    [Senate Hearing 115-612]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-612

                       UNITED STATES AIR FORCE READINESS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

                                     of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 10, 2018

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                 ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-348 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2021

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma,  JACK REED, Rhode Island
                 Chairman
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi   BILL NELSON, Florida
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska          CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas           JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota      KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    JONI ERNST, Iowa               RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina    JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia          TIM KAINE, Virginia
    TED CRUZ, Texas                ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska            ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    TIM SCOTT, South Carolina      GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JON KYL, Arizona

                       John Bonsell, Staff Director
                  Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff
                               Director

                Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman     TIM KAINE, Virginia
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota          JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                   MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia

                                    (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                October 10, 2018

                                                                       Page

    United States Air Force Readiness................................     1

    Wilson, Hon. Heather A., Secretary of the Air Force..............     5
    Goldfein, General David L., USAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force    11
    Pendleton, John H., Director, Defense Capabilities and               12
      Management, United States Government Accountability Office.

    Questions for the Record.........................................    61

                                     (iii)

                       UNITED STATES AIR FORCE READINESS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2018

                      United States Senate,
                      Subcommittee on Readiness
                                and Management Support,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in
    Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Dan
    Sullivan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Committee members present: Senators Sullivan, Inhofe,
    Rounds, Ernst, Perdue, Kaine, and Shaheen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN SULLIVAN

        Senator Sullivan. Good morning. This hearing on the
    Subcommittee on Readiness and Management of our U.S. military
    will come to order.
        The subcommittee meets today for the first time since the
    passage of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization
    Act for the fiscal year of 2019 to receive the testimony on the
    current readiness of the United States Air Force.
        I do want to begin by noting an obvious significant loss to
    the country, to the Senate. I am the new chairman of this
    subcommittee. I was not a chairman before we lost Senator
    McCain. I would much rather not be a chairman and have him
    still be here. But we all know that that was a huge loss for
    everybody around the table, everybody in the Senate. As a
    matter of fact, Senator McCain once sat in this seat from 1995
    to 1997, as well as Senator Inhofe, who is now the chairman of
    the committee. So I think that is just something we should all
    recognize and be cognizant of.
        I am particularly pleased that we have my ranking member,
    who is a good friend of mine, Senator Kaine, and a great panel
    this morning in terms of the Secretary of the Air Force,
    Secretary Heather Wilson; the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
    Chief of Staff Goldfein; and Mr. John Pendleton, the Director
    of Defense Capabilities and Management for the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO). I want to welcome our witnesses.
        It has been almost 6 months since this committee received
    testimony from the Air Force on its current posture in support
    of the fiscal year 2019 budget. As I mentioned, prior to that
    in those 6 months, a lot has happened. The NDAA [National
    Defense Authorization Act] was passed with $716 billion in
    authorized funding, and it did not get a lot of press, but 87
    U.S. Senators voted for that bill. A very, very bipartisan
    effort to rebuild our military. The same amount has also been
    appropriated.
        The Air Force has now released its ``The Air Force We
    Need'' plan. I want to thank the Secretary--I have read that--
    for laying that out with the need to ramp up from your
    perspective, Madam Secretary, to 386 squadrons, as well as
    conduct an internal operational safety and review.
        The GAO has released a number of new reports citing the
    need for instances of needed change inside the U.S. Air Force.
        There is plenty to talk about today, and I want to thank
    all of my colleagues for being here.
        With the announcement earlier this year of a document that
    I think most of us find very persuasive, Secretary Mattis'
    National Defense Strategy (NDS), which laid out a new strategic
    approach to addressing military challenges, this committee has
    a new lens through which to ensure that the lines of effort in
    this NDS are focused and supported by the Congress.
        I certainly support Secretary Mattis' efforts in this
    document, the National Defense Strategy, and appreciate that
    the topics we discuss here are framed in how they support the
    NDS, especially in how we address potential peer and near-peer
    conflicts with China and Russia.
        With Congress passing its first on-time authorization for
    the first time in over 20 years and an appropriations bill for
    the military for the first time since 2008, it sends a timely
    message to both our adversaries and allies that a bipartisan
    group of Senators and Members of the House are focused on
    rebuilding our military in a way that does not do damage but
    actually helps them. It also sends an important message to the
    men and women in uniform that we are here to deliver bipartisan
    support for them.
        The Air Force of today looks in some respects very much
    like the Air Force of yesterday, and that is not a compliment.
    For instance, the average Air Force aircraft is 28 years old,
    and since Desert Storm, we have 58 percent fewer combat-coded
    fighter squadrons. While this is not a modernization hearing,
    it is a readiness hearing, and unless we modernize our Air
    Force for the future, we will put lives at risk both on the
    ground and in the air in terms of readiness.
        With modernization also comes a significant burden on
    sustainment. So the Air Force must find balance between keeping
    our existing aircraft battle-worthy and ramping up to new
    squadron requirements that the Secretary laid out in her recent
    speech.
        In a recent GAO study, it was found that the B-22, C-17, E-
    8C, F-16, and the F-22 all face unexpected replacement of parts
    and repairs, delays in depot maintenance, and diminished
    manufacturing sources.
        Additionally, in October 2017, GAO found F-35 aircraft
    availability is well below service expectations. GAO has
    recommended that the Department of Defense revise F-35
    sustainment plans to ensure that they include the key
    requirements and decision points needed to fully implement the
    F-35 sustainment strategy.
        The GAO also released another report on the need for the
    Air Force to improve its F-22 organization, which could lead to
    improved aircraft availability and pilot training. The GAO
    found in July 2018 that the Air Force's organization of its
    small F-22 fleet has not maximized aircraft availability and
    their utilization of F-22's reduces opportunities for pilots to
    train for their key missions in high threat environments. Mr.
    Pendleton, I appreciate you walking us through these findings
    and recommendations, as Alaska is home to two very critical F-
    22 squadrons.
        As my colleagues know, I do like to talk about my State.
    That will not diminish as the chair of this committee. I like
    to mention that Alaska constitutes three pillars of America's
    military might. We are the cornerstone of missile defense, the
    radars and the missiles that protect the whole country. We are
    a key platform for expeditionary forces because of our
    strategic airlift and strategic location that can fight tonight
    pretty much anywhere in the northern hemisphere, and we are the
    hub of air combat power in the Arctic and the Asia-Pacific.
    With F-35's coming to Alaska in the next couple years, we will
    have over 100 fifth generation combat-coded fighters, which I
    am pretty sure no place on earth will have that kind of fire
    power and punch.
        Secretary Wilson, I know you have been a proponent of our
    small 60,000 square mile JPARC [Joint Pacific Alaska Range
    Complex] facility. That is airspace that is larger than
    Florida. So I look forward to getting your thoughts on the
    JPARC 2025 plan and, more broadly, how we are going to make
    sure we have range spaces all over the country and the world
    for fifth gen fighter aircraft.
        Again, I want to thank everybody for being here. I am very
    much looking forward to being the chairman of this committee.
        I would like to now turn it over to Senator Kaine for any
    opening remarks. I am also honored to have the chairman of the
    full Armed Services Committee here as well. Senator Kaine?

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM KAINE

        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our
    witnesses. I am looking forward to this hearing today.
        I will echo what Senator Sullivan said about just the first
    big committee meeting since the passage of Senator McCain. I
    luckily inherited the office that Senator McCain had for about
    20 years. When he decided to move around the corner into the
    office that had been occupied by Senator Kerry when Senator
    Kerry became Secretary of State, my seniority was so low that I
    should not have been able to get John McCain's office. However,
    he did not believe in painting an office, and he also was a
    pack rat. So his office did not have a lot of curb appeal.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kaine. So I was able to get it despite low
    seniority and paint it. I love being able to be in this office
    that he had for so long. I sometimes feel like I am hearing the
    ghost of him cursing me out, which he did on occasion.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. We all know what that is like.
        Senator Kaine. Yes, we can all remember those words.
        But I am glad, Dan, that you opened up with that. I look
    forward to working with you. I had a great relationship with
    our current chair when he was chair of the Readiness
    Subcommittee. Senator Inhofe, I think you will attest that I
    was generally reliable, and I look forward to working with you,
    Senator Sullivan, as well. You get congratulations not just for
    being chair, but I think you joined the committee and became
    chair in one jump in the subcommittee. So that is pretty cool.
        Senator Sullivan. Very cool.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kaine. I do not know that that has ever happened
    that you join the subcommittee and become chair in one jump. So
    congratulations for that.
        A couple of issues that I would hope to hear about. I just
    want to alert I am introducing a Virginia nominee for a
    district court judgeship position at 10:00 in the Judiciary
    Committee. So I will leave a couple minutes before 10:00 and
    then come back and have questions for you.
        But the two issues that I am most interested in are, first,
    just readiness recovery. We have had testimony in the past
    about shortage in pilots and maintainers. I think that what we
    are going to hear is that you made some real headway in
    addressing those shortages, and I am interested in that.
        I think in particular in Virginia, as I am at Langley and
    talking to our Air Force, I hear a lot more about the
    maintainer side shortage in a way than the pilot side shortage,
    and I think sometimes that does not get the same attention that
    pilot shortages do. So I am interested in hearing how we are
    trending there.
        We have a low unemployment rate. We have a lot of civilian
    aviation competitors who really want great maintainers and
    great pilots. And so I know that as you are trying to fill
    gaps, we are helping on the budget side. We are helping, giving
    you some more certainty, but it is a competitive environment. I
    am interested in that.
        Second, the state of our installations, our infrastructure
    is an important part of readiness. The Air Force is facing
    about $300 million in military cost construction overruns or
    other shortfalls. How does that affect what we need to do on
    the installation side? I have found that steel tariffs have
    increased military construction (MILCON) prices significantly
    in some instances by about 30 percent in terms of the use of
    steel on MILCON projects.
        Look, we will continue to have robust debates about climate
    change, but climate change is having an effect on
    installations. The Air Force recently had to cancel a fiscal
    year 2018 MILCON project related to the F-35 at Eielson Air
    Force Base due to the thawing of permafrost. We see significant
    effects at the Langley Base in Hampton dealing with sea level
    rise that is affecting that base. It is also affecting other
    bases in Virginia. How are we going to deal with that
    challenge, as we are trying to make investments in MILCON, is
    something that I am interested in as well.
        But I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with you on
    the committee. We got great witnesses here and we will have a
    good hearing.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inhofe, as the chairman, I would like to give the
    floor to you.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I only want to make a
    comment.
        First of all, Senator Kaine, you were always attentive
    during the times that we had that relationship, and I
    appreciate all of your activity.
        I was reminded just a few minutes ago--and that is why I
    was a little bit late coming in here--by the Heritage
    Foundation talking about some of the recommendations that they
    are making. We are all very aware that what we went through
    during the 8 years, the Obama years--he did not have a high
    priority in our military. A lot of things that we thought were
    being done or the public thought were being done were not being
    done. And so we are in a catch-up mode. We are going to
    continue to do it. I have had numerous conversations with our
    witnesses about this, and I look forward to that.
        However, I also will be chairing the 10 o'clock meeting
    next door. So, Mr. Chairman, go after it.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Lastly, I do want to make just one note, and it is
    something Senator Inhofe and I have discussed a lot. Of course,
    our members are allowed to ask questions. But I just want to
    make a comment on the Space Force.
        I commend President Trump for thinking about space in a
    more assertive and organized way, but I think the witnesses
    will not be surprised. What I have been saying about this idea
    is that, first--and it is appropriate for this committee--we
    must focus on the readiness of the existing Military Services,
    which I think everybody recognizes has plummeted over the last
    several years, so that they are fully ready to do what the
    President and the American people expect of them. While I
    understand that the desire to talk about the Space Force today
    might be pressing, I believe that the chairman of the full
    committee intends to address this topic as kind of a full
    committee issue as well at some point.
        So, again, I want to thank the witnesses. Your prepared
    statements will be entered into the record. We respectfully
    request that you keep your opening remarks in the vicinity of 5
    minutes. Secretary Wilson, we will begin with you.

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

        Secretary Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just
    summarize my opening remarks from my written statement.
        America is building a more lethal and ready Air Force, and
    the predictable and increased funding levels that came
        from the United States Congress have helped tremendously in
    helping move us in that direction. I wanted to personally thank
    you for your leadership and your support of restoring the
    funding for national security and giving us some certainty.
        The National Defense Strategy recognizes that we are in a
    more competitive and dangerous international security
    environment than we have experienced in decades. So the
    restoration of the force, the restoration of the readiness of
    the force to win any fight any time has to be job one for all
    of us.
        So what does that mean and what has the Air Force been
    doing?
        Last spring, we gathered together 50 airmen from around the
    world and seconded them away in a basement room in the Pentagon
    for almost 6 weeks to drill into the readiness challenges that
    we face, how do we measure readiness, how do we resource
    readiness, how can we recover readiness more quickly, and give
    us a plan to be able to implement.
        The elements of readiness recovery are really fourfold.
        The first is people. Our end strength is now up to 685,000
    because of the resources that you have given us. In 2016, the
    Air Force was 4,000 maintainers short. Today we are 400
    maintainers short, and by December in the Active Duty service,
    we will be back to having closed the gap and we will no longer
    have a 4,000 maintainer shortage on Active Duty. Now, that
    means we have to season our young airmen and get them to be
    craftsmen at their work, but at least now we have enough people
    there to do the maintenance that needs to be done.
        Second, with respect to aircrew, we have a national
    shortage of aircrew, and it affects the United States Air Force
    because we are so good at training people how to fly and the
    airlines know it. We are focused on retention and improving the
    quality of service and quality of life, but we are also focused
    on increasing pilot production.
        In fiscal year 2017, the United States Air Force trained
    1,160 pilots. In fiscal year 2019, we will train a little over
    1,300, moving by fiscal year 2022 to about 1,500 pilots, and we
    will stay at steady state at 1,500 thereafter. If we are able
    to do that and achieve our objectives on retention, we will
    recover the pilot shortage by 2023 where we will be 95 percent
    manned. We are also trying to scrub all of our requirements for
    aircrew so that we are not overproducing aircrew, and we have
    what we really think we need.
        Third is training. If we are preparing for the high-end
    fight, we need to be able to provide time and places for our
    airmen to train in realistic situations. That means ranges, but
    it also means what we call virtual and constructive training.
    Sometimes now you can do more in simulation than you can do
    actually up in the air. That training has to be relevant and
    realistic. Mr. Chairman, you are right. JPARC, as well as our
    Nellis Test and Training Range, are two of the premier ranges
    in the world for being able to train for the high-end fight.
        The fourth thing we need to do is cost effective
    maintenance and logistics. We have an old fleet with high
    operating tempo for the service, and I think this is going to
    take the most intense focus on recovery of readiness is how are
    we going to make sure that our aircraft are ready to go and
    ready to fight tonight.
        The final thing I would mention on things that we are doing
    and things that you funded that helped was the restoration of
    munitions stockpiles where we were depleting our munitions
    stockpiles in the fight against ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and
    Syria] faster than we were replacing them. The funds that you
    provided have allowed us to significantly recover from that
    situation.
        So we are doing things to recover readiness. We are
    simultaneously trying to field tomorrow's Air Force faster and
    smarter. We set a goal for ourselves 6 months ago. We have a
    very good leadership team in acquisition. They got together and
    said, you know, in the first 12 months together as a team, they
    wanted to strip 100 years out of our acquisition programs. 100
    years. So far they have stripped out 56 years out of our
    acquisition programs. We are using prototyping. We are changing
    the way we are doing software development, to do that faster
    and better. We are committed to transparency and
    accountability.
        We have seen just over the last few weeks that competition
    works. We have saved about $13 billion just on three major
    acquisition programs that we have announced over the last few
    weeks. The T-X, the replacement for the UH-1 helicopter, and
    the GPS [Global Positioning System] satellite program have all,
    because of competition, come in at lower than our cost
    projections.
        The Air Force is more ready for major combat operations
    today than we were 2 years ago. More than 75 percent of our
    pacing force is combat ready today in their lead force
    packages. That said, we all know we have a long way to go and
    we are after it.
        Chief?
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Wilson follows:]

                      Prepared Statement by Heather Wilson
                                  introduction
        Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Kaine, distinguished members of
    this committee; I appreciate the opportunity to testify on Air Force
    readiness. I am joined by our Vice Chief of Staff, General Wilson.
        This is my second year as Secretary of the Air Force. On behalf of
    the 670,000 Total Force Airmen, I want to thank you and your colleagues
    in authorizations and appropriations. For the first time in a decade,
    we are starting a new fiscal year with a signed defense budget. It's
    hard to understate the important difference this makes for our airmen.
    Your leadership and bipartisan collaboration has returned us to fiscal
    order. It enables our airmen to continue building a more lethal and
    ready force, as directed by the 2018 National Defense Strategy.
        We are committed to using these funds responsibly to restore the
    readiness and lethality of the Air Force.
                               threat environment
        One month ago, Russia began the largest exercise on Russian soil in
    four decades with more than 300,000 troops and 1,000 aircraft. On the
    other side of the world, China's first aircraft carrier was declared
    combat ready this year, and it promptly sailed into the Pacific to
    conduct flight operations.
        China has militarized disputed features in the South China Sea, and
    now all of Southeast Asia is within reach of its long-range bombers.
    President Xi's plan is for China to be a top-ranked military by 2050,
    and President Xi is no longer bound by term limits on his Presidency.
        The National Defense Strategy recognizes that we are in a more
    competitive and dangerous international security environment than we
    have seen in generations. It tells us how to prioritize for this
    environment and where to take risk. It tells us that we need to be able
    to defend the Homeland, provide a credible nuclear deterrent, win
    against a major power while countering a rogue nation, all while
    managing violent extremists with a lower level of effort.
        Each of these missions requires a combination of U.S. Services, and
    the Air Force is integral to every one of them. To implement the new
    National Defense Strategy, the Air Force must build a more ready and
    lethal force, while building and strengthening alliances and
    partnerships.
                        readiness declined over decades
        At the height of the Cold War, in 1987, we had about 1.1 million
    [1,134,507] Total Force Airmen and 401 operational squadrons. Four
    years later the Air Force deployed for Operation Desert Storm with
    squadrons that had spent 20 years training for a high-end fight. The
    initial battle would last just 43 days, and the Air Force was tasked to
    continue flying combat sorties.
        One year after Operation Desert Storm, budget cuts forced the Air
    Force into its largest reorganization in its history. Squadrons were
    deactivated, bases were closed, and major commands were consolidated.
    Hundreds of aircraft were retired. By 1996, Total Force end strength
    was reduced to about 846,000 [845,681], but Air Force combat missions
    continued.
        While the size of the Air Force decreased, the service also adapted
    to new missions. On 9/11 the Air Force had eight remotely piloted
    aircraft--eight total. After 9/11, the demand for remotely piloted
    aircraft and persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
    grew dramatically. This year, 12,500 airmen helped fly 279 remotely
    piloted aircraft on round-the-clock missions to meet warfighter needs.
        A shrinking, Combat-Active Air Force taking on new missions with an
    aging manned aircraft fleet was stretched thin when the sequestration
    of 2013 hit. The impact was devastating. One-third of Air Force combat
    flying squadrons stood down for 3 months, large-scale exercises were
    cancelled, and the service lost over one million work-hours of depot
    maintenance.
        Then, in 2014, when reeling from the impact of sequester, ISIS, the
    Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, declared its caliphate, and the Air
    Force surged to the fight. By 2017, the Air Force was the smallest it
    had ever been, conducting combat operations with the oldest equipment
    it had ever used, and successfully employed nearly 30,000 weapons in
    Syria and Iraq.
                               readiness recovery
        It is clear to all of us that restoration of the readiness of the
    force has to be a top priority. The 2018 National Defense Strategy
    makes building a more ready and lethal force job one.
        Last spring we gathered together fifty airmen from around the
    service. They spent over six weeks together analyzing Air Force
    readiness. They looked at how we measure and report readiness. They
    identified the barriers to our readiness recovery. Armed with this
    information, they developed and presented a recovery plan to Air Force
    leaders.
        A plan is nothing without the resources, end strength and budget
    certainty to implement it. Actions by the Congress over the past two
    years have been tremendously helpful.
        To begin with, we decided to focus the additional resources you
    have provided on our 204 operational squadrons that are most relevant
    to a high-end fight so that we can recover readiness in these units
    fastest. Our plan accelerates readiness recovery in these units by
    aligning resources and manpower. Our goal is for 80 percent of these
    units to have the right number of properly trained and equipped airmen
    by the end of 2020--6 years faster than we projected before we
    developed our recovery plan.
        While we will drive the readiness recovery of these operational
    squadrons first, the remainder of our 312 operational squadrons will be
    close behind so that by 2023 we will meet the 80 percent mark for all
    of our operational squadrons.
                                     people
        Readiness recovery is first and foremost about people.
        As an important example, the end strength increases you have
    authorized and funded in fiscal year 2018 allowed us to address the
    serious shortage of maintainers. We were 4,000 maintainers short in
    September of 2016. By December of this year, we will have closed that
    gap to zero. Now, we must season these new airmen to get them the
    experience needed to become craftsmen at their work.
                                    aircrew
        There is a national shortage of pilots and aircrew. A good economy
    and strong hiring by airlines makes aircrew retention a priority and
    directly affects our readiness.
        We are addressing the aircrew shortage first by addressing the
    quality of service and quality of life issues that may cause aircrew to
    choose to leave the Air Force. We are trying to reduce the operating
    tempo, to revitalize squadrons, and to restore support positions so
    that aircrew can focus on their primary job. Funding flying hours is
    part of this effort. While incentive pay and bonuses are part of the
    solution, greater input on assignments and testing a ``fly only''
    technical track for aviators who just want to fly are part of the
    retention effort.
        But retention efforts alone will not solve the aircrew shortage. We
    have a national pilot shortage. We are increasing the number of
    students we are training to fly from 1,160 a year in fiscal year 2017
    to 1,311 in fiscal year 2019, building to 1,500 by fiscal year 2022 and
    steady state, thereafter.
                                    training
        The second piece of readiness, after people, is relevant and
    realistic training to maintain a qualitative advantage over
    increasingly capable adversaries. The Air Force is meeting some of this
    need by investing in operational training infrastructure--our ranges
    and airspace--and simulation. We are improving secure infrastructure,
    simulators, threat emulators, and training ranges to enhance realism
    and enable our airmen to train locally for a high-end, multi-domain
    fight.
        Our airmen need ranges with enough airspace to train realistically.
    The Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex is one of the Air Force's
    premier training ranges. The U.S. Army owns the land, and the U.S. Air
    Force manages the operations. The range has 66,000 square miles of land
    and air maneuver space and 58,000 square miles of overwater airspace.
    That is slightly larger than the size of New Mexico.
        At the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, our airmen can train
    against more than 40 surface-to-air threats, including foreign systems,
    which is valuable for realistic training exercises like Red Flag-Alaska
    and Northern Edge. Currently, the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex
    can only emulate a fraction of the existing and emerging threats to a
    level suitable for advanced sensors and cannot provide a fully
    contested or degraded environment with the assets available.
        The Air Force is planning to base 5th Generation fighters in
    Alaska, and our pilots will need access to an adequate training
    environment. Our intention is to have two ranges that would represent
    what our crews would face against a peer adversary: the Joint Pacific
    Alaska Range Complex and the Nevada Test and Training Range. These
    ranges will provide the complex, dense combat environment crews will
    likely encounter during operations.
        The Air Force plans include requirements for threats, targets,
    adversary air, multi-domain integration, airspace, and manpower. We
    have identified other range improvements nationwide to improve the
    quality of Air Force training and readiness.
                    cost-effective maintenance and logistics
        The third element of restoring the readiness of the force is
    weapons system sustainment--the parts, supply, and equipment--to make
    sure our aircraft are ready to go when needed.
        Maintaining an old fleet with a high operating tempo and
    inexperienced maintainers in a global enterprise is probably the
    hardest part of restoring the readiness of the force. It will take the
    most intense focus and will require that we look at new methods to
    achieve the results we need.
        A team of airmen conducted a detailed sustainment review earlier
    this year. They identified 45 recommendations to reach 80 percent
    readiness levels, beginning with our 204 pacing units by 2020, followed
    by our remaining operational units in 2022, and then carrying over to
    all remaining units by 2024. Focus areas to achieve those results
    include supply chain improvements, changes to the way we manage
    engineering improvements, force structure and fleet management changes,
    service life extensions, and technology such as sensors that improve
    data collection to make our maintenance personnel more productive.
        The sustainment review further highlighted the increased lethality
    derived from conditions based maintenance. Increasingly used in
    commercial industry, conditions based maintenance uses analytical tools
    and monitoring sensors to predict parts failures. Those tests are
    showing a reduction of approximately 30 percent of unscheduled
    maintenance. We have tested these tools with our C-5 and E-3 aircraft.
    We intend to move to conditions based maintenance for all aircraft as
    rapidly as possible.
        We have also found efficiencies in our depots. Today, we accomplish
    KC-135 major repair and overhaul at our Oklahoma Depot in 155 days at a
    cost of $9.9 million per aircraft. That is 40 percent faster and more
    than 50 percent less expensive than contract proposals we received to
    do the same work in 2018 from industry. More impressively, we have
    increased depot production by 20 percent, now completing 75 aircraft
    per year.
        These measures do not replace the benefits of a modern and rested
    fleet. In 2014, the Oklahoma Depot saw an average of three major
    repairs per aircraft (usually corrosion or fatigue based) and a total
    of 162 major structural repairs for all aircraft. Today, despite the
    aforementioned advances in affordability and efficiency, there are 6.6
    major repairs per aircraft, and we are on pace for nearly 500 major
    structural repairs.
                               rapid sustainment
        We need to significantly improve the logistics and sustainment
    enterprise.
        In July we established the Rapid Sustainment Office and committed
    to fund it for 2 years. Its two primary objectives are to reduce cost
    and improve readiness by using advanced manufacturing technologies.
        The Rapid Sustainment Office is establishing criteria to track and
    measure its impact. It will operate in a ``hub and spoke'' model by
    building partnerships with universities and industry.
        If the Rapid Sustainment Office is successful, it will pay for
    itself by reducing the cost of maintaining our weapons systems, and we
    will continue to support it.
                fielding tomorrow's air force faster and smarter
        The acquisition system we inherited from the Cold War era is too
    slow for the digital age. We are changing the way we buy things to
    field tomorrow's Air Force faster and smarter.
        In the 2016 and 2017 National Defense Authorization Acts, Congress
    restored primary responsibility for acquisition to the Services,
    granting us new authorities to accelerate prototyping and fielding.
        We set an aggressive goal of stripping 100 years of unnecessary
    schedule from our program plans. In six months, we have saved 56 years.
        Three contributing factors are making us faster. The first is
    prototyping. For example, in hypersonics, we are leveraging Navy
    technology to build, fly, and buy our nation's first operational boost-
    glide weapon five years earlier than anticipated. In Next-Generation
    Missile Warning, we are competitively prototyping the new sensor,
    retiring this key risk nearly a year earlier, while also strengthening
    the industrial base for future programs.
        The second contributing factor to increase speed is the use of
    tailored acquisition strategies. We have empowered our workforce to
    structure decisions around the specific needs of their programs, vice
    the generic milestones of the traditional acquisition process.
    Recently, our F-15 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability Systems
    split its Milestone C decision into two tailored reviews, accelerating
    fielding by 18 months at no additional cost.
        The third major effort to increase speed to the warfighter is agile
    software development. The decades-old ``waterfall'' process for
    developing software one step at a time is too slow, expensive, and
    often doesn't work at all. We are making a wholesale shift to agile
    development, putting acquirers and operators together to make rapid
    incremental software improvements. We proved the concept with air
    refueling at the Combined Air Operations Center, saving the Air Force
    $13 million in fuel per month, and reducing the requirement by two
    tankers and ten aircrews.
        We established the Kessel Run Experimentation Laboratory to
    continue applying agile development for the warfighter and stood up a
    Program Executive Office Digital to develop and proliferate best
    practices across the Air Force. So far, major programs like F-22,
    Unified Platform, and Protected Tactical Enterprise System are reaping
    the benefits of shifting to agile development, accelerating delivery to
    the warfighter.
        Using new authorities given to us by Congress is not just faster,
    it's giving us better results.
        We are committed to competition. Within the last month, we made
    major announcements on three major programs: the Global Positioning
    Satellite IIIF, the UH-1N helicopter replacement, and the T-X jet
    trainer. Each of these programs gets the most out of competition
    through stable requirements, a mature technology base, and transparency
    with industry. In just these three programs alone, the Air Force saved
    the taxpayer over $13 billion from the independent cost estimates we
    used to plan the programs.
        Digital engineering may revolutionize how we buy systems, and our
    B-52 Commercial Engine Replace Program is leading a pathfinder on
    digital twins. By conducting a ``digital twin fly-off'' early in the
    program, we ensure we get maximum fuel efficiency, which saves taxpayer
    dollars and extends the B-52's range for the warfighter. It accelerates
    fielding by three and half years.
        We are also seeking to become a leader in Federal Government
    procurement with small businesses and start-ups by pairing a government
    credit card swipe with a one-page Other Transactions Agreement. Pairing
    these two mechanisms gives the Air Force a small-dollar contracting
    mechanism that can ``pay in a day''. To prove it out, we are conducting
    a small business and start up day at the end of this month to find
    innovative solutions to some of our vexing problems. We will attempt to
    award 50 contracts in 50 hours at the end of this month.
        If successful, we will hold our first Air Force Start-up Days early
    next year using these ``pay-in-a-day'' contracts. With so much
    innovation happening in small businesses and start-ups, we need
    creative ways to connect with them that can be mutually beneficial.
        The authorities you have given the Air Force are making a
    difference. These authorities do not sidestep key decisions, reporting,
    or oversight. They streamline to those that matter. We will not
    sacrifice quality or accountability for speed. Early prototyping and
    development informs the Department of Defense and Congress about a
    program's performance feasibility prior to making costly decisions to
    procure, field, and sustain it.
        We are mindful of the trust placed in us, and we are committed to
    transparency on these programs. We will submit tri-yearly reports to
    Congress, similar to the Selected Acquisition Reports, and be good
    stewards of your trust and of taxpayer dollars.
                                     impact
        With the help of Congressional funding and acquisition authorities,
    the Air Force is more ready for major combat operations today than we
    were 2 years ago. More than 75 percent of our pacing force is combat
    ready today with their lead force packages.
        That said, we have a long way to go to restore the readiness of the
    force to win any fight, any time. We remain focused on that objective.

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Secretary Wilson.
        General Goldfein?

    STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAVID L. GOLDFEIN, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF OF
                             THE AIR FORCE

        General Goldfein. Thanks, Madam Secretary, and Chairman,
    thank you for holding a real timely hearing.
        What I would like to do very quickly is just share a story
    that perhaps will offer us perspective on what we are here to
    talk about today.
        Of all the work and the obligations that we have--and I
    would say this is a shared obligation between this committee
    and the Secretary and I--the one that I believe is nothing
    short of a moral obligation is to ensure that every airman,
    soldier, sailor, and marine that we send into harm's way to do
    the nation's business is properly organized, trained, equipped,
    and led. When they get back, they can come back to their
    families that we have taken care of while they are gone.
    Everything else--we do the best we can.
        So let me just share with you one quick story about what I
    call confidence under fire, which is what we are here to talk
    about. How do we produce the readiness of the force to
    accomplish that moral obligation we have to those that we send
    into harm's way?
        I was a young captain when we went into Desert Storm. I
    know that there are many here that have also--Senator Sullivan
    yourself, Senator Ernst have had combat time. That warrior's
    prayer has not changed over the years. Please, God, do not let
    me let my buddies down and let me get the job done.
        When we went into Desert Storm, I was in a squadron that
    had--all but one, none of us had had combat time. The squadron
    commander had had combat time in Vietnam. The rest of us had
    never seen it. And so we went in uttering that prayer. We
    crossed into enemy territory for the very first time, and I
    remember his voice on the radio when he said, look, there is
    triple A, right 2 o'clock, anti-aircraft artillery fire. We all
    stared at it. Then he said there is a surface-to-air missile,
    left 10 o'clock, and we all stared at this big surface-to-air
    missile like a telephone pole coming up through the formation
    and we watched it explode. Then we heard on the radio, splash,
    MiG 29, and one of our F-15's sees it, shot down a MiG 29 and
    we watched it hit the desert floor and explode.
        I remember that moment in the cockpit as a young captain
    because it came to me that nothing I was seeing or hearing was
    new. I had been in an environment just like this before at
    Nellis and at JPARC range and had been put in this situation.
    Every radio call, every formation, everything I was seeing is
    something that I had been trained for. In fact, I would share
    with you that I remember thinking this is actually easier than
    Red Flag because they threw everything at me, plus the kitchen
    sink, when I was there. That moment in the cockpit produced
    this level of confidence that I knew that I could succeed in
    combat.
        I think that is what we are here to talk about. How do we
    ensure that the young captains, the young airmen, the NCOs [non
    commissioned officer] of today and tomorrow have that same
    confidence under fire that I had when I went into combat in
    Desert Storm?
        I look forward to the questions and the dialogue today
    because this is a shared obligation to ensure that we all
    remain committed to ensuring that these soldiers, sailors,
    airmen, and marines go into harm's way with what they need to
    get the job done and we take care of their families while they
    are gone.
        Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, General Goldfein.
        Mr. Pendleton?

    STATEMENT OF JOHN H. PENDLETON, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES
     AND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Pendleton. Chairman Sullivan, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to talk about our work
    on Air Force readiness.
        I think you are going to find that we are largely in
    agreement with the Air Force on the challenges going forward.
    Over the past quarter century, we have been tracking readiness,
    and we have seen it gradually but steadily decline primarily
    because the Air Force has gotten smaller, but the demand has
    stayed high.
        Back in 2016, we urged the Department of Defense [DOD],
    including the Air Force, to develop a plan for readiness
    rebuilding. At that point, the Air Force felt that rebuilding
    the readiness of its force would take a decade or more and only
    if they got increased budgets and a decreased pace of
    operations. Budgets have increased but the pace has stayed
    high.
        Today the Secretary testified--or in her statement
    actually--that the Air Force is aiming to have 80 percent of
    its over 300 operational squadrons ready within about 5 years.
    This is an aggressive goal. To meet it, the Air Force is going
    to need to focus on the building blocks of readiness, as they
    are saying they intend to do: people, training, equipment.
        Let us talk about personnel briefly. The Air Force has
    shortfalls of both maintainers and pilots. The gap for
    maintainers I think is about to be closed, but it will take
    time for them to grow experience. The pilot shortfall may take
    a bit longer. The retention incentives to date have not worked
    to meet goals, and I think it may take a little bit longer for
    the Air Force to close.
        Regarding equipment, we have found, not surprisingly, that
    older equipment breaks down more. But it is not limited to the
    older aircraft--the mission capability challenges. The F-22
    mission capability rates are well below desired levels, as you
    know. It is partly because its aircraft are so maintenance
    intensive. They have this low-observable coating on them that
    makes them difficult to work on. The F-35 is proving to be so
    costly to operate and sustain that it actually jeopardizes the
    program, as many of you know. DOD and the Air Force are working
    to try to get those costs down, and I think that will be
    critical.
        Training, as the Secretary mentioned, is another challenge
    area. The pace of Air Force operations has left little time for
    aircrews to train. As the Air Force seeks to rebuild readiness,
    I agree that training may be one of the more difficult things
    to achieve, especially if demand is not dampened.
        The full-spectrum mission of the F-22, for example, is so
    complex that it takes most of the year to fully train for it.
    But we found questions about the way the F-22 is utilized. It
    is called away to participate in exercises that do not give it
    much training value. It sits alert, gassed and ready, but not
    training. They have to fly adversary air for each other because
    they often do not have dedicated adversary air in the vicinity,
    and that does not provide much training value for the red air.
        We made several recommendations around organizing and
    utilizing the F-22 better, which the Air Force agreed with and
    I believe are beginning to take action.
        These are just a few highlights. In all, we have made 14
    readiness-related recommendations that I summarize in the back
    of my statement, and I am happy to talk to you about any of
    those as the hearing goes on.
        Looking to the future, I understand the Air Force's desire
    to get larger. Like the Navy, Air Force readiness has suffered
    as demands have stayed high while the force has shrunk. Like
    the Navy, the Air Force believes it needs to grow by about a
    quarter to meet future demands and the strategy. But regardless
    of future growth, the Air Force will have to keep much of its
    existing force structure for decades to come. Therefore, I
    agree the priority needs to be rebuilding the readiness of the
    existing fleet certainly in the near term.
        Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by what I have heard from the
    Air Force today. They have taken several steps in the right
    direction. Now it is a matter of achieving results. Recovery
    will not be easy or fast. It took a quarter century for the Air
    Force to get here, so it may take a while to recover.
        We at GAO stand ready to assist you in your oversight.
        That concludes my remarks. I look forward to your
    questions, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pendleton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you and thanks again for all
    the good work that GAO has been doing in this area.
        Let me begin by--Madam Secretary, this is a question for
    you--the issue as it relates to the readiness of aircraft that
    are available that come into the Air Force fleet, and in
    particular, I am thinking about the F-35.
        So I saw just a couple days ago that Secretary Mattis
    ordered the Air Force and Navy to get mission capable rates up
    to 80 percent. I did a little sniffing around. I think Delta
    Airlines--their aircraft readiness in their fleet is about 86
    percent. I believe it is something along those lines. Yet, for
    the F-35--it is a new airplane, coming on line, coming out to
    the fleet--I think it is in the--you can correct me if I am
    wrong--but mid-60s.
        So why is there, A, such a disparity between military
    aircraft that are brand new and commercial aircraft? Can we get
    to, within a year--I know that is what the Secretary put in his
    memo. Can we get to a rate of 80 percent, and how can we do
    that?
        Secretary Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The readiness recovery plan that we put together in the
    spring accelerates our readiness recovery by about 6 years and
    says that by the end of fiscal year 2020, our pacing units, our
    most important units for a peer competition, of which we have
    204 operational squadrons--that 80 percent of those will be at
    C1 or C2 readiness by the end of 2020.
        The Secretary of Defense has asked us to accelerate further
    our F-16's, F-22's, and F-35's to the end of fiscal year 2019
    and come up with a plan to do that.
        Now, what we are focused on here is not the entire fleet.
    It is not the test and evaluation airplanes and those kind of
    things. And so we have a situation where we actually are now
    standing up. We are not even at full operating capability for
    some of our squadrons, but we are focused on the operational
    squadrons and making sure that they are at high levels of
    mission capable readiness both for their pilots, their
    equipment, and their training.
        So you had asked what are the challenges with the F-35
    fleet with respect to sustainment.
        Senator Sullivan. Is that number like in the mid-60s? That
    is correct. Is it not?
        Secretary Wilson. It varies by squadron, significant
    variation by squadron. I may ask the Chief to jump in here on
    this.
        But I would say that there are a couple of issues.
    Obviously, one of them is that the spare parts lines did not
    start up fast enough, and that is something that predates all
    of us. But they were so focused on initial production, they did
    not start up and really work the logistics system fast enough.
        The second and most obvious difference between an F-35 and
    an airliner is the low observable coating and the complexity of
    maintaining that.
        We are putting together a plan with, of course, the Joint
    Program Office because this is a joint program--it is not an
    Air Force program--to get the supply line right so that our
    operational squadrons can meet the goals that the Secretary of
    Defense has set out for us.
        Chief?
        General Goldfein. Chairman, I would just share with you a
    couple weeks ago I had a conversation with Israeli Air Chief
    Amikan Norkin. He shared with me. He said, Dave--he said I am
    not integrating the F-35 into the Israeli Air Force. I am
    integrating the Israeli Air Force into the F-35. It was a
    telling statement on how this aircraft, this weapon system, is
    looked at operationally as the quarterback of the joint and the
    allied team because it is really an information fusion engine.
    And so operationally we are seeing incredible capabilities
    coming out of this platform.
        Where we are focused--and I think Mr. Pendleton said as
    well--is on that sustainment piece. As an international air
    chief, speaking on behalf of my fellow F-35 international air
    chiefs, we are working to drive the sustainment costs down so
    that they are on par with a fourth generation F-16, F-18
    because that is what all of the air chiefs have put into their
    budgets. And so this is one that we are working with the
    Department, with the Joint Program Office, and with Lockheed
    Martin to ensure that we drive these sustainment costs down,
    and we are not going to stop until we see them on par.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Pendleton, do you have any views on
    just the fleet readiness and why--I know it is a complex
    aircraft. It only took almost 2 decades to procure and develop,
    which that is a whole other topic for a whole other hearing.
    But it does seem to me kind of ludicrous that we get new
    aircraft off the production line and within a month, they are
    at 65 percent readiness. I mean, what do you think is going on
    there?
        Mr. Pendleton. I think the Air Force is focused on
    production and not enough on sustaining the aircraft, just to
    be blunt about it. It is causing problems. The depots are
    already several years behind. Parts are a problem. It is going
    to be difficult to achieve those kind of mission capability
    rates.
        Now, I will say on mission capability rates that whenever I
    hear a percentage--you know, I am auditor. That is a numerator
    and a denominator. What exactly is in both of those I think
    will become very important and we will be watching that, of
    course.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Goldfein, with regard to the discussion about the
    immediate capabilities or at least between the F-22 and the F-
    35, we know as low observable aircraft both of them have some
    challenges because it is a technology that is difficult to
    maintain. Yet, we changed the styling on the technology, the
    way that we handle low observability between the F-22 and the
    F-35. There is a reason for it. Part of it is because we
    learned by the F-22.
        Would you like to share just briefly what we expect to get
    out of the F-35 that we could not get out of the F-22 in terms
    of low observability and making it easier to maintain the
    capabilities of the F-35?
        General Goldfein. Thanks, sir.
        You know, we took all the learning from--and I flew the F-
    117. So we could say first generation and was a wing commander
    and responsible for low observable maintenance on the F-117. We
    learned from that. We actually send F-117 maintainers and
    pilots to the B-2 to learn. And so throughout the evolution of
    low observable technology and maintenance, we have learned from
    every one of the generations, if you will, going forward. So we
    took everything we learned from the F-22 and we applied that to
    the F-35 not only in production, but now in terms of
    maintenance. How we do the coatings, how we achieve the low
    observability we need is a generation beyond what we are doing
    in both the F-22 and the B-2.
        The big story, though, on the F-35 is the information
    fusion. I would just share you this way. When I was flying the
    F-16, I would go out for a mission, and then when I came back,
    my debrief was primarily to determine what I had missed, what
    did I not see, what information was out there that I did not
    collect, and how could I improve my ability to manage my
    systems to do that.
        The F-35 pilots are having a completely different debrief
    because it is all there. The question is how did they fuse it
    and how did they act.
        Just to give an example, when an F-35 pilot is taxiing out,
    he or she is already getting information fed into the cockpit
    on what is going on in the cyber world, in the space world.
    They are already calling audibles. So going back to what the
    Israeli air chief said, I am integrating my entire air force
    into the F-35, and why we think about it as the quarterback,
    because it is able to call audibles real time in a really
    complex environment in ways that we have just not been able to
    do before.
        So it is this combination of low observability, allowing
    you to penetrate and persist, and the information fusion, what
    you can do once you are inside an enemy environment, that
    allows the F-35 to do what it does.
        Senator Rounds. If I could, what you are saying and what I
    am hearing is that we are basically on the cutting edge
    technology that is going to get a lot better, but we are
    learning as we go along and this is a part of that learning
    curve that we are in right now.
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir. You cannot overestimate the
    importance of the international aspect of the F-35 because I
    have never been in a single fight where I have done it alone.
    Every time I have gone into combat over the last 28 years, we
    have been there side to side with our allies and partners. The
    fact that they are in this weapon system with us is probably
    one of the most important outcomes of coalition warfare going
    forward.
        Senator Rounds. I think sometimes we forget about that, and
    I appreciate your bringing that up because those partnerships
    are critical to us. It is something that our near-peer
    adversaries do not have.
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Secretary Wilson, I am just curious. There is going to be a
    discussion about whether we should be working on maintaining
    our existing force and bringing it up to speed versus adding
    new squadrons, more manpower, and so forth. But I think the two
    are integratable and I think that they cannot be separated.
        Would you care to share your thoughts about the need to not
    only increase so that we have actually got aircraft to do the
    mission that is necessary and then the reason why we are having
    problems right now in terms of the amount of hours we are
    expecting from the airframes that we have got and the pilots
    that we have got on hand right now?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, job one is to restore the
    readiness of the force that we have. This committee asked the
    Chief and I last March what is the Air Force you need to
    execute the National Defense Strategy. We have a formal report
    that is due to the Congress in March.
        So we have a group within the Air Force. There is also
    Mitre Corporation and the CSBA [Center for Strategic and
    Budgetary Assessments] who are also doing independent looks at
    what is required in order to execute the National Defense
    Strategy. Certainly modernization and new concepts of
    operations, integration with the joint force, dependence on
    allies. But we have done quite a few war games and modeling and
    simulation that do show that we are too small for what the
    nation is asking of us under the National Defense Strategy when
    we project forward to the 2025-2030 time frame in particular.
    That is because we have returned to great power competition. We
    have a rapidly innovating adversary that is putting a lot of
    effort into the development of their military. I think we have
    an obligation to you to be able to answer that question, what
    is the Air Force we need when we look at the rapidly innovating
    threat. And so that was the basis of our work in saying we
    think it is about 386 squadrons in the 2025-2030 time frame.
        That will engender a debate on how we get there, can we get
    there, what are the resources required. We understand that. But
    at a minimum, we should be able to tell you what is needed.
        Senator Rounds. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most
    critical pieces in what the Secretary has said is that the
    public is expecting that we will have the best Air Force and
    that we can handle our near-peer competitors. Actually what she
    is saying is that without the increases that we need in
    manpower and in new squadrons, we are not able to meet that
    near-peer competition.
        Secretary Wilson. We are ready to fight tonight. There is
    no question. But when we project forward into 2025-2030, with
    the best intelligence estimates we have, that is where the
    greatest issue is. And so we can see what the adversary is
    doing and project forward as to what they plan to do, and we
    have an obligation to maintain dominance and air superiority to
    carry out the National Defense Strategy and provide options for
    the commander in chief.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Shaheen?
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I had
    to step out.
        I am going to say this even though it is not directly
    related, but I went out because there is an exhibit in the
    Rotunda of young people who have overdosed, and these are
    portraits that are very dramatic. This is an issue I think for
    all of us across our society. And so I would urge everybody to
    walk through the Rotunda on your way out. The portraits were
    painted by a woman from New Hampshire, and that is how I am
    connected to it.
        I also wanted to just--I am sorry that Senator Inhofe has
    left because I wanted to respond to his comment about the last
    8 years of President Obama. Leadership and politics aside, one
    of the biggest challenges of the last 8 years has been
    sequestration. I raise it because if we do not make a change,
    we are looking at that coming again. And so I think we cannot
    just suggest that it has been about leadership. It has been
    about our failure to provide the funding that our armed
    services have needed, and we better face up to that now because
    we are looking at it coming down the pike again. I would urge
    us all to think about how we are going to address that because
    these readiness challenges really got critical during the years
    when sequestration was in effect.
        With that preface, I want to begin, Secretary Wilson, by
    again thanking you and the Air Force for your very positive
    response to the contamination from PFAS [per- and
    polyfluoroalkyl substances] that has been at the former Pease
    Air Force Base. You sent up John Henderson, who is the
    Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations,
    Environment, and Energy. He was very effective in meeting with
    residents of the community who had been affected and reassuring
    about the effort to address this issue, which I know everyone
    very much appreciated.
        I want to ask you, though, because one of the questions
    that came up was about the fire fighting foams that contributed
    to the problem that we have at Pease and what is being done.
    There has been some concern about whether there is going to be
    a new fire fighting foam that is developed that can meet the
    same requirements to fight fires. So can one of you talk about
    what you are seeing and what the prospects are to develop
    something that is just as effective?
        Secretary Wilson. Yes, Senator, I think I can.
        First of all, the Air Force, I think to its credit--it was
    my predecessor who got us on this path--but went out
    proactively and assessed all of our bases. This particular foam
    was used in all kinds of fire fighting, but the Air Force was
    only one of the entities that has used it. And so we did an
    assessment.
        We pretty much completed that assessment at all of the Air
    Force locations, identified where we have problems, and we are
    committed to fixing it and providing clean water immediately
    when people are affected.
        We have also replaced this foam already at Air Force
    locations with another kind of fire retardant that does not
    contain that chemical.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, that is really good to hear because
    there was a hearing in a subcommittee of the Environment and
    Public Works Committee that raised questions about whether the
    Air Force has in fact replaced that fire fighting foam. So I
    hope that that message will get sent loud and clear to
    everybody so that everybody understands that that has been
    done.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, I will take that back and we
    will confirm that for you in writing.
        Senator Shaheen. That would be great. Thank you very much.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        The Air Force began replacing legacy Aqueous Film Forming Foam
    (AFFF) with a new, more environmentally responsible firefighting foam
    in August 2016. The replacement foam meets military specifications, is
    perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) free and contains only trace
    amounts of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). All Air Force installations
    have transitioned to the new AFFF in both stockpiles and fire trucks.
    We delivered equipment that allows testing of fire trucks with zero
    AFFF discharge to all of our bases. All hangar system replacement
    projects were funded in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 with estimated
    completions in 2020.

        Also following up on that a little bit more, earlier this
    year Senator Rounds and I introduced the PFAS Registry Act,
    which would have set up a national registry for everyone
    affected. There were pieces of that that are included in the
    McCain authorization bill. I just wondered if you could talk
    about whether efforts have begun, if you are aware of efforts
    that have already begun within DOD to begin to set up this
    registry and what we might need to do to support that.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, if I could take that one and go
    back and also get that answer for you in writing.
        Senator Shaheen. Sure. That would be great. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Regarding a registry for individuals exposed to PFAS, as specified
    in the section 315(c)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act of
    Fiscal Year 2019, the Secretary of Defense will conduct an assessment
    of the human health implications of PFAS exposure. The assessment will
    include a description of the amount of funding that would be required
    to administer a potential registry of individuals who may have been
    exposed to PFAS while serving in the Armed Forces. The Department will
    also assess scientific results and recommendations from ongoing PFAS
    studies and analyses by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and other
    organizations, to determine the feasibility of a registry.

        I am almost out of time so I will save my question for the
    next round.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay.
        Senator Ernst?
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Of course, to our witnesses, thank you very much for being
    here today. We certainly appreciate your service and your
    commitment to our great United States of America.
        General Goldfein, I would like to start with you please,
    sir. Thank you very much for acknowledging the fact that we
    need to man, train, and equip our servicemembers. The training
    is very important. Whether it is simulation or whether it is
    actual exercises in the air, that muscle memory and those
    rehearsals are very, very important--and you are right--when it
    comes down to it, to be able respond immediately in a time of
    crisis. Very important. So thanks for acknowledging that.
        I know that many of us here on the committee have been
    following the physiological episodes (PE) that have been
    occurring in our flying communities, and I am confident in
    saying that all of us are committed to ensuring the safety of
    our pilots. And so I am happy to hear that the Air Force has
    joined with the Navy now and we have a Joint Physiological
    Episodes Action Team, or JPEAT, to share information and really
    get after this problem. So congratulations on that.
        I am aware that there has been some progress made with
    regard to resolving these PE issues in the Air Force trainer
    fleet. Can you share with the committee this progress and then
    how it impacts resolving PE issues in other platforms as well?
        General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am, thanks.
        In the T-6, which is the aircraft that we have been most
    recently having the physiological episodes.
        As you mentioned, we put together a team with the Navy and
    went and looked at it, and we were able to drive down to the
    point with high confidence. What we have found is that it is
    the concentration of oxygen levels at various parameters of
    flight that was falling behind what was required. So in
    different maneuvers and different flying in certain of the
    aircraft, the concentration levels were off.
        And so the way we are attacking this is for the near term
    and long term. In the very near term, now that we have
    identified what the root cause is, we have looked at all of the
    maintenance practices because the Navy has T-6's. We have T-
    6's. We compared the best practices of both services, and we
    have changed significantly the way we are maintaining every
    part of the system to ensure that we can mitigate and minimize
    any implications of having the concentration values not be
    optimum.
        The second thing what we are doing is we are out there and
    we are talking to the force. We learned with the F-22 when we
    went through that, that when we were doing all of our analysis,
    we stopped a dialogue with the operators and their families. So
    they started wondering and questioning what we were doing. So
    this has been an inclusive, transparent dialogue throughout. So
    now we have sent a team out with a one-star general that has
    briefed every one of our T-6 pilots and we have talked to
    families in town halls to make sure they know exactly what is
    going on.
        The long-term solution to this is going to be a redesign of
    the system to ensure that we have the concentration levels
    right. We have a team right now that is doing the redesign, and
    then as soon as they come to us with the solution, that is
    going to be a priority for the section guy to move forward.
        Senator Ernst. Very good.
        So you mentioned that was the T-6 as well and the F-22, and
    you are applying that to other platforms as well then.
        General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Ernst. Well, I do appreciate that. It has been very
    concerning, and we are glad to see the attention really being
    paid by both the Air Force and the Navy to the PE. So I
    appreciate that.
        Thank you for mentioning the families because that is a
    great lead-in to the question I have for Secretary Wilson.
    Thank you, Secretary, for being here as well.
        I chair the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee,
    and I have had the opportunity to learn about SOCOM's [Special
    Operations Command] success with Preservation of the Force and
    Family (POTFF) program. We ask a lot of our airmen and their
    families, and we all want to provide them with the absolute
    best possible support we can. I understand it may not be
    possible to apply POTFF all across the Department.
        Is there a way that we could incorporate parts of that
    program with folks in the Air Force? We know that it has been
    very helpful to those that are in those special operations
    community in AFSOC [Air Force Special Operations Command], and
    we would like to see pieces or parts of that shared with the
    greater Air Force as well. Are there ideas or things that could
    be applied?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, we are trying that out at four
    different bases. We call it Operation True North. The concept
    is to embed the caregivers in the squadrons where people are
    for both mental health, spiritual wellbeing, but also physical
    health. One of the outcomes from SOCOM is if someone is in the
    same unit and they are responsible for mental health, there are
    conversations that go on that are easier to have than if you
    have to make an appointment over at the clinic and walk through
    that door.
        The second part on physical health. We have actually found
    that by embedding--we are taking care of high performance
    athletes. By embedding physical trainers with the units, it is
    not about what you cannot do. It is about how you can do. The
    number of injuries and the reluctance to go see a doc, because
    if you go see the doc, they are going to take you offline
    status and it is hard to get back on. And so there is a
    reluctance to get help as opposed to--I was with a special
    operator down at Hurlbert who said to me it has been the best
    thing. I was out there working out and the physical trainer
    just said--and then he said, yes, my back has been bothering
    me. He said, well, let me watch you lift. He said this was
    here. Let me show you how to do this. Let me show you how to
    strengthen those muscles. He said I feel like a young man. I
    have never felt this good because I am training properly now,
    and I did not have to go to the doc.
        So it is a different approach to maintaining the human
    weapon system and resilience by incorporating that into how we
    operate the squadrons.
        Senator Ernst. I appreciate that. It is a very important
    program, and if there are things that we can do to assist in
    that effort, please let us know. I am a huge fan of the POTFF
    programs.
        Thank you all very much for being here today. I appreciate
    it. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Perdue?
        Senator Perdue. Mr. Chairman, welcome to your new role. I
    look forward to working with you.
        I want to make one comment for the record for our guests
    here today. You know, I think this is one of the most important
    meetings we could have. The timing is perfect, as the Chief
    said privately before we started.
        I am chagrined, though, again that with an important
    meeting, we are all double, triple-booked. And so the
    attendance here is disrespectful to these witnesses. I want
    that for the record. With your leadership, I know we can change
    that.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you. You raise a good point.
    There are several other hearings happening literally right now.
    This is really important.
        Senator Perdue. We are all double-booked. We are all
    missing something else to be here, but I think this is
    absolutely critical.
        Chief, I am worried. As an old manufacturing guy, I am
    worry about our supply chain. I am worried about our industrial
    base. I look at the F-35, though, and the decisions that were
    made that you guys have inherited where we have got that supply
    chain spread all over the world for whatever reason, social,
    economic. I do not know, but it certainly was not with national
    defense in mind.
        I want to know what can we do. Eric Schmidt said that
    bringing technology into the force, both in current readiness
    and in developing the recap that you guys are going to have to
    face over the next 10 years--by the way, Secretary, I could not
    agree more. I am not worried about where we are today. I have
    full faith in you guys today. I am worried about what China has
    said publicly about Made in China 2025. 2025 and beyond I am
    really concerned about.
        That leads to this question. Eric Schmidt, Obama's
    appointee of the Defense Innovation Advisory Board--and he said
    this. He said that bringing new technology in the force is the
    biggest concern. If there was one variable to solve for, it
    would be speed. In competing with these guys, they do not have
    the same constraints that we do.
        He also said--and I am going to paraphrase this, but the
    requirement process we have in DOD is now the single greatest
    barrier to rapid technological advancement. By advancement, he
    means not development but deployment.
        Sir, when we look at both recapping and improving our
    readiness today, where are we in terms of working with the
    industrial base and the supply chain that you guys have
    inherited to sort of get at this? I would like maybe both of
    you. I see your head nodding, Secretary. Both of you may have a
    comment on this. But I think this is the number one threat that
    we have right now.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, I am glad you bring this up
    because it is something that we are both really focused on, and
    taking advantage of the new authorities that you have given us
    to move at speed. Let me give you a couple of examples.
        One is with the F-35. The Defense Department and the Air
    Force is terrible at buying software. So we changed the way we
    are buying software. We set up a software factory called Kessel
    Run outside of Boston to be able to do development operations
    (DEVOPS), so rapid insertion of technology in an iterative way.
    We just this last week went out to Nellis. There is a logistics
    system that supports the F-35 called ALIS, A-L-I-S. It cannot
    scale. It has got huge problems. It drives the maintainers
    nuts. And so we put together a team of Lockheed Martin, Air
    Force programmers, and maintainers on the flight line and said
    let us to DEVOPS and figure out where the problems are and try
    to rapidly get tools to the warfighter to fix ALIS. They named
    themselves. The new program is called Mad Hatter, rather than
    ALIS. It is always the young techies that come up with
    something.
        But it is not only that. Let me give you a couple examples
    of where we are moving very quickly. Eric Schmidt is right. We
    are actually partnering with DIUx [Defense Innovation Unit
    Experimental] in some of our space enterprise kinds of things.
    We started in January a space enterprise consortium. We have
    got over 200 companies now involved. 150 of them are
    nontraditional companies. We have done 32 prototypes with
    greater than $100 million in total value of those 32
    prototypes. The average time between solicitation to award is
    90 days. We have given four awards just since January for rapid
    launch of small satellites, partnering with DIUx, at $15
    million to get small satellites up in the air and do it fast.
    We just broke into four program executive offices in our Space
    and Missile Systems Center rather than one all the way at the
    top of the $6 billion enterprise. By doing that, we cut out
    three layers of bureaucracy in getting capability to the
    warfighter. We set out nine pacesetter projects to show how to
    go fast to acquire space systems, and those nine pacesetters
    cut 19 years out of their acquisition timelines, and they have
    a number of other pacesetters in line saying, hey, we want to
    do it this way too.
        We are using the authorities for prototyping the
    experimentation that you have given us. We are stripping out
    layers of bureaucracy. We have pushed down authority to program
    managers and given them the power to move quickly, to use
    competition.
        The final thing I would say is we are partnering with our
    allies. We partnered with Norway on a satellite communications,
    polar satellite communications, where we had a 2-year gap. We
    closed the 2-year gap, saved $900 million by partnering with
    Norway. We are doing the same on another project with Japan.
        The Air Force is trying to take the authorities you have
    given us and move forward to go faster and smarter on
    acquisition.
        General Goldfein. Sir, just to add quickly.
        Senator Perdue. It sounds like she might have prepared for
    that question, Chief.
        [Laughter.]
        General Goldfein. It is a big deal for us.
        Senator Perdue. It is a big deal. I agree.
        General Goldfein. So Secretary Wilson and I hosted our
    four-star conference last week, and the guest speaker was Eric
    Schmidt. We asked him to talk to us about how we bring the
    future faster.
        I am often asked the question, hey, Chief, 9 years of
    continuing resolutions (CR)--what does that do to you? I tell
    them it really wreaks havoc on our ability to plan for the
    future.
        But to your question, then I always follow up and say, but
    let me tell you what it does to our industry partners. So I
    have to go to a CEO [Chief Executive Officer] and tell them,
    listen, I do not know what I am going to buy next year. I have
    not gotten my money yet, but I am hoping I will get it in the
    last half of this year. Then I am going to buy as many weapons
    as I can.
        Senator Perdue. But if I do not, we are going to interrupt
    the current plan.
        General Goldfein. That is right.
        I cannot give you any projections of what the future looks
    like. So you need to keep this very sophisticated workforce
    occupied with this level of uncertainty. And so it goes
    directly.
        So what I would offer to you, in addition to the
    Secretary's great points, is that the John McCain National
    Defense Act that you passed sent such a powerful signal to
    airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines that you are behind
    them. It sent an equally powerful signal to industry that says
    you can now plan your future and manage your workforce to get
    us what we need.
        Senator Perdue. I will give you one more to send to them.
    This year, we did something we have not done in 22 years, and
    we did not get 100 percent, but we got to 90 percent funding by
    the end of August because we stayed here in August. You can
    tell your service people that we are on the wall that month.
    This is not something that is never going to be done again. We
    funded the military this year without a CR, and we know now
    what it is doing.
        Speaking of that, I asked an F-22--I am sorry. I am past
    time.
        Senator Sullivan. No. Go ahead.
        Senator Perdue. No. I will come back to that in the second
    round.
        Senator Sullivan. It is a good question.
        Senator Perdue. No. I want to come back and brag on the
    State of Alaska.
        Senator Sullivan. If you promise to stay for the second
    round.
        Senator Perdue. Yes, I will. Thank you. I am sorry.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I do want to mention that Senator
    Perdue and Senator Ernst have been leaders on this issue that
    he was just talking about. They are both on the special
    committee that is going to hopefully fix our budget problems.
    We have made progress this year, and nobody benefits more than
    the military.
        We will start here with round two, which I think is great.
        I do want to just do a small correction for the record.
    General, I appreciated your opening statement. I will mention,
    though, even if one deploys, gets combat fit, gets imminent
    danger pay, there are combat vets--and I do not consider myself
    one particularly in the category of somebody like you. So I am
    just saying that for the record. I think it is important
    actually because we know who the real folks are, and I always
    want to keep that record straight.
        Madam Secretary, I know you have been focused on the
    acquisition issues. Can you a little bit more unpack what you
    were talking about in your opening statement on this issue, 100
    years to 56 years? I did not fully follow that. I know it is
    important. I know you have been really focused on it. Senator
    Perdue just asked a question. But what were you getting at
    there?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, we have a great team that we put
    together. Some of them are military, some civil servants, and
    of course, Will Roper who is our Assistant Secretary for
    Acquisition. They all got together 6 months ago now and they
    said, all right, what should be our goals. What should be some
    of the things we are trying to achieve to get things faster?
    One of them was to say let us look at all of our programs and
    try to strip 100 years out of our schedules by using the new
    authorities that you have given us, by trying to tailor our
    acquisition authorities so that we get things faster. Usually
    when you get them faster, they also cost less. Time is money.
    And so they are at 56 years so far and they have got another 6
    months to go to keep stripping time out of schedules.
        Senator Sullivan. When you went through that exercise, did
    you see any additional authorities that you think you need from
    us? Again, there is a lot of John McCain here in this hearing,
    but as you know, he was very focused on this issue. In the last
    few NDAAs, we did give significant authorities back to the
    service secretaries and the chiefs to make things work. What
    else do you need?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, we are now in the point of
    execution, and I think we are trying to execute in a way that
    is fast and smart. Also, the other part that we said was we
    want to be even more transparent than we are with traditional
    acquisition so that we are fully open about what we are doing
    and what results we are getting.
        I do think that there is tremendous promise in several of
    these, particularly prototyping. The reason why is that in
    traditional acquisition, you would come up with an analysis of
    alternatives, and you would be 3 or 4 years into this and all
    you really got are stacks of paper and studies. You really do
    not know what is technically possible yet.
        If you prototype, you develop a real engineering technical
    understanding of what really is within the realm of the
    possible. We are using it for next generation engines. We got a
    competitive prototyping with two of the big engine
    manufacturers to develop an adaptive engine that gets 10
    percent more thrust, 25 percent more fuel efficiency. They may
    not get quite there, but we have said build us something. See
    what you can get, and then it will inform our requirements for
    a whole next generation of Air Force engines. We are the
    biggest buyer of fuel in the Defense Department. A 25 percent
    increase in fuel efficiency and a 10 percent increase in
    thrust--that is a game changer. And so we are just trying it.
        Senator Sullivan. I want to go to the GAO study.
        General Goldfein. Sir, I just wanted to reemphasize the
    point, Senator Shaheen, you made. The other thing to your
    question is sequestration is still the law of the land. Just to
    make your point again, ma'am, we grounded the United States Air
    Force in 2013. We created no fly zones across the United States
    of America where we stopped flying. We still have not
    recovered. If that comes back, it will undermine and devastate
    all the good work that you did in the recent bill.
        Senator Sullivan. I agree with Senator Shaheen on that
    certainly.
        Let me go to the GAO study as it relates to the F-22's. Mr.
    Pendleton, there are a bunch of important aspects to that. That
    still is an incredible aircraft. The President talks about it a
    lot. It is a remarkable aircraft. Again, you cannot look back
    and kind of wring your hands, but that was probably a pretty
    significant mistake to curtail the production and deployment of
    that aircraft.
        Can you summarize quickly your recommendation? It is my
    understanding that the Secretary and the Chief agree with those
    or that you have concurred in those. How are you looking to
    implement these recommendations that relate to the small fleet
    that is not maximized, the organization with regard to the Air
    Force, the mission, as you said? What can we do? This is still
    a tremendous fifth gen aircraft. You know, your work is
    important in this. Can you talk about that quickly? If there
    are any comments from the service Secretary or the Chief, I
    would welcome that too.
        Mr. Pendleton. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        We have two major findings. We found that the organization
    of the small fleet could be suboptimal.
        Senator Sullivan. Did you find that it is suboptimal?
        Mr. Pendleton. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Not that it could be but it currently is?
        Mr. Pendleton. We think is suboptimal, yes.
        Senator Sullivan. That is important.
        Mr. Pendleton. Locations with fewer squadrons, people,
    aircraft had lower mission capability rates than those with
    more. Again, this was an unclassified version of a classified
    report. So I am having to be a bit general about that.
        We recommended that the Air Force take a look at the way
    they had the F-22 force organized. You can go a couple of ways.
    You can collocate more aircraft if you want to and get some
    efficiencies we think from that. You can also look at the way
    that you deploy packages from within the squadron. I mean, what
    was happening is the Air Force was breaking out a portion of
    the squadron and sending that forward, and it is basically
    leaving what is left broken as well. So you could augment that.
    We tried not to be too specific in the recommendation so the
    Air Force would have some room to maneuver on that.
        The second had to do with the way the Air Force is
    utilizing the F-22. It is being used for a lot of missions that
    we do not think contribute to its training for a high-end
    fight, things like alert and appearing in exercises, as I
    mentioned in my opening statement, that really do not give them
    much value. We think that needs to be relooked as well and made
    recommendations. The Air Force did concur with us, and I know
    from speaking to Secretary Wilson, they are thinking about
    this.
        Senator Sullivan. So are you looking to implement these,
    General Goldfein or Secretary Wilson?
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir, we are. We are looking. It is
    interesting that when you go back to 2010, we retired 10
    squadrons, 252 aircraft in 2010 based on a demand signal that
    shifted those resources into other areas, space, cyber, ISR
    [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance], nuclear
    enterprise. Those were strategic trades that we had to make at
    the time if you remember what we were in in that time frame.
    But we did not take down any flags or we did not take down any
    squadrons. We just made all the squadrons smaller. We got to a
    point where we were and are less efficient than we can be with
    larger squadrons when it comes to achieving and meeting the
    demands of the National Defense Strategy.
        So we are absolutely looking at not only the F-22 but all
    of our weapon systems to determine how can we get back up into
    that optimum solution. But we also understand that that is a
    discussion that we have to have with this committee and with
    the Congress before we do anything.
        Senator Sullivan. Does that not help the maintainer issue
    as well if you consolidate some of the F-22's in terms of where
    they are located?
        General Goldfein. It does, and it is across the board. It
    is maintenance. It is the back shop maintenance. It is all
    those parts that you need to be able to project air power not
    only for the F-22, but for all the weapon systems.
        But for us, i.e., in the Active Duty and in the Air
    National Guard and Reserves, what we found is that 24 assigned
    aircraft is the optimum solution to be able to do the National
    Defense Strategy business. Many of ours are now at the 18
    number, and so we need to build those up to 24. We need to hit
    an optimum solution in the Guard and Reserve as well. So that
    is all part of our planning.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Shaheen?
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        DOD's final report in 2018 on organization management
    structure for the national security space components of the
    Department of Defense--I had to read it because it is such a
    long title. But it stated basically that space operations force
    will include space personnel from all Military Services,
    including Guard, Reserve, and civilians.
        I wanted to ask you, Secretary Wilson, about the current
    role of the Air National Guard in the space domain. If you
    could elaborate on how you expect that role to evolve in the
    future.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, we have about 1,000 guardsmen
    and about 1,000 plus or minus reservists who are some part of a
    space mission. I think we are at a point where the Defense
    Department is looking at how do we organize this going forward.
    The President has initiated the process to establish a U.S.
    space force and put out there a bold vision with respect to it.
    We all know that we can no longer use space as a function. It
    is a warfighting mission. So those discussions are ongoing.
        I believe that it is important for the Guard--sometimes I
    think when we look at some of these issues, we forget the Guard
    and Reserve, and they are an important component of the total
    force and a particularly component of the United States Air
    Force. We want to make sure that that is in the conversation.
        Senator Shaheen. I appreciate that. Certainly there has
    been some interest from our Air Guard in New Hampshire about
    what is going to happen in this arena. I know that in your
    September memo on the proposal to transition to a space force,
    you discussed the potential to transition National Guard units
    to a Reserve component. I assume there is more discussion going
    on on this.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, there is a lot of discussion
    going on. Our team may have misused the Reserve component to
    being both the Guard and the Reserve. So the intention, though,
    is to make sure that as we address the space force that we do
    not ignore the fact, while it is small, we do have components
    in the Guard and Reserve who are engaged in space.
        Senator Shaheen. That is great. I appreciate that.
        As I said, there has been a great deal of interest in New
    Hampshire on what is going to happen there. I am sure that is
    true of other States as well.
        In terms of the number of squadrons, you have called for
    growing the Air Force from its current size to 386 squadrons by
    2030. Under that plan, tanker squadrons would see significant
    growth. They would increase from 40 to 54 squadrons.
        Can you talk about why you see this as being important?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, the analysis that we did was
    based on the National Defense Strategy, which sets out for us
    what do we need to do, what are the missions we need to
    accomplish, and then what are the most important operational
    problems.
        But when you look at those missions, there are really five
    things we have to do at the same time. We have to defend the
    Homeland. We have to maintain a safe, secure, and effective
    nuclear deterrent. We have to be able to defeat a peer while
    also deterring a rogue state and then maintain pressure on
    violent extremist organizations at the same time. So it is all
    five of those things.
        Currently, when we look at a peer threat, Russia is very
    strong. China is modernizing very rapidly. When we project into
    the 2025-2030 time frame, our pacing threat we believe is
    China. So the challenge in the Pacific is the tyranny of
    distance, and that means tanker squadrons are very important.
    So that I believe is what in the numerous iterations of
    modeling and simulation, the war games we did really drive the
    need for tankers.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, I appreciate that especially with
    Pease being one of the bases that is going to get some of the
    new tankers.
        Can you also talk about the interests that we have in
    making investments to protect that tanker force during a
    conflict? Because I know there has been some concern about what
    we need to do prospectively to make sure that we are doing
    that, should we have an adversary that we need to protect those
    tankers against.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, I would not want to go into too
    much detail in an open session. But the intention is for new
    tankers to be more defendable than their predecessors. I do not
    know if the Chief can go any further than that.
        General Goldfein. I would just say in the Joint Chiefs, you
    know, I give Chairman Dunford a lot of credit for leading the
    Joint Chiefs as we have been looking at global campaign plans.
    It has allowed us to move off a platform discussion into more
    of multi-domain operations that looks at a platform as part of
    a family of systems that all connect together. So the
    discussion then about how we would defend a tanker or any other
    part of the family is an integrated joint and allied solution
    going forward as opposed to the platform discussion which is I
    think more 20th Century than where we are headed.
        Senator Shaheen. So, Mr. Chairman, is there any plan to
    have a classified follow-up hearing or briefing to this hearing
    so that we can learn more about some of the issues that have
    been raised?
        Senator Sullivan. Absolutely. I think that is a great idea.
    We will do it.
        Senator Shaheen. Good. That is great. Thank you.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Shaheen. Senator Ernst?
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have spent a lot of time talking about maintenance this
    morning, and I appreciate that very much. We all value our
    maintainers very much, and I know it is very different having
    maintainers in a transportation ground unit than having
    maintainers in your squadrons. But just really understanding
    how very important it is.
        Secretary, in your written statement, you did reference
    some of the challenges that you are facing in regard to
    sustainment of weapon systems, of equipment, particularly with
    regard to the maintenance and the logistics. I was pleased to
    see that the Air Force does continue to look for ways to
    improve efficiency and cost effectiveness.
        So again going back to the Emerging Threats and
    Capabilities, one of the things that we spend some time talking
    about is artificial intelligence. We do continue to hear about
    the potential benefits of AI [artificial intelligence] and
    machine learning on issues such as predictive maintenance. Is
    the Air Force currently utilizing these types of technologies,
    or do you think these emerging technologies present maybe a
    cost effective means of improving maintenance and logistics
    within the Air Force?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, a very good question. We are
    actually testing out what we call conditions-based maintenance
    plus, which involves both predictive analytics and also sensing
    on aircraft. We are trying them initially on the B-1 and the C-
    5, and we are seeing a significant reduction in cost but also
    about a 30 percent reduction in unscheduled maintenance. So
    this is you are predicting when a part is likely to fail and
    you change that part when it is in for its inspection rather
    than waiting for it to fail out on the flight line. We are now
    trying to develop the apps to move that and propagate it
    throughout the rest of the fleet.
        We are also doing some other things with respect to driving
    down the costs. We set up an office--and we will give it a 2-
    year run and then take a look as to how much it saved us--
    called the Rapid Sustainment Office to try to use advanced
    manufacturing technologies, 3-D printing of metals, but also
    things like cold spray technology to repair parts rather than
    replace them.
        Just as one example, there was a recent article about some
    of our airmen out in California who--we have a part that heats
    water on the back of the KC-10. The handle keeps breaking. They
    do not manufacture anymore because they only buy maybe five of
    them a year. They are pretty expensive to go back and have
    somebody tool it the old way. In fact, Defense Logistics Agency
    was quoting some completely unreasonable cost. And so we 3-D
    print them for 50 cents. So those kinds of things can drive
    down the cost.
        Senator Ernst. Since you brought that up, I was out at
    Twentynine Palms earlier this year, and we had that discussion
    about 3-D printing of parts to make it readily available for
    our men and women that are out in the field. They are forward-
    deployed. The supply chain is not as easy in those types of
    environments.
        Any thoughts then on patents? There is a lot of concern
    from industry that we will be able to replicate various parts,
    replacement parts, and not give full credit to the industries
    that have originally manufactured and designed those parts. Any
    thoughts on where we should be going in that space?
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, we are trying to go to a place
    where we get the intellectual property or negotiate for a
    license to build things. Just in the first quarter of last
    year, we had 10,000 requests for parts where there was not a
    single bidder. You look at something like the C-5. It is not
    being produced anymore. The parts are not being produced
    anymore. So the door handle breaks on the back of a C-5 and you
    do not have a parts supplier. So we are 3-D printing those in
    metal.
        We are also using technologies now--the Army, Navy, and Air
    Force are working together on advanced manufacturing. But the
    chafing on rivet holes on aircraft or on the hydraulics lines
    to be able to repair those by low temperature but high speed
    spraying of nanoparticles of metal to basically repair the
    metal rather than replace the part. It is much less expensive
    and keeps our mission capable rates higher.
        The Rapid Sustainment Office is intended to use these
    technologies, rapidly get them into the field onto our
    aircraft, and reduce the costs and increase our mission capable
    rates.
        Senator Ernst. I love that. Incredible cost savings and
    innovation and to be able to do it right on the spot too, very
    good. Thank you very much.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Perdue?
        Senator Perdue. Following up on that, I want to applaud
    what you guys are doing in shared services. Back in the 1980s,
    manufacturers in the commercial space did this where they can
    have multiple divisions. You have a technical specialty. You
    develop that specialty. Before, every one of the divisions
    would have that. They would protect it. They were jealous of
    it. We took it away, created shared services. When you are
    doing C-130J maintenance at an Air Force base for the Navy, I
    applaud that. I think that is a way for the future.
        I want to move on. With 3-D printing, the Marines right now
    are doing a great job, and their depots are doing the same sort
    of thing. The supply chain is gone. Nobody is making the part.
    3-D printing--they are really gearing that up. I would
    encourage the Air Force to partner with your sister services to
    make sure that we are at the cutting edge of that.
        Chief, I have a question.
        I would second Senator Shaheen's comment about a classified
    briefing on the same topic.
        Chief, you may want to take this off, but hypersonics and
    directed energy. I know you guys are working on that. General
    Hyten gave us an update earlier this year about what the Air
    Force is now seeing that our near-peer competitors are doing.
    Can you give us an update on that development on those two
    areas?
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir. Probably the most important
    development has been a discussion that the three service
    secretaries have had about how we partner together on areas
    like hypersonics and directed energy. And so what I want to do
    is maybe, ma'am, turn it over to you and then I will follow up
    at the end if you like.
        Secretary Wilson. Senator, the three service secretaries--
    we get together. We actually like each other and get together
    for breakfast every 2 weeks. It terrifies the staff.
        One of our early meetings looked at where do we have
    science and technology investments that are similar and can we
    work together better. One of the first ones we identified was
    hypersonics. We got our teams together. We rapidly developed a
    memorandum of understanding where we will take best technology,
    go fast, share results, and work together. As a result, on
    hypersonics, the additional funding you allowed us to put in in
    2017 and 2018 is about $107 million in additional funding, but
    by using a Navy-developed warhead for the Army and putting it
    on an Air Force system, we are actually going to prototype a
    system 5 years faster and get it out there in 2021.
        Senator Perdue. Is that a defensive----
        Secretary Wilson. It is called Hacksaw. It is an offensive
    weapon.
        Senator Perdue. With regard to the F-22 that we talked
    about earlier, I had a privilege to visit an advance squadron
    up in Alaska. The colonel gave us an update about how CRs
    directly impact them. They had training going on. They had to
    interrupt it, bring them back, and they had it documented down
    to the cents how much it cost them.
        But we talked about the use of the F-22, and you mentioned
    it in your opening comment that we are using F-22's, our fifth
    gen, to chase Tu-95's around up there on the line of
    demarcation. I know, Secretary, you guys are talking about a
    light attack aircraft I believe that you are developing now to
    take on some of these more mundane tasks and use the fifth gen
    for mainly training to do what you mentioned in your opening
    remarks. Can you update us on the light attack program?
        General Goldfein. So we completed two experiments in the
    light attack. The second line of effort in the National Defense
    Strategy talks about strengthening our allies and partnerships
    because when it comes to global competition and war, we have
    allies and our adversaries generally do not, and it is a
    strategic advantage. So we as a service, when we looked at from
    the air component standpoint how can we leverage our ability
    because what I hear very often from my international air
    chiefs, especially those that are not into the fourth or fifth
    generation--either they cannot afford it or not getting into
    it. But yet, they have violence within their borders. The
    strategy is to drive violence down the point where it can be
    handled within the sovereign territory.
        The light attack experiment was primarily about line of
    effort two and allies and partners and how can we produce a
    commercial off-the-shelf that is a low-end system that is very
    affordable, that has low costs when it comes to sustainment,
    and that can help our allies and partners. What we have learned
    in the past is that if we do not buy some, they will not. And
    so as we look at it internal to our Air Force--the Marines are
    looking at this as well. This a joint effort going forward.
    This is an opportunity for us to actually spread our coalition,
    if you will, to be able to get at the strategy and line of
    effort number two.
        Within the Air Force, we are also looking at it to the
    point--exactly what you described, which is can I now go after
    those lower-end missions with a tailored commercial off-the-
    shelf kind of product that will then free the high-end assets
    to focus on the training and execution of the high-end work we
    need to do.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. We have Senator Kaine here, and I am glad
    he made it back on time. It is an important hearing and I
    appreciate you being here.
        I am scheduled to go preside right at 11:00. So I am going
    to have either one of my colleagues on the Republican side or
    Senator Kaine take over the hearing.
        I do want to thank the witnesses again for this very
    important hearing. There will be QFRs [Questions for the
    Record]. If we can get those back in a timely manner. I think
    Senator Shaheen's idea, which we all support, on a classified
    version of this hearing, respecting your time, Madam Secretary
    and General Goldfein, I think that would be a good follow-up.
        So I am going to pass the gavel to one of my colleagues
    here. I will let them fight over it. But again, I want to thank
    all of you. I would normally be here, but the presiding officer
    duty is something I am not supposed to be late for and I think
    I am already late. So thank you very much.
        Senator Kaine [presiding]. I will just be very brief. I
    apologize for missing. I was introducing a noncontroversial
    nominee at a Judiciary Committee hearing. But just because my
    nominee was not controversial, that did not mean that there
    were not other controversies that I was unaware of when I
    walked into the room. So that is why I am a little bit late,
    and I do not want to belabor points that have been asked.
        Let me just ask this. I indicated in my opening comment
    that I am worried about how we are planning on the readiness
    side with respect to infrastructure. I cited the Air Force
    example. I could have cited other examples, the Navy base in
    Richmond whose main road in and out to the center of naval
    power in the world is increasingly under water just based on
    normal tidal action, not even to extreme weather events.
        Perhaps if you could each kind of talk about in the Air
    Force portfolio--I used the example of permafrost melting at
    the one base and how that changes MILCON--how you are dealing
    with some of these weather-related effects, extreme weather
    events, whatever the cause, as you are thinking about MILCON
    projects going forward. If you would each address that, that
    will be my only question.
        Secretary Wilson. Well, Senator, with a hurricane headed
    for Eglin and Tyndall today, we are dealing with those things.
        Let me take the broader issue about infrastructure because
    we did what I thought was a good piece of work, stewarded by
    our Assistant Secretary for Installations and Environment, John
    Henderson, but done by a group of captains initially that said
    we now have data on all of the infrastructure in the Air Force,
    every installation, every building on it down to when the roof
    needs to be replaced. They did some modeling and simulation on
    it, on how we can change the way we maintain our
    infrastructure, and they made some recommendations.
        One is we have been funding the worst infrastructure first.
    So we wait until it gets really expensive to fix, and then we
    fix it. That is the wrong strategy. So we need to fix it like
    most commercial industry does, before it gets to be really
    expensive.
        The second is they recommended taking the 5 percent of our
    worst infrastructure off the books. So the stuff that is
    hanging around from the Korean War that we should not be
    maintaining anymore. And so we actually are going to be putting
    some money for destruction and disablement into our budget.
        The third is we are going to have to tick up our
    replacement value, our funding of our infrastructure a bit over
    the long term. But if we do those things over the long term,
    our infrastructure gets much better over time and we are able
    to keep the infrastructure in much better shape.
        So they have given us a strategy. We have the modeling and
    simulation of our facilities which tells us.
        The final thing that we also are doing is every facility
    will have a master plan. Our commanders change too quickly to
    have just what the commander wants now because those projects
    are always in the future. So we have a master plan for every
    facility, and we will continue to execute projects on that
    master plan.
        So there are a number of things that we are doing to
    improve the management of our infrastructure and planning
    associated with it.
        Senator Kaine. Do other witnesses have comments to add on
    this question? General?
        General Goldfein. Sir, just one comment to add to the
    Secretary's. We also, as a land-based force, project power, of
    course, from our bases. So we need to be the best in the world
    at defending those bases. And so the Secretary and I have a
    really concerted effort over the course of this year looking at
    integrated base defense in addition to the investment we are
    making in MILCON projects because not only do we have to invest
    in it and build it, we also have to defend it. That is central
    to who we are.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        Mr. Pendleton, I have one last question for you. You
    testified before the SASC [Senate Armed Services Committee]
    last year on the tragic Navy collisions and analyzing what was
    at fault there and what we could do better.
        Are there parallels in the work that you did on those
    after-action analyses and things that we should be focused on
    with respect to the Air Force, you know, aviation mishaps, gaps
    in training? Are there things that you learned in that capacity
    that we should apply to the Air Force as well?
        Mr. Pendleton. There are parallels, but I think that what
    happened with the Navy is the situation in Japan just got away
    from them. We had warned a couple years before, as you recall
    probably from my testimony, that they needed to take a look at
    the risk they were taking out there, and they did not listen to
    us. And so I am not seeing it with the Air Force.
        But now having said that, there are parallels, shortfalls
    of people, shortfalls of maintainers, running equipment hard,
    having it take longer to fix when you bring it in, and too
    little time to train. I mean, that was one of the big problems
    with the Navy, as I am sure you recall. They were working so
    hard, they did not have time to train on things as basic as
    seamanship.
        Like the Navy, also the Air Force has a demand problem,
    sir. I mean, the demands on it have continued to remain high,
    and like I said during the Navy hearing, I think it is going to
    be difficult for them to rebuild unless some of the demands are
    moderated.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        Do my other colleagues have any additional questions?
        Well, with that, we really appreciate your testimony. We
    will keep the record open until 5 o'clock tomorrow, Thursday,
    in case any colleagues have additional questions for you that
    they can direct your way. We would appreciate your prompt
    response.
        But with that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
            mission capable rates and the secretary of defense goals
        1. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, how, if at all, are Air
    Force mission capable rates unique to the Air Force and different from
    how other services, such as the Navy, calculate it? How are Air Force
    mission capable rates different from aircraft availability rates?
        Secretary Wilson. The Office of the Secretary of Defense for
    Personnel and Readiness coordinated with the Air Force, Navy and Marine
    Corps to come up with a standardized method of calculating and
    reporting mission capable rates to achieve the Secretary of Defense's
    goals. This standardized method will ensure that all services are held
    to the same standard and report comparable rates. The Air Force will
    report progress towards achieving 80 percent mission capability to the
    Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense on a monthly basis
    beginning in November.
        Mission Capable rate and Aircraft Availability rate differ with
    respect to the sample size they measure. The Mission Capable rate
    measures the number of Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory (commonly
    referred to as ``combat coded'') aircraft that are mission capable and
    physically possessed by a unit. Mission Capable rate excludes those
    aircraft undergoing depot-level maintenance. The Aircraft Availability
    rate measures the mission capability of the entire fleet, including
    those assets designated towards training and test missions. As Aircraft
    Availability is an enterprise view of the entire fleet, it includes
    those aircraft undergoing depot-level maintenance in its calculation.
        While these measures are important, mission capable rates for
    aircraft are only one component of readiness. The Air Force is focused
    on improving the readiness at our operational squadrons to 80 percent
    C1 or C2.

        2. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, the Secretary of Defense
    directed the Air Force to achieve a minimum of 80 percent mission
    capable rates for fiscal year 2019 for the F-35, F-22, and F-16, while
    simultaneously reducing these platforms' operating and maintenance
    costs every year starting in fiscal year 2019. What are the current
    Mission Capable and Aircraft Availability rates for the Air Force
    platforms identified by the Secretary of Defense?
        Secretary Wilson. Current mission capable and aircraft availability
    rates as of the end of fiscal year 2018 are as follows. Rates are for
    period 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018.

        F-16 C/D: Mission Capability (Combat units only)--70%
        F-16 C/D: Aircraft Availability--62%
        F-22A: Mission Capability (Combat units only)--55%
        F-22A: Aircraft Availability--46%
        F-35A: Mission Capability (Combat units only)--72%
        F-35A: Aircraft Availability--69%

        3. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, how does the Air Force
    interpret the Secretary's 80 percent mission capable rate goal--will
    the Air Force be assessing Mission Capable rates or Aircraft
    Availability rates against the Secretary's goals and will the Air Force
    be assessing the entire squadron or just the lead force packages (lead
    UTCs)?
        Secretary Wilson. The Office of the Secretary of Defense for
    Personnel and Readiness in coordination with the Air Force, Navy and
    Marine Corps developed a standardized method of calculating and
    reporting mission capable rates to achieve the Secretary of Defense's
    goals. This standardized method will ensure that all services are held
    to the same standard and report comparable rates. That rate, as
    directed by the Secretary of Defense will be the mission capable rate.
        The rate will be measured as it applies to the entirety of the
    combat coded units, not only the lead force packages within those
    units.
                                      f-35
        4. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, what specific actions is the
    Air Force taking in coordination with the F-35 Joint Program Office to
    achieve the Secretary's 80 percent mission capable goal for the F-35 by
    fiscal year 2019 and beyond?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is accelerating depot repair
    capability, decreasing component repair backlog and increasing spares
    availability. These actions contribute to a 7.7 percent gain in the F-
    35 Mission Capability rate at no additional cost beyond what the Joint
    Program Office has already programmed and received from the Services.
    The Air Force is the lead service driving delegation of maintenance
    authorities to the unit level to allow flightline maintainers to
    quickly affect repairs and return aircraft to Mission Capable status.

        5. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, is the goal achievable?
        Secretary Wilson. The goal is achievable if the reprogramming of
    funds in fiscal year 2019 is approved.

        6. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, what actions is the Air
    Force taking to prioritize readiness for operational F-35 units, as
    Secretary Wilson stated at the hearing?
        Secretary Wilson. Our operational fighter units already have the
    highest priority in our inventory. We will continue to advocate to the
    Joint Program Office for the following: 1) delegation of additional
    maintenance authorities to unit level commanders, 2) reduction in depot
    repair cycle time for components, 3) and improvement in supply chain
    performance. We will strongly promote contract language that meets the
    readiness needs of the Air Force. We will balance our operational tempo
    across all platforms to ensure our operational units are leading the
    fleet.

        7. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, to what extent have the
    challenges associated with the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information
    System (ALIS) affected Air Force fleet readiness?
        Secretary Wilson. Work arounds, engineering response delays, supply
    visibility, and data integrity continue to burden the men and women who
    sustain the F-35 in the U.S. Air Force. ALIS data integrity issues
    consistently rank in the top 10 of all Air Vehicle Availability
    drivers. Our outstanding airmen continue to find manual ways to work
    around system inefficiencies, with impacts on readiness levels.
        The Air Force is also working closely with Lockheed-Martin and the
    Joint Program Office on a project to accelerate software improvements
    with the ALIS system.

        8. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, what specific measures are
    being taken to enhance ALIS' predictive maintenance capabilities?
        Secretary Wilson. We are pursuing improvements to ALIS through an
    agile software development process. The Air Force is particularly
    interested in improvements on Prognostic Health Management (PHM) to
    bring the full potential of this weapon system to the warfighter. The
    Air Force is a voting member on the PHM Steering Board and will
    continue to ensure that warfighter enhancements are prioritized.

        9. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, have
    you thought about using early-production F-35s--planes that will never
    be combat-coded--for adversary air to provide the ``high-low'' mix (5th
    Gen and 4th Gen) that our adversaries will soon have?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. Based on the Fiscal Year
    2019 President's Budget (Current Program of Record) we have not made
    plans to use early production F-35s for adversary air. As F-35
    production continues and the Air Force F-35 fleet capacity grows, we
    will continue to evaluate options to improve our training capabilities.

        10. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, what
    are the plans to bring some of those F-35s to JPARC and the 18th
    Aggressors, and not just Nellis AFB?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. Currently, two combat-coded
    F-35 squadrons will base at Eielson AFB and receive aircraft starting
    in 2020 and completing in 2022. No F-35s are currently planned for the
    18 AGRS. We will continue to evaluate a potential need for 5th Gen
    aggressors at JPARC and the best method to meet that need.
                         f-22 training and organization
        11. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, GAO's report on the F-22
    noted that an Air Force analysis conducted in 2016 determined that,
    based on current aircraft availability rates, pilots in an F-22
    squadron with 21 primary mission aircraft need 270 days of home station
    training each year to meet their minimum annual continuation training
    requirements. However, F-22 pilots were on average falling far short of
    this mark and had a larger training deficit than F-15E and F-16 pilots.
    The Air Force concurred with GAO's F-22 recommendation to identify and
    assess actions to increase F-22 pilot training opportunities for the
    high-end air superiority missions, including looking at adversary air
    support options and reducing tasking and non-core missions. During the
    hearing, the Air Force stated it was taking actions to implement GAO's
    recommendations. What actions has the Air Force taken to address GAO's
    recommendation?
        Secretary Wilson. Commander Air Combat Command (COMACC) is
    proactively addressing the most advantageous use of F-22 for high-end
    training/readiness opportunities and exercises that maximize: 5th
    generation capabilities, opportunities to meet the Ready Aircrew
    Program (RAP), and minimizes using the F-22 where it does not increase
    readiness for pacing threats. Air Combat Command (ACC) and HQ USAF have
    proposed adversary air support options in the Department of Defense
    budget process starting in fiscal year 2019 and continuing across the
    Future
        Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Currently the F-22 pipeline production &
    and absorption are healthy and meeting requirements.
        Hurricane Michael will affect short term F-22 pilot qualifications,
    with Units to be located at Eglin AFB, Florida, with reachback to
    Tyndall AFB:

          The 43rd and 2nd Fighter Squadrons' F-22 Fighter Training
    and T-38 Adversary Training Units will relocate operations to Eglin
    AFB. Academic and simulator facilities at Tyndall AFB will be used to
    support training requirements, as well as Tyndall AFB's surviving low
    observable maintenance facilities

          The 372nd Training Squadron, Detachment 4, will relocate
    with the F-22 Fighter Training Units to Eglin AFB.

        Decisions in response to Hurricane Michael consider the
    recommendations of the GAO 18-190 report, to optimize the F-22 fleet
    across the total force.

        12. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, understanding that the 270
    days needed for annual training is based partially on aircraft
    availability, please provide data on the training days required and
    achieved for F-22 pilots in 2018 and projected for 2019. To what extent
    are things getting better or worse and what are the contributing
    factors?
        Secretary Wilson. Overall the F-22 is trending positive. The F-22
    is not unique in needing a wide variety of training, however 5th
    generation aircraft do have specialized training requirements. In
    context the original 270 required training days was the result of a
    2016 Air Combat Command (ACC) study to identify F-22 training
    shortfalls unique to that fiscal year; this study was cited in GAO 18-
    190.
        ACC closely looked at ways to improve F-22 training efficiency and
    began implementing scheduling changes in fiscal year 2018. ACC
    implemented several initiatives including an increased F-22 fleet wide
    coordination to prioritize high-end training events, reexamination of
    deploy-to-dwell ratio for F-22 to retain higher readiness, and
    individual units prioritizing their training focus based on National
    Defense Strategy (NDS) pacing threats and planned deployment
    scheduling. These collectively increased scheduling efficiencies to
    ``buy back'' home station training days for increased operations and
    maintenance sortie generation. The result has been an approximate 10
    percent reduction in required F-22 training days for Ready Aircrew
    Program (RAP) specifically. However, fiscal year 2018 analysis from ACC
    is incomplete for specific impacts.
        For fiscal year 2019 ACC estimates 250 training days required for
    F-22 [using static assumptions and deploy-to-dwell timing] combat coded
    squadron's RAP. However, ACC's implementation of Dynamic Force
    Employment (DFE) concepts for the F-22 fleet includes factors such as:
    continued refinement of scheduling efficiencies prioritized for high-
    end 5th generation readiness including low observable maintenance, how
    the F-22 forces are packaged and deployed, as well as flying hour
    program adjustments and weapon system sustainment to improve readiness.
    Combined, the expectation is that these efforts continue to decrease
    required training days in and beyond fiscal year 2019, and increase
    aircraft availability resulting in increased F-22 readiness across the
    total force.

        13. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, the Air Force concurred
    with GAO's F-22 recommendation to identify and assess alternative
    approaches to organizing F-22 squadrons, including looking at options
    to consolidate the fleet and revising the design of deployable units.
    During the hearing, the Air Force stated it was taking actions to
    implement GAO's recommendations. What actions has the Air Force taken
    to address GAO's recommendation?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is assessing if changes to the F-22
    home station organizational structure and/or deployment practices would
    better meet global combatant commander requirements. The Air Force was
    already assessing deployment practices to meet NDS implementation
    guidance related to employing our forces more dynamically.
    Additionally, as part of our effort to build the Air Force We Need to
    meet the NDS challenges--we are assessing optimal force structure and
    new force designs pertaining to squadron composition of not only our
    fifth-generation fleet, but all operational squadrons.
                                     jparc
        14. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, what
    specific plans do you have to start executing elements of the JPARC
    2025 to help modernize the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. JPARC will be one of two
    level 4 ranges in the Air Force. This includes adding advanced threat
    systems in the near term. Longer term spending includes the procurement
    and fielding of electronic warfare capabilities and a Live Mission
    Operations Capability (LMOC).

        15. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, what
    elements are included in this year's upcoming budget and FYDP?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. The Air Force is proposing
    to buy the Advanced Radar Threat System family of systems and
    infrastructure upgrades to create the fidelity and density necessary to
    better train our airmen, to include 5th Generation platforms. To
    replicate tasks associated with the Range of Military Operations
    requires a holistic plan combining live, synthetic, and blended
    capabilities. The specific details associated with key investments will
    be available after the President's Fiscal Year 2020 budget submission.

        16. Senator Sullivan. General Goldfein, how do you see ranges such
    as the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) contributing to the
    Air Force's current and future readiness?
        General Goldfein. JPARC contributes to improving the Air Force's
    current and future readiness through its large airspace, relevant
    training environment, and the ability to bring joint forces together to
    train in some of the most advanced threat training environments
    available.
                                 adversary air
        17. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, while
    the Air Force has chosen to invest hundreds of millions today and even
    billions in ``contract'' adversary air--which really only replicate a
    3rd Generation threat--what is the USAF doing to ensure that the two
    USAF Aggressor squadrons of F-16s have necessary upgrades to remain at
    the level of our near-peer adversaries?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. The Adversary Air training
    services contract requirement includes 5th Generation performance
    across three performance categories. Additionally, the F-16 Aggressor
    aircraft are currently undergoing core avionics improvements; including
    software upgrades, addition of secure voice and data capability, and
    SATCOM functionality. These improvements provide a foundation that
    would allow possible follow-on capability for Active Electronically
    Scanned Array (AESA) Radars and Hybrid Optically based Inertial Tracker
    (HObIT)--all designed to increase F-16 Aggressor pilot situational
    awareness and targeting capabilities to remain at the level of our
    adversaries.

                                     kc-46
        18. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, can
    you provide an update on the OCONUS basing of the KC-46A? When can we
    expect the next strategic basing process to begin and what locations
    will be considered?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. The Air Force initiates
    strategic basing decisions five years in advance of the first aircraft
    delivery. The first aircraft deliveries for the fifth KC-46A main
    operating base are scheduled for fiscal year 2024. Therefore, we expect
    to start the strategic basing process in fiscal year 2019.
                       training ranges and infrastructure
        19. Senator Sullivan. General Goldfein, specifically, given the
    large-scale air and land exercises recently conducted by our
    adversaries, do we have the range and air space available to conduct
    similar exercises within the U.S. Armed Forces?
        General Goldfein. We have ranges available to train in a focused
    way to improve and exercise joint interoperability employment
    objectives and do not focus on ``Show of Force'' exercises that our
    adversaries typically conduct. However, we are limited in our ability
    to expand due to urban sprawl, endangered species habitats, renewable
    energy development and competition with industry for airspace and
    spectrum.

        20. Senator Sullivan. General Goldfein, is there current range and
    air space infrastructure sufficient to meet the training needs and
    required readiness of the Air Force?
        General Goldfein. The capabilities of our newer weapon systems have
    outgrown our legacy range and airspace structure. We are addressing
    this shortfall through improving the JPARC and targeted expansion of
    the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Regarding expansion of the
    NTTR, the Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for renewal
    of its withdrawal from the public domain (released to the public on 26
    October 2018) identified as part of the preferred alternative three
    proposed expansions of the range totaling approximately 300,000 acres--
    alternatives 3A-1 (15,314 acres), 3B (56,501 acres), and 3C (227,027
    acres)--to increase or enhance both major combat operations and
    irregular warfare test and training as well as increase the operational
    security and safety of the range. The Air Force's preferred alternative
    also includes the proposal to make the renewal and expansion (300,000
    acres) withdrawals from the public domain indefinite (Alternative 4C),
    meaning the withdrawal would not expire for the foreseeable future. We
    also realize that we must build a robust synthetic environment that
    will facilitate high-end training.

        21. Senator Sullivan. General Goldfein, what, if any, concerns do
    you have about infringement on existing ranges or the ability to expand
    ranges, if necessary in the future?
        General Goldfein. The ability to expand ranges and airspace is part
    of our plan, but is a multi-year process and presents the most concern
    to meet training objectives for 5th generation aircraft. Although
    encroachment is a continual challenge, we work with our interagency
    partners at FAA, Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
    Dept. of Fish and Wildlife as well as state and local officials in
    order to limit or mitigate the effects.
                               acquisition reform
        22. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, over the past year you and
    Gen. Goldfein have talked a great deal about speeding up the
    acquisition process and delivering improved capabilities to the
    warfighter faster. Would you please give us some specific examples of
    how you have used the acquisition authorities provided in the fiscal
    year 2017 NDAA to deliver more capability faster?
        Secretary Wilson. Section 847 of the fiscal year 2017 NDAA,
    Revisions to Definition of Major Defense Acquisition Program, removes
    the statutory definition of MDAP for ``an acquisition program or
    project that is carried out using the rapid fielding or rapid
    prototyping acquisition pathway under section 804 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 10
    U.S.C. 2302 note).''
        The Air Force uses this authority to develop and execute
    acquisition strategies that speed acquisition timelines, providing
    capability to our warfighters more quickly. Recent programs that have
    been approved to execute using section 804 of the fiscal year 2016 NDAA
    and section 847 of the 2017 NDAA are:

            Protected Tactical Enterprise Service, which will reach Initial
            Operating Capability 18 months quicker than under a traditional
            acquisition program. Unified Platform, which will reach Initial
            Operating Capability 3\1/2\ years sooner than it would
            executing under a traditional approach. Additionally, the F-22
            Agile Prototype Program will achieve the Initial Fleet Release
            milestone 2 years sooner than it had planned by tailoring the
            Department of Defense Instruction under the 5000.02 process.

        23. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, where do you still see
    challenges?
        Secretary Wilson. We are continuing to push decision-making to the
    lowest levels and reduce bureaucracy in order to speed capability to
    the warfighter. OSD recently issued interim guidance for rapid
    prototyping and rapid fielding under fiscal year 2016 NDAA section 804
    Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA). As the Air Force discusses the
    interim governance implementation with OSD, we will continue with
    innovative execution utilizing the appropriate MTA authorities. Among
    other things, the guidance would establish OSD veto authority over
    Service transparency into section 804 programs. As the Air Force
    discusses the interim governance implementation with OSD, we will
    continue with innovative execution utilizing the appropriate MTA
    authorities.

        24. Senator Sullivan. Secretary Wilson, what additional authorities
    do you need?
        Secretary Wilson. We appreciate your continued support of our
    legislative requests. We have developed two space acquisition
    legislative proposals that are currently under consideration for
    submission as part of the Department of Defense fiscal year 2020
    legislative program. With respect to general acquisition authorities,
    at this time we believe we have all the Congressional authorities we
    need to address faster and smarter acquisitions and are looking forward
    to the implementation and results from authorities like sections 804
    and 847. As we gain experience with implementation of section 804, we
    will keep you informed of any additional legislation needed.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Deb Fischer
                             mission capable rates
        25. Senator Fischer. General Goldfein, recently, Secretary Mattis
    issued memo guidance to increase mission capable rates for tactical
    aircraft throughout the Air Force and Navy. Other large aerial
    platforms which serve a non-combat role, such as ISR and airborne early
    warning platforms, are just as critical. Unfortunately, many of these
    platforms are several decades old and as such suffer variable mission
    capable rates. What plans are in place to increase mission capable
    rates for the Air Force's other airframes, and what efforts at
    improvement are being made currently?
        General Goldfein. The Air Force is working multiple efforts to
    improve mission capability of our aging legacy platforms. We are nearly
    complete with the annual update of our aircraft availability
    improvement programs. These integrated plans, approved by stakeholders,
    present senior leaders with options to best align resources to achieve
    readiness goals and targets. Future plans include increased sustaining
    engineering, as well as aggressively pursuing emerging technologies and
    commercial best practices such as condition based maintenance, theory
    of constraints, additive manufacturing and more.
                             maintenance investment
        26. Senator Fischer. General Goldfein, recently, the GAO examined
    the operating costs inherent with aging Air Force Aircraft, finding a
    relationship between investment in maintenance and sustainment and the
    rate at which airframes and components break down. What efforts are
    being made to address the unique maintenance issues linked with the Air
    Force's older platforms?
        General Goldfein. The Air Force is taking a variety of actions to
    address the unique maintenance issues associated with our aging
    aircraft. The particular efforts are tailored to the specific
    challenges posed by the weapon systems, but in general our efforts
    include:

          Incorporating cutting edge technologies into our organic
    depot facilities to improve performance and reduce maintenance times.

          Optimizing programmed maintenance and planned
    modifications to ensure the impact on availability is minimized.

          Incorporating enhanced corrosion inspection and repairs
    into heavy maintenance activities.

          Implementing service life extension programs that enable
    the maintenance and reengineering of parts that had not been planned
    for repair.

          Leveraging direct hire authority to hire skilled
    employees for critical maintenance positions.
                                 growth in isr
        27. Senator Fischer. Secretary Wilson, the Air Force's plan to grow
    its squadrons to 386 is an ambitious one and showcases the changing
    geopolitical climate we must operate and succeed in. ISR was singled
    out for particular growth under this plan--according to this vision for
    Air Force expansion, what will be done with older but still critical
    large manned ISR platforms such as the C-135 family of aircraft (to
    include planes like the RC-135)? Will these be replaced, will their
    numbers be expanded, or is there some other strategy in place for
    growing Air Force ISR?
        Secretary Wilson. The RC-135 family of aircraft will continue to
    operate through at least 2040-2050 with a possible expectation of an
    analysis of alternatives sometime in the late 2020's or early 2030's.
                            industrial base support
        28. Senator Fischer. Secretary Wilson, to what degree do you assess
    the current industrial base capacity can support the effort to reach
    386 squadrons? What are some areas of manufacturing shortfall or supply
    chain problems that could prevent such a goal from being achieved, and
    how might these be overcome?
        Secretary Wilson. On July 21, 2017, President Donald J. Trump
    issued Executive Order (EO) 13806 on Assessing and Strengthening the
    Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency
    of the United States. EO 13806 directed the Secretary of Defense to
    perform a whole-of-government assessment of the manufacturing and
    defense industrial base and assess risk, identify impacts, and propose
    mitigations. We participated in the assessment and identified multiple
    industrial base challenges, including dependency on foreign sources,
    single and/or sole sources of supply, suppliers' financial fragility,
    capacity limitations, and others.
        The Department created a classified action plan that includes
    recommendations designed to mitigate the most critical industrial base
    impacts identified during the assessment. The AF, in conjunction with
    the DOD Office of Industrial Policy and other government stakeholders,
    is currently working on the implementation of the action plan,
    including updates on identified risks and appropriate mitigations. We
    are also identifying the right programs and tools available to mitigate
    risks. Programs like the Defense Production Act Title III,
    Manufacturing Technology, and Industrial Base Analysis & Sustainment
    will help us address critical manufacturing bottlenecks, support
    fragile suppliers, reduce foreign dependency, and mitigate single
    points-of-failure.
                          conditions based maintenance
        29. Senator Fischer. General Goldfein, how is the new Conditions
    Based Maintenance construct being applied to legacy airframes with
    higher end service hours, such as iterations of the C-135 platform, and
    what changes (if any) has this produced in mission capable rates?
        General Goldfein. The Conditions Based Maintenance construct,
    Reliability Centered Maintenance, and predictive analytics form a
    culture that seeks to perform maintenance based on evidence of need
    provided through aircraft sensor data analysis, system mode-failure
    analysis and other enabling processes and technologies. This allows us
    to know when a part is going to fail beforehand, which then provides us
    the opportunity to change the part at a time and place of our choosing
    while optimizing the supply system to be prepared for that maintenance
    action. As such, it has the potential for huge gains in both readiness
    and cost-effectiveness.
        As many of our legacy aircraft lack the onboard sensors required to
    accomplish real time fault reporting, we must prioritize which aircraft
    we equip with sensor capability to utilize Condition Based Maintenance
    to its fullest extent. Those without sensor capability utilize
    Reliability Centered Maintenance or other predictive analysis models to
    reduce maintenance downtime. We have test programs ongoing for the B-1
    and C-5 and expect to see initial results by the end of fiscal year
    2019. We also plan initial fielding for the KC-135 in March 2019.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
                         jstars sustainment strategies
        30. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, a GAO report published last
    month concluded that the JSTARS platform faces maintenance issues
    because of poor depot maintenance. Currently, the contractor utilizes a
    commercial-based maintenance plan, which does not focus on long-term
    structural issues that require inspection and maintenance, instead of a
    military-based plan. Maintenance costs also almost doubled between
    fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2016 due to increases in contractor
    logistics support. The 2019 NDAA requires a report to be submitted that
    conducts a cost benefit analysis for conducting organic depot
    maintenance at Robins Air Force Base versus conducting contracted, non-
    organic depot maintenance. Even though there has been just one test
    aircraft, can you speak to the benefits realized thus far with organic
    depot on the JSTARS aircraft?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force expects to achieve cost and
    schedule efficiencies during the ongoing organic depot level
    maintenance pilot program at Robins AFB, GA. The Air Force anticipates
    reducing time spent in programmed depot maintenance (PDM) from an
    average of 439 days (based on the last 5 PDM deliveries) to 300 days.
    The final cost and schedule efficiency achieved will be available for
    release 90 days after completion of the organic depot level maintenance
    pilot. The Air Force will provide an update briefing to the
    Congressional Defense Committees on the progress of organic depot
    maintenance.

        31. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what cost savings have you
    found with organic depot maintenance on the JSTARS test aircraft?
        Secretary Wilson. Based on the on-going organic depot maintenance
    pilot, the Air Force anticipates substantial cost savings over
    contractor depot maintenance. The final cost savings achieved will be
    available for release 90 days after completion of the organic depot
    level maintenance pilot. The Air Force will provide an update briefing
    to the Congressional Defense Committees on the progress of organic
    depot.

        32. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, has the Air force begun the
    cost benefit analysis required in the NDAA to compare organic with
    contracted maintenance?
        Secretary Wilson. Yes, the Air Force began the cost benefit
    analysis to compare organic and contracted maintenance for the JSTARS
    fleet. We are currently collecting actual cost and schedule data from
    the first aircraft inducted into the organic depot maintenance pilot
    (aircraft inducted on 16 July 2018) in order to inform this analysis.

        33. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, when will the aforementioned
    study be published?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force anticipates the full cost benefit
    analysis from the organic depot maintenance pilot will be available by
    January 2020. We will provide an update briefing to the Congressional
    Defense Committees as information is available.

        34. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, while the Air Force has done
    well with ensuring their Life Cycle Management Plans for all of their
    platforms are updated every 5 years, various changes to the estimated
    service life of the JSTARS platform and the prohibition on retirement
    of any aircraft require special attention be given to the aircraft.
    What is the progress of reviewing new and different sustainment
    strategies for the JSTARS aircraft?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is still assessing what updates are
    required for JSTARS sustainment strategy. Information obtained from the
    organic depot maintenance pilot will be paramount in informing this
    decision.

        35. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what decisions have been made
    by the Air Force to update the sustainment strategy for the JSTARS?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is still assessing what updates are
    required for JSTARS sustainment strategy. Information obtained from the
    organic depot maintenance pilot will be paramount in informing this
    decision. The Air Force will provide an update to the Congressional
    Defense Committees on the status of the ongoing organic depot
    maintenance pilot as needed.

        36. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, when can we expect a new Life
    Cycle Management Plan to be published by the Air Force?
        Secretary Wilson. The JSTARS life cycle management plan (LCMP) is
    being updated to reflect actions being taken to accomplish safety of
    flight modifications and to increase aircraft availability. A number of
    factors have the potential to significantly impact the completion date
    of a new LCMP and preclude the Air Force from providing an estimated
    publication date at this time. Factors impacting an LCMP update
    include: the results of the ongoing organic depot maintenance pilot and
    associated cost benefit analysis, fiscal year 2019 NDAA E-8C
    availability requirements, and the end of the current sustainment
    contract in CY22.
                                depot readiness
        37. Senator Perdue. Mr. Pendleton, last week a report on the state
    of the U.S. industrial base issued by the White House states that ``all
    facets of manufacturing and defense industrial base are currently under
    threat.'' What are the major challenges facing the Air Force's
    sustainment of legacy equipment through the industrial base?
        Mr. Pendleton. GAO's prior work has found that the Air Force and
    the Department of Defense (DOD) face numerous industrial base
    challenges in the sustainment of its weapon systems. These challenges--
    (1) diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages, (2)
    single source of supply, (3) shortage of depot maintenance personnel at
    military depots, and (4) the cybersecurity of weapon systems--align
    with many of those identified in the report provided to the President.
    \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense
    Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,
    September 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, in September 2018 GAO reported that diminishing
    manufacturing sources for spare parts were negatively affecting the
    availability of each of the five Air Force aircraft--B-52, C-17, E-8C,
    F-16, and F-22--we reviewed. \2\ For example, the E-8C Joint
    Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) has experienced this
    problem with parts affecting the aircraft's secure data capabilities.
    Specifically, the vendor that made a part allowing for secure
    connectivity for the aircraft while airborne went out of business. GAO
    reported the Air Force has ongoing and planned actions to maintain the
    availability of spare parts, such as identifying alternative vendors,
    reverse-engineering parts, and cannibalizing parts from other aircraft.
    \3\ For example, the F-22 program office maintains a comprehensive
    Diminishing Manufacturing Sources program to minimize material
    shortages. DOD is also in the process of developing department-wide
    guidance, in response to a GAO recommendation, to enhance its
    Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS)
    program. In September 2017 GAO reported that DOD's implementation of
    the DMSMS program to proactively manage the loss of suppliers and
    shortages varied at selected program offices. \4\ GAO found that DOD
    lacked department-wide DMSMS policy, such as an instruction, that
    clearly defines requirements of DMSMS management and details
    responsibilities and procedures to be followed by program offices to
    implement the policy. DOD concurred with this recommendation and is in
    the process of taking steps to implement it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GAO, Weapon System Sustainment: Selected Air Force and Navy
    Aircraft Generally Have Not Met Availability Goals, and DOD and Navy
    Guidance Need to Be Clarified, GAO-18-678 (Washington, DC: Sept. 10,
    2018). Diminishing manufacturing sources is a loss or impending loss of
    manufacturers or suppliers of items.
        \3\ Cannibalizing is the taking of a part from one end item (e.g.,
    aircraft) and using it on another end item. This involves taking parts
    from condemned end items schedule for disposal, using parts from end
    items that are ``further back in line'' at the depot, or re-
    prioritizing parts from one use to another.
        \4\ GAO, Defense Supply Chain: DOD Needs Complete Information on
    Single Sources of Supply to Proactively Manage the Risks, GAO-17-768
    (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, in September 2017 GAO reported that a congressionally-
    mandated 2016 DOD report on risks associated with single sources of
    supply did not include implementation plans and timelines for risk
    mitigation actions or information about the effects of the loss of
    suppliers. In addition, DOD did not provide complete information about
    DOD organic facilities that are considered critical assets (i.e., its
    loss would have a serious, debilitating effect on the ability to
    execute a capability or mission-essential task) in its report. GAO
    recommended that DOD provide complete information to decision makers on
    risk mitigation plans and timeframes, potential effects from losses,
    and all critical facilities, commercial and organic, regarding risks
    from single sources of supply.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ GAO-17-768.
        \5\ GAO-18-678.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, weapon system program offices do not have complete
    information to fully identify and manage single source of supply risks.
    First, program officials GAO spoke with for our September 2017 report
    did not have information about parts from single-source suppliers that
    are considered to be most critical, which could provide important focus
    for managing these risks. Second, program offices often rely on the
    prime contractor to identify single source of supply risks, among other
    types of risks, and GAO found in September 2017 that program offices in
    some instances had limited information to manage those risks because
    DOD does not have a mechanism to ensure program offices obtain complete
    information from contractors. GAO recommended that DOD take steps to
    share information on risks identified with relevant program managers or
    other designated service or program officials and develop mechanism to
    ensure that program offices obtain information from contractors on
    single source of supply risks. DOD concurred with these recommendations
    and is in the process of taking steps to implement them.
        Third, GAO's September 2018 report identified instances in which
    the Air Force Air Logistics Complexes did not have sufficient personnel
    to conduct needed depot maintenance on its aircraft. \6\ Specifically,
    the Air Force reported a shortage of depot maintenance personnel at
    Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex for its work on the C-17 aircraft.
    This occurred due to attrition, inability to retain skilled workers,
    and hiring freezes. F-22 program officials at Ogden Air Logistics
    Complex also reported a shortage of maintenance personnel for similar
    reasons. GAO also has work underway examining depot skill gaps across
    the Military Services and plans to report on this issue prior to the
    end of 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ GAO-18-678.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fourth, in October 2018 GAO reported that DOD faces mounting
    challenges in protecting its weapon systems from increasingly
    sophisticated cyber threats. \7\ Although GAO and others have warned of
    cyber risks for decades, until recently, DOD had not prioritized weapon
    systems cybersecurity. In operational testing, DOD routinely found
    mission-critical cyber vulnerabilities in systems that were under
    development, yet program officials GAO met with believed their systems
    were secure and discounted some test results as unrealistic. Using
    relatively simple tools and techniques, DOD testers were able to take
    control of systems and largely operate undetected, due in part to basic
    issues such as poor password management and unencrypted communications.
    In addition, vulnerabilities that DOD is aware of likely represent a
    fraction of total vulnerabilities due to testing limitations. For
    example, not all programs have been tested and tests do not reflect the
    full range of threats.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ GAO, Weapon Systems Cybersecurity: DOD Just Beginning to
    Grapple with Scale of Vulnerabilities, GAO-19-128 (Washington, DC: Oct.
    9, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we reported in October 2018, DOD has recently taken several
    steps to improve weapon systems cybersecurity, including issuing and
    revising policies and guidance to better incorporate cybersecurity
    considerations. DOD, as directed by Congress, has also begun
    initiatives to better understand and address cyber vulnerabilities.
    However, DOD faces barriers that could limit the effectiveness of these
    steps, such as cybersecurity workforce challenges and difficulties
    sharing information and lessons about vulnerabilities. To address these
    challenges and improve the state of weapon systems cybersecurity, it is
    essential that DOD sustain its momentum in developing and implementing
    key initiatives. GAO did not make any recommendations in the October
    2018 report and plans to continue evaluating key aspects of DOD's
    weapon systems cybersecurity efforts.

        38. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what are your priorities for
    modernizing the organic depots?
        Secretary Wilson. In order to satisfy the requirements of S.Rept
    115-262 (page 237), the Air Force is developing a Master Plan for
    organic industrial base infrastructure which will include an assessment
    of current depot infrastructure, as well as a detailed prioritization
    of modernization projects by location. The report will list priorities
    starting with the most immediate concern and incorporating new
    technologies to modernize the processes at the organic depots. The
    report was completed on February 1, 2019.

        39. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what do you need from
    Congress to meet the challenges faced by the defense industrial base?
        Secretary Wilson. Congress can help us by supporting DOD's efforts
    to implement the classified action plan provided in response to
    Executive Order 13806. This includes new legislation to address
    industrial base risks and increased funding to programs like Defense
    Production Act Title III, Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment, and
    Manufacturing Technology so the Department can support the needs of
    21st Century manufacturing companies.

        40. Senator Perdue. General Goldfein, do we currently have the
    facilities and workforce necessary to sustain both our legacy systems
    and new weapons systems?
        General Goldfein. The Air Force currently has the facilities needed
    to support our legacy systems and the new weapon systems that will be
    fielded in the near term. The Air Force has successfully utilized the
    required 6 percent investment in the organic depots to maintain the
    current equipment and facilities. In addition, Congress has provided
    MILCON funds for the KC-46 and F-35 at Tinker and Ogden to ensure we
    can support the new systems when they are fielded. In order to ensure
    we have the facilities we need to continue sustaining our weapon
    systems in the future, the Air Force is developing a Master Plan for
    organic industrial base infrastructure. This plan will include a
    detailed prioritization of modernization projects by location that will
    ensure we have the sustainment capabilities we need to satisfy future
    requirements.
        While our workforce is currently sufficient to sustain both our
    legacy and new weapon systems, attracting and retaining talent remains
    challenging. The size of the sustainment labor pool is not expected to
    increase, and this issue is exacerbated by an aging workforce that is
    eligible for retirement in increasing numbers. The direct hire
    authority provided by Congress has helped tremendously with staffing,
    and the Air Force continues to explore ways to become the employer of
    choice for new talent.
                              depot modernization
        41. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, the Senate Report
    accompanying the 2019 NDAA includes a provision for all depots to
    develop depot optimization plans. What is the current condition of the
    depot facilities and equipment at the Air Logistics Complexes?
        Secretary Wilson. In order to satisfy the requirements of S.Rept
    115-262 (page 237), the Air Force is developing a Master Plan for
    organic industrial base infrastructure which will include an assessment
    of current depot infrastructure, as well as a detailed prioritization
    of modernization projects by location. The report will list priorities
    starting with the most immediate concern and incorporating new
    technologies to modernize the processes at the organic depots. The
    report delivered on February 1, 2019.

        42. Senator Perdue. General Goldfein, what is the operational
    impact on Air Force flying units of inefficient maintenance processes
    and maintenance overruns?
        General Goldfein. The impact of reduced aircraft availability is a
    degraded ability to accomplish aircrew training to meet readiness
    requirements. This situation primarily affects our in garrison forces,
    as priority for aircraft sourcing is given to down range missions to
    support the warfighter.

        43. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, has the Air Force identified
    the cost of needed improvements and the savings and readiness benefits
    that can result from optimizing its depot facilities?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force's Master Plan of organic industrial
    base infrastructure, required by S.Rept 115-262 (page 237), will
    include the costs for needed improvements, the projected savings, and
    the impacts on readiness. The report was completed on February 1, 2019.
                             direct hire authority
        44. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, there is plenty of room for
    improvement in the hiring process, and the 2019 NDAA further expands
    the direct hire authority to all necessary workers within the defense
    industrial base. The authorities for direct hire, however, will sunset
    in the future. The Air Force and rest of the government must reform the
    hiring process in the meantime to maintain the skilled work force
    necessary for a modern force. Can you provide an update on how the
    direct hire authority is improving hiring processes?
        Secretary Wilson. Direct Hiring Authority provides the capability
    to offer on-the-spot tentative job offers needed to expedite
    recruitment for critical vacancies like cyber specialists and
    engineers. Recent hiring events resulted in 378 job offers with an
    average time to hire of less than 30 days. This demonstrates the
    success of these authorities. The Air Force is maximizing usage of all
    Congressional authorities provided under National Defense Authorization
    Acts (NDAA) 2016, 2017 and 2018, resulting in over 6500 hires to date.
    These authorities will enhance the Air Force's ability to hire for
    critical maintenance positions outside of depots.

        45. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what other actions are being
    taken by the Air Force to maintain a highly technical and skilled
    workforce?
        Secretary Wilson. The demand for talent and competition with
    private industry is growing. In addition to hiring authorities, the Air
    Force continues to leverage multiple social media tools, recruiting
    platforms, and partnerships with universities to search for
    professionals and young talent to fill critical Air Force vacancies. In
    addition to the recruiting efforts, the Air Force is committed to
    continual development of our existing technical workforce. Civilian
    employees have opportunities to participate in developmental programs
    such as Education with Industry, Fellowship Programs at the Air Force
    National Laboratories or participate in Air Force Institute of
    Technology Degree programs.
        We also offer employees access to civilian tuition assistance, a
    program that has grown significantly in the past two years, which
    affords employees an opportunity to pursue degrees with subsidized
    tuition up to and including doctoral programs. Lastly, through our
    civilian developmental teams we focus on meeting the developmental
    needs of individual employees, whether in their current series or by
    affording them opportunities for career broadening, as a retention tool
    to keep our world-class talent within the Department of the Air Force.

        46. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what help does the Air Force
    need from Congress to improve our ability to recruit, hire, and retain
    a skilled workforce?
        Secretary Wilson. Due to the inefficiencies of title 5, vital
    direct/expedited hiring flexibilities have been provided to the
    Department of Defense; however, the specific hiring authorities are
    associated with narrow populations in the Air Force and have different
    provisions requiring multiple implementation processes and regulations.
    The Air Force needs a broader Department-wide direct hiring authority
    as well as pay setting compensation flexibilities for critical hiring
    needs or shortages essential to mission accomplishment. The Air Force
    and Department of Defense have developed several legislative proposals
    addressing these issues that are currently under consideration for
    submission as part of the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2020
    legislative program.

        47. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what other factors, for
    example the prohibition on retiring and immediately taking a civilian
    job, limit your ability to recruit talent?
        Secretary Wilson. The 180-day waiver process to hire retired
    servicemembers can be a limiting factor for hiring and recruitment,
    specifically impacting occupations whose primary talent pool is retired
    military members.
        Another recurring issue the Air Force faces in recruiting talent
    concerns the Office of Personnel Management classification and
    qualification standards. These standards cover the large percentage of
    the Air Force Title 5 civilian workforce and many are severely
    outdated. For example, the qualification standards for occupational
    series 2181 (civilian pilots and simulator instructors) was published
    in 1988, and they do not reflect current aircraft mission requirements,
    flying hour programs, or the Air Force's investment in high fidelity
    simulators. These outdated standards significantly impede the hiring
    and retention of civilian aircraft operators resulting in recurring
    talent losses to the airline industry or private sector.
                                     audit
        48. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what is the status of the Air
    Force's fiscal year 2018 audit?
        Secretary Wilson. Our first year of Full Financial Statement audit
    is complete. The first audit included significant findings. We have
    developed corrective action plans for audit findings.

        49. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, what actions have you taken
    to ensure the Air Force can achieve a clean opinion?
        Secretary Wilson. Audits identify problems which can then be fixed.
    They are used to improve management over time. We have directed that a
    corrective action plan be developed for every finding. We will monitor
    the closure of corrective actions.

        50. Senator Perdue. Secretary Wilson, do you believe the audit will
    help you find readiness efficiencies?
        Secretary Wilson. Possibly identify management gaps that can be
    improved. Some may have readiness implications.
                                kc-135 readiness
        51. Senator Perdue. General Goldfein, what is the Air Force doing
    to ensure that the fleet of KC-135 aircraft are receiving the necessary
    attention regarding corrosion and chronic fuel leaks to continue flying
    for their full service life?
        General Goldfein. Each KC-135 aircraft undergoes Programmed Depot
    Maintenance (PDM) every five years to remedy all fuel systems issues
    including restoration of integral fuel tanks and refurbishing fuel
    bladders back to baseline serviceable condition. All fuel leak issues
    identified by the field and PDM maintainers are corrected and tested
    before returning an aircraft to home station. KC-135 has established a
    Corrosion Prevention and Control Program plan to define the process for
    identifying specific actions to delay and reduce the onset of corrosion
    on the KC-135 aircraft.

        52. Senator Perdue. General Goldfein, have new technologies been
    tested to provide improved performance, reduced corrosion, and reduced
    leakage for the aging KC-135 fleet?
        General Goldfein. The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
    Authorization Act directed the Air Force to conduct a KC-135 study
    regarding the value of using polyurethane sealant (newer technology) to
    correct chronic leak issues. The KC-135 study researched 15 years of
    data from the Air Force Research Laboratory and interviewed 4 other
    platforms that have experience with polyurethane sealants. In addition,
    one KC-135 aircraft was selected as a test aircraft for ``deseal'' of
    the current polysulfide sealant and ``reseal'' of newer polyurethane
    sealant.
        Cost and schedule data from test aircraft showed that polyurethane
    sealant is not advantageous for the KC-135 fleet. Due to the cost and
    schedule required, completely ``desealing and resealing'' KC-135
    aircraft with any sealant, polysulfide or polyurethane, should only be
    considered on aircraft that are deemed as problematic/chronic leakers.
    KC-135 has also invested in helium leak detectors to help maintainers
    troubleshoot small, nuisance leaks. In 2019, the Air Force Research
    Laboratory is planning a flight demo of a fuel leak sensor system to
    determine leak locations from outside the aircraft which may reduce
    inspection and maintenance time.

        53. Senator Perdue. General Goldfein, what specifically has been
    done to address the issue of chronic leaks with the KC-135?
        General Goldfein. We directed the replacement of several aircraft
    structural end items that contribute to chronic KC-135 fuel leaks
    including aft spar terminals, structural fittings, and improved fuel
    bladders. Additionally, the Air Force Research Laboratory developed and
    tested a drop-in replacement for fuel leak detection tape on two KC-
    135s. This solution will add a change fuel path indication and a
    residue-free removal allowing maintainers to efficiently determine
    isolated fuel leak sources.

        54. Senator Perdue. Mr. Pendleton, would it be appropriate or
    necessary for GAO to look into the issue of chronic leaks for the KC-
    135 and review technologies or sustainment methods that the Air Force
    is considering to maintain the current fleet of tanker aircraft?
        Mr. Pendleton. GAO has ongoing work examining sustainment outcomes,
    such as mission capable rates, and associated supply and maintenance
    challenges for combat-related fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft across
    the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Army. GAO plans to report on
    this issue by early summer 2019. This work includes the KC-135 and KC-
    10 Air Force tankers. GAO personnel are available to discuss any
    specific interests and issues regarding the sustainment of the Air
    Force's tanker fleet, as well as ways we can help support Congressional
    oversight of these systems.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                                      pfas
        55. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Wilson, as you know the Department
    of Defense (DOD) is researching and developing Aqueous Film Forming
    Foam (AFFF) alternatives that do not contain perfluorooctanesulfonic
    acid (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) through the Strategic
    Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
    Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). Is the
    Department of the Air Force conducting its own Research and Development
    (R&D) regarding AFFF alternatives that do not contain PFOS or PFOA and,
    if so, what is the extent of that research?
        Secretary Wilson. The Department of the Air Force is not conducting
    independent Research and Development regarding AFFF alternatives. The
    Department of the Navy is lead agency for the AFFF Military
    Specifications.

        56. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Wilson, it is my understanding that
    the Navy Research Lab (NRL) is conducting R&D related to AFFF
    alternatives that do not contain PFOS or PFOA. If the Air Force is
    conducting its own R&D regarding AFFF alternatives, is the Air Force
    coordinating and de-conflicting its efforts with the Navy?
        Secretary Wilson. The Department of the Air Force is not conducting
    independent Research and Development regarding AFFF alternatives. The
    Department of the Navy is lead agency for the AFFF Military
    Specifications.

        57. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Wilson, it is my understanding that
    some North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies of the United
    States have already transitioned to using per- and polyfluoroalkyl
    substances (PFAS)-free foams. What would prevent the U.S. Air Force
    from transitioning to using PFAS-free foams?
        Secretary Wilson. It is imperative the Air Force maintains
    effective fire protection for people, critical assets, and
    infrastructure and as such is required to utilize a Military
    Specifications approved fire-fighting agent. The Navy, as lead agency
    for the AFFF Military Specifications, amended the specification in 2017
    to target development of, and transition to, a non-fluorinated agent
    and encourage AFFF manufacturers to minimize the PFOA and PFOS levels
    in their products in the interim. When a fluorine-free foam is
    developed that meets military performance specifications, then the Air
    Force could transition to a Military Specifications compliant, PFAS-
    free foam.

        58. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Wilson, earlier this year, Senator
    Rounds and I introduced the PFAS Registry Act, which would create a
    national database for servicemembers and veterans experiencing health
    problems potentially due to PFAS exposure. Portions of this bill were
    included in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA, which was signed into law in
    August. During last month's PFAS hearing before the Senate Homeland
    Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary
    Maureen Sullivan testified that the DOD has begun implementing these
    provisions. Could you please elaborate on the DOD's efforts to
    establish a PFAS registry for military personnel and veterans?
        Secretary Wilson. Regarding a registry for individuals exposed to
    PFAS, as specified in the section 315(c) (4) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019, the Secretary of Defense will
    assess the human health implications of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
    Substances (PFAS) exposure. The assessment will also include an
    estimate of the cost required to administer a potential registry of
    individuals who may have been exposed to PFAS while serving in the
    Armed Forces. The Department will also assess scientific results and
    recommendations from ongoing PFAS studies and analyses by the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and
    Disease Registry, and other organizations, to determine the feasibility
    of a registry. The Air Force will engage and support the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense as the Department of Defense continues to assess
    the health effects of PFAS exposure.

        59. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Wilson, what is your department
    doing to ensure that servicemembers and veterans receive updates on
    recent scientific developments on the effects of PFAS exposure and
    information on what resources may be available to address their health
    concerns?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force uses the Center for Disease Control
    and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
    and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the latest scientific
    developments, as they are the federal agencies with the expertise to
    vet new studies and findings. When we learn of new Per- and
    Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) health effects information from these
    agencies, we pass it to our subordinate commands to ensure the
    information is disseminated and actions are implemented. We also engage
    with ATSDR as they begin work on the health study and exposure
    assessment, which will ultimately serve to provide additional
    scientific information regarding health effects of PFAS exposure.
        When the Air Force holds public meetings regarding perfluorooctane
    sulfonate (PFOS) / perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) environmental
    contamination, we invite the public health officials with jurisdiction
    to explain PFAS health effects and scientific information to attendees.
    The Air Force also hosts a public website https://www. afcec.af.mil/
    WhatWeDo/Environment/Perfluorinated-Compounds/ detailing the latest Air
    Force actions in response to PFOA/PFOS contamination.
        The Department of Veterans Affairs also disseminates PFAS
    information via its public website (https://www.publichealth.va.gov/
    exposures/pfas.asp), and veterans may contact a local VA Environmental
    Health Coordinator for concerns and questions.
        The Air Force is committed to being transparent in its handling of
    PFOS/PFOA-related issues and related information and maintaining an
    open dialogue with communities, regulators, and other stakeholders.

        60. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Wilson, it is my understanding that
    the Military Specification (MILSPEC) that require the use of AFFF that
    contains PFAS was developed in the 1960s. When was the last time the
    MILSPEC requiring the use of AFFF that contains PFAS was evaluated?
        Secretary Wilson. The Navy amended the AFFF Military Specification
    in 2017, targeting development of, and transition to, a non-fluorinated
    agent and encouraging AFFF manufacturers to minimize the PFOA and PFOS
    levels in their products in the interim. The amended Military
    Specification sets a maximum acceptable limit of PFOS and PFOA at the
    current lowest limit of quantitation of 800 ppb.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie Hirono
                       adversary air capability training
        61. Senator Hirono. General Goldfein, I want to first thank you for
    the detailed responses to my questions for the record as a result of
    the Air Force posture hearing this year related to adversary air
    capabilities for the Hawaii Air National Guard at Joint Base Pearl
    Harbor Hickam (JBPHH). In that response, you stated that ADAIR jets and
    pilots will be permanently placed in Hawaii to allow more realistic
    training for F-22 crews. Can you describe the Air Force's strategy for
    this new ADAIR capability for the Hawaii Air National Guard, to include
    the type of new aircraft and training the Guard should expect? Is the
    February 2019 timeframe, which you provided in your response, the
    expectation for deployment of the ADAIR capability to the 199th Fighter
    Squadron?
        General Goldfein. The Air Force strategy is to use Adversary Air to
    reduce the required organic USAF generated resources across the fighter
    force structure for pilot production, absorption, and training for
    pacing threats. Currently contract Adversary Air is located at Nellis
    AFB to support the USAF Warfare Center, Red Flag exercises, and USAF
    Weapons School training demands. Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam is on
    the Air Force list of proposed Adversary Air locations and has been
    submitted to the Department of Defense budget process across the Future
    Years Defense Plan.
        The new Adversary Air acquisition is currently managed by the
    Acquisition Management Integration Center who requested proposals from
    commercial vendors to meet the requirements. Pending the President's
    approved budget, Congressional authorization in the fiscal year 2020
    NDAA, and outcome of expected contract award in first quarter fiscal
    year 2020, the Adversary Air aircraft type--at Joint Base Pearl Harbor
    Hickam or any other location--is yet to be determined.

        62. Senator Hirono. General Goldfein, this past August, the Air
    Force also issued a request for proposals to execute its commercial
    adversary air capability strategy. Can you confirm that this will the
    mechanism the AF will use to deploy the commercial ADAIR capability to
    the 199th Fighter Squadron, and the expected award date for the
    contract?
        General Goldfein. Yes, this is the USAF proposed mechanism to
    deploy contracted Adversary Air, pending Congressional authorization in
    the fiscal year 2020 NDAA. The current fiscal year 2019 USAF priorities
    for Adversary Air are Nellis AFB, Formal Training Units (improves
    readiness and fighter pilot shortage), and finally 4 Combat Air Forces
    locations (high end training); however, these priorities are subject to
    change. Air Combat Command and HQ USAF proposed adversary air support
    options in the Department of Defense budget process starting in fiscal
    year 2019 and continuing across the Future Years Defense Plan. If
    contracted Adversary Air is fully funded, the 199th Fighter Squadron is
    included in the deployment.

        63. Senator Hirono. General Goldfein, can you describe the
    contracting strategy which the Air Force has taken, to include the
    performance measures that will be included in the contracts to ensure
    the provided ADAIR capability aligns to the AF's mission requirements?
        General Goldfein. The Air Force chose the Combat Air Forces
    Adversary Air multiple-award contract methodology to allow today's
    widely variant competitors, who must meet specified minimum
    requirements, the opportunity to enter the Combat Air Forces Adversary
    Air contract community and begin to compete for specific mission task
    orders at each operating location. The Air Force ensures compliance
    with mission requirements through daily on-site assessments and an
    annual requirement review for Combat Air Forces. The Adversary Air
    contract allows for on and off ramp provisions to adjust for any
    changing requirements.
            gao recommendation to assess f-22 squadron consolidation
        64. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, in GAO's
    July 2018 report on F-22 organization and utilization, there is a
    recommendation for the AF to assess the F-22 organizational structure
    for alternative approaches to organize your squadrons. One of the two
    alternative approaches includes an assessment for a potential
    consolidation of F-22 squadrons, and the other includes revising the
    design of deployable units. What are your thoughts on the
    recommendation, and do you anticipate any impacts to the F-22 units in
    Hawaii?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. The Air Force has proposed
    to consolidate F-22s stationed at Tyndall Air Force base to three other
    F-22 locations including Hawaii. We have proposed to make Tyndall an F-
    35 base. Making this change will require supplemental appropriations to
    recover Tyndall.

        65. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, will you
    work with me to ensure that any F-22 organizational structure changes,
    specifically those that could impact F-22 units in Hawaii, are
    coordinated with my office, the governor, and the Air National Guard
    leadership in Hawaii?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. The Air Force will
    coordinate any potential force structure changes with F-22 units in
    Hawaii through all applicable agencies during the Air Force Strategic
    Basing Process.
                    infrastructure resilience and readiness
        66. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, extreme
    weather events and the effects of climate change can have direct
    impacts on the readiness of our forces. In 2018 alone, Hawaii was
    victim of Hurricanes Hector, Lane and Olivia--causing extreme flooding
    and high winds, which led to emergency response efforts by our critical
    Guard units. As I have mentioned many times, the AF Guard unit in
    Hawaii not only conducts its critical F-22 mission, but they also
    support the community during emergency response and disaster relief
    efforts. I am sure this same issue is also front-and-center as you deal
    with Hurricane Michael at Tyndall AFB, which, coincidently, also has a
    critical F-22 mission on the base.
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, how does the AF plan for
    these extreme weather events in order to maintain the readiness of its
    forces? What policies are in place today?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. Current Air Force policy
    authorizes the local installation commander to manage their emergency
    response plan to respond to physical threats resulting from major
    accidents, natural disasters, conventional attacks, terrorist attacks,
    and Chemical, Biological, Radiation, Nuclear attacks. This risk
    management framework ensures the Air Force can maintain and mitigate
    the threats in order to achieve the highest levels of readiness.

        67. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, were
    there any resource gaps or lessons learned that resulted from these
    2018 hurricane events for the Guard units in Hawaii? What are some
    examples?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. In response to recent severe
    weather events, we have asked Air Combat Command to conduct a full-
    spectrum assessment of how the Air Force is postured. This assessment
    will span lessons learned, best practices, and identify resource gaps
    to mitigate hurricane events impacting Hawaii and other locations
    throughout the world.

        68. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, how does
    the AF ensure that these lessons learned are promulgated from base-to-
    base to ensure a mission ready force?
        Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. In response to recent severe
    weather events, we have asked Air Combat Command to conduct a full-
    spectrum assessment of how the Air Force is postured. This assessment
    will span lessons learned, best practices, and identify resource gaps
    to mitigate hurricane events impacting Hawaii and other locations
    throughout the world.
                         space control squadron siting
        69. Senator Hirono. General Goldfein, as you know, the AF decided
    to create four new Air National Guard Space Control Squadrons in order
    to meet combatant commander requirements. I understand there is a
    pending decision on the fourth of the four squadrons. I have been a
    supporter of locating this unit in Hawaii when engaging with military
    and community leaders. Further, in my conversations with senior AF
    leaders and combatant commanders, they have also shown support for this
    unit coming to Hawaii. While I understand there is a pending decision
    on the fourth squadron location, what status can you provide about the
    progress being made for a site selection?
        General Goldfein. Pacific Air Forces received authorization to
    conduct site surveys of the candidate locations. Once the surveys are
    complete, the information will be presented to the Secretary of the Air
    Force for a preferred and reasonable alternative decision. We
    anticipate this will occur in early 2019.
                      space force and readiness priorities
        70. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson, it has been reported that an
    independent Space Force could cost an estimated $13 billion over five
    years to implement. A multi-billion dollar proposal which could
    threaten to take money away from a wide array of modernization
    priorities, or from funding to expand the size and improve the
    readiness of our forces. This proposal could ultimately dip into
    military construction, operation and maintenance, and personnel
    accounts that are consistently under budgetary pressure. As you know,
    the congress passed both defense authorization and appropriation bills
    through a collaborative effort with the service secretaries to ensure
    we closed readiness shortfalls where the services expressed concerns.
    In your opinion, could the establishment of a Space Force cause the AF
    to reprioritize its readiness activities and to take risk in these
    readiness accounts?
        Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is working closely with the other
    Services and Department of Defense components to develop a proposal to
    implement the President's vision for a Department of the Space Force,
    including associated manpower requirements and costs.

        71. Senator Hirono. Secretary Wilson, could there be unintended
    consequences with the establishment of a Space Force and what might
    those consequences be in regards to readiness?
        Secretary Wilson. Our national security space capabilities are the
    best in the world. Our adversaries recognize this and are fielding
    counterspace forces to erode our military advantage, threaten the
    global economic system, and interfere with the peaceful uses of space.
    This changing environment affects all capabilities and Military
    Services.