50
    for intelligence and cyber, 31 for combat rescue, and 4 for rated and
    pilot production.
        In short, this investment strategy increases pilot production, adds
    operations and maintenance manpower to Remotely Piloted Aircraft and
    continues our manpower investment in cyber and intelligence.
    Additionally, the growth provides the inventory the Air Force needs to
    right-size our trainee pipeline; improves squadron health and
    readiness; and gives us the competitive advantage for Air, Space and
    Cyber superiority.
        *All AF civilians: including ARC techs and civilians in Combatant
    Commands, Defense Agencies and Field Activities where the AF is the
    Executive Agent.
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ROSEN
        Ms. Rosen. In Nevada we're proud to be home to Nellis AFB and
    Fallon Naval Air Station, the premier training sites for our nation's
    fighter pilots. I am very concerned about the pilot shortages facing
    the Air Force and Navy, with a lack of flight hours cited as the
    primary reason for pilots leaving the military for commercial airlines,
    particularly as they promote out of the cockpit and into an office
    space. How do we solve this problem and when can we expect to see
    improvements in pilot manning and squadron readiness?
        Secretary Spencer. Navy Aviation's inventory/accessions remain
    sufficient to meet operational requirements. However, declining
    retention in some communities presents challenges to aviation's long-
    term health. Leadership has identified a number of factors involved in
    the challenge to retain aviators including lack of flight hours,
    tactical training, and progression of qualifications, all associated
    with aircraft material readiness challenges. Last year, Navy
    established a readiness recovery team to address maintainer retention
    and training issues, spare parts availability, and depot level
    maintenance challenges contributing to decreased strike fighter
    aircraft availability. The team is identifying solutions in systemic
    supply, maintenance, manning and facilities shortfalls resulting from
    years of overutilization and underfunding. Consistent funding of
    readiness accounts across the Future Years Defense Program will be key
    to success. Additionally, aviators have consistently expressed interest
    in enhanced career path flexibility, opportunities for personal and
    professional development, and flexible, merit based, competitive,
    monetary incentives. Accordingly, Navy has:
          increased options for graduate school and fellowships
    through initiatives, such as Tours with Industry and the Career
    Intermission Program.
          begun evaluating changes in the legacy aviation career
    path to offer options, such as permanent flight instructor assignments.
          begun modernizing the officer fitness report which will
    help further improve flexibility in the relatively time-constrained
    career path; and
          increased the Aviation Bonus (for department head and
    command assignments) and Aviation Incentive Pay, applying a holistic
    approach that synchronizes targeted increases in flight pay and
    bonuses, in a mutually supportive fashion, upon attainment of major
    aviation leadership milestones, i.e., department head, command and
    major command, which effectively adds a ``merit'' component. Bonus and
    flight pay adjustments have been well-received, as initial ``take
    rates'' are a leading indicator of improving retention and manning
    readiness.
        Sustained support for readiness enabler accounts, including flight
    hour and aircraft spare parts, is critical to improving the quality of
    aviation service. Combined with personnel modernization initiatives, we
    remain cautiously optimistic that these changes will effectively
    address issues contributing to aviators leaving the Navy. It may take a
    number of years to noticeably impact fleet manning, but we are closely
    monitoring the effectiveness of these initiatives, and will make
    further changes as necessary.
        Ms. Rosen. In Nevada we're proud to be home to Nellis AFB and
    Fallon Naval Air Station, the premier training sites for our nation's
    fighter pilots. I am very concerned about the pilot shortages facing
    the Air Force and Navy, with a lack of flight hours cited as the
    primary reason for pilots leaving the military for commercial airlines,
    particularly as they promote out of the cockpit and into an office
    space. How do we solve this problem and when can we expect to see
    improvements in pilot manning and squadron readiness?
        Secretary Wilson. The Aircrew Crisis Task Force pilot recovery plan
    is designed to restore Air Force pilot manning to 95% by the end of
    2023. To achieve this, the Air Force is focusing on three main lines of
    effort: increased retention of current pilots, increased production of
    new pilots, and optimizing pilot requirements. Given the current
    conditions, once initiatives within the lines of effort are approved,
    funded, and implemented the Air Force should see improvements in pilot
    manning. Moreover, aircraft availability plays a major role in pilot
    production and is a critical part of readiness. Aircraft Availability
    must be improved to meet the increasing sortie generation requirements
    driven by additional pilot production and seasoning necessary to
    correct the aircrew crisis. The Air Force has embarked on an Aircraft
    Availability Campaign tied to the Aircrew Crisis Task Force focused on
    spares postures, spares forecasting, depot capacity, manpower
    utilization and policy. Through these efforts, we expect to see a 3-5%
    improvement in aircraft availability to support increased pilot
    production and seasoning within the Future Years Defense Plan.
        Ms. Rosen. Can you outline your top cybersecurity and cyber warfare
    priorities? How are you thinking about emerging technologies such as
    Artificial Intelligence, high performance computing, directed energy,
    hypersonics, and autonomy? How are you resourcing these technologies
    within your FY 2019 request?
        Secretary Wilson. Air Force top three cyber issues for 2019:
        1. Network and Weapon System Resiliency: Network infrastructure is
    antiquated and is failing at high rates. Additionally, we lack
    resources to defend base infrastructure and weapon systems.
          To improve network performance and resiliency, we are
    transitioning to Enterprise IT as a Service. The FY19 budget provides
    $223M to support initial implementation across the service.
          We are refocusing cyber Airmen to defense of USAF weapon
    systems and base infrastructure. The FY19 budget provides $82M to
    support Weapon System Cyber Resiliency.
        2. Improving Cyber Operations: By building upon the benefits of
    migrating to Enterprise IT as a Service. $900M in FY19 budget supports
    the Air Force in:
          Acquiring specialized tools to enhance USAF effectiveness
    in cyber
          Establishing Mission Defense Teams at Combat Wings to
    defend missions, facilities, and networks
          Accelerating cloud migration using additional $60M in
    FY19 budget
        3. Joint Cyber Warfighting: Cyber Mission Forces lack an integrated
    warfighting cyber platform and effective command and control of cyber
    operations across the DOD. FY19 budget provides $71M to defend our
    networks and increase joint lethality.
          AF leads development of the Unified Platform and Joint
    Cyber Command and Control to integrate Service-unique cyber platforms
    capabilities
          Programs will consolidate service unique systems into a
    single cyber offensive and defensive capability
        In accordance with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Air
    Force is vigorously pursuing game changing technologies to improve the
    lethality of the force. Hypersonics, Artificial Intelligence, directed
    energy, high performance computing, and autonomous systems all afford
    the Air Force with opportunities to do just that. We have prototyping
    efforts in both Directed Energy and Hypersonics and are participating
    in Grey Wolf. We have identified areas where we need to go fast, take
    risk and leverage across the services to ensure we maintain the
    technological edge for our nation. We can get there, but we need to
    take some risk and do business differently if we want to be successful.
        Specifically, the Air Force's FY19 Science and Technology (S&T)
    program invests in and develops capabilities that advance the
    technological superiority of the U.S. military to counter new and
    emerging threats. The FY19 PB request for S&T is approximately $2.6
    billion, representing an increase of 2.4% from the FY18 PB. Our
    investment focuses on game-changing technology such as Hypersonics,
    Directed Energy, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning, Quantum,
    Nanotechnology, Autonomy, and Unmanned Systems. In addition to the
    Department's S&T investment, the FY19 PB request includes $258 million
    for Hypersonic Prototyping to accelerate hypersonic weapon research and
    development through 2 prototyping efforts, the Air Launched Rapid
    Response Weapon and the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon.
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BANKS
        Mr. Banks. Your testimony mentions the importance of Congressional
    support for the future of the Army Futures Command. The academic,
    industry, test and training assets of my State (Indiana) are uniquely
    available to address the Army's six modernization priorities of long-
    range precision fires, a next-generation combat vehicle, future
    vertical lift platforms, a mobile and expeditionary Army network, air
    and missile defense capabilities, and Soldier lethality.
        Is the Army able to provide an update on the service's list of
    cities to be visited for final consideration?
        I'd like to know if Indianapolis, because of its plentiful assets,
    standard of living, and overall capacity versatility, will be on this
    list?
        Secretary Esper. The Army will establish a Futures Command
    headquarters that is small, dynamic and composed of the very best from
    our military and civilian workforce, probably less than 500 personnel.
    We want this headquarters to be located near leading academic science,
    technology, engineering and math (STEM) research engines and commercial
    institutions to harness the best talent possible in emerging technology
    and innovation.
        The Army Futures Command Task Force applied four sets of criteria
    to assess 150 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) to identify the top
    innovation hubs across the United States as a potential location for
    this new headquarters. We began with an assessment of proximity to
    talent in key technical fields. We then assessed the commercial
    innovation and academic STEM R&D to identify the top locations.
    Indianapolis is not in the top 15 candidate cities. We will continue
    down selection process with the intent of announcing a final decision
    this summer.
        Mr. Banks. As both a father and the most recently deployed Member
    of Congress, I can attest to the importance of education options for
    military families and their children. I've recently seen survey results
    that 35 percent of military families have indicated dissatisfaction
    with their child's education was a significant factor in their decision
    to continue their military service or to leave. Adding to this
    discontent is the fact that more than 50 percent of military families
    live in States that provide no choice in education. With readiness
    being a top concern for the services, please explain this issue in
    greater detail, as well as the impact it has had on the retention rate
    of service members with families in your respective branches?
        Secretary Esper. The Army has not been able to draw any direct
    correlation between choice in education and retention rates. We
    recognize, however, that the quality of education impacts retention and
    that military families face significant, unique, and difficult
    challenges. For this reason we remain committed to partnering with
    local communities and DODEA to ensure military families are satisfied
    with their education opportunities and options for their children.
        As an example of our commitment, Army partnered closely with the
    Department of Defense and Council of State Governments to develop the
    Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children.
    This Compact allows transfer of education transcripts between states,
    and ensures children of military families are not penalized or delayed
    in achieving their educational goals due to military related moves.
        Mr. Banks. As both a father and the most recently deployed Member
    of Congress, I can attest to the importance of education options for
    military families and their children. I've recently seen survey results
    that 35 percent of military families have indicated dissatisfaction
    with their child's education was a significant factor in their decision
    to continue their military service or to leave. Adding to this
    discontent is the fact that more than 50 percent of military families
    live in States that provide no choice in education. With readiness
    being a top concern for the services, please explain this issue in
    greater detail, as well as the impact it has had on the retention rate
    of service members with families in your respective branches?
        Secretary Spencer. The Department of the Navy recognizes that the
    quality of our children's education impacts readiness and retention;
    however, we have not been able to draw any direct correlation between
    choice in education and retention rates. As you well know, our mobile
    military families face significant, unique, and difficult challenges;
    and, these challenges are part of the reason that--for the first time--
    the Every Student Succeeds Act requires public school districts to
    track the achievement of military-connected students. This data will
    provide information on school transitions, academic performance,
    special program participation, attendance and other high school
    graduation and postsecondary transitions. The Department of the Navy
    remains committed to partnering with local communities and DODEA to
    ensure military families are satisfied with education opportunities and
    options for their children.
        Mr. Banks. As both a father and the most recently deployed Member
    of Congress, I can attest to the importance of education options for
    military families and their children. I've recently seen survey results
    that 35 percent of military families have indicated dissatisfaction
    with their child's education was a significant factor in their decision
    to continue their military service or to leave. Adding to this
    discontent is the fact that more than 50 percent of military families
    live in States that provide no choice in education. With readiness
    being a top concern for the services, please explain this issue in
    greater detail, as well as the impact it has had on the retention rate
    of service members with families in your respective branches?
        Secretary Wilson. While the Air Force has no specific personnel
    system code reflecting separation rationale as lack of ``quality
    education for school-age dependents,'' we have no doubt that this is
    one of many variables Airmen who have school age children must weigh
    heavily in their decisions to remain part of the Air Force. We often
    hear from spouses and family members during forums, workshops, or focus
    groups of their concerns for their children receiving quality education
    in safe school environments. In turn, our spouses have expressed that
    one of the primary reasons for their continued support or influence of
    our Airmen remaining in active service is directly related to how well
    they believe their children are educated.
        The compelling nature of concerns raised by our families led the
    Secretary of the Air Force to join with the other Service Secretaries
    in a February 2018, letter to the National Governors Association
    expressing intent to consider the quality of schools near bases in
    future basing or mission decisions. We look forward to continuing our
    hard work with the States and stand ready to assist in helping to
    improve the public education quality for our Air Force families.