[Senate Hearing 115-674, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-674, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2987
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 4
AIRLAND
__________
FEBRUARY 7; APRIL 18, 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
40-416 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman JACK REED, Rhode Island
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
TED CRUZ, Texas MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
BEN SASSE, Nebraska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Airland
TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
TED CRUZ, Texas GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
February 7, 2018
Page
Army Modernization............................................... 1
Andererson, Lieutenant General Joseph, Deputy Chief of Staff, G- 4
3/5/7, United States Army.
Murray, Lieutenant General John M. Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, 5
United States Army.
Ostrowski, Lieutenant General Paul A., Principal Military Deputy 6
to The Assistant Secretary of The Army (Acquisition, Logistics,
and Technology) and Director of The Army Acquisition Corps.
Dyess, Major General Robert M. Jr., Acting Director, Army 7
Capabilities Integration Center.
Questions for the Record......................................... 39
April 18, 2018
Page
Air Force Modernization.......................................... 47
Bunch, Lieutenant General Arnold W., Jr., USAF, Military Deputy, 49
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition; accompanied by Lieutenant General Jerry D. Harris,
Jr., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and
Requirements, Headquarters United States Air Force; and Major
General Brian S. Robinson, USAF, Assistant Deputy Chief of
Staff, Operations, Headquarters United States Air Force.
Questions for the Record......................................... 80
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
ARMY MODERNIZATION
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:35 p.m. in
Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Cotton
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Cotton, Wicker,
Sullivan, Sasse, King, McCaskill, Donnelly, Warren, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. The hearing will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone. This is the first hearing of the
year. Today, we will be talking about Army modernization. It is
an important topic in its own right. We always want to make
sure our men and women in uniform have the best arms and
equipment on the battlefield, but it is also an opportunity to
think about the long-term because we cannot arm ourselves
against the threats of the 21st Century until we are clear
about what those threats are.
I want to say the National Security Strategy and National
Defense Strategy got it just about right. We are in an era of
renewed great-power competition, which means Russia and China
are the gravest threats we face today.
Now, is Islamic terrorism still a threat? Yes, of course.
The development of Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, are
those deeply alarming? Yes, they are. But China and Russia are
building advanced new weapons systems to rival our own
capabilities, and in some cases, we are already falling behind
those countries, and it would be much worse were they to ally
against us.
Two years ago, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster told this
committee the Army was already outranged and outgunned, so just
imagine what has happened in the last 2 years. I am glad to see
the Army has made progress on some of these challenges.
Since last October, Army leadership, especially Deputy
Secretary McCarthy, have taken great strides in improving our
acquisition policy. They have announced a modernization
command. They have created several cross-functional teams to
manage key programs. This is all very good. I know the
committee would very much like to hear more about the status of
some of these programs, in particular, long-range fires,
integrated mobile air defense, next-generation ground combat
vehicles, the future of vertical lift, mobile communication
networks, the Distributed Common Ground System-Army, active
protection systems, and alternative force designs. Now, we
certainly want to hear about programmatic timelines. We are
especially interested in figuring out how we can get these
capabilities into the hands of our soldiers.
The National Defense Authorization Act asked the Army to
come up with a strategy for modernization, so we want to know,
what is that strategy? What do you think the battlefield of
tomorrow looks like? What does mobile combined arms maneuver
look like in 10 years? How can we integrate the Army within the
joint force battle space?
To help answer these and other questions, we are joined
today by a panel of distinguished general officers, Lieutenant
General Joe Anderson, the deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7;
Lieutenant General John Murray, deputy chief of staff, G-8;
Lieutenant General Paul Ostrowski, the principal military
deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition,
logistics, and technology, and the director of Army Acquisition
Corps; and Major General Robert Dyess, acting director of the
Army Capabilities Integration Center.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being here. We look forward to
your testimony.
Senator King?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ANGUS S. KING, JR.
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's
important hearing. I would also like to welcome our witnesses.
I look forward to your testimony and deeply appreciate your
service to our country.
Last month, as the chairman noted, Secretary Mattis
released the National Defense Strategy that focused on the
reemergence of long-term strategic competition, a major change
in our strategy, the central challenge now facing the United
States. To that end, countering the threat that is posed by
China and Russia is now the primary focus for the Department,
and this threat is substantially different in many, many ways
from the counterterrorism fight that our military has been
engaged in for the past 16 years.
With the refocus on great-power competition, we have to
ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped for conflict
across the full spectrum of operations. As such, today's
subcommittee hearing on Army modernization is timely and
necessary.
I want to say from the outset that I want to commend the
senior leadership of the Army for the recent efforts to ensure
that the Army delivers new technology and platforms to the
force in a more effective and timely manner. Under the
leadership of Secretary Esper, Secretary McCarthy, General
Milley, and General McConnell, the Army is pursuing a new
modernization strategy focused on six major modernization
priorities that the chairman mentioned, long-range precision
fire, next-generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift,
upgraded mobile communications network, enhanced air and
missile defense capabilities, and improved soldier lethality.
To support this effort, the Army has established cross-
functional teams designed to break down acquisition stovepipes
and expeditiously field new weapons systems expeditiously. I
emphasize that term. While effective modernization strategies
are always critical to the success of our soldiers, the current
effort by the Army is vitally important in supporting the new
National Defense Strategy.
If U.S. Forces become engaged in a future fight with a peer
adversary, it is likely they will face serious anti-access/
area-denial threats, advanced weapons technology, as well as
hybrid warfare tactics. As this committee continues to review
our National Defense Strategy and begins evaluating the fiscal
year 2019 budget request in the coming weeks, I hope our
witnesses today will address what modernization investments
they believe are necessary to ensure the Army prevails against
our most capable adversaries.
Fielding new weapons platforms and upgrading existing
systems, however, while critical to our national security, is
not the only way to deter our adversaries. We must always also
acknowledge that our competitors are capable of causing great
harm to our country without directly engaging our forces in
combat. For example, Russia interfered in our most recent
presidential election, and continues to try to influence our
domestic politics, while at the same time it redraws boundaries
in Eastern Europe, destabilizes its neighbors, and undermines
democratic values. Therefore, as the Army pursues its
modernization strategy, I want to know from our witnesses if
the Army is considering different operational concepts about
warfare in the future given the new emphasis on great-power
competition.
In addition, resources are not unlimited. The Army has to
prioritize investments and make tough allocation choices. Due
to the spending caps driven by the Budget Control Act and the
lack of predictability provided by 2-year budget deals, which
we devoutly hope we will have in the next 24 hours, the Army
has focused on rebuilding full-spectrum readiness and
maintaining end-strength levels. I welcome any comments from
our witnesses on how the Army plans to balance restoring
readiness while ensuring our soldiers have the capabilities
necessary to fight future battles against advanced adversaries.
Finally, expanding the competitive space against our
adversaries cannot be accomplished solely by the Department of
Defense. The National Defense Strategy is explicit on this
point, stating that it requires the combined actions of the
U.S. interagency to employ all dimensions of national power.
Therefore, as this committee considers the fiscal year 2019
budget request for defense, we must remember that increased
defense spending should be complemented by increased spending
in other core elements of national power. We need an effective
Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and other agencies
that can ensure our strategy is capable of countering our
adversaries and accomplishing our national objectives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator King.
Gentlemen, we have received your written statement. We will
enter that into the record. I understand now that you each have
a brief testimony as well. We will start with Lieutenant
General Anderson and move down the row.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOSEPH ANDERSON, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, G-3/5/7, UNITED STATES ARMY
Lieutenant General Anderson. Thanks, Chairman Cotton,
Ranking Member King, and distinguished Members of this
committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify on the state
of the U.S. Army. I appreciate your support and demonstrated
commitment to our Army and look forward to discussing with you
the ongoing need to invest in Army modernization and its
critical relationship to building and maintaining readiness.
My experience has allowed me to witness significant lasting
detrimental effects to Army readiness and modernization caused
by the Budget Control Act and continuing resolutions. The
abrupt implementation of fiscal year 2013 sequestration
significantly impacted every aspect of our Army. Sequestration
compelled the Army to take drastic measures in training and
readiness and delayed modernization. Continuing resolutions
compound resourcing solutions and greatly affect the Army's
ability to generate readiness and execute our modernization
strategy.
Last year, I discussed that our competitors were studding
our doctrine, making revisions to their own, and rapidly
modernizing their militaries, all of which threaten America's
interests. Today, the United States Army remains second to
none, but while we have been building short-term readiness to
remain engaged in counterterrorism and stability operations,
our adversaries have made significant gains, which means that
overmatched concerns persist, as you both just mentioned. We
now face the prospect of fighting threats in complex anti-
access/area-denial environments. The forces our adversaries are
building often rival and in a few instances surpass our current
capabilities.
Failure to modernize will undoubtedly intensify the
significant risk to our Army. Modernized force structure and
operating concepts are critical to the Army's ability to employ
equipment effectively to meet our nation's threats. This will
ensure a trained and ready Army that has capable capacity to
meet current and future challenges and prevail against the full
range of military operations. Modernization ensures the
readiness of the total force on future battlefields and the
conflicts against near-peer adversaries.
The Army invested additional end strength authorized by the
fiscal year 2017 NDAA to increase personnel levels for
deploying units. We also added a small number of units to fill
capability gaps to help meet combatant commanders' operational
and contingency demands. We are piloting new operating concepts
such as multi-domain battle and cyber force teams that will
make our combat formations more capable on the modern
battlefield. The Army will continue to apply additional end
strength if authorized in fiscal year 2018 to readiness and
critical shortfalls like security force assistance, air
defense, long-range fires, and additional cyber capabilities.
Readiness remains our number-one priority, but
modernization is a priority as well. Operating under continuing
resolutions and the looming pressures of sequestration affects
readiness, increases risk, and creates delays in getting
American soldiers the weapons and tools they need to fight and
win our nation's wars. Stable and predictable long-term funding
is necessary if the Army is to continue to build and sustain
current readiness while shaping the future force.
We thank you for the unwavering support of our outstanding
civilians and the men and women in uniform and the families who
support them. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank
you.
Senator Cotton. General Murray?
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN M. MURRAY, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, G-8, UNITED STATES ARMY
Lieutenant General Murray. Chairman Cotton, Ranking Member
King, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Airland.
On behalf of the Army Secretary, the Honorable Mark Esper and
our Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, we all very much look
forward to discussing Army modernization with you today and
addressing some of the issues you raised in your opening
statements.
The Army has reached an inflection point, and it is the
same thing I told you last year, that we can no longer afford
to choose between near-term readiness and modernization.
Specific to modernization, we can no longer afford to choose
between incremental upgrades to existing equipment and
developing new capabilities. We have definitely reached a point
where we have got to be able to do both. The Army's focus on
the demands of ongoing campaigns combined with constrained
resources and an industrial-age organizational model have
slowed, deferred, and in some cases halted the development of
new capabilities.
Meanwhile, as General Anderson mentioned, our adversaries
have or are quickly attaining a competitive advantage. We
believe that the President's commitment to restoring the
military will be clearly evident in the budget request,
especially in regards to Army readiness and modernization. If
appropriated, we believe it will be a very good start towards
reversing the historical and significant shortfalls in
modernization funding. However, one year will not by itself
reverse the trend. We must have sustained, predictable, and
adequate funding over the long term to allow us to develop an
effective plan to reduce current and future risk, while making
the most effective use of the valuable resources entrusted to
us.
In fiscal year 2019, we plan to selectively upgrade the
equipment that is critical to near-term readiness, focus our
science and technology and research development test and
evaluation funding on the six Army modernization priorities you
mentioned, and begin the development of the equipment we will
need to regain and sustain overmatch against a peer threat. The
American people expect their Army to win, and meeting this
expectation requires that the Army regain and maintain
overmatch against any peer threat.
We urge Congress to provide fiscal stability at a
sufficient level so that we can maintain our current
warfighting readiness, while simultaneously building a more
modern and capable force for the future. I would like to thank
you and the entire committee for your unwavering support of the
men and women of the United States Army, our Army civilians,
and our families. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Cotton. General Ostrowski?
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL A. OSTROWSKI, USA,
PRINCIPAL MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY) AND DIRECTOR OF
THE ARMY ACQUISITION CORPS
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Chairman Cotton, Ranking
Member King, and distinguish Members of the Subcommittee on
Airland, thank you for the invitation to meet with you and
discuss our re-modernization. I want to applaud this
subcommittee and the committee as a whole for your focus over
the past several years on acquisition reform. Your direction
and support have made a substantial difference for the Army.
Some of the great examples include enabling the use of other
transactional authority, raising the acquisition simplified
threshold from $150,000 to $250,000, pushing major defense
acquisition programs down to the services, starting to get
after the Competition in Contracting Act, or CICA reform, just
to name a few.
Still, more must be done. For example, the simplified
acquisition threshold should be raised to $500,000, providing
even greater streamlining and allowing us to keep pace with
threat.
With regard to mid-tier acquisition for rapid prototyping
and fielding addressed in section 804 of the fiscal year 2016
NDAA, we are hampered by the requirement to complete fielding
within 5 years as opposed to achieving initial operational
capability within 2 or 3 years, which is more consistent with
our multiyear resourcing process. We ask that you consider
modifying this language.
Section 807 in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA must be modified
or repealed. Although major acquisition programs have been
delegated to the services, section 807 still requires the
Deputy Secretary of Defense approval for establishing program
targets for these programs, which is contrary to streamlining
the process. It adds back layers of bureaucracy.
CICA reform could go much further than the pilot
established in the fiscal year 2018 NDAA. Hundreds of millions
of dollars are wasted due to lost time and effort each year,
while the number of successful protests against DOD remains
exceedingly low. Penalties leveled should make industry think
twice about whether to protest when they know the chance of
winning is small to nonexistent. Penalties should be scaled to
the contract value, thereby not disadvantaging small businesses
from putting forward a legitimate protest when warranted.
Further, we need to eliminate the automatic stay as a protest
is resolved. In almost all circumstances, GAO [Government
Accountability Office] bid protests result in a stay in
performance, thereby impacting mission and delaying new
contracts by many months.
Last, one of the most essential needs of the Army right now
is C.R. reform. We have seen no movement on the fiscal year
2018 appropriations bill since November of 2017 when the Army
received the last of subcommittee marks, which was the SAC-D.
Right now, as a result of the prolonged C.R. for the fiscal
year 2018, DOD is not allowed to begin new start efforts until
a budget is passed while simultaneously not being able to
procure quantities greater than the prior year's purchase
without an approved anomaly. This double jeopardy is placing 16
new start efforts on hold and 10 production rate increases are
being capped at their fiscal year 2017 rates, thereby thwarting
the Army's ability to take advantage of quantity discounts, as
well as economic-order quantities.
So how do we fix this? The answer might be quite simple.
Allowing the services to execute at the lowest mark of the four
committees during C.R.'s until a budget is passed. If this was
in place today, we could have been moving forward with our
budget in 2007 after the SAC-D mark in November.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee,
thank you for your steadfast and strong support of the
outstanding men and women of the United States Army, our Army
civilians, and their families.
This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Cotton. General Dyess.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT M. DYESS, JR., USA, ACTING
DIRECTOR, ARMY CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION CENTER
Major General Dyess. Chairman Cotton, Ranking Member King,
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about the enduring need for
Army modernization.
Our National Security Strategy states that we face
simultaneous threats from different actors across multiple
arenas, all accelerated by technology, and that the United
States must develop new concepts and capabilities to protect
our homeland, advance our prosperity, and preserve peace. The
National Security Strategy also directs the Department of
Defense to develop new operational concepts and capabilities to
win without assured dominance in air, maritime, land, space,
and cyberspace domains, including against those operating below
the level of conventional military conflict. Operational
concepts are important because they drive capability
development and provide a basis for modernization necessary to
overcome the challenges of a future conflict.
The National Defense Strategy emphasizes that concepts
provide us the ability to anticipate the implications of new
technologies on the battlefield, rigorously define the military
problems anticipated in future conflict, and foster a culture
of experimentation and calculated risk-taking. We have
developed operational concepts to sharpen our competitive
advantages, enhance our lethality, and shape our modernization
strategy. The National Defense Strategy also reminds us that
modernization is not just defined solely by hardware; it
requires change in the ways we organize and employ forces.
Over the past year, the Army and the United States Marine
Corps have developed the first iteration of the multi-domain
battle concept, and now, in support of the National Security
Strategy and the National Defense Strategy, the Army, in
coordination with the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and Special
Operations Command, we will develop the multi-domain battle
concept in the next iteration. We want to address how the
environment and adversaries of change, how adversaries
systematically intend to accomplish their strategic ends, the
specific problems adversaries pose to the joint force and
partners, and systemic ways to compete with and, when
necessary, defeat those adversaries.
The multi-domain battle concept builds on current service
and joint doctrine. It aids the evolution of current doctrine
to include not only those capabilities of the physical domains
but also those of space, cyberspace, the electromagnetic
spectrum, the information environment, and the cognitive
dimension of warfare. It provides recommendations for
capabilities, those that commanders might require to defeat an
advanced enemy, and proposes a new framework for understanding
the expansion of the 21st Century battle space. The multi-
domain battle operational framework accounts for extended
ranges and complex relationships, which accounts for all
friendly and enemy capabilities across all domains and levels
of command from tactical to strategic.
Based on our assessment of the projected operational
environment, we have identified five first-order problems to
U.S. Forces that must be addressed as we mature the multi-
domain battle concept, which I will address in Q&A if you want
to go there. We need a joint force that can credibly deter
adversary aggression, defeat actions short of our conflict,
deny the enemy freedom of action, overcome enemy defenses,
control terrain, compel outcomes, and consolidate gains for
sustainable results.
On a personal note, in a couple of months I am going to be
retiring after 36 years of service, and I would like to thank
the Members of the committee for taking care of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines. I would also request a final push
on the budget to provide for the common defense for our great
nation.
Thank you for your continued support. I look forward to
your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Lieutenant General
Anderson, Lieutenant General Murray, Lieutenant General
Ostrowski, and Major General Dyess follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General John M. Murray,
Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, Lieutenant General Paul A.
Ostrowski, and Major General Robert M. Dyess, Jr.
introduction
Chairman Cotton, Ranking Member King, distinguished Members of the
Senate Subcommittee on Airland, thank you for your continued support
and demonstrated commitment to our soldiers, Army civilians, families,
and veterans. On behalf of our Army Secretary, the Honorable Mark
Esper, and our Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, we thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to
discussing Army Modernization with you.
Modernization is critical to the future of our Army. For the last
several decades, the U.S. Army possessed overmatch based on its
qualitative edge in capabilities. It enabled our Army to defeat enemy
formations, underpin credible deterrence, and serve as a critical
pillar of Joint Force capabilities in all domains--air, land, maritime,
space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. Now, a combination
of strategic, technological, institutional, and budgetary trends places
at risk the Army's competitive edge over peer adversaries in the next
fight.
The Army has reached an inflection point: we can no longer afford
to choose between improving our existing systems and developing new
ones. We must do both. The American people expect their Army to win,
and meeting this expectation requires the Army to maintain overmatch
against emerging threats and adversaries. While we continue to work
hard to improve our readiness, we now need to expand our focus on a
dedicated and robust modernization effort. As you know one of the most
critical elements in achieving this objective is sufficient resources.
We believe that when you see the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request, it
will be clear that the President is committed to restoring the
military, especially in the case of equipment modernization.
Building on the Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget, we believe
this budget will continue to reverse the downward trend that has
stifled Army modernization and serve as an important step towards
expanding and maintaining overmatch. We will seek to employ these funds
in the most efficient and effective manner by turning ideas into
actions through continuous experimentation and prototyping, reforming
our acquisition processes, leveraging technology, and improving
training. This will ensure that future generations of American soldiers
remain the most lethal fighting force in the world.
the strategic environment
The U.S. Army, as part of the integrated Joint Force and working
with a capable network of partners and allies will continue to provide
combat-credible land forces to protect the homeland, deter our
adversaries, and if called upon, decisively win our Nation's wars.
Today's national security environment is typified by the reemergence of
long-term strategic competition with revisionist powers who use their
position within the international order to revise international norms
in their favor. The United States is being challenged to maintain
dominance across domains, and both state and non-state actors are
increasingly capable of threatening the U.S. Homeland. Rapid
technological advancements put military and other disruptive
technologies in the hands of both state and non-state actors.
China's expansive territorial claims as well as its investment in
multi-layer Anti-Access/Aerial Defense systems strains international
relations in the South China Sea. Additionally, China's economic
resources and the government's ability to direct investments positions
them to make rapid technological advancements especially in advanced
computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, and ``big data.'' The
disruptive nature of these fields will continue to challenge the U.S.
military across all domains well into the future. To assist with
mitigating these risks, the U.S. Army will strengthen its ties with
regional allies and partners to maintain the international order,
protect access to the global commons, and preserve regional stability.
Russia is also seeking to undermine European and Middle Eastern
security and economic structures through conflicts below-the-threshold
of war. Russia is using information operations and commercial
technology to weaken democratic processes across the western world.
Russia's military modernization efforts, expanding nuclear arsenal, and
increased operations in the Middle East typify its high disruption
approach to reshaping the international order. To help alleviate these
risks, the Army will maintain its forward presence in Europe and the
Middle East and continue to build interoperability with allies and
partners to demonstrate its commitment to countering Russian
aggression.
Rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran continue to pursue
destabilizing tactics and technologies to ensure regime survival and
increase their own power. North Korea continues to pursue ballistic
missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and cyber weapons to threaten
the United States Homeland. Iran is using both conventional missiles
and state-sponsored terrorism to destabilize the Middle East and
increase its regional influence. Forward presence and strong
partnerships are important components of the U.S. Army's ability to
deter and counter these threats. As part of the Joint Force, the Army
will be prepared to respond to either aggression or weapons
proliferation by these rogue regimes.
Commercially accessible rapid technological advancements provide
terrorists and other non-state actors with more sophisticated tools
with which to advance their political, criminal, or other disruptive
objectives. The rapid proliferation of low-cost new technologies
increases the capabilities of these malicious actors. The U.S. Army
will work as part of multinational, interagency, and public-private
coalitions to detect and counter these threats. We will seek out
capable partners and support their efforts to address the underlying
structural, economic, and security challenges that allow these threats
to persist. While the mitigation actions described above are necessary
to address present and future threats, they are only part of the
solution. In this era of increased complexity, lethality, and
competition the U.S. Army will carefully assess the threats we face and
make prudent investments in readiness and modernization to meet our
national security responsibilities.
the urgency of modernization
For the past several years, the Army has been focused on the near-
term demands of the protracted campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq,
supporting our allies in Europe and Asia, and protecting the homeland.
The necessary emphasis on these missions, combined with constrained
resources, slowed, deferred, and in some cases, halted the development
of new platforms and capabilities. Additionally, because these
operations required shifts in Army capabilities to meet rotational
demands and because U.S. Forces were not contested in the air or
maritime domains, the Army reduced or eliminated several capabilities
that are vital to large scale combat operations against highly capable
adversaries. Our potential adversaries have not been so constrained.
Analysis of potential peer competitors' emerging concepts, doctrines,
and capabilities strongly suggests they are concentrating efforts
between now and 2035 to develop and implement modernized capabilities
and hybrid strategies to deny U.S. Forces' ability to project military
power and conduct integrated Joint Force operations. Additional efforts
emphasize the development of conventional forces with advanced armored
vehicles--some of them robotic or autonomous--using extended range
munitions, protected by Active Protection Systems, supported by
electronic warfare and fires capabilities, and maneuvering into the
close fight protected by an Integrated Air Defense (IAD) umbrella.
Potential peer competitors have demonstrated they can and will operate
with and through proxies and surrogates, artfully employing all
elements of national power to achieve their strategic objectives. In
this environment, adversary operational systems can exploit existing
U.S. weaknesses, such as force deployment responsiveness due to time
and distance and vulnerabilities in the homeland and partner nations
such as fixed bases, ports, and domestic population. If the Army does
not modernize its force to build greater capacity and capabilities to
expand and maintain overmatch, we face a future where our formations
are out-matched in high-end conventional combat.
The Army's last broad-based modernization occurred in the 1980s.
The character of war has changed, and the Army must adapt and innovate
faster. Past ways of thinking, organizing, and executing have limited
our ability to keep pace with technological development and our
potential adversaries. The speed of change in warfighting concepts,
threats, and technology is outpacing current Army modernization.
Potential adversaries and the industries that support them are
integrating technology and capabilities at a much faster rate. The Army
is engaged in a protracted struggle to out-innovate our future
competitors, and right now, we are not postured for success. Unless
action is taken soon, there is the distinct possibility that future
adversaries will constrain our Nation's options to deter and defeat
them. Without support for increased and stable modernization funding,
such actions portend a future with the prospect of increased military
risk--that of the inability to deter conflict, losing a war, failing to
advance or defend national interests, and suffering an unacceptable
toll in casualties.
modernizing the force
The Army Modernization Strategy has one focus: make soldiers and
units more lethal so they can fight and win our Nation's war. It is
established upon a vision for the Future Army and the challenges
present in balancing near-, mid-, and far-term investments. This
singular strategy identifies the ends needed for the Army to accomplish
its future mission, organizes the ways, and aligns the means using the
resources and activities of the Army's science and technology,
capabilities development, and acquisitions enterprise to mitigate
tactical, operational, and strategic risk across all time horizons. To
provide a comprehensive plan for modernization, the Army establishes
and aligns modernization objectives and organizations to orient on
potential military peers for the current, next, and future fights that
span across and beyond the Future Years Defense Program. All of this
must be done within a 21st Century system that provides for unity of
effort in support of the modernization process and allied
interoperability from the outset.
As our draft strategy lays out, first and foremost, we must return
to mastering the fundamentals of shoot, move, communicate, protect, and
sustain better than any potential adversary. In the near-term, the Army
will invest in capabilities that address critical gaps and improve
lethality to expand and maintain overmatch against peer competitors. In
the mid-term, the Army will develop, procure, and field next generation
capabilities to fight and win in Multi-Domain Battle. In the far-term,
we will build an Army for a fundamentally different conflict
environment--one that will require us to exercise mission command
across dispersed and decentralized formations, leverage disruptive
technologies at the small unit level, and operate with and against
autonomous and artificial intelligence systems, all at an accelerated
speed of war.
To accomplish these objectives, this year we plan to selectively
upgrade the equipment we have and focus our Science and Technology and
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding on the six Army
Modernization Priorities. The six prioritized capability areas
naturally align with the Army fundamentals of shoot, move, communicate,
protect, and sustain.
Our first modernization priority is to restore the Army's
Long Range Precision Fires capabilities in order to regain our
dominance in range, lethality, and target acquisition. We must provide
Combatant and Joint Commanders surface to surface firepower that is
precise, responsive, effective and adaptable. It is essential that fire
support protects and ensures freedom of maneuver to forces in contact
with the enemy in deep, close, and rear operations.
Our second modernization priority is Next Generation
Combat Vehicles. A next generation vehicle is needed to enhance soldier
protection, increase mobility, and make our forces more lethal to our
enemies. These vehicles must adapt with technology and operate manned
or unmanned. The Army's current fleet of tanks and infantry fighting
vehicles are nearing the end of their ability to integrate additional
advanced technologies that enable either near-term overmatch or future
dominance.
Our third modernization priority is Future Vertical Lift
(FVL) platforms--reconnaissance, attack, assault--that are survivable
on the modern and future battlefield. Current aircraft designs have
reached the limits for significant incremental improvements. The FVL is
an Army-led, multi-service initiative, focused on restoring vertical
lift dominance with next generation reach, protection, lethality,
agility, and mission flexibility. Systems should also benefit from
improved power generation, autonomy, artificial intelligence, and
manned-unmanned teaming.
Our fourth modernization priority is to modernize the
Army Network. We must have a communications system that is intuitive,
mobile, expeditionary, and can be used to fight cohesively in contested
cyber and electromagnetic environments. The Army Network should
incorporate electronic warfare; resilient, secure, and interoperable
hardware; software and information systems; assured position,
navigation, and timing; and low signature networks.
Our fifth priority is to modernize and restore our Air
and Missile Defense systems to ensure our future combat formations are
protected from modern and advanced air and missile delivered fires--
including drones. The most critical gap remaining after currently
planned systems are fielded is that maneuver formations lack air and
missile defense. We are focusing on capabilities that include Mobile
Short-Range Air Defense, directed energy, and advanced energetics.
Finally, we must aggressively enhance soldier lethality,
a holistic series of capabilities that span all fundamentals including
shooting, moving, communicating, protecting, and sustaining. The Army's
foundational capability is soldier and team performance. Unlike other
services, the Army fits machines to soldiers rather than the other way
around. In this area, we will field not only next generation individual
and squad combat weapons, but also improved body armor, sensors,
radios, and load-bearing exoskeletons.
To implement this strategy, the Army is currently undertaking a
series of acquisition reform efforts designed to promote unity of
effort, unity of command, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and leader
accountability. Part of this effort is the establishment of a three-
star-level task force responsible for mapping out options to
consolidate the modernization process under one command. To develop and
deliver better solutions faster, the early integration of concept and
testing will allow the Army to fail early and cheaply as we experiment,
prototype and test, thus increasing the probability of success by
learning from early failures. Critical to this effort is the
establishment of Cross-Functional Teams (CFTs) for each of the
identified modernization priorities. Each CFT will incorporate elements
from acquisition, testing, resourcing, and capability development
communities and directly report to Army senior leaders.
the defense industrial base
The past trends of constrained resources in the Army's
modernization account have led to significant challenges for the
Defense Industrial Base (DIB), especially for companies that cannot
leverage commercial sales and for small companies that must diversify
quickly to remain viable. When developing our equipment modernization
strategy, we have carefully assessed risk across all portfolios to
ensure balanced development of new capabilities, incremental upgrades
to existing systems, and protection of critical capabilities in the
commercial and organic elements of the DIB.
The Army remains concerned about the preservation of key skills and
capabilities in the engineering and manufacturing bases for our
original equipment manufacturers and their key supplier bases.
Collaboration with our industrial base partners early in the process
helps reduce risk. Efforts such as the Army Manufacturing Technology
Program has provided affordable and timely manufacturing solutions that
assist our industry partners to address manufacturing and producibility
risks. Also, the Army supports efforts to develop Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales to ensure sustainment of
critical production lines in the DIB.
The Army continually assesses risk in the Industrial Base across
all Army portfolios. Fragility and Criticality (FaC) assessments
identify the fragile and critical portions of sectors within the DIB to
facilitate the identification of risk mitigation strategies. The FaC
assessments provide Army program offices: 1) the information to
identify how funding adjustments could affect suppliers that provide
the products, skills, and services needed to maintain readiness, and 2)
information to support investment decisions to mitigate supplier risk.
The Army also continually assesses the health of the organic
industrial base (OIB), including our depots, arsenals, ammunition
plants, munitions centers, and Government-owned Contractor-operated
plants. The Army maintains critical skill sets in our OIB by
identifying workload to preserve capabilities, exploring FMS
opportunities, and encouraging our OIB facilities to partner with
commercial firms and other Department of Defense organizations, such as
the Defense Logistics Agency, to meet future requirements. We continue
to modernize our OIB infrastructure, as needed, to support readiness.
in conclusion
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to address the challenges
the Army faces in maintaining readiness and modernizing its force. We
are grateful for Congress's efforts to increase Army Force structure.
The Army will apply the increased end-strength authorized by the last
two National Defense Authorization Acts to ready combat formations to
deter our adversaries, and if called upon, decisively win our Nation's
wars. Additionally, we believe that the President's commitment to
restoring the military will be clearly evident in the Fiscal Year 2019
Budget Request, especially in Army modernization. We believe it will be
a good start towards reversing the historical and significant
shortfalls in modernization funding, but one year will not, by itself,
reverse the trend. We must have predictable and adequate funding across
the Future Years Defense Program and beyond.
We can assure you that the Army's senior leaders are intently
working to address current challenges and the needs of the Army both
now and in the future. We are doing so with a commitment to be good
stewards of our Nation's resources while meeting the readiness,
equipping, and modernization needs of our soldiers.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, we
sincerely appreciate your steadfast and strong support of the
outstanding men and women in uniform, our Army civilians, and their
families.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, General Dyess, and thank you for
your many years of service to our country. Since you have
concluded, I will keep you first in the shoot here. Let us
start with the threats that we face so we can talk then about
the strategy we need to counteract those and the modernization
approach to implement that strategy.
The National Defense Strategy and the National Security
Strategy directs the Department of Defense to prioritize
threats from Russia and from China. In the past in testimony to
this subcommittee and the full committee, Army leadership has
emphasized the rapid pace of modernization that those two
countries have undertaken while the United States has been
fighting low-intensity counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In light of this direction, in light of these
circumstances, what is the Army's mission-critical focus in
your opinion?
Major General Dyess. The threats have been documented well
in testimony both by previous leaders but as well as we talked
about that last year. As far as the multi-domain battle concept
in the 21st Century warfare battlefield that we see, it has
expanded in several ways to include geography. We think that we
will be attacked in the homeland if not by cyber but by other
means that we will have to, because our forces are mostly
stationed in the United States, deploy to areas in which we
will conduct those operations, that us in the Marine Corps see
that the close fight is certainly common considerations for
both of us, the Air Force establishing joint bases and
establishing air dominance in an integrated air and missile
defense capability A2/AD [Anti Access/Area Denial] environment.
We are going to be contested on all domains. It is going to
be increasingly lethal on the future battlefield, that it is
going to be increasingly complex with urban cities and dense
urban terrain and that our deterrence is going to be
challenged. Quite frankly, we want to make sure that deterrence
is forefront in our problem statements so that we do not have
to fight a war and an armed conflict.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. General Anderson, the vice
chairman, General Selva, in recent media interviews recently
elaborated on the National Security and National Defense
Strategy looking at the threat of China and Russia, explaining
that China would be predominantly a maritime and air operation,
whereas a threat from Russia most likely in the European
theater would be primarily an air and ground operation. Can you
elaborate on what that means for the Army's future
modernization plans?
Lieutenant General Anderson. Yes, sir. Anti-access/aerial
denial is going to be a factor for air and naval forces, again,
which is all the things that I was talking about in the multi-
domain concept about how we enable naval air forces to get into
a China scenario. I think what you both mentioned in your
opening comments, all things long-range fires, all things
ballistic missile defense, all things armor are huge capability
gaps. I think to fight the China challenges that are posed in
the NDS, which are the threats against Taiwan, South China Sea,
the Russia threats against NATO [North Atlantic Treaty
Organization], both of their aspirations from a nuclear
scenario, and then you throw in the North Korean nuclear
scenario, you throw in the terrorism and the counter-WMD
[Weapons of Mass Destruction] scenario, and then you throw in
the information environment, and I think that reinforces all of
our efforts in the multi-domain fight and how you do offset and
how do you potentially achieve the ability of an army
capability to sink a ship at sea, you know, from afar?
I think as we work those capabilities, that will very much
play out in a China scenario, and I think everything we have
talked about fits into the Russian piece about countering
armored formations coming across Eastern Europe.
Senator Cotton. When was the last time American soldiers
fought against an enemy who had sustained aerial attacks
against U.S. soldiers?
Lieutenant General Anderson. Never.
Senator Cotton. What is the state of our air defense
artillery?
Lieutenant General Anderson. We have got a long way to, so
that was one of the billpayers of sequestration. We took air
defense capability out of our formations, so you are seeing the
efforts here to put mobile SHORAD [Short-Range Air Defense]
back into two per a division formation. We are shooting to get
two battalions established by fiscal year 2021, but you are
seeing our 72 Avenger upgrades that we are doing right now to
get into Europe. That was all part of the heavy focus on Europe
2 years ago, and now, we are fast-forwarding that obviously to
the Pacific.
But, you know, we are doing everything from getting mobile
shoulder-fired Stingers out of all of the warehouses to enable
crews and teams to be deployed in each of these theaters, so at
least you have got something within your organic capability,
you know, and then obviously we have got THAAD [Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense], Patriot, and those systems that are all
being enhanced for missiles, radars, sensors, and all the
things that are going on in those arenas. But right now, the
basic problem is combat formations do not have capability.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. My time has expired. I will turn
now to Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am looking for an update. We have talked a lot over the
past year in the Army, as I mentioned in my statement, I
commend you for the focus on these issues of modernization and
setting up functional teams, the Futures Command. Tell me where
we stand. When are we going to see results?
Lieutenant General Murray. Senator, as you know, the Army
stood up a plans team or an analysis team under the leadership
of Lieutenant General Ed Cardon to work through the mission
analysis for the Chief and the Secretary. None of us are a part
of that small group. It has been a fairly small self-contained
unit that is going through analysis. They just recently
completed a tabletop exercise. I believe they war-gamed about
six courses of action. As far as I know, they are still on
track to come back to the Secretary and the Chief with a
recommendation on exactly what this organization will do, what
it will consist of.
Senator King. You are talking about the Futures Command?
Lieutenant General Murray. I am, sir. I believe the last
date I heard was March, and as far as I know, they are still on
track to come back to the Chief and Secretary with laying out
those decisions for them.
Senator King. A possible set up by summer?
Lieutenant General Murray. Last I heard, IOC [Initial
Operational Capability] or initial operation capability June,
July of this year with a full operational capability to follow
about a year later.
Senator King. Here is the real question: Do you think we
are really going to be able to break down the stovepipes?
Lieutenant General Murray. Sir, I do. I think the biggest
challenge for this organization is doing exactly that, and it
is culture more than anything else. So I think the biggest
challenge for this organization would be to reshape the culture
to get after those stovepipes. It is just not the acquisition
process. It is the requirements process, it is the material
delivery process. It is the testing process. It is the
bureaucracy associated with it. That is exactly the intent of
the Chief is to stand up this organization for unity of command
and have a single commander focused on doing just what you
suggest, is getting after acquisition, big A acquisition from
requirements to delivery of capability to our soldiers in a
very rapid fashion, somebody focused on that each and every
day, which right now it is spread amongst many organizations.
Senator King. General Ostrowski, just a specific question.
You had some time on protests. What percentage of significant
acquisition contracts are protested?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I will tell you that I
do not have that exact number of ones that are protested. I
will tell you this, that 92 percent of the time the army on
average wins those protests. So we lose about 8 percent over
time. The other services have a record that is even better than
that. However, I have numerous programs now that are in
protest, Lakota being one of them, as you know. That is one
that is out there. There are numerous other ones that are----
Senator King. Do I understand that the production, the
progress on the contract is stayed pending the protest?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. When you protest to
the GAO, the GAO has the ability to immediately execute a stay
unless it is beyond the time that you are allowed to protest in
the protest window. So in all cases for the GAO, unlike the
Court of Federal Claims, it is an automatic stay. The Court of
Federal Claims holds a stay hearing to determine whether or not
to put a stay on the particular case or to not, and then go
through the process of adjudicating.
Senator King. But still, that is more time, more
bureaucracy, more reports, more studies.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is correct. In fact,
what happens is our contractor is not allowed to move forward.
The program office sits idle, and so does the contractor.
Senator King. You went through very rapidly a whole series
of recommendations for us. I am sure that is in your written
testimony, but if you could supply those in a succinct form
with some explanation as to where you think we can help with
this process because we are going to be working on the National
Defense Authorization Act starting in a few months, and it
would be very helpful to have those specific recommendations.
Let me change the subject for a minute. Talk to me about
utilization of off-the-shelf products or designs. I hope that
is a sort of place to start rather than designing something
entirely new to our requirements.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, as we go through the
process, the first thing we should do as a community is
determine whether or not our tactics, techniques, and
procedures can change in order to address the threat. If they
cannot and a material solution is the first thing that we have
to go to, the first thing is to go off and ask if we can find a
commercial product capable of doing what it is that we are
trying to do in terms of filling in the gap. If we cannot find
that, then the next step is to go to our allies to determine
whether or not there is a capability that exists in a foreign
country that is capable of doing so. If the answer is still no,
the final step is than to develop. Unfortunately, too often, we
jump right to the development instead.
Senator King. That is what concerns me. I mean, that is the
history.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is correct, sir, so we
are in the process of changing that. Again, it allows us to get
capability to the force faster, the only drawback being it is
not leap ahead. That would be the only drawback. But it allows
us to get the capability to our forces in a faster manner,
knowing that everybody in the Army does not need to have one.
Senator King. I am just about out of time, but I think the
comments that you have made, we are talking about a deep
cultural change in the way a system has been operating for
years and years and years. Cultures are the hardest thing to
change. General Murray, do you think that is happening? Is the
word out there? Is there a sense of urgency about this?
Lieutenant General Murray. I think it is, sir. I think we
have made a great start. The Army is a big organization. As the
saying goes, it takes a long time to turn a big ship. I know
General Ostrowski and I co-chair a lot of meetings where this
type of dialogue comes up, and it is a consistent message from
both of us. I just thing, I mean, you have got to establish the
culture change and then continue to drive it year after year in
some cases to make sure it resonates throughout the
organization. But I do not think it is going to be a quick
culture change because cultures do not normally change quickly,
but I think with constant reinforcement and with the
reinforcement we are getting from most senior leadership, I
think it will happen over time.
Senator King. I found it salutary to remind people and
organizations that I work for that it took Eisenhower only 11
months to retake Europe. It sort of gives you a time frame for
getting these things done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. Colonel Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank
you for your service and being here today. General Dyess,
congratulations on your upcoming retirement. I am sure you will
miss the Army but probably not miss hearings like this.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. General Anderson, I want to thank you. I
had the opportunity to go see the 4/25 over the holidays out in
Afghanistan, and morale was high and the troops are doing well,
so thanks for all your and other Members and General Milley's
recognition of the importance of that unit.
I wanted to talk first just kind of on an operational
issue. The European Reassurance Initiative, which has been a
very kind of heavy Army-led initiative, what impacts are we
seeing on our deployments there in terms of our allies, maybe
Russian reactions? Are we seeing it in a positive way, and can
you give us some anecdotes on that?
Lieutenant General Anderson. Sure, sir. Good to see you, as
always.
The requirement of going to a heel-to-toe armored brigade
combat team rotation has required us to take a brigade that we
had dedicated to testing at Fort Bliss and put that into the
rotational pool so we could sustain, you know, three to Korea,
three to Kuwait, three to Europe on top of the two assigned
brigades, there the 173rd and the 2CR. So the strain there in
terms of maintaining that, having a small hundred-man division
cell that was the fourth division getting ready to be the first
division is the command and control element underneath Army
Europe has been an additional requirement, and then the
enhanced forward presence package, which is the Baltics. That
is the Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia piece, which Canada, Germany,
and the U.K. and us in Poland and maintaining that rotational
battle group with an infantry company from the U.K. and a
SHORAD company from Romania. That commitment, sir, has again
been--that was something we did not plan on doing 2 years ago,
so it is an additional strain on the force.
The problem with the European activities operation Atlantic
Resolve, it is not a named operation, so that means commanders
cannot stop-loss, stop-move people. There is no entitlement
pays. You actually lose your separation pay. It is not a tax-
exempt deployment, so when people compare that to other
deployments from a family/personal situation, people do not
like that because----
Senator Sullivan. Are the things that we can do to help
with regard to addressing that because it certainly seems to
me, you know, in the category in importance of any other type
of deployment?
Lieutenant General Anderson. It is really an internal
Department of Defense thing in terms of authorizing it to be a
named operation or not, you know? Then the issue for Europe,
sir, is----
Senator Sullivan. Why has it not been----
Lieutenant General Anderson. Because a lot of people think
they have enough resources to get the job done, but when you go
visit them and you watch that brigade commander being
challenged to maintain his manning levels because he is not
allowed to keep people if they are scheduled to ETS [Expiration
of Term of Service], retire, whatever. He can take them, but
when they are 2 months out from having to leave the Army, he
has to send them home. So that is a constant rotating door--we
are on our second turn right now--and we struggle to keep that
brigade at 80 percent strength while it is in Europe doing, you
know, the exercise program.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. Let me kind of ask a somewhat
related question. General Dyess, during the March 2017 all arms
warfare hearing it was discussed that there is a lack of
advanced airland battle and training exercises. I know General
Milley has been talking about much bigger training exercises as
a way to integrate the entire force with combined arms. I know
a lot of that is done out at NTC [National Training Center].
There is an NDAA provision that takes a look at that. I just
want to highlight for you the--and I am sure most of you are
familiar with it--but the Joint Pacific Range Complex in
Alaska, has a land space the size of Delaware, airspace for
fifth-generation aircraft the size of Florida and naval sea
space the size of Virginia. So are you looking at that as you
are looking at major, you know, kind of division-type exercises
where you could exercise a couple brigade or even a division
and have airspace that is more realistic with the fifth-
generation type standoff?
Major General Dyess. So, I will start off and then I will
pass it to General Anderson because I will talk about
experimentation. We do experimentation inside of TRADOC
[Training and Doctrine Command], and so what we want to do is
make sure that we are interoperable with our allies, and all
the combined arms but also to be able to have secure voice
digital fires and a common operating picture. We do need the
space to do that. We are conducting the----
Senator Sullivan. Does NTC provide you the space or----
Major General Dyess. No, we are actually doing the next one
in May in Germany with the U.K., the French, the Germans, et
cetera. White Sands, Bliss is where we do a lot of those as
well where we own all of airspace as well as the
electromagnetic spectrum.
So on the experiment side we would like to have the ability
to have our coalition partners and our joint partners together
to determine where we can make strides in interoperability. I
will pass it over to General Anderson on the training side
because there is also a training activity that occurs like the
18-4 activity with the U.K. division with our XVIII Corps.
Lieutenant General Anderson. Yes, the key, sir, since we
took away that dedicated test unit between home station
training, CTC [Combat Training Center], the combat training
centers, and exercises, we have to leverage how we test stuff
because we no longer have a dedicated time and space or unit to
do it. But what Bo is talking about, our allies want to play in
their backyards, and we have to have a draw to them. He just
described what we are getting ready to do here this spring. All
of them want a--a large number of NATO members want to play in
this exercise because it is in Europe and it is all things
Russian.
You asked again what is a deterrence versus assurance?
Well, it is obviously assuring them but that the Russian
deterrence, when you can mask multiple countries with multiple
capabilities in and around Europe, that sends a pretty loud and
clear message, and that is why we have to leverage that kind of
stuff versus coming back in the States. We are using--even more
so than Polk, Irwin, you know, Nellis, and those kind of
places. That is the key. That is what they want.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen,
thank you again for being here today.
I want to pick up on the acquisition and the need for a
much quicker process that has already been raised, and all four
of you raised in your testimony as well. I am going to give you
an assessment that someone gave me about looking at the
different acquisition communities and just kind of get your
sense how accurate you think this is. You basically said that
basically we have got silos and you have got the science and
tech folks that probably need to do a whole better job of
reaching out to private industry and some of the new cutting-
edge technologies and try to examine what the possibilities
are. There is not enough of that that goes on.
The testing community sets unrealistic goals, and so there
is a lot of failures because the goals are unrealistic and so
the programs die or do not move forward. The requirement
community always wants to do too much and be all things to all
people, and that is also impossible as well. So you start
putting all of that together in the hopper and everything kind
of grinds to a halt, which is obviously unacceptable at a time
when technology is advancing at a pace we have not seen in
human history. How would you characterize that assessment? Are
those legitimate concerns that we need to be thinking about
with those kind of communities? Whoever?
Lieutenant General Murray. I will take it, sir----
Senator Peters. Yes.
General Murray.--if that is okay. I will start off and I
will turn it over to General Ostrowski and I will try to stay
with the requirements piece of it you talked about and let him
talk the true acquisition piece of it.
So I would say that you are fairly accurate, whoever you
have talked to. We do a poor job of reaching out to industry. A
lot of times that is because of concerns by our lawyers that--
in terms of competition and unfair advantage to different
competitors. I think we are getting better at that. That is one
of the roles as a CFT [Cross-Functional Team] and our senior
leadership. The Secretary and the under and the vice have sat
down with numerous industry leaders over the last 2 months or
so to figure out what is going on in industry. Getting our
science and technology folks to reach out to industry is
important, as well as our engineers to see what is available.
Somebody mentioned earlier about fielding stuff quickly. We
are interested in fielding stuff quickly using technology that
exists today, but it has to be able to be upgraded over time.
You know, we have been criticized, rightfully so, for our
modernization efforts in the past, but we have been fairly
successful in incrementally upgrading the equipment we have.
The M1 of today is vastly better than the M1 we fielded back in
the mid-1980s.
Senator Peters. Right.
Lieutenant General Murray. So when you acquire something
quickly, you also have to make sure that you can upgrade it
over time to account for new technologies. Part of that is
software-defined systems. Part of that is the size, weight, and
power to accommodate new systems in the future. That is a piece
of it. I think we have a very risk-adverse culture. I mean, I
do think our requirements are over-specific. I think our
testing community--the Army's testing community has made great
strides. We now have as part of the CFT for the programs they
are working on testers, engineers, S&T [Science & Technology]
experts, and hopefully soon industry sitting down with the
requirements writers. So before we write a requirement, we know
it is feasible, it can be tested relatively cheaply and in a
fast amount of time, and that industry can actually produce it.
That is kind of what we are after as we go forward.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I would just add that
General Murray hit it on the head, and you did as well. The key
to the CFT standup, the impetus behind the CFT standup was to
address the very issue that you brought up. Now, the key is is
to get that culture ingrained in the rest of the Army. We know
that there are only six of these. The intent is for that to
trickle down, have a trickle-down effect throughout the entire
army so that our program managers, our testers, our engineers,
our scientists, our contracting officers, and industry are
engaged in a process of determining what is in the realm of the
feasible so that when right requirements, we get after the
capabilities that we need in the time frame that we need them
and the capabilities that exist today in terms of technology.
Lieutenant General Murray. I would like to add one more
thing because it is critically important is early soldier
involvement and often have soldiers involved in the process so
soldiers are part of the development of the requirements and
soldiers are part of the process all along to make sure we
deliver the capability they expect at the end of the process.
Senator Peters. Actually, I would like to pick up on that,
General, because that is the other aspect of fighting the war
of the future that all four of you have mentioned. It is not
just the equipment; it is also the doctrine and the operating
doctrine. History is full of examples where armies with
inferior equipment still beat the others because they could
operate--they had a doctrine that allowed them to operate much
more effectively, so that has got to be a key part of how we
integrate with these new technologies that are changing rapidly
and will require human machine interfaces in ways that we have
not seen before.
But I guess I am running out of time here. My question is,
in your view, should technology drive doctrine or should
doctrine drive technology?
Major General Dyess. I will take that one. Doctrine is
actually things that we can do today. Concepts are the things
that drive us toward the future. So we have taken and redone FM
3-0--that is our operations manual--but considering the things
that are in the multi-domain battle that we can do today. So
from my perspective we take a look at the future and the
technology as it is changing and then incorporate that into the
doctrine. That is my perspective on that.
Lieutenant General Murray. I would just say it is not a
chicken or egg. They will feed off of each other.
Senator Peters. Right.
Lieutenant General Murray. There will be technologies that
will drive new concepts and there will be new concepts that
will drive us to develop new pieces of hardware.
Senator Peters. So you have to be flexible in both ways?
Lieutenant General Murray. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
service, and thank you for working hard during a trying few
years that you have had to deal with because of decisions made
in this building and on this Capitol Hill.
On page 2 of your statement you say, ``The Army has reached
an inflection point: We can no longer afford to choose between
improving our existing systems and developing new ones. We must
do both.'' I was asking in another setting the Secretary of
Defense about his statement that we have been climbing out of
the readiness hole, and we are going to have to do both now,
readiness and modernization. Your statement was prepared before
we got the news today about the agreement between the White
House and Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate about
the new defense caps. If we do not pass the new defense caps
tomorrow, what does that do to your ability to make this
sentence come true?
Lieutenant General Murray. I think it would be devastating,
Senator. As you mentioned, that prepared statement has been
done for probably about a week-and-a-half now, and that
specific sentence was crafted with the 2019 President's budget
request in mind. So if we do not get a budget, if we go to a
sequester, we go to some kind of furlough again, we would not
be able to do both.
Senator Wicker. Actually, what I think we are going to do
if we have got the votes is we are going to appropriate to the
National Defense Authorization Act level. I think the House of
Representatives has demonstrated that they already have the
votes to do that. What have we not been able to do? Help the
people who are listening by way of C-SPAN right now. Help us to
understand what is at stake in terms of actually what we have
not been able to do and what we have been able to do, if we
take a grownup vote tomorrow and actually give you what you
need?
Lieutenant General Murray. Just a couple of examples,
Senator. So the only new developmental program that we have
started in the 2 years that you have mentioned is the Mobile
Protected Firepower light tank. We have no other new
developmental combat vehicles in production, and that is not
even in production. We are expecting some bid samples here in
the next month or so to go into a downselect for a producer. We
have been focused solely on keeping the equipment we have as
modern as we possibly could while others have modernized their
fleets.
We have no new aircraft in production. We are still flying
the same aircraft that we were flying in the 1980s that came
out. Probably the worst part of that is with the resources we
have been operating with, with the focus on readiness was
exactly where the focus should be, we would be using the same
fleets for the next 20 or 30 years. This budget request I
firmly believe--and if the numbers are anywhere near the NDAA
level, we will be able to start development of new systems that
we will need on the future battlefield. So we have been
maintaining parity as best we could by incremental upgrades to
systems, but there is nothing leap ahead about what we are
doing. That is what we want to do is go after the system that
will provide us the overmatch into the future against a peer
adversary.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Let me shift gears in the last
minute. As you know, Army Corps of Engineers ERDC is located in
Vicksburg, Mississippi, high use of supercomputing there. To
what extent is supercomputing important Army-wide in getting
you the information you need and how weapons systems respond to
complex environments? Who would like to take that?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I can take that. It is
absolutely critical. Frankly, with respect to the Chinook
helicopter, our Block 2 Chinook, we have avoided about $50
million worth of costs in terms of flight based on being able
to supercompute the effects that the new blade rotors are going
to have on the aircraft, the new fuselage is going to have on
the aircraft. We can avoid all that through the stimulation of
training that the supercomputers divide us.
With respect to the tank, Abrams tank in terms of its
armor, the ability to--as we upgraded the armor in the last
version, the B3 version of the Abrams, the ability to use the
supercomputers to determine what the armor would be capable of
doing in terms of the threat, you know, whether it be kinetic
or whether it be RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenades] or whether it
be in ATGM, what would be the result of the armor that we add
as a result of being able to stop those particular threats, all
made possible by the supercomputing capabilities that you
mentioned? It is critical to us. It is critical to the joint
force. The Army is just one participant in this. We have the
other services as well, and so it is a great capability, sir.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Cotton. Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all of our witnesses for being here today.
You know, we have been concerned in recent years that near-
peer competitors like China and Russia are narrowing the
technology gap and putting our forces at greater risk if they
ever had to engage in conflict. So in response, the Army has
announced plans to establish new futures and modernization
command focused on your six modernization goals, things like
next-generation ground vehicles and more survivable helicopters
and more resilient networks.
I understand that in each of these priority areas you plan
to integrate the requirements development and acquisition
processes into combined teams focused on your modernization
goals, and I think this is smart. I think it is a good thing
that you are planning to do. But today, much of the cutting-
edge technology is not developed within the Pentagon but over
in the commercial sector or in the laboratories, at our
colleges and our universities, so I want to ask about a
different kind of integration between the Army and these
outside innovators.
I thought I might start with you, General Ostrowski or
General Dyess. How important is it to capitalize on commercial
and academic developments in advanced technology? As the Army
develops this command, what steps are you taking to make sure
that you are closely tied to these outside innovators?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Ma'am, I will start, and then
I will turn it over to Bo, but the bottom line is is that it is
absolutely critical that our communities within our organic S&T
work with industry across the board. We have numerous programs
that initiate that piece.
One of the things that the Hill has given us in terms of
capabilities is this thing called other transactional
authority. As you know, ma'am, 90 percent of the businesses in
the United States do not want to do business with the
Department of Defense because it is too bureaucratic, it is too
hard, especially small business and innovative companies. The
use of other transactional authorities allows us to get around
those FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation]-based contracting.
It allows us to work with these small units and small
businesses and so forth. So it has been a critical step to
that.
The establishment of the DIUx, again, at the Department of
Defense level, able to reach out to these industries that would
not be willing to normally do business with us, again, breaking
those barriers down. So there has been numerous efforts to try
to get at that 90 percent of the population in terms of our
companies that want to do business with us to be able to do
that.
Senator Warren. Good. So breaking down the barriers, DIUx,
you sing my song when you talk about them. General Dyess, what
would you like to add?
Major General Dyess. Just that we need to know what
technology is out there on the Department of Defense side when
we write requirements and so that we do not write a requirement
that is not attainable.
Senator Warren. So how do you do that?
How do you find out?
Major General Dyess. So it is back and forth. It is
exchange of information. It is here is the way we would like to
have the requirement. Usually we are not at the technology
readiness level that you desire, and then there is trades
discussion that happens with all of us on this table here,
General Murray on the resource side, General Ostrowski on the
acquisition side, and me on the requirements side. So there is
trades discussion that happens inside of that. It has got to be
informed by the technology that is available out there in those
small companies----
That is key----
Senator Warren. That takes some systemic interweaving as
you go along. You know, I may be biased, I probably am, but I
think Massachusetts is the most dynamic innovation economy
linking world-class universities, federal labs, commercial
startups----
Senator King. We call it southern Maine.
Senator Warren. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warren. Social climber.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warren. And that we have workforce that has the
best STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics]
education in the country. When I go home to the Commonwealth,
there are a lot of people there who ask what can I do to serve
my country? What can I do to be part of the defense of this
nation? So I just want to make sure that this question about
innovation as you are thinking about how better to integrate
going forward is not only about the Army and what gets
developed within the Pentagon but what we are developing out
there in the rest of the world. They are opening up new
horizons every single day, and it would be very much to our
detriment if the Army missed that. So I hope we can continue to
work together on that.
Thank you all for being here. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. I will begin round two.
General Dyess, I want to ask two more big-picture questions
and would appreciate the answer in the simplest most layman's
terms. What is the Army's modernization strategy, and who is
responsible for that strategy?
Major General Dyess. Well, the Secretary and the Chief are
going to approve the strategy, and they are going to submit
that strategy in accordance with the NDAA by the 30th of April
of this year. The strategy essentially lines up the
modernization priorities that have already been, as you have
talked about, Senator King and my colleagues here at the table,
essentially tells you how we intend to get after those
modernization priorities.
There is an upfront piece that establishes the current
state that we find ourselves in on modernization, but I would
say the majority of the document are in annexes that describes
the six modernization priorities, as laid out by the Secretary
and the Chief in some detail.
Senator Cotton. If I call Army leadership principles, the
Secretary and the Chief are responsible for everything the Army
does and fails to do? Is that----
Major General Dyess. Well, title 10, manned, trained,
equipped, assessed station is the responsibility----
Senator Cotton. Who beneath the Secretary and the Chief is
personally responsible for the Army modernization strategy?
Major General Dyess. Well, there are a lot of people
helping them, Senator, but I think I am helping writing that
down at Army Capabilities Integration Center with the help of
my colleagues here at the table.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Building on that, what are the
key objectives of our modernization strategy in the near term,
say, defined as the next 2 years?
Major General Dyess. I think in the next 2 years--and you
will see this I think when the PB19 comes over--is a thorough
review of our science and technology dollars that are aligned
to the modernization priorities. A lot of those modernization
priorities, unless we do off-the-shelf of existing equipment
that is out there, are going to deliver in at least 2021, 2022,
and beyond time frame. So if you ask the question what is
happening in the next 2 years, it will be a realignment of some
of those dollars, which you will be able to see on the 12th,
and then essentially the experimentation and demonstration of
capabilities that those cross-functional teams will be doing,
and then in the early to mid-2020s the delivery of capability.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. General Ostrowski, sticking with
the big picture, the Army future combat system was, let us just
say, less than a tremendous success. General Milley
acknowledged this in recent remarks to the Association of the
U.S. Army, but he also stressed that we do need to have a
significant leap ahead in the technology that we are fielding,
10X in fact he said, and pointed out some examples from the
1980s how we succeeded in that effort with systems like the
Abrams, the Bradley, Patriot, the Apache, the Black Hawk. How
do we model on that success from the 1980s and avoid the
failures of the Future Combat System?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Mr. Chairman, the key is to
do the experimental and the prototyping up front and early with
soldiers. General Murray mentioned this earlier. If we are
going to fail, we need to fail early. So early prototyping is
absolutely essential in getting after this piece. The problem
that we have had in the past has been we have been too I would
say hurried to rush into a program of record. Once we did, with
technology that was never even ready for the technology
readiness reduction phase of the program, so we have to spend
more time understanding the technology first, writing the
requirement to do so, and then once we understand the state of
the art of technology, ensure that we prototype that and we fly
before we buy before entering into a major effort.
Lieutenant General Murray. I would just add, Mr. Chairman,
we also have to be comfortable with the 80 percent solution as
the initial development. I would just go back to the M1 tank,
which you mentioned was originally fielded with 105 millimeter
cannon. We knew we needed 120 millimeter. The technology was
not there, so we fielded it with 105 with the space to upgrade
it to a 120 as we went along, so that type of 80 percent is
good enough--perfect is the enemy of good enough----and then
get on with it and improve it over time.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I want to turn to more specific
programmatic questions from the big-picture questions I have
explored, but first, I will turn to Senator King for his second
round of questioning.
Senator King. General Ostrowski, I have some questions
about the industrial base. I am concerned about the loss of
smaller firms either because they cannot compete or--we have
had testimony before the full committee that smaller firms,
particularly in places like Silicon Valley, just will not even
bid anymore they are so fed up with the Pentagon process and
the burden and how long it is and the restrictions. I am
worried about the consolidation of the industrial base and the
loss of smaller, agile, creative companies. Talk to me about
that. How can we be sure that we are not going to lose the
innovation that comes from these smaller companies because of
the cumbersome nature of the process? I am sure you understand
what I am talking about.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Senator, I do, and I
understand exactly where you are coming from. The bottom line
is that, as you know, 90 percent of the companies in the United
States do not even want to do business with us because it is
too cumbersome, and so the thing----
Senator King. That is a really bad sign.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir, but the bottom line
is that the things that you have been able to allow us to do,
the other transactional authorities piece that I mentioned a
little bit earlier allows these companies to be able to want to
then do business with us because the burdens of the FAR are not
placed on them. So that is a huge tool that we have been able
to use as we go forward, especially with the smaller companies.
The other piece of this is ensuring that we understand from
a big supplier perspective. We need to know the second-, third-
, and fourth-tier level suppliers throughout everything that we
are doing and being able to work with our primes to ensure that
we have a status on each one of those because if any one of
those are going to go out of business based on lack of orders
or whatever the case may be, we have to be able to support
those companies because they do provide a capability that no
one else does.
Senator King. Right.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. We have programs associated
with the Army and the other services to be able to identify
those companies and continue to support them because they have
those critical components that nobody else will produce.
Senator King. Let me change the subject from acquisition,
which is mostly what we have been talking about, and talk about
doctrine and hybrid war. Are we developing the doctrine to deal
with an entirely different kind of incursion such as what we
saw in Ukraine or Crimea? That is a difficult strategic and
doctrinal question because you never really quite have that
kinetic, you know, event that can trigger a conventional kind
of response. General Dyess, what do you think about that? Is
the Army thinking about this?
Major General Dyess. I would be glad to talk about that,
Senator, because I think that when we talked about the
battlefield framework and the expansion of just not only
geography but also time. Instead of the joint planning
construct would have the phases, phase 0 through phase 5, we
have essentially done away with that because in that construct
you are either in armed conflict or not in armed conflict. You
are either yes/no, black/white, on/off when in fact, short of
armed conflict, we are in competition right now, and that is
what we are calling it, a competition phase, an armed conflict
phase and then a return-to-competition phase. So there is
activity that is occurring----
Senator King. But I think we need a term between--
competition sounds benign. If the Russians interfere in the
elections in the Czech Republic and elect a pro-Russian as
President, that is not competition. That is something else. It
is between competition and conflict, but I think we need to
find another concept. I see it as beyond just competition.
Major General Dyess. I would not disagree with you, but
that is our first cut on this to try to describe something that
is short of armed conflict because if you just have yes/no,
black/white, on/off armed conflict, no armed conflict or 2.9--
--
Senator King. That will not do today.
Major General Dyess. It is not good enough.
Senator King. No.
Major General Dyess. That is our first attempt at it. But
we have incorporated some of that into our current doctrine and
thinking especially in the area of space, cyberspace,
electromagnetic spectrum, information operations, cognitive
dimension of warfare. We are starting to develop things in
those areas that answer that question.
Senator King. It seems to me that this is an area where we
have to really pay close attention to our allies because that
is where this is going to happen. It is going to happen in the
Baltics or it is going to happen--you know, it is already
happening in the Ukraine. It is going to happen in other areas.
We have got to have a very close relationship because they are
on the ground and see it. That has been my observation. We are
going to have to listen to how they expect to deal with it.
Major General Dyess. So our first problem--and we have
identified in the multi-domain battle those five problems I
talked about. The first one is how do U.S. Forces deter the
escalation of violence, defeat adversary operations to
destabilize the region, and turn denied space into contested
space should violence escalate? That is our first problem. I
think it is very important to define the problem before you
start chasing down solutions, and we identified that as one of
the problems with this new framework in multi-domain battle.
Senator King. Well, I am concerned that Russia can rebuild
the Soviet empire without firing a shot by political
manipulation and other kinds of I guess I call it subversion in
some of these Eastern European countries. They are proving
themselves pretty adept at that.
Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it.
Senator Cotton. Gentlemen, as I said, I would like to go
through some more programmatic questions now, turning away from
the big picture. Senator King, I will invite you to interject
at any point where you might have anything to add. I will
direct my question to one of the witnesses, but if anyone would
like to volunteer for an answer, please feel free to jump in.
If the question is directed towards you and you would like to
volunteer one of your peers to answer, please do that as well.
General Milley and Deputy Secretary McCarthy addressed a
lot of the Army's top modernization priorities last year at the
AUSA [Association of the United States Army] convention, so I
will take my guidance in part from their remarks, the first
among that is long-range precision fires. General Ostrowski,
can you tell us where the long-range precision fires program
stands today and when do we expect capability to reach the
field?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir, I would be happy
to. The long-range precision fires is in the technology
maturity risk reduction phase. We have two competitors--
Raytheon, as well as Lockheed Martin--that will be providing us
up to four missiles, for missiles exactly by the fourth quarter
of 2019 in order to flight-test those missiles. We will flight-
test three of the four. From that point we will be able to
determine just how close we are getting to the requirement of
the 499 capability in terms of kilometers in the range.
Depending on the maturity of what we get, the intent is to move
into a milestone B on that program in second quarter of 2021
and move forward from there. Again, it will all depend on where
we stand in terms of the technology and how fast we can deliver
this capability. Right now, worst-case scenario, 2027. The
intent is to move that more towards 2025 or earlier, but it
will all depend on how capable those missiles are in the fourth
quarter of 2019.
Senator Cotton. You mentioned 499. That is to remain
compliant with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is correct, sir.
Senator Cotton. So it is now acknowledged openly by the
United States Government that Russia is in violation of the
treated. Of course, China is not a signatory to that treaty,
nor is any other nation on earth, which means the United States
is the only country that restricts its long-range missile
development to under 500 kilometers. Do those restrictions
inhibit the Army's ability to develop a long-range precision
fire capability that can outrange Russian and Chinese threats?
Does it put our forces at a disadvantage?
Lieutenant General Murray. In terms of ballistic missiles,
absolutely.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Let us move on, General Murray,
since you volunteered for that question, to the next
modernization priority. The next-generation ground combat
vehicle, we are still, as I understand it, in a very early
stage and unclear whether it would be a vehicle to replace the
Bradley or the Abrams or both, is that correct?
Lieutenant General Murray. Yes, sir, to be determined.
Senator Cotton. So what is the Army leadership doing to
analyze feasibility for foreign vehicle designs or component
systems for suitability in this program?
Lieutenant General Murray. Sir, right now, we are looking
at all options to include foreign vehicle design and new
development to be honest with you. You mentioned the Chiefs
remarks not only at AUSA breakfast but in lots of other places,
and he is very much focused on a 10X capability. He
acknowledged some of the technologies do not exist, so some of
the things we are looking for is alternative power, so get away
from diesel turbine engines or piston engines. The Chief has
been very clear on any future combat vehicle development will
at least be optionally manned if not semiautonomous or
autonomous so commanders at the point of contact will have the
option to send the vehicle forward unmanned or manned.
We are looking at the incorporation of probably simple AI
at this point, so driver assist, 360 degree S.A., computer-
assisted targeting and acquisition functions within the turret.
We are looking at absolutely an integrated active protective
system on the next-generation vehicle, whichever one it is and
both, enhance lethality, a lighter weight so we get away--the
weight issues we have with the current generation of combat
vehicles, and whatever we come up with, we have to account for
operations in dense urban terrain, which I think the Chief has
said.
So that is a lot out there that may not exist right now, so
what allies are developing, what Senator Warren said is being
developed within the commercial industry, small business,
universities, academia and the science and technology range, I
mean, we have cast a wide net. But I go back to what I have
said earlier; we cannot wait 20 years to develop this vehicle,
so we have got to find a solution that we can develop fairly
quickly that we can incorporate technologies as they mature in
a relatively easy manner.
Senator Cotton. If we turn to the contrast in the prior
round of questioning to the modernization programs in the
1980s, which by and large succeeded in the FCS [Future Combat
Systems], which failed, one difference is that those 1980s
programs were complementary and separate, not a single platform
that was going to do all things for all people so that we if
they failed like--I think there was an antiaircraft gun in the
1980s that ended up failing. You still have your utility
helicopter, your attack helicopter, so on and so forth. Would
this next-generation combat vehicle put us at risk of something
like the FCS again that we are trying to build a platform that
can do multiple different roles? If it fails, then we fail
across all those roles or functions?
Lieutenant General Murray. Potentially, and I think that is
something we have to keep in mind as we go forward. I think--
and I have read the report on the FCS. I think most of us have
read the report on the FCS, and the Army senior leadership has
committed not to make the same mistakes again. I think some of
the mistakes we did is we bet on a technology and developed a
platform around those technologies, and when those technologies
did not deliver, the platform did not deliver.
The intent is, as we have said before, Senator, is figure
out what is physically possible from a technology standpoint to
do today before we go into development and to make sure we
build the space into the vehicle to incorporate technologies
that we know are coming in the future. We do not want to
deliver something the day you deliver it, it is obsolete.
Senator Cotton. Let me turn to the third priority, active
protection systems. Those are systems that are designed to
protect vehicles from threats like RPGs or long-range antitank
missiles. These are already fielded in Israel and Russia. The
German army is beginning to acquire systems from one of its
domestic producers. Sweden and Singapore are acquiring systems
from Germany, and the United States Army has recently acquired
three systems for testing for foreign and domestic designers,
learning how to integrate their designs into Abrams, Bradleys,
and Strikers. I think this is largely a good-news story, an
example of how the Army can be more flexible and looking to
foreign systems and commercially available systems. General
Murray, can you discuss the status of this effort and the
Army's recent position--or position on the recent DOT&E
[Department of Operational Test & Evaluation] report that
outlined some of the remaining technical challenges that we
might encounter during the testing?
Lieutenant General Murray. Absolutely, Senator. So we
bought a very limited number of the Trophy system. You said
integrated. It is really not integrated. It is installed on the
Abrams tank. We took it through characterization. We took a
through mobility testing, Yuma Proving Ground. We had some
issues we have worked through, and we are fairly satisfied with
where we are on the Trophy system. That was phase 1, the
characterization phase. Phase 2, the testing phase is really
what DOT&E pointed out in terms of working through everything
else we have to in terms of testing. But we are fairly
comfortable with where we are on the Trophy other than it is
installed. It is not an integrated system on that tank. It is
added weight, it is added width, and so it has really just kind
of compounded our problem. But it is--through characterization
we are very satisfied with it.
Iron Curtain on the Striker and Iron Fist on the Bradley
have had some issues over the last 6 months or so in terms of
their characterization. It probably was to be expected. They
are much less mature systems than Trophy was. Iron Fist is an
Israeli system, and Iron Curtain is a domestically produced
system. Iron Fist right now should--they have worked through
their issues according to the engineers.
We should start characterization on that system down at
Redstone Test Center probably the end of this month, maybe
beginning of March, and Iron Curtain is finishing up its
characterization. Then we are going to fundamentally have to
make a decision on really all three systems but in particular
the last two. Part of, you know, failing and failing early is
the willingness to walk away, and so basically, on what we have
seen, are those the systems we want or are they not the systems
we want? If they are not, some of the other systems you
mentioned we would be willing to go look at before we make a
decision.
Then, ultimately at the end--and I just had a session on
this yesterday--our integrated system, the MAP system (Modular
Active Protection System), is our steppingstone of the future
so that soldiers have common interfaces no matter what vehicle
they are on. It gives a soft-kill, hard-kill capability. It
gives a target acquisition capability so when you get shot at,
you slew-to-cue. But it is the system that any effect or any
radar, any EO/IR sensor can fit into, and it is completely
integrated into the vehicle design.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Talking to a fourth priority,
air defense, General Anderson, I will return to you since we
discussed earlier. It has been at least since the Korean War
since the United States ground forces have kind of, under
sustained aerial attack--obviously the threats that we face
from China and Russia, though, could mean that that kind of
threat would return. You mentioned, you know, taking Stingers
out of the warehouses. Stinger and Avenger have been in service
for four decades I think. How confident are we in the ability
of those weapons systems to effectively counteract threats from
Russia and/or Chinese aircraft?
Lieutenant General Anderson. That is why earlier there is
no--we have never fought in this type of an environment, so
what you are talking about, they are not capable, sir. So the
issue becomes what is the next generation? Everything I talked
to you about were additive things from sensors to radars and to
provide some capability to give yourself a chance. But at the
end of the day we have never faced something like that. So the
issue becomes now, as we work the PAC-3 MSE, it has got to be
in the munitions and it has got to be--and right now, it is a
sheer function of--that is why when you talked about gaps
earlier, we have got to restore BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense]
capabilities at a much broader--we are short THAAD, we are
short Patriot. We are moving--we are actually reallocating
Patriots as we speak from one COCOM [combatant command] to
another to deal with things on the Korean peninsula, and so
that is the capability gap that we are focusing on in the near
term as part of the modernization strategy. It is fires and BMD
because we are shortchanged both by capability and capacity.
Senator Cotton. So better than nothing, which is largely
what we currently have?
Lieutenant General Anderson. The Stinger thing was a
purely--you know, it was amazing we pulled it off. It was a
purely minimalistic approach to make sure that there was
something. This also affects the Counter-UAS fight, so that is
a whole different story, as you know, and there are about 19
systems. That is a good news story how the Army went commercial
off-the-shelf, used other existing systems from other countries
and gave our soldiers about 19 options, so everything from
lasers to drone defenders to LIDS to, you know, AUDS, all stuff
that has worked. That was a game changer pretty quickly in
Iraq. Now, the question becomes how effective are they going to
be in places like the Korean Peninsula, Eastern Europe?
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Let us turn to the fifth
priority, which is kind of the opposite side of the same coin,
future vertical lift and the vulnerability of our aircraft to
enemy air defenses, in particular the Black Hawk replacement.
There were some ambitious requirements that were laid out to
travel twice as far and twice as fast compared to traditional
helicopters in the same class. But at the same time, it is
going to be facing a lot of new threats in terms of integrated
air defenses and increasingly advanced manned portable air
defense systems. What steps is the Army taking to make sure
that that future platform can be survivable in that kind of
environment?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Mr. Chairman, I can take that
particular question. You are very familiar with the joint
multi-role tech demonstrator that we have going on right now,
two different aircraft both with Boeing and Bell. We have had
the flights go on with Bell in terms of the tilt rotor
aircraft, and we have hope that by late this summer we will see
the Boeing compound coaxial helicopter in flight. The efforts
and the information that we will gain from both those tech
demonstrators will allow us to be able to move forward in terms
of our priorities of capability sets, whether it be 1, 2, or
capability set 3, which these are based upon.
Aircraft survivability with respect to that platform and
our current fleet remains paramount to us. It is one of our top
priorities within future vertical lift and the whole combat. So
with respect to that, we are investing heavily with respect to
the CMOS program, as well as getting after the ability to
interdict the particular missiles while in flight. Now, this is
tough because we are always shooting behind the duck. I think
you know what I mean with respect to that. In order to defend
an aircraft against a ground-based missile, you have to be able
to confuse that missile. In order to do that, you must be able
to take the steps necessary in order to create the software to
execute that. That takes time and testing.
We have to go after kinetic capability, one that is not
dependent upon software in order to defeat or dazzle the
particular surface-to-air missile. That is what we are trying
to get after. That is the next step. Just like we have APS
[Active Protection Systems] for our combat vehicle fleet in the
future in terms of that, we have to have APS for our aircraft.
Senator Cotton. What steps if any is the Army taking to
promote the use of those future platforms across the joint
force or with allied partners? I am always somewhat mystified
when a multi-role, you know, workhorse is not as widely
accepted outside of the Army as it ought to be.
Lieutenant General Murray. The current program is a joint
United States Marine Corps/United States Army program. I would
say very limited interest right now from allies because they
are kind of waiting to see where we go with this. As General
Ostrowski mentioned, the CFT, the future vertical lift CFT
obviously is very focused on this in terms of are we on the
right path, are we on the right timeline, what are the critical
capabilities we have got to look at? Because you mentioned, you
know, we are looking for fundamentally different--we are
changing the physics of rotary wing flight. To make sure we
have got it right, that has become a focus, that we are on the
right path to get there. I do think the joint multi-role
demonstrator is potentially a way of doing things in the
future. We have invested less than 50 percent, well less than
50 percent of the money to develop these demonstrators. This is
mostly an industry nickel, which is I think probably the right
way to go as we get into the future for other major programs.
Senator Cotton. How feasible would it be to have buy-in
from the Navy or the Air Force for some of their rotary wing
requirements? One constant question the subcommittee, in
addition to the larger committee, explores, for instance, is
the need for a rotary wing helicopter for the Air Force to
maintain security and safety at its ICBM [Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile] sites in the Western United States. Again,
it is strange to me that a specialized helicopter is needed for
that kind of mission.
Lieutenant General Murray. I would agree with you, Senator,
but right now, I think it is very much--the other services,
much like our allies, are waiting for us to kind of figure out
where we are going to take this. I do think, you know, if we
are successful, obviously it would be a very capable aircraft
that would be obviously a multi-role aircraft. I think they are
waiting to see how much the aircraft will cost, what the
capabilities of the aircraft are because each service has
unique capabilities that we require in our aircraft. For us, it
is about mobility on the objective, to get soldiers on and off
the objective. The Marine Corps have a slightly different
priority, the Navy has a different priority, and of course the
Air Force has a different priority for their aircraft. But I do
think it will be a very capable aircraft that potentially could
be utilized by all four services.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Senator, I would just add
that this wheel has been created. The Black Hawk today the Air
Force flies, the Black Hawk today the Navy flies, different
variants and so forth. It was never a joint program to begin
with, but the other services have adopted our material
solution.
Senator Cotton. Sixth, networks, especially mobile
networks, WIN-T [War Fighter Network-Tactical] and DCGS
[Distributed Common Ground System], I think you are all aware
that this is something on which I focused for many years.
General Ostrowski, what is the plan to repair the mobile
network?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, again, our strategy is
to halt those efforts in terms of WIN-T Increment 2 that we
know are not going to work in a contested environment. We will
build upon increment 1B, as we have. That is our system at the
hull. We will buy modified pieces of Increment 2. In other
words, what we have right now is for our NOSC [Network
Operations Support Center] Light--our NOSCs and our TCMs, we
have mobile capability, but it is capability placed on the
family of medium tactical vehicles. We can shrink those down.
We have been able to do so. That was just reported out in the
DOT&E test that was released just recently with respect to NOSC
Light and TCM Light. We owe that capability on the move to our
SBCTs [Stryker Brigade Combat Teams] and our IBCTs [Infinity
Brigade Combat Teams]. We will more forward with the purchasing
of that.
The rest of the money with respect to the network is going
to go after the pivot and the fixed piece with respect to where
we are going. I believe that you are aware that obviously we
know what we have to do in terms of a network of the future. We
have to find the transport mechanism, the transport layer
first. That was clear in the IDA [Institute for Defense
Analysis] report, and that is where we are going after. We have
to modernize that piece. Once we get a transport layer and we
decide what that is going to be in the future, we can then
ensure that industry that wants to participate in our network
of the future is able to link in to those standards and that
architecture.
In the meantime, between that network of the future and
now, we have to continue to be able to fight tonight, so that
means fixing what we have, which is our current strategy, and
then buying incremental capabilities that we are finding with
respect to the soft community because we have teamed greatly
with them, as well as the Marine Corps, and have several
solution sets for the individual soldier and battalion and
below that we are going to move forward to in terms of
experimenting and prototyping to get at a medium or an interim
capability while we wait for that next-generation network.
Senator Cotton. It seems like an area that is ripe for
commercial off-the-shelf solutions.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is absolutely correct,
Senator. The bottom line is that is exactly where we are going.
Eventually, we would like to hopefully get to a point where we
can buy this as a service. Now, that is the Chief's vision.
That is where we are trying to push this things towards, and
that is why we want to continue to give problem statements to
industry as opposed to being very specific with respect to our
requirements. Allow them the freedom to be able to offer
solution sets based on what they know in terms of the capable
and reasonable in terms of technology.
Senator Cotton. General Anderson, I saw you nodding
vigorously. Would you like to add anything?
Lieutenant General Anderson. No, sir. Watching this for a
couple years and all the testing which you just said, it is as
plain as day. The stuff is out there, and we are trying to
reinvent the wheel. The Net Warrior is the perfect example, a
phone with apps. Soldiers love it.
Senator Cotton. So if we could go back in time, we could
just buy every soldier a smartphone and put some apps on it?
Lieutenant General Anderson. Just like your AT&T bill, do
it for our soldiers, a personal device.
Lieutenant General Murray. That is one of the big
initiatives, right? So they did not love it when it was a
classified network, so one of the things we are looking at is
how far down do classified networks need to go so the secure
but unclassified network opens up all kinds of possibilities.
You talk about commercial purchases. I mean, the key piece of
Net Warrior is a mobile phone you can buy, you know, in the
kiosk on the corner. I mean, that is the key piece of
technology that is in that Net Warrior system.
Senator Cotton. Okay. A seventh priority, let us get down
to the frontlines, soldier lethality. General Murray, there has
been a proliferation of body armor, specifically Russian and
Chinese, specifically designed to defeat traditional 5.56 NATO
ammunition, which is of course what our soldiers fire from
their M4s. What are we doing to address what is a very serious
issue for the soldier on the frontlines?
Lieutenant General Murray. So we have several efforts
ongoing, Senator. The first one would be the squad designated
marksman rifle, which is the near-term gap. So that has a 7.62
capability that gives us the ability to penetrate the most
advanced body armor in the world, along with the advanced armor
piercing round that is in development. We are accelerating the
SDMR [Squad Designated Marksman Rifle] or the squad designated
marksman rifle to 2018, so we will start fielding that in 2018.
We had hoped to accelerate the ADVAP round, the advanced armor
piercing round, to 2018 as well to line up with that, but we
are about a year off, so we will develop that ammo, field it in
2019. You can still fire 7.62 and you can still penetrate. You
just cannot get quite the range you will with the next-
generation round. That is phase 1.
Phase 2 is the development of what we are calling the next-
generation squad weapon. The first iteration will probably be
an automatic rifle to replace the SAW, which is also a 5.56. We
have been pushed on the M27, which the Marine Corps has
adopted. That is also a 5.56, which does not penetrate, so we
are going to go down the path of next-generation squad weapon
automatic rifle first to be closely followed, I am hopeful, for
either a rifle or a carbine that will fire something other than
a 5.56. It probably will not be a 7.62. It will probably be
something in between. Case telescoping round, probably polymer
casing to reduce the weight of it.
We have in the S&T community a demonstration weapon right
now. It is too big; it is too heavy. But we have recently
opened it up to commercial industry for them to come in with
their ideas about how they would get to that. We have offered
them some money to come in and prototype for us that type of
weapon. We believe with that weapon with the new ammo we can
achieve probably weights similar to the M4 5.56 ammo. The
weapon will probably weigh a little bit more, the ammo will
probably weigh a little bit less, and we can get penetration of
the most advanced body armor in the world, probably well beyond
even the max effective range of the current M4. That is what we
see as a replacement for the M4 in the future, not the SDMR.
Senator King. What is the time frame on that?
Senator Cotton. I think he said 2018 for the SDMR.
Lieutenant General Murray. When we started off--and, Paul,
you can correct me--I think we were out around 2025 or 2026,
and I think we are back to about 2023 now.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, I would just say that
between the S&T effort that we have ongoing with Textron and
the OTA, other transaction authority, that we are going to
offer to other vendors in 2018, the intent is to try to do a
fly-off between those particular companies by the end of 2021
in order to provide some kind of capability by 2022 or 2023 at
the latest.
Senator Cotton. What was 2018? Was that the new squad
designated marksman rifle?
Lieutenant General Murray. Correct.
Senator Cotton. How does that differ from the rifle that
was carried the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan I think was
in 2014?
Lieutenant General Murray. The EBR [Enhanced Battle Rifle].
It is a much better--the EBR was a modified and adopted M14,
which was--it never got--I mean, it looked significantly
different than anything else in the squad, so if you carried
it, you looked like a target. This rifle was basically a
variation of a sniper rifle so it is very accurate, but it is
also capable of automatic fire.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. It certainly looks a lot like
an M4.
Senator Cotton. Okay. General Dyess, any thoughts beyond
simply this question about penetrating Russian and Chinese
armor, any broader thoughts about standard infantry squad kit
and changes that might be coming to it?
Major General Dyess. There are a couple things, Senator.
Night vision devices, I think that there is some activity that
could go on there. Expanding the combat footprint of whatever
size unit, let us say a squad or a platoon. The use of a small
micro or quadcopters for air, which is a much less complicated
environment than on the ground. I think that there will be most
likely some ground robotics that are out there, but it is a
much more complicated area than in the air. So I think that you
will see maybe some expansion of the battle space and maybe
awareness of small units and night vision are two other areas
that I think on the soldier lethality part.
Senator Cotton. Putting the second one in layman's terms, a
little drone with a camera on it?
Major General Dyess. That is correct.
Lieutenant General Murray. That is the equipment piece. I
mean, there is also a significant effort going on in terms of
treating the rifle squad as a weapons system. So we have
continued to improve our own body armor, to lightweight it, to
make it better. The weapons you have talked about, not only
small arms but automatic weapons, antitank weapons, the Carl
Gustaf, lightweighting that, and then probably as importantly
is the nonmaterial solution, so how do we provide holistic
fitness to, you know, what the Army exists to do, close with
and destroy the enemy? How do we provide, you know, a--get the
best and brightest and then provide them the holistic health
and fitness and training materials? So in terms of simulations
and synthetic training environments and how do you allow them
to do multiple reps in some sort of very realistic synthetic
environment so they get 100 reps before they go to battle for
the first time?
Senator Cotton. If I could just dig a little bit more on
that because it was my last question on this topic about
outfitting the infantry squad, infantry platoon for enemy tanks
and enemy attack aircraft. Obviously, that is not a
consideration that has been foremost on our minds over the last
17 years on the modern battlefield. I mean, AT4s have been more
about thinking who has to carry it in the STX lane. But if we
are facing Russian and Chinese threats, they are obviously
going to have main battle tanks and attack aviation, so could
you just be a little more detailed about that, General Murray?
Lieutenant General Murray. Yes, sir. I would start off by
saying that no rifle squad fights by itself, and, you know, our
experience in Iraq and Afghanistan I would never hesitate to
send out a platoon by itself, but I never would send out a
squad by itself just because of the combined arms effects of
larger formations. If we are fighting that type of foe, I would
guess in an ABCT [Armored Brigade Combat Team] I have got lots
of antitank weapons, ways to deal with enemy tanks, SBCT less
so but I have still got javelins and other ways of dealing with
it. So really, the focus is the IBCTs, and that was part of the
reason, although not designed to be toe-to-toe with a Soviet
tank, is the mobile protective firepower to give the light
IBCTs some ability to deal with targets that they are not
organically equipped to do.
Senator Cotton. It is going to be down to the platoon level
or----
Lieutenant General Murray. It depends on how the commander
organizes them. It is one company per brigade, so it would
depend on where that platoon was. Then there are other things
like attack aviation that obviously can deal with----
Senator Cotton. Okay. General Anderson, one final
modernization priority I would like to turn to you on--it was
not addressed to my knowledge at the AUSA [Association of the
United States Army] by Secretary McCarthy or General Milley--
that is electronic warfare, Russian doctrine that is publicly
available, say they view that as key asymmetric advantage
against their adversary, namely us, both offensive and
defensive. So, first, correct me if I am wrong but I do not
think it was addressed by General Milley or Secretary McCarthy.
If I am not wrong, why it was not, but also just give us an
update on what the Army is doing to reconstitute electronic
warfare forces and capabilities.
Lieutenant General Anderson. It is all things multi-domain,
sir, and trying to get a strategy, you know, all things
electromagnetic spectrum. So we have still got a couple
stovepipes here between the E.W. community, the cyber
community, the signal community, you know, and how do we
achieve effects, and that is why this I.Q. as we establish an
intel, cyber, electronic warfare space cell that we are going
to task-organize with 17 fire so you have got the lethal piece,
and then you are going to attack this new--different icons to
get synergy between those capabilities, and then we will go
test it, as Bo was talking about, out in Pacific pathways and
the exercises to figure out what we can do. You know, but all
we are doing right now in Europe is through the Rapid
Capabilities Office is taking different electronic warfare kit,
putting it together, and trying to again--it is a jamming
capability. But the reason why electronic warfare is so
important, if you cannot find where the stuff is emitting from,
it does not matter because the jammer will not be able to
figure that out. That is why the synergy between the two are so
critical.
Senator Cotton. Okay.
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. I would just add, Senator,
that the Rapid Capabilities Office has put situational
understanding capability in Europe now, okay? What we have is
one platoon per brigade with respect to the second ACR [Army
Calvary Regiment], two on ABCT and 173rd Airborne Division. But
what we have, sir, is a couple of different items. One is a
VROD/VMAX which is a ground-based, soldier-based dismounted
system that is able to D.F. signals of interest.
Sabre Fury is another capability. It is a mounted platform
on a Striker, for instance, that also has line of bearing.
Through that, the combination of those two efforts, along with
Raven Claw, which basically is the computer that puts it all
together, we have commanders able to have the situational
understanding of signals of interest in their area. They then
have the opportunity to do two things, either strike that
particular capability with respect to indirect fires or they
have the ability to jam it, a limited jamming capability.
However, it is limited in terms of its jamming capability. That
is the concern that we have. It does not stand up to what our
foes, our near-peer and peer competitors, have in terms of
their inventories, and that is the crux of the problem. We have
taken risk in this area for too long.
Lieutenant General Murray. I think to add on to General
Ostrowski, so none of that is the program of record. I think
that is a great example, and it is really our Rapid Capability
Office that is doing the prototyping and the demonstrating
before we write a requirements document so we fully understand
what is available and what it is we need.
Senator Cotton. Okay. Senator King?
Senator King. One other question, as we were talking about
all these systems, do you have any systematic red-team approach
to trying to find flaws? In other words, somebody whose job it
is to say why this will not work and to attempt to prove it, is
that built into the system? I think that is often a valuable
approach.
Lieutenant General Murray. There are plenty of people who
say this will not work, and our Chief of Staff is probably, you
know, first and foremost----
[Laughter.]
Senator King. That is----
Lieutenant General Murray. But I am actually honest,
Senator. So, you know, the one thing that has changed since I
think it was NDAA '16 that the Chief back, you know, into the
acquisition process----
Senator King. In the process.
General Murray.--is that there is one person in the Army
that questions our requirements and questions, you know, how
fast we are going, whether what we do will actually work. It is
the Chief. I mean, he is very involved. So if that was the
intent of Congress to get the Army senior leaders involved in
the requirements, in the acquisition process, it absolutely
worked.
In terms of a formal red team, I mean, there is nothing I
am tracking----
Major General Dyess. Just the experimental stuff, sir, that
we do, where we put things in the hands of soldiers, and they
have no restrictions in telling us what they think, and thank
goodness for that.
Lieutenant General Anderson. If I could add, Senator, that
was one of the benefits of not having a dedicated brigade for
testing. The last summer we did a test, we used a nonstandard
brigade, and the soldiers were not afraid to say--they were not
used to doing NIEs [Network Integration Education] every year.
It was not the same unit, so when you introduced a new unit,
they gave a lot more different perspectives than the unit at
Fort Bliss did because they had seen this stuff multiple times,
so there are benefits to rotating who the test unit is to get
new hands on the equipment, new eyes on the kit, et cetera.
Senator King. I think that is an important part of the
process.
Lieutenant General Anderson. We did not see it that way at
first, but it fell out that way.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. The Chief has been very focused on these
problems, and I think he has brought a very dynamic leadership
to them. I remember when he first came on and we were speaking
about the new Army pistol RFP, which was 350 pages, and he
suggested that maybe we should just go to Fort Bragg and get a
few gun lovers there to ask them what the best ones are and
then go to Walmart or Cabela's and buy 50,000 of them. So we
did not exactly do that----
Senator King. We can get a deal, too.
Senator Cotton. Yes, we did not exactly do that, but it was
much better than the 350-page RFP.
So I will close with the lesson that you can take away from
that, I think. You know, Army doctrine says that leadership is
the most dynamic element of combat power. Secretary Gates in
his memoir of his time at the Department of Defense wrote about
the relationship between Congress and senior department
managers. Congress can only do so much. We can provide you the
budgetary resources you need and some legal authorities, but
usually, when Congress tries to solve a problem, is solves it
with a meat cleaver, not a scalpel. In the end there is no
substitute for leadership from the Secretary on down to the
general officers and the programmatic leaders, and we really do
depend on all of you and the men and women who work alongside
you in the Department. So I want to commend you for the efforts
that you have undertaken and encourage you to continue to do so
to make sure that our modernization needs are fully met.
General Dyess, I assume this is your final testimony in
front of the Congress?
Major General Dyess. Sir, I have not received any other
notices yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. General Murray, General Anderson, will this
be your final appearance for some time?
Lieutenant General Anderson. My fate is undetermined,
Senator.
Lieutenant General Murray. Mine as well, but if I have
anything to do with it, yes, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. I will ask, so you are undetermined but
General Dyess is not. I will ask you what is preferable, a day-
one Ranger School recycle or congressional testimony?
Major General Dyess. I would rather come over here and talk
to you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much
for your service to the country. Thank you for your appearance
and your testimony. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
jparc for advanced air and ground joint training
1. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Anderson and Major General
Dyess, in the hearing I mentioned the lack of advanced air-land battle
and training exercises and that General Milley has been talking about
much bigger training exercises as a way to integrate the entire force
with combined arms. There's an NDAA provision that takes a look at
that. I asked if you considered the Joint Pacific Range Complex (JPARC)
in Alaska, which has a land space the size of Delaware, airspace for
fifth generation aircraft the size of Florida and naval sea space the
size of Virginia.
You responded that you are conducting an exercise in May in Germany
with participation from some of allied partners from the U.K., France,
and Germany.
But this is a joint fight and you can't do that in Army-only ranges
with just Army units. Would you agree that the JPARC is an ideal
location for the type of advanced integrated training we will need to
counter high-end and near-peer threats? How do you plan to utilize this
amazing training space?
Lieutenant General Anderson and Major General Dyess. The Army
recognizes the unique and important training opportunities at the Joint
Pacific Range Complex (JPARC). The facilities and infrastructure within
the JPARC can enable scenarios supporting advanced integrated training
to counter high-end and near-peer threats. Readiness of joint
formations to fight large-scale integrated battle campaigns is
primarily the responsibility of combatant commanders and accomplished
through joint exercises. The Army participates in integrated training
at JPARC when Army Forces are required to support combatant commander
or joint staff exercises. The Army has also used the JPARC footprint to
carry out the United States Army Pacific's (USARPAC) Joint Pacific
Multinational Readiness Capability (JPMRC) training events.
evolution of missile defense mission
2. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant
General Murray, Lieutenant General Ostrowski, for the past 60 years,
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic
Command and its predecessors have served the nation advancing missile
defense capabilities. The National Defense Strategy clearly prioritizes
``missile defense'' stating, ``Investments will focus on layered
missile defenses and disruptive capabilities for both theater missile
threats and North Korean ballistic missile threats.'' In a new
strategic environment where the ``reemergence of long-term, strategic
competition'' with nations like Russia and China dominates on a ``ever
more lethal and disruptive battlefield,'' how do you see the U.S.
Army's missile defense mission evolving and how will the U.S. Army work
to ensure that critical defense capabilities--to include homeland
missile defense sites and strategically located airfields--are fully
defended against adversary aggression or coercion?
Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant General Murray, Lieutenant
General Ostrowski. First and foremost, the Ground Based Midcourse
Defense (GMD) system provides the active defense component of our
Homeland Defense against limited ICBM attack from rogue nations. The
National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy rely on our
strategic nuclear forces as the foundation of a comprehensive
deterrence against nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attacks from
adversaries such as North Korea and Iran. Missile defense, an important
component of this deterrence, addresses a limited conflict scenario and
reduces the effects of a limited attack without encroaching on the
strategic balance between near-peers. While current policy relies on
deterrence to avoid conflict with near peer nations, we maintain our
ability to develop and operate regional defense to protect our forces
and reassure our allies and partners. The Army is looking at the
missile defense mission using a holistic approach--one that addresses
the entire life cycle of the threat. This could reduce the cost of
engagement by better leveraging offensive and defensive options,
thereby increasing our survivability and interceptor capacity.
Regionally, the Army is investing in cruise missile defense
capabilities (Indirect Fire Protection Capability--IFPC), increased
capacity in PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors, and
upgrading the Patriot force with both hardware and software, including
development of an upgraded sensor (LTAMDS). The highest priority within
the Army AMD force is the protection of the maneuver force. The Army is
developing a capability to defend the maneuver force against unmanned
aircraft and fixed/rotary wing aircraft.
extreme-cold weather training
3. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant
General Murray, and Major General Dyess, given the volatility on the
Korean Peninsula, what actions does the United States Army need to take
to ensure that the brigades operationally-controlled by USPACOM
received the needed cold-weather equipment and training that allows
them to survive, maneuver, fight, and win in potential contingency on
the Korean Peninsula?
Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant General Murray, and Major
General Dyess. Combatant commanders and Army Force Providers determine
unique equipment and training requirements for the theater and any
specific operational tasks. ECWCS is a standard issue. The Army
provides ECWCS New Equipment training to soldiers during fielding,
including instruction and equipment fact sheets. Unit leaders are
responsible for conducting sustainment training after initial fielding.
The cold-weather found on the Korean Peninsula is just one of many
conditions of the operational environment. Army commanders consider
cold weather, mountainous terrain, urban environments as well as
austere conditions as they plan training in support of deployments to
the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility. The Army has pre-
deployment training guidance to commanders to ensure brigades are
prepared to maneuver, fight and win in varied conditions. U.S. Forces
Command pre-deployment training guidance requires unit preventative
medicine personnel or medical providers to conduct cold and hot weather
injury prevention training for all soldiers prior to deployment.
4. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant
General Murray, Major General Dyess, does the U.S. Army have plans to
look into sending platoon/squad leaders to the Northern Warfare
Training Center (NTWC)--or a similar school--to ensure that, at a
minimum, its leaders are trained in the basics of using the Extended
Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS)?
Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant General Murray, and Major
General Dyess. The Army provides training opportunities for platoon,
squad and other leaders and soldiers at the Northern Warfare Training
Center (NWTC). At the NWTC they are trained in the knowledge and skills
required to successfully conduct small unit operations in a cold, snow-
covered environment. There are two courses offered there--a Cold
Weather Leaders Course and a Cold Weather Orientation Course. Both
place emphasis on the use of cold weather clothing and equipment.
Training specific to the Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS)
is mission specific unit training. Army leaders at all levels are
trained to identify factors that will leave soldiers more vulnerable to
cold weather injuries. Proper wear and use of the ECWCS is one way to
mitigate cold weather risks. Training on proper use of the ECWCS is an
application of general principles of cold weather survival training and
how to dress using layers of clothing to match the environment. Some
Army Forces can conduct cold weather training at their home station,
where they have cold weather climates, such as Fort Drum, New York,
Fort Carson, Colorado, Fort Lewis, Washington, and at the Army Mountain
Warfare School in Vermont. When units conduct cold weather training in
below-zero temperatures, the training serves the additional purpose of
providing soldiers an opportunity to practice wear of extreme cold
weather gear. Wearing the gear while operating in sub-zero temperatures
assists in increasing soldiers' confidence in their equipment.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz
future vertical lift
5. Senator Cruz. Lieutenant General Murray, in 2011, the Department
published Future Vertical Lift: A Strategic Plan for United States
Department of Defense Vertical Lift Aircraft which made a compelling
case for replacing the current fleet of vertical lift aircraft with new
and advanced capabilities through 2050.
The report went on to say that most decision points for the DOD
vertical lift fleet to either extend the life, retire, or replace with
a new platform would occur by the mid-2020s.
I am encouraged by the Army's commitment to such a strategy through
your Joint Multi-Role Technical Demonstrations (JMR TD) designed to
investigate real design possibilities and technologies. I am also
encouraged by the inherent joint nature of the program to date and the
direction I see the Future Vertical Lift family of aircraft going in
the future.
With the vast majority of DOD's vertical lift fleet, residing
within the medium lift category, the Strategic Plan called for early
decisions on Capability Set 3 aircraft. Are the Army's priorities still
aligned with the DOD Strategic Plan for Future Vertical Lift with
regard to Capability Set 3?
The JMR TD effort appears to have been a successful government-
industry partnership to investigate new technologies and capabilities.
Please describe JMR TD lessons learned and their applicability to the
Army's future modernization efforts and FVL.
Lieutenant General Murray. The Army's current priorities are
aligned with the Department of Defense (DOD) Strategic Plan for future
of Vertical Lift with regard to Capability Set 3 and have been
thoroughly intertwined in DOD's Executive Steering Group (ESG) chaired
by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and
Sustainment) and the Joint Staff J8, with General Officer membership
from all of the Services. To support the ESG, the Army leads three of
the four Integrated Product Teams (Science and Technology;
Requirements; and Acquisition) developing the framework and
documentation to support the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Family of
Systems (FOS). The Joint Multi-Role (JMR) program is an Army-led
Science and Technology effort designed to demonstrate innovative
vertical lift technologies to inform the FVL effort. The JMR air
vehicles were designed to demonstrate critical technologies anticipated
for Capability Set 3. The JMR Technical Demonstrations will reduce the
overall risk to Capability Set 3, inform requirements development,
reduce the time to mature technology during the Technology Maturation
and Risk Reduction phase, and support critical program decisions, to
include the Analysis of Alternatives completion and Milestone
decisions. The FVL Cross Functional Team (``CFT'') is also evaluating
additional options and capabilities to address future peer/near peer
threats and capabilities.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
future vertical lift (fvl)
6. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant
General Murray, Lieutenant General Ostrowski, and Major General Dyess,
can you provide an update on how the Army's Future Vertical Lift (FVL)
Program is progressing? What are you doing to develop the next
generation of aviation platforms through the Future Vertical Lift
Program? How can Congress best support these efforts?
Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant General Murray, Lieutenant
General Ostrowski and Major General Dyess, The Future Vertical Lift
program will provide a family of vertical lift platforms that deliver
next generation capabilities at the tactical, operational, and
strategic levels. The FVL FOS currently consists of Capability Set (CS)
1 (Recon/Attack), Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems (FUAS), and
Capability Set (CS) 3 (Utility/Lift). The FVL program is preceded by
the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration (JMR-TD) Science and
Technology initiative with flight demonstrations scheduled to take
place during fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019.
Capability Set 1 is an Armed Scout able to dominate
maneuver and execute recon, attack and electronic warfare in peer/near
peer conflict. The critical system attributes focus on increased Speed,
Combat Radius, and Endurance while enhancing Survivability.
FUAS is the next generation family of UAS focused on
survivability, advanced teaming, multi-functionality, and optimized for
Anti-Access/Area Denial.
Capability Set 3 is the next generation Lift, Assault and
MEDEVAC asset that integrates new technology, materials, and designs
that increase speed, range and payload.
FVL will integrate a common ``Digital Backbone'' across
multiple platforms to provide rapid integration of future advanced
capabilities to reduce the time it takes to field new capabilities to
the warfighter.
FVL will focus on affordable life cycle early and
emphasize reliability and maintainability with the goal of increasing
Operation Availability and reduce logistics footprint. In November
2016, the Army identified FVL as one of its key modernization
priorities and was chartered as part of the eight agile cross-
functional teams (CFT). The FVL CFT will leverage the expertise of
industry and academia as needed to accelerated vertical lift
capabilities requirements and disruptive technologies. Congress can
best support the FVL effort by providing positive and stable support as
well as fully funding FVL well into the future.
7. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Murray and Lieutenant
General Ostrowski,the Army's new Futures and Modernization Command is
on track to stand up this summer, with the current plan to appoint a
General Officer for each of the Army's Cross-Functional Teams (CFTs)
across the six modernization priorities, with the exception of the
Future Vertical Lift (FVL) team. Should the Army appoint a General
Officer to oversee the FVL CFT?
Lieutenant General Murray and Lieutenant General Ostrowski. A
general officer is assigned to lead the FVL CFT. Brigadier General (BG)
Walter Rugen is the Director; he was in the process of being promoted
to BG when he was assigned to the FVL CFT.
army europe: operation atlantic resolve
8. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant
General Murray, can you provide us an update on Army Europe's Operation
Atlantic Resolve efforts to deter Russia? What are the Army's plans for
continued security cooperation exercises and interoperability training
efforts with NATO allies and partners?
Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant General Murray. The Army
continues its heel-to-toe rotations of an Armored Brigade Combat Team
(ABCT) and a Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) which enhances deterrence
capabilities, and increases the ability to respond to potential crises
and defend our Allies and partners in the European community. The
continued build of Army equipment sets for Army Prepositioned Stocks
(APS) in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany, which will contain a
division headquarters, two ABCTs, fires brigade, sustainment brigade,
and other capabilities, provides United States Army Europe (USAREUR)
additional combat power to quickly respond to potential crises in NATO
sovereign territories. Through exercises such as Dynamic Front 18,
Saber Strike 18, and Saber Junction 18, elements of the 2nd ABCT, 1st
Infantry Division and 1st Cavalry Division CAB are conducting bilateral
and multilateral training exercises in the Baltic States, Poland,
Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania to improve partner capability and
interoperability, and assure Allies and partners. Collectively, these
activities improve the confidence of our Allies and partners by
demonstrating U.S. military capability and intent to compete against
Russia's malign influence and indirect action in the region.
9. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant
General Murray, as the Army plans on conducting rotations for armored
and aviation brigades into the foreseeable future, how do operations
like Atlantic Resolve impact Army Modernization efforts? How are your
efforts contributing to strengthening our deterrence capabilities? How
can Congress best assist these efforts?
Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant General Murray. The
heel-to-toe rotations of Atlantic Resolve contribute significantly to
our deterrence posture in Europe and continues to inform future
modernization efforts across the Army. Through the use of European
Deterrence Initiative (EDI) funding, operations like Atlantic Resolve
highlight an increased demand for modernizing our long range fires, air
defense, and other critical capabilities to counter Russian aggression.
In addition to informing modernization efforts, the Army is placing its
most modern equipment in Europe in support of Atlantic Resolve (e.g.
Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Self-Propelled Howitzers, Multiple
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Launchers, and Air Defense platforms) to
further deter Russian aggression. Although the recent two year budget
passed by Congress is an important step at more stable funding,
Congress can best assist the Army by providing both predictable and
consistent funding levels.
cyber
10. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant
General Murray, and Major General Dyess, in addition to Secretary
Esper, General Neller has stressed proficiency in traditional methods
and skills by mastering basics in communication and navigation off the
network to counter advanced adversaries. How is the Army balancing the
need to train off the grid, while also developing and deploying new,
advanced technologies?
Lieutenant General Anderson, Lieutenant General Murray, and Major
General Dyess. Based on the nature of today's threats, the Army
continues to train and practice basic skills in communications and
navigation while also providing soldiers advanced electronic systems
and training. All Army Centers of Excellence instruct soldiers to
develop and practice a communication Primary, Alternate, Contingency,
and Emergency (PACE) plan. A PACE plan facilitates a soldier's ability
to communicate in the event that one or more communication systems
fail. With respect to navigation, at all basic, commissioning, and new
officer and noncommissioned officer courses, soldiers are trained and
tested on navigation without the aid of electronic devices. During
other courses, such as Ranger School and Reconnaissance and
Surveillance Leaders Course, additional periods of navigation
instruction and testing without the aid of electronic devices are
provided. In addition to training on degraded communications and
navigation systems, institutional training on weapons that are .50
caliber and below begin without the aid of any electronic optical
devices. Larger weapon systems, such as the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle
Tank or M109A6 Paladin, rely significantly on electronics to engage
targets. Courses at the Fires Center of Excellence and Maneuver Center
of Excellence teach soldiers to identify and engage targets with their
main gun in a degraded mode, or when there is a loss of electrical
power. Additionally, the Army practices the concept of mission command.
The purpose of mission command is to enable disciplined initiative
within the commander's intent, and empower agile and adaptive leaders.
Empowered leaders may make timely adjustments in response to changes in
their operational environment in the absence of orders. Mission command
allows the mission to continue in an environment where access to
networks or electronics are degraded or denied.
11. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson, following
reports of Russia targeting personal smartphones of NATO troops, what
is being done to protect our soldiers and counter Russia's intrusions?
What is being done to educate our soldiers?
Lieutenant General Anderson. United States Army Europe (USAREUR),
as well as Commands across our Army, have produced briefs and training
aids to assist commands in educating soldiers that there are both
tremendous opportunities and vulnerabilities that accompany the
convenience and capabilities associated with today's cell phones and
personal electronics. Servicemembers are being educated to understand
that they are vulnerable to four major threats in the cyber domain:
cyber-attack, cyber espionage, cyber targeting, and cyber theft--
including identity theft and criminal activity. Servicemembers realize
that the threat from terrorist groups with global reach and ambitions,
and the threat from criminal syndicates and nation-states in cyberspace
is very real. Commanders at every echelon have the discretion to impose
a prohibition on the use of personal electronic devices in conjunction
with any and all official activities, including training and
deployments. USAREUR soldiers, in particular, receive both Pre-
deployment and Re-deployment Operations Security (OPSEC) training which
includes vulnerabilities and threats to cell phones and other personal
electronics.
12. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant
General Murray, while Russia's targeting of servicemembers for
intelligence is not new, personal smartphones provide significantly
more knowledge about a person than was easily accessible in the past.
In what ways are you ensuring this vulnerability is not having an
impact on our soldiers in Eastern Europe?
Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant General Murray. United
States Army Europe (USAREUR) maintains a robust Operations Security
(OPSEC) program which requires both annual OPSEC training and
continuous OPSEC awareness briefings. All rotational units receive both
Pre-deployment and Re-deployment OPSEC training. The same OPSEC
training is provided to soldiers permanently assigned to the European
theater. OPSEC training is also provided to Family Readiness Groups.
USAREUR has produced briefings and training aids to assist commands in
educating soldiers on the tremendous vulnerabilities associated with
personal electronics and to assist soldiers and family members with
maximizing their personal electronics security settings.
improved turbine engine program (itep)
13. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, does ITEP
remain the Army's number one aviation modernization priority? What is
the near and long term development timeline for ITEP? Are you planning
to fully fund ITEP in fiscal year 2019 and beyond?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army's Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP) remains one of Army Aviation's top modernization
priorities. The ITEP will provide the current fleet of H-60 and AH-64
helicopters with a new turbine engine that provides significantly more
horsepower, lift capability, endurance, and greater reliability. This
will extend the viability of our current fleets as we transition to
future capabilities. In the second quarter fiscal year (FY) 2019, the
program is scheduled for a Milestone (MS) B decision. The Engineering
and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase includes the award of a
contract to one vendor, and followed by platform/engine integration
design. fiscal year 2020 continues both the EMD effort and platform/
engine integration, A-kit development. fiscal year 2021 provides for
First Engine To Test (FETT), and begins physical airframe integration.
fiscal year 2022 will provide Preliminary Flight Rating testing,
leading to an Air Worthiness Rating. In fiscal year 2023 we will
conduct aircraft flight/qualification testing for both Apache and Black
Hawk. In fiscal year 2024, the program is scheduled for a MS C decision
with the award of the Low Rate Initial Production contract. In fiscal
year 2026, the program will seek a Full Rate Production decision and
achieve Initial Operational Capability in fiscal year 2027. The ITEP is
meeting cost and schedule expectations and requirements remain stable.
It is fully supported by Army leadership and fully funded through the
POM.
f-35 integration in missile defense
14. Senator Blumenthal. Major General Dyess, as the Army modernizes
toward a more lethal force, how does the Army plan on integrating the
capabilities of the F-35 into its air and missile defense
architecture--specifically ballistic missile defense? What actions will
the Army take with the other services, who all field the F-35, toward
incorporating the F-35 into missile defense?
Major General Dyess. The Army fights as part of a Joint Integrated
Air and Missile Defense Architecture of which F-35 is already a part.
In November of 2017, the U.S. Navy successfully integrated the F-35
with the Aegis Combat System and took a significant step toward
enabling multi-domain capabilities among the Services. We anticipate
the Services will be able to leverage the F-35's robust sensor suite
capabilities to increase interoperability and enhance operational
effectiveness. In particular, the Army will be able to leverage this
recent and future F-35 integration with other DOD assets operating in
the multi-domain battlespace to support cross-domain fires. Today the
technical integration for ballistic missile defense is being led by
Missile Defense Agency as the Technical Authority for the Joint
Integrated Air and Missile Defense and within their responsibility for
Joint engineering and integration. The Army will continue to ensure we
learn and account for Joint contributions to air and missile defense in
our requirements, architecture, prototyping and system development, in
our learning venues such as experimentation and wargaming, and in our
other supporting processes.
army short range air defense artillery
15. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant
General Ostrowski, how does the Army plan on modernizing its capability
gaps with short-range air defense artillery?
When will the Indirect Fire Protection Capability be operationally
ready and deployable? Should the Army consider near-term options given
the operational success of the Israeli Iron Dome, and could the Army
utilize the United States variant of the Iron Dome system--known as Sky
Hunter--to serve as an immediate stop-gap solution?
Lieutenant General Anderson and Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The
Army is addressing the Short-Range Air Defense (SHORAD) capability gaps
through Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) and Maneuver-SHORAD
(M-SHORAD), providing a complimentary tiered and layered air defense.
First, Maneuver-SHORAD is focused on defending a maneuvering force from
Rotary Wing (RW), Fixed Wing (FW), and large Unmanned Aerial Systems
(UAS) threats. In the early 2000's, the Army divested this capability
and its Air Defense Artillery (ADA) due to the lack of credible air
threat. In the near-term, we are planning to field four battalions by
fiscal year 2022; the first battalion will be activated in fiscal year
2019. We are also now training Stinger teams to support Brigade Combat
Teams, as well as modernizing the Stinger missile to increase
capability against small UAS threats using a proximity fuse. IFPC is
focused on defending more vulnerable fixed and semi-fixed assets from
cruise missile (CM), RW, FW, UAS, Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (RAM)
threats. The first IFPC battery will be deployable in fiscal year 2021.
In the mid-term (fiscal year 2025), we envision combining the
capability of IFPC and M-SHORAD into a composite battalion construct.
We are also conducting Avenger modernization to extend the service life
until IFPC is fielded to all seven Army National Guard (ARNG)
battalions and three Regular Army (RA) battalions. The Army is
currently conducting a Capability Based-Assessment (CBA) comparing
IFPC, Iron Dome, and Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System
(NASAMS) capabilities, in response to Congressional inquiries. More
analysis is needed to determine the impacts of purchasing a non-U.S.
weapon system and creating compatibility with our own networks/systems.
As a foreign-designed, and largely foreign-built system, Iron Dome /
SkyHunter does not have a viable near-term path for integration onto
U.S. networks due to cyber security and compatibility challenges. It is
also not compliant with United States Military Standards, including
U.S. Insensitive Munition requirements, and is untested in alternative
environments and for operations within the joint force Link 16
architecture. The primary capability gap that Iron Dome would solve is
in defeat of the Rocket, Artillery and Mortar threat. The Army is
currently mitigating this threat with the Land-Based Phalanx Weapon
System (LPWS) which is operationally supporting deployed forces. IFPC
will add an initial Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar capability in
fiscal year 2023 with the Expanded Mission Area Missile (EMAM) (which
includes SkyHunter as a candidate solution).
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Gary Peters
stryker ecp
16. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, the Engineering
Change Proposal for Stryker restores off-road mobility, increases
electrical power, and improves the suspension and communications. This
ECP provides enhanced capability and better serves soldiers. Will the
Army continue to invest in these critical improvements for the Stryker
fleet and ensure they are fielded rapidly?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes. The Army recognizes the
advantages of the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) for the Double-V
Hull (DVH) Stryker. We are currently exploring options to apply the ECP
to our current DVHs and the older flat-bottom Strykers that we are
converting to DVHs. The overall intent is to ensure that all Stryker
Brigade Combat Teams are equipped with DVH vehicles--as fast as
resources will allow.
stryker lethality
17. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Murray, the Fiscal Year 2018
National Defense Authorization Act authorized an additional $177
million for the Stryker lethality upgrade from the Army's Unfunded
Requirements list. If funding to provide for a full set of 81 Strykers
with the 30mm cannon upgrade is not provided in fiscal year 2018, would
the Army support funds to complete that effort in fiscal year 2019?
Lieutenant General Murray. The requirement for Stryker lethality
upgrades remains valid. If the fiscal year 2018 NDAA authorization
levels for Stryker lethality are not appropriated, the Army would
consider this requirement again for fiscal year 2019 relative to other
high-priority unfunded requirements. The Army is currently awaiting
feedback from the first Stryker Lethality fielding in Europe before
determining a final lethality solution and procurement quantity. With
two primary lethality Courses of Action available--30mm Medium Caliber
Turret, or a Remote Weapon Station with Heavy Machine Gun and Javelin
Missile--the Army's intent is to ensure that the appropriate lethality
solution for the Stryker fleet is informed by all available means
before committing to a specific lethality solution or mix of solutions.
shorad
18. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Murray, has the Army made a
decision on increasing SHORAD capability, including basing it on an
existing platform such as the Stryker of Bradley?
Lieutenant General Murray. The Army has made a decision on quickly
increasing SHORAD capability. For the past two years the Army has
emphasized the critical need to increase SHORAD capability, and the
Army's CFT focusing on AMD has included Interim M-SHORAD modernization
as its first priority line of effort. The Army will be leveraging the
Stryker platform and has also increased the amount of SHORAD force
structure to help fill this high priority capability gap.
hmmwv rollover
19. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, I remain
concerned about the propensity for rollover accidents of HMMWVs,
particularly when important safety technologies like Antilock Brake
System (ABS) and Electronic Stability Control (ESC) are readily
available for these vehicles. In my communications with the Army, I had
been told that the Army was scheduled to begin incorporating these
technologies in 1QFY18 but have recently been briefed that fielding
these technologies has not yet begun and is not anticipated until July
2018. To date over 1,500 M997A3 Ambulances have been produced without
ABS/ESC and I am concerned as production continues without addressing
the risk of vehicle rollovers. How does the Army plan to award a
contract to include ABS/ESC capability in production of HMMWVs?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Improving soldier safety in the
Army's tactical vehicle fleet remains a priority, and the Army has
qualified an ABS/ESC solution for the HMMWV. We received a proposal
from the HMMWV manufacturer on 10 November 2017 for the inclusion of
the Army-approved ABS/ESC Kits on the current HMMWV ambulance chassis
production line. The rebuild will address current obsolescence issues
with the power pack and other components, and will also add an Anti-
lock Braking System and Electronic Stability Control (ABS/ESC) to
improve safety by mitigating vehicle rollovers and other driving
incidents. The Army is currently negotiating the award of this
proposal, and we look forward to anticipated implementation in
production in July 2018 and fielding to begin in November 2018
(consistent with available funding).
20. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, what are the
plans for retrofitting HMMWVs produced without ABS/ESC and is the Army
considering utilizing the qualified ABS/ESC solution which was
originally designed as a retrofit kit?
Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army expects to pursue two
approaches to equipping existing HMMWVs with the currently qualified
ABS/ESC kit solution: (1) through a centrally-funded Maintenance Work
Order (MWO) effort and (2) through unit-funded retrofit kits. A MWO
would centrally fund and manage the retrofit of all HMMWV models to be
retained as part of the enduring Light Tactical Vehicle fleet, although
the proposed effort is not currently funded. The program office is also
planning to make ABS/ESC retrofit kits available as an option for
individual units, other services, and Foreign Military Sales customers-
with kit purchase and installation funded at the unit level. We
anticipate being prepared to execute both activities, subject to the
availability of funding, NLT the end of fiscal year 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:31 p.m. in
Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Cotton
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Cotton, Tillis,
Sullivan, Cruz, Sasse, King, McCaskill, Warren, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. Good afternoon.
On the Airland Subcommittee, we have been doing a series of
hearings on modernization this year. Last time, we had the
Army. Today we will focus on the Air Force.
There is no question that the ability to surveil and strike
any target on earth is vital to our national security. We
simply could not deploy our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines all around the world without the support of all of our
airmen. That is why some cost overruns and time delays in
modernization programs are troubling.
The F-35 recently finished its flight tests in the system
development demonstration phase, but only after long delays.
We are also still waiting to receive the first KC-46
tanker, and we probably will not get it until later this year,
which is over a year late.
I will say the B-21 has been coming along well so far, but
given the track record, we obviously need to keep a close eye
on it.
I will be particularly interested to hear our witnesses'
thoughts on these three key programs. We have to get them right
because as the National Defense Strategy (NDS) has put it, the
biggest threat to the United States today is the emergence of
long-term strategic competition by revisionist powers. What
they all hope to revise, of course, is our role in the world
despite their differences. Russian aggression, Chinese
expansionism, North Korea's nuclear program, Iranian backed
terrorism--what they all have in common is they would like to
stick it to the United States.
The only way we can keep the peace then is to prepare for a
wide spectrum of contingencies. That means the Air Force needs
to stay ahead of our potential adversaries, especially China
and Russia, all while working under the continued constraints
of the Budget Control Act (BCA).
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what
capabilities the Air Force needs to maintain our lead, as well
as how they plan to prioritize modernization given the
constraints of the Budget Control Act.
I am also interested in hearing their thoughts on improving
pilot retention, whose recent trend downward is a serious cause
for concern.
Of course, the easiest solution to many of these problems
would be to repeal the Budget Control Act in its entirety. The
2-year budget deal Congress passed earlier this year did some
good, but under current law, Budget Control Act levels return
in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. Congress has proven itself
incapable of adhering to these caps. I do not think we should
keep them on the books given the havoc they do to all of our
modernization programs. I will say it again. Until Congress
finally acts, the BCA must be repealed.
Now I would like to welcome our witnesses: Lieutenant
General Arnie Bunch, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; Lieutenant General
JD Harris, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans, Programs
and Requirements; and Major General ``Smokey'' Robinson,
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. Thank you,
gentlemen, for your many years of distinguished service and for
joining us here today.
Senator King?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ANGUS S. KING, JR.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome and thank our witnesses for their
appearance today. I look forward to hearing your testimony
about these important issues.
As the chairman mentioned, earlier this year we had Army
witnesses to discuss the Army modernization portfolio, and
today I want to see what you all have to say about the
challenges facing the modernization of the Air Force.
I am especially interested in hearing how the Air Force
plans to manage these multiple modernization programs to
deliver the capabilities our warfighters need in a timely
manner--I emphasize a timely manner--and defeat our most
capable adversaries while protecting taxpayer resources. The
recent track record in this is not good. Our job in Congress is
to oversee the Department to ensure that we pursue these
modernization programs in a more efficient and effective
manner.
Our witnesses this afternoon face huge challenges as they
strive to balance the need to support ongoing operations--and
the chairman mentioned the problem with pilot retention, for
example--and sustain readiness with the need to modernize and
keep the technological edge, which is so critical to successful
military operations.
Specifically, the Air Force will bear a large share of the
burden of implementing the National Defense Strategy announced
by Secretary Mattis earlier this year that identifies state
strategic competition with increasingly capable adversaries as
the primary U.S. national security concern. We are, in effect,
shifting gears from one very different type of warfare to
another.
These challenges have been made particularly difficult by
the spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act.
Fortunately, we have a budget agreement on the defense top line
for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, but additional challenges loom
on the horizon with the Budget Control Act back in full force
in 2020.
There are a number of other issues we need to discuss, but
in the interest of time, I will stop here, wait for our
discussion.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Senator Cotton. General Bunch?
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ARNOLD W. BUNCH, JR., USAF,
MILITARY DEPUTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE FOR ACQUISITION; ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL JERRY
D. HARRIS, JR., USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS
AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; AND
MAJOR GENERAL BRIAN S. ROBINSON, USAF, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF, OPERATIONS, HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir. Good afternoon and
thank you, Chairman Cotton and Ranking Member King and the
distinguished Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to appear before you today to talk about the Air Force
priorities for fiscal year 2019. We appreciate your service and
the support this subcommittee provides the United States Air
Force, our airmen, and their families.
Today, as you said, I am accompanied by Lieutenant General
JD Harris, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and
Requirements, and Major General Brian ``Smokey'' Robinson,
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. We have
prepared a joint statement, and I will provide opening remarks
for the team. But I would ask that the full statement be
entered into the official record.
Senator Cotton. Without objection.
Lieutenant General Bunch. For the past 70 years, your Air
Force has been breaking barriers as a member of the finest
joint warfighting team on the planet and has secured peace by
providing decisive warfighting advantage in, through, and from
airspace and cyberspace. Today's demand for Air Force
capabilities continues to grow as the United States now faces a
more competitive and dangerous international security
environment than we have seen in generations. The fabric of Air
Force weaves multi-domain effects and provides joint
warfighters the blanket of protection and ability to power
project America's full range of combat capabilities. We are
always there meeting the rising challenges by defeating our
adversaries, deterring threats, and assuring our allies 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
With global trends and intensifying pressure from major
challengers, our relative advantage in air and space is eroding
in a number of critical areas. We are supporting combatant
commander requirements in response to growing challenges from
Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, in addition to the ever-
present counterterrorism mission in the Middle East and around
the world.
In accordance with the new National Defense Strategy, this
year's budget request prioritizes long-term competition with
China and Russia. The Air Force must build a more lethal and
ready force, strengthen alliances and partnerships, and deliver
greater, more affordable performance. Future wars will be won
by those who observe, orient, decide, and act faster than
adversaries in an integrated way across all domains.
With your support of our fiscal year 2019 budget request,
the Air Force will drive innovation, reinforce budget
discipline, and deliver capabilities with greater affordability
at the speed of relevance.
The demand for air, space, and cyber capabilities continues
to grow, and our Chief is committed to ensuring that America's
airmen are resourced and trained to fight alongside our sister
Services to meet all national security obligations. The Air
Force seeks to balance risk across capacity, capability, and
readiness to maintain our Nation's advantage.
I would like to thank the Members of this committee for the
passage of the fiscal year 2018 budget and the relief of the
Budget Control Act restrictions for fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
This allows us to relook at some of the tough tradeoffs made
between force structure, readiness, and modernization.
Today's modernization is tomorrow's readiness, and that
readiness is not static. While our forces have been heavily
engaged in deterring or addressing counterterrorism, other
adversaries have taken the opportunity to invest in and advance
their own capabilities. To address ever-narrowing capability
advantages, we need your support in the form of steady,
predictable, and timely appropriations that fulfill our annual
budget requests.
The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2019 builds on
the progress we are making in 2018 to restore the readiness of
the force, increase lethality, and cost effectively modernize
our top priorities. This is critical to ensure we can meet
today's demand for capability and capacity without sacrificing
modernization for tomorrow's high-end fight against the full
array of potential adversaries, allowing us ability to
modernize faster, be ready sooner, be capable of achieving of
our National Defense Strategy tasks in a timely manner.
As critical members of the joint team, the Air Force
operates in a vast array of domains and prevails in every level
of conflict. However, we must remain focused on integrating
air, space, and cyber capabilities across the domains through
our core missions of air superiority, space superiority, global
strike, and rapid global mobility to continue to provide our
Nation with the security it enjoys.
We look forward to working closely with the committee to
ensure the ability to deliver combat air power for America when
and where we are needed. General Harris, General Robinson, and
I look forward to answering questions from the committee this
afternoon. Again, thank you for your continued support of the
greatest Air Force on the planet.
[The joint prepared statement of Lieutenant General Bunch,
Lieutenant General Harris, and Major General Robinson follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr.,
Lieutenant General Jerry ``JD'' Harris Jr. and, Major General Brian
Robinson
introduction
Chairman Cotton, Ranking Member King and distinguished Members of
the subcommittee, thank you for having us here today to continue our
discussion on Air Force modernization. Additionally, thank you for your
leadership and bringing fiscal stability back to our Government,
departments, and agencies. Stable, predictable and timely funding
levels are critical to arrest the readiness decline across the Air
Force as we look forward to our future national security interests.
Today's demand for Air Force capabilities continues to grow with
global trends and intensifying pressure from major challengers. The
United States faces a more competitive and dangerous international
security environment not seen in generations. Our relative advantage in
air and space has atrophied in a number of critical areas and the
projected mismatch between demand and available resources has widened.
We require the right size and mix of agile capabilities to compete,
deter, and win in this environment.
To ensure we maintain the advantage, the Air Force is increasing
our fighter and tanker procurement with the intent to modernize the
force. Additionally, we are moving towards the production of the B-21
to modernize our long-range strike fleet. We are also in the early
stages of replacing a portion of our training aircraft, which will
enable shorter training timelines and better trained aircrew. Efforts
to modernize and extend the durability of some of our older aircraft
and to provide increased capability to kill and survive in combat are
currently underway. Finally, we are accelerating our efforts to deter,
defend, and prevail against anyone who seeks to deny our ability to
freely operate in space. Our fiscal year 2019 Budget proposal
prioritizes long-term competition with China and Russia and moves the
Air Force in the direction of multi-domain battle. It is focused on
Readiness (people, munitions, FHP, WSS); Nuclear Deterrence (Bomber,
ICBM, NC3); Cost-Effective Modernization (F-35, KC-46, B-21, T-X, UH-1
replacement); Air / Space Superiority (Air Superiority 2030, defendable
Space, Electronic Warfare); Multi-Domain Command and Control (modernize
E-3 AWACS, begin transition to Advanced Battle Management System);
Light Attack (continue experiment, rapid prototyping); and Science and
Technology (complete S&T strategy, long-term innovation).
For more than 70 years, your United States Air Force has secured
peace by providing decisive warfighting advantage in, through, and from
air, space, and cyberspace. Today's 670,000 Active Duty, Guard,
Reserve, and civilian airmen meet these challenges by defeating our
adversaries, deterring threats and assuring our allies 24/7/365.
defeating our adversaries
Last year, your Air Force accelerated the campaign to defeat ISIS'
physical caliphate by conducting more than 172,000 sorties and 98,000
precision air strikes--over 70 percent of the total in the campaign--to
support Iraqi and partner forces in Operation Inherent Resolve. These
strikes were enabled with Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(ISR) missions. In 2017, the Air Force provided nearly 25,000 ISR
missions and produced 2.55 million intelligence products that close
intelligence gaps and support target analysis and development; almost 5
products every minute.
The Air Force's command and control missions ensures that the right
info gets to the right person at the right time. Our E-8C Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System flew over 5,000 hours, enabling
a range of support for Combatant Commanders from command and control in
the ISIS campaign to the interdiction of over 12,500 kilograms of
illicit drugs before they entered our Nation's borders.
Airmen transported nearly 1 million joint warfighters across the
globe personnel and delivered over 738 million pounds of equipment and
humanitarian supplies. Our tanker force extended joint power projection
at intercontinental distances by passing more than 1 billion pounds of
fuel in-flight, while aeromedical evacuation airmen airlifted more than
5,000 patients to safety. Closer to home, airmen helped combat multiple
wild fires in the western United States and delivered 13,600 short tons
of relief supplies following the string of record-setting hurricanes in
the North American hemisphere.
deterring threats
Last year, airmen conducted 16,425 intercontinental ballistic
missile alert tours and 248 missile convoys across five states. Our
bombers flew 580 missions (over 2,500 flight hours) in the Indo-
Pacific, strengthening security and stability in the region and
reassuring our partners. Reinforcing NATO's eastern flank, American
bombers flew 70 assurance and deterrence missions (67 deployment
missions and 3 global missions). In space, the Air Force operates six
constellations and 12 satellite systems vital to national security that
provide communications, command and control, missile warning, nuclear
detonation detection, weather, and GPS for the world.
assuring our allies
In the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, the Air Force executed a
sustained air interdiction campaign of over 4,000 sorties to support
Afghan partners, decimating Taliban so-called safe zones, command and
control nodes, illicit revenue-generating ventures, and logistical
networks. In 2017, the Air Force engaged in more than 85 exercises with
international partners, including five focused on high-end combat. We
furthered the international role of the F-35, training with partners in
both Europe and South Korea, and began delivery of F-35s to Israel,
Norway, and Italy. Increasingly, we are conducting these missions with
allies and partners.
readiness
This steadfast watch, however, comes at a price. Continuous,
worldwide combat operations since 1991 have taken a toll on our airmen,
equipment, and infrastructure and the overall readiness of our Air
Force. The relentless pace of non-stop global counter-violent extremist
organization (VEO) operations for nearly thirty years affected high-end
readiness for the Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve forces. At
the same time, our strategic competitors have closed gaps in capability
and capacity. The new National Defense Strategy is clear: inter-state
strategic great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary
concern in U.S. national security. Today's world requires an Air Force
ready for great power competition. It is our top priority to restore
readiness to win any fight at any time.
Readiness is first and foremost about having enough trained people.
We continue to address the aircrew shortage through a multi-pronged
approach. This budget boosts pipeline training capacity, expands pilot
training and addresses experience shortfalls, continues incentive pay
and bonuses, improves administrative support at the squadron level, and
funds flying hours to executable levels. It also addresses gaps in
space, nuclear, cyber, and intelligence career fields, and supports
battlefield airmen, our air-to-ground integration force.
Thank you for your leadership in passing the fiscal year 2018
budget. Stable predictable funding is critical to addressing readiness.
The fiscal year 2018 budget adds 2,300 Active Duty airmen and raises
Air Force levels to 325,100. We will also add an additional 1,000
reservists and 900 guardsmen. We are focused on quality of life
improvements for our airmen and their families: a 2.4 percent increase
in military pay, a 2.2 percent increase in basic allowance for housing,
and a 3.4 percent increase in subsistence. Growing our end strength to
fill existing manpower requirements is the most important step to turn
the corner and accelerate the climb to readiness recovery.
Training is another component critical to turning the corner on
readiness. Through the fiscal year 2018 budget we will utilize $6.2
billion to which funds 87 percent of the Total Force Flying Hour
Program minimum training requirement and $12 billion to fund key
enabling weapons system sustainment (parts, maintenance and logistics)
to near maximum executable levels. We continue to modernize our
Operational Training Infrastructure with a blend of live, virtual, and
``synthetic'' platforms. This synthetic capability provides
opportunities to test and train against the world's most advanced
threats at a reduced cost and avoid unnecessary wear and tear on
advanced platforms.
The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget, informed by and
synchronized with the new National Defense Strategy, will accelerate
our multi-year climb to full-spectrum readiness. The fiscal year 2019
budget will increase our Active, Guard and Reserve end strength by
4,700 airmen. We will address imbalances in critical fields like
aviation, maintenance, ISR, cyber, and unmanned aircraft while also
expanding our training capacity.
It is also critical that we increase pilot production and seasoning
through expanded flying hour and weapons system sustainment programs.
By extension, operational training infrastructure is needed to provide
relevant and realistic training for multi-domain, full-spectrum
readiness. The budget proposal funds aircraft depot maintenance, parts,
logistics support, and invests $2.8 billion in operational training
infrastructure needed for relevant, realistic training for the multi-
domain environment.
Those trained airmen will need munitions on hand. To support
current operations and prepare for future requirements, this budget
fully funds preferred munitions at industry capacity. This includes
Hellfire missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munition bombs, the Small
Diameter Bomb, and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System.
The Air Force is also significantly changing the way we collect
operational tempo metrics. Prior methods underreport how much time
airmen are away. By now accounting for temporary duties away from home
station for training exercises or mission-related requirements in
addition to deployment time, we more accurately capture the true impact
of service demands on airmen, families, and home units.
The Air Force recruits airmen, but we retain families. In fiscal
year 2019 budget we will continue supporting Air Force families with a
military pay raise of 2.6 percent, increased housing and subsistence
allowances, and bolstered family support programs. To improve family
support, the budget funds expanded childcare hours, increases off-base
childcare support, and funds more respite care and support coordinators
for special needs families. We are improving the assignment system so
families can better plan for future assignments, sustaining our morale
and resilience programs, and implementing initiatives that support unit
cohesion in our squadrons.
Today's modernization is tomorrow's readiness. Readiness is not
static. It is inherently in decline or on the rise. These iterative
efforts in fiscal year 2019 and beyond will accelerate the climb to
full spectrum readiness and provide a force that is ready, lethal, and
efficient in this era of great power competition.
fifth generation fighters
Fighter fleet capacity is predicated on the capabilities of the
aircraft that make up that fleet and thus, finding the right balance of
fifth and fourth generation aircraft will remain fluid as we
continually assess evolving threats. The ``fourth/fifth'' generation
balance discussion is quickly becoming a ``fifth/sixth'' generation
balance discussion and the fiscal year (FY) President's Budget (PB)
2019 adds $2.7 billion over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to
fund the next generation of air dominance (NGAD) capabilities. Known as
NGAD, this program will utilize an agile acquisition strategy in order
to facilitate parallel development and prototyping activities that puts
the Air Force on a timeline needed to close air superiority capability
gaps identified in the Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan. The Air
Superiority Family of Systems will provide a complementary capability
to the F-35A and will not impact JSF program objectives.
The F-35 program continues development of capabilities to ensure
lethality and survivability against emerging high-end threats. The
program recently delivered full (Block 3F configuration) warfighting
capability and system development and demonstration is on track to
complete this calendar year. The price per copy of an F-35A is now less
than $100 million and the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget procures
48 aircraft for the Air Force as the program readies to jump to 54 a
year in fiscal year 2021. Fiscal year 2019 will also see the F-35
modernization program begin to shift to a Continuous Capability
Development and Delivery (C2D2) acquisition strategy that will deliver
continuous modernization, enhancements, and improvements that will
deliver Block 4 capability.
The F-22, currently the only U.S. fighter capable of operating in
highly contested environments, is also an integral piece of the Air
Force's force structure modernization plan. Its stealth, super cruise,
integrated avionics and sensors combine to deliver the Raptor's unique
capability. We plan to retain the F-22 until the 2060 timeframe, and
the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget reflects this commitment as we
look to increase its capabilities and mission effectiveness through a
myriad of modernization efforts. These efforts include sensor
enhancements, datalink upgrades, open software architecture, enhanced
GPS and the integration of a new helmet mounted display cueing system.
In fiscal year 2017, the Air Force continued experimentation
efforts, including executing Phase I of the Light Attack Experiment.
This was a live-fly event conducted at Holloman Air Force Base, New
Mexico in August 2017 which assessed the military utility of various
non-developmental, light-attack platforms. This first phase of the
experiment allowed the Air Force to assess the potential of these off-
the-shelf, light attack aircraft to accomplish various permissive,
close air support missions. The Air Force leveraged Other Transaction
Authority (OTA) agreements, including industry cost-share agreements,
to execute the experiment within five months of authorization. The Air
Force plans to hold Phase II of the Light Attack Experiment in fiscal
year 2018 as we develop the acquisition strategy for a potential
procurement in the coming years.
Air Superiority, or the ability to control the air without
prohibitive interference from an adversary, underwrites the full
spectrum of joint operations. Increased threat capabilities, as well as
the enemy's ability to engage in space and cyberspace, highlighted gaps
in the Air Force's projected force structure. As a result, the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force chartered the Air Superiority 2030 (AS 2030)
Enterprise Collaboration Team (ECCT). The purpose of the charter was to
develop capability options to enable joint force Air Superiority in the
highly contested environment of 2030 and beyond. The charter examined
and quantified needs, and explored materiel and non-materiel, multi-
domain solutions to mitigate these gaps. Ultimately, recognizing that
no ``silver bullet'' solution existed, the charter recommended the USAF
develop a family of systems within five capability development areas:
Basing and Logistics; Find, Fix, Track and Assess; Target and Engage;
Command and Control; and Non-Materiel (Doctrine, Organization,
Training, Materiel, Logistics, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy
[DOTMLPF-P]). Developing next generation systems along these lines of
effort is vital to ensuring Air Superiority in 2030 and beyond.
fourth generation fighters
In addition to pursuing new capabilities and modernizing fifth
generation fighters, the Air Force also seeks to extend the service
life and modernize critical capabilities of key fourth generation
aircraft. Doing so will help maintain Service capacity and readiness to
meet the needs of the Warfighter while ramping up the F-35 production
line and developing the Air Superiority Family of Systems.
The Air Force continues to assess fleet sustainability and
alternatives for meeting warfighter close air support (CAS) demands,
particularly in permissive environments. The A-10 has been the backbone
of the CAS mission for more than 40 years and has proven to be the most
cost-effective fourth generation fighter platform but has exceeded its
original service life. This year the original A-10 re-winging program
completes as the 173rd wing set will be installed later this summer.
Additionally, a new re-winging program is on track to begin third
quarter of fiscal year 2018 with the release of an RFP for up to 109
additional wing replacement sets. The new wing program will aim to
avoid any further groundings beyond 2025 and will ensure a minimum of
six combat squadrons remain in service until 2032.
To ensure the F-16's lethality and air prominence in permissive
environments, we are pursuing an active electronically scanned array
(AESA) radar upgrade that offers advanced capabilities and improved
reliability and maintainability. We are also upgrading the mission
computer, display generator, electronic warfare components, and the
ALQ-131 self-protection jamming pod to enable advanced technology
jamming techniques. Additionally, the legacy service life extension
program (SLEP) will extend the F-16 airframe structural service life
from the current 8,000 hours to 12,000+ hours, adding fifteen to twenty
years of service for selected
f-16s.
Along with the F-16, the Air Force expects the F-15E to be an
integral part of our fighters through at least 2040, and we are
pursuing a new electronic warfare self-protection suite, the Eagle
Passive/Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) for the Strike
Eagle fleet. The F-15C/D fleet is funded through the FYDP and will
undergo multiple offensive and defensive upgrades to ensure its
warfighting effectiveness until any recapitalization plans are
completed.
bombers
As with the fighter force, the total bomber inventory has also been
significantly reduced. To provide perspective, in 1991 we had 290
aircraft available within the bomber fleet versus 158 B-1s, B-52s, and
B-2s today. The current number is insufficient to meet Defense Planning
Guidance and nuclear guidance while sustaining current operational
demands and maintaining sufficient training and readiness capacity.
b-21
The B-21 program remains one of the Air Force's top priority
programs with regards to investment in research, development, test and
evaluation with $2.3 billion for Engineering and Manufacturing
Development in the Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget. The B-21
continues to make measured, positive progress and remains on track to
deliver its initial capability in the mid-2020s.
The program successfully completed a Preliminary Design Review in
2017 demonstrating that the Air Force, along with its industry
partners, are continuing to develop the design maturity of this
platform. The development phase of the program is well on the path to
detailed design.
The Air Force remains committed to a fleet size of a minimum of 100
B-21s. This fleet will provide capabilities necessary to meet future
Combatant Commander requirements. The B-21 remains an absolute national
defense priority, and we are grateful for your continued support of
this critical program.
legacy
Until the B-21 is fielded, it is equally important that we continue
the commitment to modernize our legacy bomber fleet to maintain the
ability of our Air Force to provide Nuclear Deterrence Operations,
Nuclear Response, Global Strike, and Global Precision Attack. The 20
remaining B-2 aircraft, currently the only low-observable, Anti-Access/
Area Denial asset capable of penetrating advanced enemy defensive
systems, are approaching 30 years of service and require engine,
avionic, communications and defensive systems upgrades to maintain
viability in the face of advancing enemy capabilities.
Similarly, the 62 remaining B-1s have been in service for nearly 35
years and are receiving upgrades to their avionics and flight systems,
as well as an engine service life extension program. These upgrades
will ensure the B-1's viability into the mid-to-late 2030s. The B-52H
will continue its proud tradition of service through 2050, putting the
remaining fleet of 76 at nearly 100 years of service. To sustain this
venerable capability there are a number of modernization efforts
currently in work to include new engines, replacement radar, improved/
integrated avionics, weapons management, and communication upgrades.
munitions
Over the past year, the demand for munitions has continued to grow.
To meet this demand, the Air Force continues to work with the other
services and industry partners to efficiently ramp production capacity
across the preferred munitions programs. The fiscal year 2019 Budget
Request continues to leverage overseas contingency operations (OCO)
funding to replenish the vast number of munitions expended to date in
operations around the globe. The budget request also incorporates more
Air Force base funding to build munitions inventories to support the
National Defense Strategy and meet future operational requirements. As
we work to expand the munitions industrial base, the Services continue
to balance today's immediate needs with a long-term, sustainable
capacity, ultimately fueling a more resilient industrial base for the
future.
Hellfire missiles continue to provide a time-sensitive, direct-
strike capability for our remotely-piloted vehicles and remain in high
demand. Partnering with the Army, production capacity was ramped from
9,500 missiles per year in fiscal year 2018 to 11,000 missiles per year
starting in fiscal year 2019. The Air Force plans to procure 4,338
missiles in fiscal year 2019. With the other Services' and critical
foreign military sales (FMS) partners, the production line will remain
funded to maximum production capacity for the foreseeable future.
The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is also a weapon of choice
for today's operators with an average of 50-70 expended daily to
support ongoing operations. JDAM production capacity increased to
45,000 tailkits per year in fiscal year 2018 to meet the needs of the
Services and FMS partners. The Air Force plans to procure 36,000
tailkits in fiscal year 2019 with Navy and FMS partners procuring the
remaining 9,000 tailkits available in fiscal year 2019.
In another significant achievement, the Air Force teamed with the
Navy and industry to rapidly procure and field the Advanced Precision
Kill Weapon System (APKWS). The Services have teamed with industry to
ramp production from roughly 2,700 guidance kits per year to 20,000
guidance kits starting in fiscal year 2019. The Air Force plans to
procure 7,279 kits in fiscal year 2019.
Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB I) continues to provide precision,
lethal strike capacity with reduced collateral damage effects and
increased load-out per sortie for our warfighters. The Air Force has
ramped the production line from 3,000 weapons per year in fiscal year
2015 to 8,000 weapons in fiscal year 2018. The Air Force plans to order
6,826 weapons in fiscal year 2019, with 1,174 weapons for partner
nations. All of these production increases expedite the inventory
replenishment of our critical munitions and build stockpiles.
As the Air Force responds to current operational demands, we are
also looking toward the future to ensure we are prepared to defeat more
advanced threats as directed in the National Defense Strategy. Advanced
weapons capabilities are necessary to address sophisticated threat
systems. The fiscal year 2019 Budget request reflects the Air Force's
plan to continue investing in advanced weapon capability, specifically
with the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), Joint Air-
to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) and SDB II. These
weapons provide unique capabilities in a more contested, anti-access/
area denial (A2/AD) environment.
Production of AMRAAM missiles, a critical air dominance weapon,
remained consistent with fiscal year 2018 procurement levels as
industry partners continue to work through parts obsolescence issues
through the Form Fit Function Refresh (F3R) effort. JASSM-ER is the
premier A2/AD weapon for striking advanced ground threat systems, and
production will remain at maximum capacity in fiscal year 2019 and
beyond. The Air Force plans to procure 360 missiles in fiscal year 2019
while also improving the weapon's capabilities and addressing upcoming
parts obsolescence issues. Finally, SDB II enters its fifth and final
low-rate initial production lot in fiscal year 2019, and in conjunction
with the Navy, the Air Force's order of 510 weapons maximizes the
production capacity as it prepares to ramp up in fiscal year 2020.
Though not yet fielded, the SDB II will soon provide a key air-to-
ground capability to kill mobile and fixed targets through adverse
weather from standoff ranges.
intelligence, surveillance and (isr)
The RQ-4 Global Hawk provides a continuous, high altitude, long
endurance, all weather, day/night, wide area reconnaissance and
surveillance unmanned aircraft system. The Office of Secretary of
Defense approved the RQ-4 modernization approach in September 2015 to
include the MS-177 sensor integration, a Ground Segment Modification
Program and a Communication System Modification Program. The MS-177
development and integration work began in November 2015 and the sensor
is on track for Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in Third Quarter
fiscal year 2018. The MS-177 will utilize the Block 30 Integrated
Payload Adapter (IPA) that has been fully tested and can be applied to
future modifications. The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget request
is for $309.5 million in investment dollars for this program.
The Ground Segment Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)
contract was awarded in July 2016. Installation of cockpits at Grand
Forks AFB and Beale AFB will begin in Second Quarter fiscal year 2019.
The Communication System Modification Program (CSMP) effort is in the
Requirements Definition/Market Research phase. This program is
finalizing requirements for modernization of Ground and Air Vehicle
communications equipment, which will both improve communications
capability and alleviate Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) issues
with the equipment. We expect to release the Request for Proposal for
CSMP in second Quarter fiscal year 2019.
The funding request for the MQ-9 investment dollars in fiscal year
2019 is $1.2 billion. This program continues to modernize it's fleet
and capabilities it provides to Combatant Commanders. It accomplishes
this by sustaining the MQ-9 program of record and incorporating planned
modernization efforts, while a separate program of record develops and
tests those modernizations making them ready for the program at large.
This process keeps the MQ-9s current and able to meet Combatant
Commanders demands, while keeping an eye on the future for emerging
requirements. Such efforts include the new Ground Control Station--
Block 50 that is actively being developed, the new DAS-4 sensor package
that will fly on the MQ-9 platform and the Extended Range enhancement
to the MQ-9 Block 5 aircraft. Additionally, the MQ-9 program is
actively engaged in a study to determine the actual service life of the
MQ-9 platform. The first phase of that study will be completed in
Summer 2018, with phase two being completed by fiscal year 2021. The
results of this study will better inform the Air Force's decision on
long-term sustainment of the MQ-9 program.
Gorgon Stare has been delivering Wide Area Motion Imagery (WAMI) in
support of Operation Freedom Sentinel and Operation Inherent Resolve
areas of responsibility since 2012. The Air Force has no plans to fund
additional capability at this time but will sustain this MQ-9 podded
WAMI capability in its current state. The fiscal year 2019 request is
for $76.7 million in Operation and Maintenance funding for this
sustainment effort. The Air Force is migrating its primary ISR
Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination (PED) weapon system, the
Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), to an open architecture. To
support this effort $454.8 million has been requested in the fiscal
year 2019 President's Budget. The previous architecture required 5-7
years of development, test, and fielding per major release. Open
architecture will support software releases in weeks and months instead
of years. This accelerated development and fielding timeline will
enhance our ability to get inside the adversaries decision cycle,
enable our ISR analysts to leverage cutting-edge analytic tools, and
allow increased access to more intelligence sources and Intelligence
Community capabilities.
multi-domain command and control (mdc2)
An MDC2 capability generates effects that present the adversary
with multiple dilemmas at an operational tempo that cannot be matched.
The Air Force is focused on creating feasible investment options
throughout its Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2) portfolio
that drive towards the attainment of an advanced MDC2 capability for
the joint force. To achieve this evolutionary shift, the Air Force is
transitioning from a primarily aircraft centric to a net-centric
approach using sensors across the battlespace linked by agile,
resilient communications to provide the warfighter persistent
capabilities across the full range of military options, uncontested and
highly-contested, to meet the Nation's future needs. The key for future
success is to establish a family of systems capable of integrating and
fusing sensor information from all domains and bridging resilient
communications across multiple pathways at all security levels.
To that end, the Air Force did not request funding in the fiscal
year 2019 President's Budget for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System Recapitalization program. A recapitalized JSTARS platform
will not be viable in future contested environments, putting the Battle
Management Command and Control (BMC2) and Ground Moving Target
Indicator (GMTI) missions at risk in a peer engagement. Therefore, the
Air Force will embark on an alternative approach to fulfill the Combat
Commander requirements for Ground Moving Target Indication and Battle
Management Command and Control. The Air Force is pursuing a three-
phased ``incremental approach'' to regain a strategic advantage and
strengthen long-term lethality for the joint force. Increment 1 builds
up resilience by incorporating technologies assessed at low technical
risk and will continue to employ the current E-8C JSTARS fleet in the
manner in which it operates today, and begins investment in agile
communications and advanced sensors. The fiscal year 2019 President's
Budget requests $24.9 million in fiscal year 2019 and $74 million
across the FYDP to maintain the current E-8C JSTARS fleet.
Additionally, Increment 1 efforts include the Airborne Early
Warning Contol (AWACS) weapon system as it evolves to integrate multi-
domain inputs to provide air, land, and sea Battle Management and
Command and Control (BMC2). The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget
includes a request for $471 million for the AWACS program. The Air
Force is reversing its decision to divest seven AWACS and restoring the
fleet to 31 aircraft. Additionally, multiple AWACS modernization
activities are underway with the most notable being the upgrade to the
Block 40/45 mission system which is the foundation for all future AWACS
capability improvements. To ensure the United States maintains multi-
domain dominance, the Air Force is initiating and integrating multiple
communications upgrades such as improved Link 16, enhanced SATCOM, and
resilient UHF radios.
Follow on Increments 2 and 3 in future budget requests will
culminate in the full operational capability of the Advanced Battle
Management System (ABMS). Increment 2 builds upon capability
improvements by integrating advanced sensors and Open Mission System
software into ground and air-based BMC2 platforms. This increment also
fully incorporates joint and coalition sensors, as well as fifth
generation aircraft sensors, which provide the ability to sense targets
in highly contested environments. Finally, Increment 3 realizes the
full potential of the proposed incremental approach with full
operational capability of the ABMS. The ABMS system is envisioned to be
an evolutionary leap in capability intended to achieve Initial
Operational Capability in accordance by the the end of AWACS' projected
service life in 2035.
The Air Force envisions the ABMS as an open architecture system,
capable of ingesting new sensors and leveraging communications
capabilities as the science and technology communities deliver them.
Ultimately, the Air Force anticipates a more robust, resilient,
reliable, and survivable architecture than currently exists. This open
architecture will provide the means to integrate new technologies and
create a more lethal force capable of operating in all environments. If
we continue down last year's path, we will spend billions of dollars
and end up with today's capability and capacity that will only be
effective in small portions of the world.
The Air Operations Center (AOC) Weapon System (WS) interoperability
with the MDC2 vision remains essential to the AOC way ahead. The
fielded AOC WS 10.1 legacy system will not support the vision for MDC2
without significant improvement/modernization and the Air Force is
still committed to fielding a modern architecture for the AOC that
enables MDC2. The AOC WS 10.1 program is a sustainment effort fielding
hardware and software to replace end-of-life or end of support
components to keep the AOCs interoperable, supportable, and cyber
security compliant while the Air Force continues to modernize the AOC
enterprise. In response to Combatant Commanders' needs for rapid
development of new capabilities in the current fight and to outpace our
near-peer competitors, the Air Force initiated the AOC Pathfinder
effort in August 2017, and subsequently terminated the AOC WS 10.2
program in January 2018. AOC Pathfinder seeks to rapidly deliver a
subset of the AOC WS 10.2 requirements using industry software
development best practices. These best practices include using cloud-
native computing technologies, lean agile software development
methodologies, and an entrepreneurial management structure. If the AOC
Pathfinder proves successful, which it is showing great progress to
date, its development approach will become the model for continued AOC
modernization, and provide a system capable of being the foundation of
MDC2 operations. The legacy AOC 10.1 infrastructure would then sunset
by the end of fiscal year 2020, three years earlier than originally AOC
WS 10.2 acquisition program. The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget
request includes $106.1 million in the AOC WS program element to
support the AOC WS Modifications project which includes the AOC
Pathfinder modernization efforts.
cyber
The Air Force continues to build its contribution to joint cyber
mission forces (CMFs) by developing the next generation cyber warrior,
adding manpower for offensive and defensive cyber operations (OCO &
DCO), and equipping them with the right capabilities to ensure
effective operations. The Air Force is shifting from a 20th Century
network-centric infrastructure to a 21st Century data-centric
infrastructure. This transition will enable power projection through
information integration and reallocation of critical Information
Technology manpower towards emerging cyber warfighting missions.
The ability to effectively operate in cyberspace is vital to
deliver airpower and conduct the Air Force's core missions. We are
fielding and sustaining cyber resilient capabilities, which provide
mission assurance against adept and continually evolving adversaries.
The Air Force's strategic vision, which reflects Congressional
direction, implements a multi-pronged approach providing assurance,
resilience, affordability, and power projection within and through the
cyberspace domain. These pillars enable the Air Force's assured cyber
advantage to ensure our ability to fly, flight, and win in air, space,
and cyberspace.
As Executive Agent for both Unified Platform (UP) and Joint Cyber
Command and Control (JCC2), the Air Force is leading the growth of
cyberspace capabilities for the DOD. UP and JCC2 are partnerships
across all Services and with USCYBERCOM. UP integrates disparate cyber
platforms to conduct full-spectrum (OCO & DCO) cyberspace operations,
whereas JCC2 integrates joint, coalition and inter-agency command and
control to enhance multi-domain operations. Rapidly delivering initial
capability in fiscal year 2018 through Developmental Operations
(DevOps), these programs directly enable the CMFs support to Combatant
Commander requirements resulting in a shorter kill chain. Furthermore,
the Air Force continues development of the Distributed Cyber Warfare
Operations (DCWO) portfolio. This portfolio provides organic Air Force
offensive cyberspace capabilities to hold adversary systems at risk,
thereby enabling Air Force mission execution.
Signed in November 2015, our Air Force Cyber Campaign Plan (CCP)
has two goals: 1) to ``bake in'' cyber resiliency in new weapon systems
and 2) mitigate critical vulnerabilities in fielded weapon systems. It
consists of seven Lines of Action (LOAs) which are designed to be the
``engine'' behind increasing the cyber resiliency of all Air Force new
and legacy weapon systems. The CCP addresses the first goal by
integrating cyber resiliency into the system engineering processes to
`bake in' resiliency before systems are fielded. It also
institutionalizes adaptable subsystem architectures for enterprise
technology baselines and business processes, when designing and
building new weapon systems. Concurrently, the plan addresses the
second goal by pursuing top-down and bottom-up methodologies to find
and mitigate mission `critical' cyber vulnerabilities. Other LOAs
include cyber workforce development, creation of a cross-cutting common
security environment, the development of counter cyber intelligence
capability, and robust defensive cyberspace operations. AF DCO provides
defensive cyber capabilities to protect Air Force missions against
unwanted influence by an adversary.
We are committed to building out the Air Force's contributions to
USCYBERCOM's CMF to support the Nation and the Department of Defense's
Joint Information Environment (JIE) framework.
space
The Air Force re-capitalized almost every satellite system in the
space portfolio in the early 2000s. As those satellites transition to
operations and space emerges as a warfighting domain, the Air Force is
focused on fielding defendable, resilient, and more capable systems as
soon as possible. Our National Security Strategy clearly states that
unfettered access and freedom to operate in space are vital interests
of the United States. The fiscal year 2019 Budget Request marks a bold
pivot to support space warfighting and represents the Air Force's
commitment to making wise, risk-informed, space superiority
investments. The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget request for space
investments of $8.5 billion reflects a 7.1 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2018 President's Budget and the Air Force's continued
dedication to provide critical space-based capabilities to Joint and
Allied warfighters. Our investments in these capabilities continues
over the FYDP, an increase of over 18 percent from last year's FYDP
will continue to improve space situational awareness, increase our
ability to defend our Nation's most vital space assets, build more jam-
resistant GPS satellites, improve missile warning, and expand
partnerships to shape the strategic environment.
To counter adversary advances, the fiscal year 2019 President's
Budget request transitioned the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
seven and eight procurement to funding the Next-Generation Overhead
Persistent Infrared (OPIR) program to rapidly field a strategically
survivable missile warning architecture by the mid-2020s. Next-
Generation OPIR will serve as the core of an enterprise that uses space
sensors to monitor space, air, land, and sea for infrared signatures.
The delegation of Milestone Decision Authority back to the Air Force
allows us to maintain flexibility in order to move fast to acquire this
vital next generation capability.
The Air Force is also simultaneously modernizing all segments of
our unparalleled Positioning, Navigation, and Timing capability through
the acquisition of new space-based systems, the transition to a new
ground segment, and the development of Military-code capable user
equipment. GPS continues to be the world's gold standard for
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, delivering these vital
capabilities to America's warfighters, civil users, and our allies
around the world. The first GPS III space vehicle will launch later
this year and will provide greater accuracy, new civil signals
compatible with the European Galileo system, and enhanced military
signal power. Earlier this year, the Air Force released a request for
proposals for our future GPS satellites, known as the GPS III Follow-On
(GPS IIIF).
The Air Force is also continuing its efforts with the GPS Next
Generation Operational Control System (OCX), the ground system to
command and control the next generation of the Air Force's GPS
satellites. The OCX program will provide greater cybersecurity for the
GPS enterprise, protecting a capability that is critical to the United
States Armed Forces, the American economy, and billions of civilians.
The OCX program is currently on track, most recently evidenced by the
Air Force's acceptance of Block 0 capability, which will support GPS
III launch and checkout, in October 2017. The Air Force is continuing
to monitor the progress of the Block 1 and 2 system closely. Finally,
the Air Force is leading the multi-service effort to provide more
accurate and reliable PNT capability through the Military GPS User
Equipment program.
The Air Force is modernizing the SATCOM architecture through the
acquisition of the both the ground and space segments--to include both
free-flyer and hosted payload opportunities. We're also exploring new
and innovative acquisition approaches and leveraging the acquisition
authorities granted by the NDAA to procure these capabilities faster.
We're working to partner with Norway on a hosted payload arrangement to
provide a critical protected Polar SATCOM capability in 2022. Our
partnership with Norway will allow the Air Force to provide a critical
capability two years earlier and with an estimated $900 million in
savings over a free-flyer option. The Air Force is working to address
future risks in our protected SATCOM enterprise with next-generation
systems that meet both protected strategic and tactical requirements.
For wideband communications, the Air Force is currently examining
innovative acquisition approaches and partnering with commercial
providers to ensure worldwide SATCOM coverage and capability.
While the Air Force continues to modernize our space- and ground-
based assets, we are also committed to our unparalleled record of
mission success in providing National Security Space assets a ride to
space through our Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. The
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program purchases launch services
from certified commercial providers to lift medium, intermediate, and
heavy Department of Defense and Intelligence Community payloads into
their intended orbits. In accordance with the law, the Air Force is
moving to instill competition in our launch procurements while
simultaneously working to transition away from the use of the Russian-
built RD-180 engine through our Rocket Propulsion System Other
Transaction Authority agreements. In our Launch Service Agreements
strategy, we are working with industry through public-private
partnerships to ensure the United States possesses assured access to
space--that is, maintains two or more families of commercially-
available launch vehicles--that satisfies National Security Space
launch requirements.
The Air Force is committed to providing the Joint Force with
critical space-based capabilities that will allow us to fight and win a
war that extends to space. To enable this shift in warfighting posture,
we are making investments in more resilient and survivable space
architectures and employing unique acquisition approaches like Other
Transaction Authority agreements, increasing the speed of acquisition
decisions thanks to the newly-delegated milestone decision authorities,
and partnering with industry to take advantage of technological
advancements and best practices. We believe the fiscal year 2019
President's Budget request marks a turning point ensuring our space
assets are defendable, resilient, and more capable and, we hope to
continue our modernization and resiliency efforts with your support.
conclusion
The demand for air, space and cyber continues to grow and our
competitors continue to close technology gaps and negate our
traditional advantages. In the midst of the challenges ahead, we will
aim to keep these programs on track and deliver these systems--not only
as a vital capability to our forces--but also as a best value to the
taxpayer. The Air Force seeks to balance risk across capacity,
capability, and readiness to maintain an advantage, however
persistently unstable budgets and fiscal constraints have driven us to
postpone several key modernization efforts such as UH-1N
recapitalization and Long Range Stand-off Weapon. We are grateful for
the recent fiscal relief, but we still face uncertainty. Sustainable
funding across multiple fiscal year defense plans is critical to ensure
we can meet today's demand for capability and capacity without
sacrificing modernization for tomorrow's high-end fight against a full
array of potential adversaries.
As critical members of the joint team, your U.S. Air Force operates
in a vast array of domains and prevails in every level of conflict.
However, we must remain focused and maintain our advantage in order to
continue providing our Nation the security it enjoys. We look forward
to working closely with the Committee to ensure the ability to deliver
combat air power for America when and where we are needed.
Senator Cotton. General Harris, General Robinson, General
Bunch spoke for both of you in that statement? Okay.
General Bunch, let us return to something you said in your
opening statement about the need for certain and predictable
funding. Obviously, the 2-year budget and the spending bill for
this fiscal year has given you the money you need through the
end of September, but does part of that need for certain
funding mean a defense appropriations bill later this summer
for the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2019?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we always want
appropriations on time so that we can wisely execute the
contracts that we put in place and take the steps we need to
make sure we can deliver the Nation's needs.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
I also assume that the need for certain and predictable
funding includes preventing the return of sequestration for
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021, which is current law
under the Budget Control Act?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we are still recovering. We
have started turning the corner, but we are still recovering
from the sequestration readiness impacts that we faced in the
past.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
General Harris, let us turn and look at the big picture for
the Air Force. It is an early stage of an extensive
modernization and recapitalization effort, including the F-35A,
the KC-46, the B-21 bomber, the new trainer, the new Air Force
One, all of which will require significant research and
procurement dollars. Investments in next generation air
dominance capabilities have also begun to ramp up
significantly, not to mention recapitalization of the nuclear
enterprise.
How is the Air Force balancing all of these competing
priorities?
Lieutenant General Harris. Sir, we do have a new National
Defense Strategy to go with this budget, and while that
document itself is classified, it allows us to take some risk
in some areas.
With the budget that was awarded in 2018 and then moving
out through 2019, what we are expecting based on the submission
that we have, we are looking for a balance of continuing to
improve our readiness but focusing more on the high-end fight
against our peer adversaries rather than the focus of the last
several years at the low-end fight for a counterinsurgency.
That is a long list of things we have to get after.
We started with our nuclear mission to make sure that that
is number one. We have funded and covered as much of that as we
can. We continue to make progress and making sure that it is
connected and ready for the fight that we are trying to deter,
but our focus is on that high end across with the B-21, the F-
35, our next generation air dominance, to make sure that we are
ready to fight our adversaries the way we would expect to from
a highly contested war.
Senator Cotton. You somewhat anticipated and preempted my
next question, which was how is the National Defense Strategy
going to affect your modernization and recapitalization plan.
It sounds like that focus on the high end is one change. It is
the last National Defense Strategy.
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, sir, it has. The National
Defense Strategy told us to take some risks in areas where it
was either not cost effective to modernize some of our
capability, to look at other ways to do things and to certainly
make sure that we are focused for that high-end fight against
some of the adversaries that are listed in the NDS. It was
helpful in that it gave us areas to take risks. You saw that in
space with one of our big moves with our SBIRs [Small Business
Innovation Research Program] effort where we have restructured
our final two SBIRs seven and eight to make sure that we could
both defend the assets we have on orbit and make sure that we
could hold an adversary's capability in space at risk also. You
see that in the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance and Target Attack
Radar System] effort that we have done to make sure that it was
a survivable capability for the mission that we need, and where
we are headed with the recap was not necessarily in support of
the National Defense Strategy in the task we have.
Senator Cotton. How are you managing all those priorities
with the prospect that BCA sequestration levels may return in
fiscal year 2020, which is now no more than 18 months away?
Lieutenant General Harris. Sir, to be honest, a return to
BCA sequester from that perspective would be devastating to our
plans. I think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said
it well. To execute and continue on where we are at, we need
about a 3 percent increase. To execute the NDS strategy, it
needs about a 5 percent increase. We are planning for a flat
line budget not a return to BCA, and that is what is
handcuffing us getting after some of the readiness and
modernization and the capability that we need and the capacity
that is expected of our joint teammates.
Senator Cotton. One final question in this round. The Air
Force leadership has stated on numerous occasions that the Air
Force requires a minimum of 100 B-21 bombers. Has the National
Defense Strategy done anything to change that requirement?
Lieutenant General Harris. I would not say it has done
anything to change it, sir. It has probably reinforced that
requirement that 100 is the minimum based on what we are going
to need out of that capability.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you.
General Bunch, let us talk about the F-35 for a minute. I
understand that there is a dispute about priming some of the
drains on the entire fleet of aircraft. This was not done on
the production line. It has been identified as a problem.
First, give me an update on what the situation is with
accepting F-35 deliveries.
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, Senator King, what we have
done is put a pause. I would not call it a complete stop. Some
of the lot 10 aircraft have been accepted, 14 to be exact.
There are five that are in hold right now. Three of those are
Air Force. One of those is from Norway and one of those is from
Australia. We have taken this step as we negotiate and work
with Lockheed Martin on how we do the remediation of that
error.
Senator King. Do all the planes that have been produced
have this problem?
Lieutenant General Bunch. No, sir, not all. We found it on
a lot of the ones, though, that are in the fleet, and it is
something that we need to go retrofit.
Senator King. So the ones that are in production are
being----
Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir. The ones that are in
the line are being fixed, Senator.
Senator King. I see. Okay. We are talking about 14
airplanes?
Lieutenant General Bunch. No, sir. We are talking more
aircraft than that that have gone to the field. I cannot give
you the exact number right now, and if I need to give you a
number, we can go back and work that with the program office.
But it is an escape, quality escape, on taking those steps in
putting that corrosion protection in that area. It was found on
an aircraft that was in the field. It is something we found in
other places, and it is something we are right now working.
Admiral Winter is working with Lockheed Martin to negotiate how
we get that resolved.
Senator King. I understand just in the last couple of days
that Lockheed Martin may be refusing to do this work without
reimbursement from the Government. What is the Air Force's view
on that?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, right now our position is I
need Admiral Winter to be the program executive officer and
stand up and take this step to make sure we are getting a
quality product and make sure we are getting something that we
can afford.
Senator King. I am not sure what you just said.
Lieutenant General Bunch. What I really said is Admiral
Winter is working this for us to work the remediation so that
the contractor has to step up, which we support.
Senator King. So it is your position that this is the
responsibility of the contractor?
Lieutenant General Bunch. That is my position, sir.
Senator King. Thank you.
Let us talk about the KC-46. I understand there are further
delays there. Can you give us an update on where we are with
the certification process?
Lieutenant General Bunch. The certification process
continues. It is delayed from what we had expected. We have run
into issues with getting the FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration] certifications through the process, and we have
had delays in flight test execution.
Senator King. Is this a contractor delay, an Air Force
delay, or an FAA delay?
Lieutenant General Bunch. It is a contractor delay because
they are responsible for getting it through the certification
process and delivering an aircraft, sir. So that FAA
certification is a process they have to go through with the FAA
to get approved, and they have not been able to accomplish
that.
The test delays are a program that we have not executed as
a team to the level that we are supposed to execute. That is
something that we are in discussions about how we prioritize
and how we resource to make sure that it gets executed as
quickly as possible. The latest estimate right now is the end
of this year for the first aircraft delivery. We continue to
have regular meetings and work with Boeing to see what we can
do in parallel. We continue to work what we can do in the test
program to expedite. Can we add additional resources? Can we
rephase how we do certain tests? But our end game is we need an
aircraft that when it is delivered is capable of the mission
and we have something we can put our airmen in and our
maintainers working on so that we can execute missions day one.
Senator King. You are looking toward deliveries beginning
at the end of this calendar year?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir. That is our estimate.
We are trying to pull it left, but that is our estimate today,
sir. I apologize for interrupting.
Senator King. Do you think that is realistic, you can make
that?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we are still executing the
test program. We still have a long way to go. I am optimistic
today. I need to see the program continue to execute, and I
need to see the performance continue to improve with a number
of test points we are executing on a regular basis.
Senator King. Now the other big project, the B-21.
Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir.
Senator King. There may be material that we have to talk
about in a closed session, but what can you tell me about the
progress and the Air Force's understanding of where we are and
if you are satisfied with progress to date both in terms of
timeliness, capability, and cost?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I am satisfied today with
our progress. We continue in the MD [missile defense] program.
I think we have reported before we completed preliminary design
review. We have now completed a first software drop to go
through the process, and we have software out that we are
looking at now. They are already working on the second drop. We
continue to have regular meetings with them and measure the
progress, give regular updates to senior leaders, but right now
I am very happy with how the program is progressing.
Senator King. And it is falling within the parameters of
the contract in terms of cost?
Lieutenant General Bunch. It is falling within the
parameters of what we estimated the cost would be because, if
you recall, we did our independent cost assessment. We
estimated what we thought it would be, and it is falling within
those parameters today.
Senator King. Good. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir.
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator King, touching on
several of the key questions that every member of this
committee has.
Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome. Thanks for your service.
I want to continue on with the KC-46. How long has it been
delayed? What was the original target date?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Our original target date for the
first aircraft, we were actually going to get required assets
available by August of 2017. That was what we had put on
contract. That was going to be 18 aircraft, 9 work ship sets--
that is wing, air, fuel, and pod ship sets--and 2 spare
engines. Currently we estimate that in February of 2019 at
best.
Senator Sullivan. So a 2-year delay at minimum?
Lieutenant General Bunch. That is about an 18-month delay,
sir, but it has been significantly delayed. We actually are
expecting first aircraft delivery late this year.
Senator Sullivan. You gave us a little bit of generalities.
Can you get more specific on the source of the delay?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, the requirements to get
through the certification process has taken significantly
longer than we originally scheduled and what Boeing thought
they were going to be able to execute working with the FAA and
doing those certifications. That has taken significantly
longer.
We have discovered things in flight tests. Over a year ago,
we had a boom load issue. That has been rectified. Right now,
we have three category 1 deficiency reports that we are working
through. We have a category 1 deficiency report on the
centerline drogue system and how it refuels the F-18. We have a
category 1 deficiency report----
Senator Sullivan. Category 1 is?
Lieutenant General Bunch. I apologize, sir. I went into
acquisition speak.
That is a deficiency that is significant enough that we
need to see it fixed and we need tactics, techniques, and
procedures or mitigations work before we will be able to accept
that capability.
Senator Sullivan. Who bears the financial burden of these
delays?
Lieutenant General Bunch. On this program, sir, the cost is
capped at $4.9 billion. We have already far exceeded that. So
all of this expenditure is being done on Boeing.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. We had a lot of lessons learned, I
am assuming, from the F-35 acquisition and delays and how long
that took. Are we applying any of those to what is going on
with the KC-46 right now?
Lieutenant General Bunch. The KC-46 is a different
contracting strategy, and it is a different asset.
Senator Sullivan. There are no lessons learned from the F-
35 to this situation?
Lieutenant General Bunch. There are probably some lessons
learned about how you build your strategy from the very
beginning, who you have involved, and how you make your
assumptions. The difference on the two programs, the F-35
program was a cost-plus program that has caused us to continue
to invest money in that program. On the KC-46 program, that was
a fixed price, incentive firm contract, and when we reached the
cap for that, we no longer are expending funds. We are paying
for some of our test force and other things, but all of the
overruns Boeing is paying for.
Senator Sullivan. In my State we are going to have over 100
fifth generation fighters when the F-35's get there and the F-
22's and JPARC [Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex]. I will
talk to you in a minute about that.
In both the Secretary and General Goldfein's confirmation
hearing, they committed to me to take a hard look at the OCONUS
[outside the continental United States] decision on the KC-46
basing in Alaska. Can I continue to get your commitment on
that, General, to take a look at that?
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, sir. We have made no
change, and we will continue to look at it.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask on the JPARC. With the fifth
generation aircraft and the need for bigger training, a number
of the senior Air Force leadership has referred to that
training space as the crown jewel given its size and the joint
training and the combined arms training.
But the one thing that I think a number of you--and it was
even in Secretary Wilson's confirmation, the QFRs--what we lack
there in terms of the most realistic training is up to date
equipment. Emitters, in terms of the threat emitters are more
representative of the Vietnam era and the first Gulf War.
Secretary Wilson stated that she believed there are plans to
add joint threat emitters and advanced radar threat systems to
JPARC to make that the top, most realistic. Is that ongoing?
Can you confirm her commitment that she made during her
confirmation hearing on that? General Robinson, it looks like
you got this one.
Major General Robinson. Yes, sir, Senator Sullivan. A great
question. The short and the long is we actually have an
operational training infrastructure road map that we have spent
quite a bit amount of time researching the best way to optimize
training for our fifth generation platforms in terms of the
right threat emitters and replicating the threats that you
talked about physically, as well as virtually. We are
aggressively looking at how we can do that.
Senator Sullivan. So is that a yes?
Major General Robinson. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. Would you agree, given the importance of
fifth gen--I know we have notional training but actual air-to-
air, real steel up in the air that having much larger air
spaces is so important given the standoff ranges on fifth
generation fighters that we need to make sure we are training.
Would you agree that is important as well?
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, sir, we do. The JPARC is
one of those crown jewels that provides a magnitude in what we
need for a lot of that.
Senator Sullivan. Air space bigger than Florida. You knew
that but I am not sure my colleagues did.
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, sir. I enjoyed my time at
Eielson Air Force Base for 2 years, so I am familiar with it.
We are supportive and will continue to work to make sure
that we get the training that we need. But as you know, the F-
35 and the F-22 are very sophisticated capabilities that they
see through a lot of the threat that is not an actual piece. We
are having to work through that on our training also.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. Senator McCaskill?
Senator McCaskill. I know that you all would like to go
back and change the decision. I am so proud of the Navy pilot
that was piloting the Southwest flight and was able to land
that plane. She tried to be in the Air Force first, and you
guys were not taking women pilots at the time. I am glad that
we have rectified that throughout our military since,
obviously, she showed tremendous skill and poise at one of the
most critical moments a pilot could ever face. I had to tease
you a little bit about that before I began my questions.
Have any of you had a chance to read the DOD IG [Inspector
General] report on F-22 modernization that came out last month?
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, ma'am. We have the report.
Senator McCaskill. Could you tell me if the issue that they
identified about implementing agile software development
methods on weapon system acquisitions--if those issues that
they point out--have they been addressed?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Ma'am, we had already identified
those issues and had started taking steps. We are implementing
agile developmental ops procedures in that platform to try to
accelerate capabilities to the field. Those steps were taken
before the report was ever published.
Senator McCaskill. Do you believe that all of the issues
that are identified in that report have now been taken care of?
Can I go through my IG list and check all of those off?
Lieutenant General Bunch. I believe, ma'am, we have
addressed those issues. There were certain things they had in
we did not concur with exactly the wording they had there, but
I am very comfortable and I have emails even on it this week as
to how we move forward to be more agile and how we do that
software development to move forward and provide those
capabilities more quickly at the speed of relevance into the
field.
Senator McCaskill. As always when you have a disagreement
with the way a finding is--as an old auditor, I am picky about
this. If you disagree with the way the finding was written but
not the substance of the finding, I think it is important for
us to understand that. Would you mind if my staff followed up
to find out those findings that you did not concur with, what
the basis of that was to make sure that we are not overlooking
the forest for the trees?
Lieutenant General Bunch. I am happy to have that, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Let us talk just for a minute about B-2 modernization and
transition to B-21. As you might imagine, I care a lot about
the B-2. But I understand that time marches on and I want to
ask a couple of questions. I know that there is funding in the
fiscal year 2019 budget to continue the B-1 and B-2. I am under
the impression--and I want you all to confirm this--that they
will not be retired until there are a sufficient number of B-
21s. Is that correct?
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, ma'am. To say sufficient
number, we intend to hold our bomber fleet at the minimum
numbers that we have now and then grow as we add B-21s to the
fleet to 175 total: 100 B-21s, 75-76 B-52s.
Senator McCaskill. I am assuming that both bomber wings
that are equipped with B-1 and B-2 bombers will be re-equipped
with B-21s?
Lieutenant General Harris. Right now, the approach, ma'am,
is yes. If you are flying bombers today, you will be flying
bombers in the future.
Senator McCaskill. Okay.
Our current bomber level is 158. We had 290 in 1991. Your
written testimony says the current level is insufficient. As
you just mentioned, your intent is to maintain 78 B-52s and
keep going until 2050 and grow the B-21 to a minimum of 100. Is
178 sufficient?
Lieutenant General Harris. From a war plan perspective, 175
to 178 is better than what we have now. So there is improvement
in that. We would like to fix the nine bomber squadrons we have
to give them more airplanes per squadron and then continue to
grow to somewhere in the neighborhood of about 14 to 16 bomber
squadrons that are ready for the mission. So sufficient for the
fight that we are looking at in the NDS. We would have to say
yes. We would be more effective if we had more.
Senator McCaskill. Will we maintain bomber wings within the
Air National Guard, and will they be equipped with B-21s?
Lieutenant General Harris. The National Guard will continue
to be associated with the bomber wings that they are associated
with now. That will not change with the B-21s.
Senator McCaskill. Is there a plan to phase out B-1s prior
to B-2s, or will they be phased out at the same time?
Lieutenant General Harris. It is a balance, ma'am. The B-21
is going to be our penetrating bomber of the future. The B-2 is
our most expensive bomber even though the numbers are small.
The bomber road map from my understanding is going to start
with initially B-1s phasing out. Once we have capability with
the B-21, then we will look at the B-2 fleet and then move back
to finish the B-1 fleet. So you will see both of them phasing
out in the 2030s.
Senator McCaskill. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
General Harris, I have to say Senator McCaskill asked if
the 178 bombers were sufficient, and you gave what seemed to be
a diplomatic answer of no. Is that accurate?
Lieutenant General Harris. We say 175, I think is the
number, is our minimum number. We are below that now, and I
would be loathe to say in the future that that would be
sufficient. But to match the NDS, growing to that number is an
important task for us.
Senator Cotton. I heard the phrase ``fight the NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act] fight''.
Lieutenant General Harris. No. I am sorry. The NDS.
Senator Cotton. NDS, okay. You are saying we fight Russia
and China, not the NDAA politics.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that
because I understand you have to operate under constraints, but
we can make decisions about what we think is vital to our
national security in the long run.
Senator Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I was watching the testimony back in my office,
and I believe, General Bunch, it was you who was talking about
the KC-46 and some of the delays. Do you have any idea how that
shifting to the right also affects the downstream deployment to
bases, I believe Seymour Johnson being one of them?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, if we are delaying the
acceptance of aircraft, it is going to have to have an impact
until we start getting aircraft----
Senator Tillis. It is pretty much day to day.
Lieutenant General Bunch. We are going to look to see if we
can accelerate maybe some. One of the things we have been
approached on is can we accept more aircraft per month than
what we have currently planned. We will have to look at the
throughput of that. There are certain things we have to do. It
may not be day for day, sir, but it is going to be a slip.
Senator Tillis. You mentioned that the slippage is the
contractor's inability to get the FAA certification. Do you all
as a Department have insight into the bases for those delays to
know if it is just--you would think they would be highly
motivated to get through the certification, or if there are
kinks over in the FAA, or do you even concern yourself with the
root causes? You just expect them to produce an outcome.
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we expect them to produce an
outcome, but we do get concerned when they are having issues.
They are continuing to go back and forth. They are having the
dialogue. We have asked how they are addressing that and how
aggressively they are working that with the FAA. We are
concerned about that.
I do want to say that is not the only thing that is
hindering us. I talked about some performance things, and also
we are still having difficulties getting through some of the
test program.
Senator Tillis. General Harris, I did not keep the tick
marks, but I was watching your testimony as well and then
answers to some of the comments or questions from Senator
McCaskill. And you used ``minimum multiple times, as this at
least satisfies our minimum requirement. In an open setting
like this, can you tell us what sort of cumulative gap exists
between us and our near peer competitors when all we do is
achieve the minimum?
Lieutenant General Harris. Thank you, sir for the question.
Our industrial base, working with some of our advanced
companies, keep us ahead of our competitors with a capability
that they are yet to deliver from our adversaries. We are
seeing their ability to project forces again: Russia,
resurgent; China starting to work on that. All of our
adversaries are wishing to have the capability we have.
The minimum numbers we are talking about is because we are
having to focus on a balance. We did get a plus-up for 2019
with the budget that has been submitted, but it was not
everything. We have to balance our nuclear, our space, and our
conventional forces. That is why we are still working at the
minimums.
But looking with the National Defense Strategy, not the
NDAA, we are intending to be able to fight and win against any
of our adversaries, whether it is today, it is in 5 years, or
it is in 10 years.
Senator Tillis. This actually may not be a question you all
can answer in this setting, but can you give me a sense of some
of our partners who are involved with manufacturing operations
of the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter? I know Turkey is one of
them. For example, what is the extent of their involvement in
that program?
Lieutenant General Bunch. We can go into more detail. I do
not have the full list, but the way that that program has been
run, we have competitions. Turkey is a contributor of a
significant amount of parts. They also have some repair
facilities there for engines and other aspects that we deal
with. We also have those in Italy. We have those with Japan,
and we have others. Almost every international partner has
certain components of the aircraft that are built in their
areas.
Senator Tillis. Okay.
In Seapower, we have this magic number of 355 for our
fleet, the ship number. I, for one, think that it is nice to
have some numbers so you can tick off when you are
accomplishing things. But when we talk about numbers, we kind
of get away from capabilities. As you are going from 20th
Century to 21st Century data-centric, new strategies within the
Air Force, what mistake do we make if we just come back and
tick off the number of B-21s or F-35s or KC-46s versus that
inherent capability you are looking for? In other words, are
our adversaries strictly focused on hitting whatever their
production targets are for comparable systems, or are they
looking at things differently and being more dynamic in terms
of what they are fielding? I know in sea power, for example,
Russia has a different maybe approach to how they are going to
go about projecting power on the seas. How are we doing with
that, and how are our adversaries looking at that, capabilities
versus units?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Senator Tillis, I cannot say
exactly how our adversaries view it. What I can say is we are
looking at ways that we can prototype and get more capabilities
into the field in a more timely manner. Can I prototype and
demonstrate a capability and not agree that I am going to buy
500 or 1,000? If it is better than what I have, can I go buy a
certain number to get a capability out in the field to give
more warfighting capability? That is an approach that Dr. Roper
is bringing in and we have been trying to do to try to get more
capabilities in the field, which kind of goes against here is a
magic number I got to get to, what do I do to speed this up.
Lieutenant General Harris. Senator, if I can add. We are
also looking at it from a network perspective. We would not
compare one of our ships against one of their ships. You bring
a fleet to that with our Navy. We bring a system with that from
an airman's perspective. It is not just a single platform. It
is what we can put together in air, space, and cyber. We
continue to make advances in all three of those to make sure
that we can dominate our adversary at a time of our choosing.
Senator Cotton. Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Last year, the Air Force announced that it was considering
retiring our fourth generation F-15 fighters. When I asked you
all about this last year, the Air Force cited internal
deliberations and said at that time no decision had been made.
Where are we this year? General Bunch, General Harris? Who
would like to answer that?
Lieutenant General Harris. Ma'am, I will start with that.
The study is still ongoing, and we are looking at the F-35 that
we are buying now and the beddown options that we can do. The
National Defense Strategy is where we have been putting our
focus for the last 6 months to a year, and now that it is
published, it tells us to modernize what is most cost effective
and capable for getting the mission done. That brings our F-15C
and some of our assets back into the mix. There is nothing off
the table. We are looking at, as we bring F-35s in, can we grow
our capacity rather than just replace one for one. We are also
looking to see if we cannot do that, what is our best asset,
our least capable asset to retire based on the value that it
would provide for us for the money----
Senator Warren. Does that mean we are likely to have our F-
15s, say, through the 2020s, or you just cannot say at this
point still?
Lieutenant General Harris. Through 2020s, yes.
Senator Warren. Through the 2020s, yes.
Lieutenant General Harris. If you are saying the next 2
years when we get into 2020. If you are saying for the next 12
years, the end of the 2020s, I do not know. We are looking at
our F-16s, our A-10s, and our F-15s to make sure that we have
the best capable Air Force from that, and the F-35, as a multi-
role airplane, is very capable of some of the things that the
F-15C, the F-16, and the A-10 do.
Senator Warren. I get that you all are still trying to work
this out, and obviously, you are trying to maintain coverage at
all times. I certainly understand that.
But the part I am struggling with is if we do not have a
replacement in place, then what are we going to do? We are
using these F-15s every single day, and it takes us to the
question of this is an aircraft that has already exceeded 90
percent of its useful life. So the question I have, is there a
variety of proposals for how it is we might extend the life of
the platform? I want to know how it is that you are thinking
about this. Are you thinking about extending it? What is the
approach?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Ma'am, I will address the
extension and the acquisition parts of this.
Senator Warren. Sure.
Lieutenant General Bunch. On the first part, one of the
things we are doing, we have got an EPAWSS [Eagle Passive
Active Warning Survivability System]. That is a new defensive
system that is going on the F-15E. We are continuing to do our
testing on that for the F-15C such that if we make the decision
to retain those platforms, that integration will be easier to
do and we will have already done the tests and we can put it in
the field in a more timely manner. We have not closed the door
on that. That is something that we are doing to make sure we
have that flexibility.
Senator Warren. Do you have some kind of timeline on that
decision? Can you just help me understand that better?
Lieutenant General Bunch. I cannot tell you the timeline on
the decision, ma'am. What I can tell you is one of the factors
that we are looking at is those aircraft has been around for an
extended period of time. There are service life extension
programs that have gone in a lot of ways. We are doing some of
the lower cost service life extension programs on that
platform. Some of those become very expensive before very long
to the point that it may not be cost effective to do a service
life extension program for the cost that it would take to
modernize that aircraft and continue to use forward. That is
part of what is going into the analysis that we are doing to
make sure we are making the best trade for the taxpayer dollar
on the capability that we are trying to provide and balance
that against can I get that mission done with the F-35s.
Senator Warren. Then let me ask, there is an existing
program of record to modernize the current F-15 fleet. For
example, the Air Force previously planned to upgrade the active
electronically scanned array, AESA, radar on the F-15s
beginning in 2019. Is there funding in the 2019 request to do
those upgrades?
Lieutenant General Harris. Again, ma'am, there is. We are
focused primarily on the fleet we know we will keep in our F-
15E. So EPAWSS Inc 1 and 2 is continuing to move forward with
that.
Senator Warren. You do have funding, though, in the 2019
because I thought you did not for that.
Lieutenant General Harris. For the F-15E fleet, yes, ma'am.
If you are talking F-15Cs and our air defense, air superiority
role, we do not at this time because we expect this year with
the National Defense Strategy and I think it is a
congressionally directed study on our future fighter force that
should align with our Air Combat Command's lead on the beddown
of our fighters as we bring in F-35s--and you will also notice
in the fiscal year 2019 an increase in our funding for our next
generation air dominance. We are looking at the air superiority
mission and what is the best way to do that. The near term may
also include F-35s going to those F-15C units for that role.
Senator Warren. Okay. I take it that means that you do not
have a 5-year funding plan for upgrades to the F-15s. Is that
right? Is that on hold while you deliberate about what to do
next, or are you rolling that forward?
Lieutenant General Harris. I would say it is on hold at
this time until we understand where it is going to go. If we
decide that we are going to keep the F-15C, then we will go
execute and keep it to be safe platform to accomplish the
mission.
Senator Warren. The reason I ask about this today is
because the majority of the F-15 fleet is used for the Guard,
and I just want to make sure the Guard does not get the short
end of the stick on this one. You know, on 9/11, the F-15s,
including from the 104th Fighter Wing in Massachusetts, were
some of the first aircraft in the sky. These are our citizen
airmen, and they have protected the Nation from the skies 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. I just do not see a scenario
where they get retired anytime in the near future. If they are
not going to be retired, then I think we owe it to those who
are flying these planes that they have equipment and resources
that they can depend on.
Lieutenant General Bunch. Ma'am, I just want to say one
thing. We are a total force. We are not going to ignore the
Guard and Reserve. That is not part of what we are doing. Okay?
I cannot tell you it is going to be F-15Cs. I am going to tell
you that it is a total force. That is the only way that we can
execute our mission.
Senator Warren. I appreciate that and I am going to hold
you to it.
Senator Cotton. Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
service.
The Air Force has reported a shortage of approximately
2,000 pilots, including a shortage of about 950 fighter pilots,
which is essentially unchanged since last year. Much of the
training occurs in Texas from Joint Base San Antonio, Randolph,
and at Shepherd Air Force Base. I know they are working every
day to resolve the issue.
Would you please update the committee on current efforts to
address this critical problem?
Major General Robinson. Senator Cruz, thank you for that
question.
Absolutely, the Air Force is laser-focused on that problem.
The update I would offer is we have narrowed the very
focused study and analysis on root cause of the situation and
how to fix it. We have narrowed it down to three main lines of
effort. One, requirements. What are the total requirements for
the pilot force from squadron all the way up to staffs?
Two, production. Do we have the production that we need in
terms of producing pilots through the entire ecosystem, so
initial training and graduate level training all the way
through to the military-ready pilot?
Then three, retention. We have the most control over the
requirements in terms of influencing the decisions on that,
very much fiscally informed control over production, but we
have figured out that production is really the main effort. We
have to set the production. Right now our current target is
1,400 pilots per year total force. We have to set it there and
leave it there. That is part of the problem, the root cause of
where we find ourselves in the position we are in now. We have
changed the production over the last 10 to 12 years up and
down, mostly tending downward.
The retention. We have a number of programs that are
underway to influence retention to make our airmen want to stay
and do this job. It is not just aviation bonuses, if you will.
It is things like we have a talent management system that we
call which essentially is way to give the member a bigger
choice in their assignment selection and a voice where they
would like to go for their next assignment, all the way through
to things where they can volunteer for long tours overseas. We
have cut over half of our 365-day tours overseas down to 6-
month tours to, again, make that more enticing for them to want
to stay and affect their quality of service, as well as their
quality of life for their families. A number of efforts there.
Other assignment options, second assignment in place policy
changes to allow them to have more stability for their
families, particularly for someone who has a professional
spouse or very concerned about the quality of education that
their children are getting with where they are.
Senator Cruz. Of the different steps you mentioned, what
are you seeing is having the most positive impact on retention?
Major General Robinson. Right now, the most positive impact
that we are seeing are the things that are not necessarily
monetarily related. It is these options for choice in how they
would like to serve their country. We are also looking at a 4
to 6-month study that we are about to undertake with regard to
a pilot-only or aviation-only technical track to see how that
would actually pan out for the Air Force, and if we can achieve
the proper outcomes, it is a win-win for the Service, as well
as for the members.
Senator Cruz. What else is needed from Congress in terms of
authorities or otherwise to help address this problem?
Major General Robinson. Senator Cruz, right now we have
gotten tremendous support from Congress up to this point. We
appreciate that greatly.
The effort that we just finished at the direction of the
Secretary of the Air Force, which was to get our fighter pilot
crisis to a 95 percent manning level and then total pilot
requirement up to 95 percent by the end of fiscal year 2023 is
the goal she gave us. We are pursuing that quite heavily. As we
work our way through the options that we are going to offer to
our senior leadership, we may come to Congress for some
assistance and policy changes and/or perhaps some legislative
relief if we find an alternative way perhaps to do monetary pay
versus aviation bonuses versus another way. We are looking at
our coalition partners that have air forces like ours that are
as capable and as advanced as ours, as well as our joint
partners, for how they handle those difficult challenges for
those highly needed mission areas.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
General Bunch, let me shift topics. In the Department's
budget request, it included $2.3 billion for the development of
the B-21 bomber. In fiscal year 2018, it was $2 billion. Could
you describe to this subcommittee what is planned to be done
with that $2.3 billion request?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I will go into a lot detail
given the nature of the work that we are doing there. What I
will say is we are continuing the engineering, manufacturing,
and development. We are continuing some of those risk reduction
areas. What we are also doing is we finished preliminary design
review. We are on our way to critical design review. We have
manned up a good portion of what we need to do. We are making
everything ready to begin our test program in the future, and
we have delivered the first set of software for that platform
and we are going through that. Then we are getting set up for
the next set of software to come in. We are making good
progress. I am comfortable today with where we are at in the
progress that Northrup Grumman is making on the program.
Senator Cruz. One final question, shifting to the F-35. Are
you concerned about the cost of F-35 sustainment? If so, what
efforts is the Air Force making to deal with that? What do you
see of the consequences if that cost is not reduced?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we are worried about the
cost. The production costs are coming down along the lines that
we predicted from the program office, that the production costs
are coming down, the procurement cost of the assets. The
sustainment costs have been higher than what we would like. We
are working with the program office to look at what are the
high time drivers of cost. What are the areas that we can
attack? How can we work with Lockheed Martin? Can we stand up
our depots faster? What do we do to get more people involved in
the production of parts? How do we make that work? All of those
are efforts that are ongoing.
The program office has a room where they have multiple
charts to show what activities they are trying to do. We have
small groups that have been stood up with all the Services and
the acquisition executives of the services and Ms. Lord's staff
that we are working on those and coming up with ideas. We have
a full court press on that area.
We do need to drive those costs down. We need to get that
to the point that it is not just cost effective to buy, it has
to be cost effective to operate and maintain as well, sir.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, General.
Senator Cotton. Senator Donnelly?
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your service to the country.
I want to return to an issue I have discussed with senior
Air Force leadership before, the future of the 122nd Fighter
Wing in Fort Wayne, Indiana. They have made it clear to me that
the Air Force will maintain a manned air combat mission in Fort
Wayne and will continue to identify opportunities for mission
conversion going forward.
As you noted in your written testimony, the Air Force has
reinitiated the A-10 rewinging program to prevent further
groundings and ensure a minimum of six combat formations remain
in service until 2032. Unfortunately, these efforts will not
entirely prevent some of your A-10 units from aircraft
grounding due to wing issues while the wing box procurement
program gets up to speed.
Fort Wayne's mission conversion to F-16s or F-35s would
allow the divestment of its 16 A-10s with enhanced wing
assemblies to other units in order to stabilize the A-10 fleet
until the winging program catches up with the need. Not only
that, if done promptly, the Air Force could take advantage of
the unit's scheduled dwell time for conversion.
I understand that a site activation task force, or SATF,
will be necessary to validate the 122nd's mission for an F-16
or F-35 conversion. When will you be able to begin these
processes in keeping with the commitments that I have been
given?
Lieutenant General Harris. Sir, unsure of when the process
itself will begin, but the commitment that the Chief and
Secretary have made to the unit about flying F-16s from the
Burlington transition is still solid. We expect that to happen.
What we intend to do--the pace of the A-10 rewinging will not
keep up with stopping future groundings. There will be future
groundings, but there will be enough aircraft available to fly
the squadrons that we need for our combat operations and the
capabilities. From that perspective, we will take the best of
the A-10s that leave and push them around to other units to
make sure they have flyable aircraft.
Senator Donnelly. When will there be documentation that
confirms an official conversion plan?
Lieutenant General Harris. As we complete our fighter force
study--and part of that is tasked by Congress--I expect to have
that out in fiscal year 2019, which will lay out our F-35
beddown plan and what we are doing with the rest of our fighter
assets.
Senator Donnelly. I am sure you know there is nothing
standing in the way legislatively. Congress explicitly
clarified in section 134 of the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, that the
Air Force has authority to transition the 122nd to a new
mission, F-16s or F-35s, stands regardless of whether the A-10
is retired.
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, sir. We are aware of it.
Senator Donnelly. The 2014 report of the National
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force recommended
expanding the number of Air Force associate units. In the
coming years, as you make basing decisions on new platforms and
shape the future force structure of the Air Force, do you
foresee the Air Force expanding the number of associate units
nationwide?
Lieutenant General Harris. We do, sir. There is a lot of
advantage that we get from that expansion.
Senator Donnelly. Actually my next question was going to be
what advantages do the associate units offer you. So please.
Lieutenant General Harris. Sir, as we go through the
retention that we talked about, it is a total force issue, and
to be further clear, the pilot shortage we are having in the
Air Force also impacts our Navy and Marine Corps teammates, but
it is a national problem. Our airlines are hiring 5,000 pilots
a year, and when we get up to our max capacity, we as a DOD
will probably only generate about 2,500 pilots a year. Even as
we are improving and fixing our numbers, it is not going to be
a national solution yet.
A lot of the experience that we are lacking right now--we
fix much of our maintenance issues with bringing in 4,000 new
maintainers over the last 12 to 15 months. But they are all
young and they are not ready to maintain aircraft alone and
they need supervision. A lot of that supervision resides in our
Guard and Reserve with those experience levels. So bringing
together more associate units will actually help us experience
and provide the supervision we need to continue to have an
effective and efficient force.
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. Senator Peters, you are in the chute if you
would like to. Otherwise we can give you a few minutes to
collect your thoughts. I have more questions.
Senator Peters. If you want to ask a quick question, that
would be great.
Senator Cotton. I mean, we are ready for you to go if you
are ready.
Senator Peters. I can be ready quickly.
My main question I understand was already asked and
answered, which dealt with A-10 rewinging. But I understand
that that has already been dealt with, an important question
for me in Michigan and Selfridge Air National Guard Base and
the A-10 squadron that is there. I appreciated your response
there.
I just have one question. The Air Force Research Lab (AFRL)
has issued a 5-year phase I contract to develop and demonstrate
a new cruise missile called the Gray Wolf. The missile includes
network swarming behavior to counter integrated air defense
threats and provides flexibility in highly contested
environments.
I think frequently when people think of autonomous systems,
they think of remotely piloted aircraft or drones, and when
they think of autonomous weapons, they sometimes think of
terminator robots. But a munition like a Gray Wolf could
include both semiautonomous capability operating in a swarm
with collaborative algorithms and make the final decision about
what to hit once a strike is launched at a target. I know part
of the Gray Wolf program's goal is to ensure that munitions are
cheap enough so that swarming will be cost effective.
I think this reflects a technological trend in warfare that
the Air Force is certainly well positioned to take advantage
of, but it will also require a shift in thinking as well. Low-
cost swarms of munitions or platforms can be an effective
response to the proliferation of anti-access/aerial denial
systems.
But my question to you is could you please provide an
update on the Gray Wolf, as well as discuss the potential for
using network swarms, munitions, or platforms to defeat air
defense threats. Basically where do you see that going?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I will take the first hit
and what I will do is say we will come and give you a more in-
depth brief on the Gray Wolf program and what we are doing. I
do not have those details with me today, so I apologize for
that. But that is an area that we will come back.
Senator Peters. I appreciate it.
Lieutenant General Bunch. What I will say is we are looking
at swarming technologies and autonomy. Those are areas that we
are very focused on as to how we are working with the research
laboratory, what can we demonstrate, how we would be able to
implement those as maybe a lower cost solution to some of the
problems. That is an area that we are looking at, we are
working on, and we believe has great promise for something we
can do in the future. But it is a mindset change that we have
to work our way through.
Senator Peters. Right.
Major General Robinson. Senator Peters, if I may add to
that. Our Chief has us very, very focused on network aspects of
warfare and thinking about that through disaggregated
connectivity, multi-domain command and control and battle. The
Chief always asks with every new platform that we get, that we
attain, can it connect, can it share, most importantly, can it
learn. That is where we are headed with regard to how we put
the network and the systems of systems and employ them to be
successful against those near peer and peer adversaries.
Senator Peters. Right, great.
Yes, please.
Lieutenant General Harris. Sir, thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
This is important to us. It is part of our air superiority
2030 system, family of systems. We recognize that it is not
going to be only a high-cost penetrating capability that we
need. We do need to have some standoff capability, others that
penetrate, and a different thinking for those weapons. To that
point, in the AI [artificial intelligence] effort, through AFRL
in the next 5 years, we spend roughly $1 billion, and we expect
that to only increase to get after systems like this. So we are
on that road.
Senator Peters. Great. Appreciate that.
Lieutenant General Bunch. We will come and give you
specifics on that specific program. I just do not have those
details, sir.
Senator Peters. I appreciate that as well. Thank you for
your answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator Peters.
The buzzer was a vote on the floor, which means Senator
King and I will have about 10 minutes before we need to leave
to a vote.
I want to touch on two issues we have not touched yet in
this wide-ranging hearing.
First, remotely piloted vehicles. General Robinson, would
you please provide the committee an update on the Air Force's
RPA [remotely piloted aircraft] Get Well Plan?
Major General Robinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
that question.
Where we are right now in our Get Well plan for RPAs is we
are essentially on track, and it is going very well.
One of our objectives was to establish a 10 to 1 crew-to-
combat line ratio to make the tempo sustainable for the
squadrons and what they do when they are deployed in place in a
deployed-in-place mission. As well, we have the MQ-1 and MQ-9
formal training units up to 100 percent manning, which we did
that by the first quarter of fiscal year 2017. In fact, we
actually exceeded that with regard to our combat crew ratio or
crew-to-combat line ratio. We are actually at 11.3 to 1 in that
regard.
Now we are taking that effort that we have done there to
see what we can learn, lessons learned, and apply that to RQ-40
and RQ-170s going forward.
Senator Cotton. Second, the fiscal year 2017 NDAA directed
the Air Force to transition a significant number of RPA pilots
to enlisted personnel by the end of fiscal year 2020. What is
the status of that transition, and do you expect to complete it
in compliance with the fiscal year 2017 NDAA?
Major General Robinson. Yes, sir. If I may correct one
comment I made. I said MQ-1/MQ-9. The MQ-1s are about done and
retired. So now it is a focus on the MQ-9s.
But to your more current question, again we are on track
there. We expect that we will achieve 100 regular Air Force
enlisted pilots by September 2020. Right now, we have 11
enlisted pilots that are all flying operational missions that
have completed training. We have 30 in this fiscal year's
pipeline and 30 have been identified for fiscal year 2019's
pipeline as well.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator King?
Senator King. Since we do have to go and vote, I am going
to run through some very quick thoughts and perhaps follow up
with questions for the record.
I am interested in the JSTARS replacement, the Compass Call
situation. The fundamental question is if survivability is an
issue for the JSTARS, which I understand is one of the reasons
the Air Force is thinking of canceling that RFP [request for
proposal], are those issues not going to be consistent for
Compass Call as well or for whatever replacement, or is that
part of the idea of designing the replacement?
Lieutenant General Harris. Sir, there are similarities, but
the mission is a bit different in the Compass Call where it is
part of the kill chain that is in a different way than the
JSTARS. Yes, some of the threat systems that can impact the
JSTARS have some bearing on the Compass Call but because we are
further ahead in that, where we are headed with the Compass
Call recap and the transport of that over to basically a
commercial platform is still in our best interest or from a
JSTARS recap perspective, we feel it is better to get after
this effort in a different domain with different capacity and
capability by networking centers that are already in the
airspace.
Senator King. Is that technology mature? Are we ready to go
with it, or is that going to generate a delay, the fact that we
are going to new capabilities, new technologies?
Lieutenant General Harris. The technology is maturing as we
go.
Senator King. That worries me. That statement makes me
nervous. I want mature technologies before we go.
Lieutenant General Harris. It is a three-increment process
for our proposed plan in the fiscal year 2019 budget. We have a
decision time, space in fiscal year 2023 that allows us, if we
are behind with increments 2 and 3, that technology concern, it
is a low risk from our perspective at this time. But in 2023,
if we decide that we are still behind in late delivering
increment 2 or increment 3, we can extend our current 707 fleet
additional years after to continue to provide that capability.
Senator King. Let us move quickly to light attack aircraft,
the OAX. I understand we are talking about developing a new
aircraft. The funds are in the budget for further
experimentation. We thought maybe we would be in a selection
stage, but you feel that more work is necessary before you go
in this direction?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we made the decision that we
did not need to do the combat demonstration because of the
valuable data and enough of the information we got on some of
the areas during the first phase of the experiment.
Senator King. Will this new plane have capabilities that
the A-10 does not? I have been sitting through hearings now for
5 years, and the Air Force seems to hate the A-10. Congress
seems to like it. What are we gaining by discontinuing the A-
10?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, this is not relative to
discontinuing the A-10. This is additive capability for the
United States Air Force. What we are trying to do is do a cost
shift. What we are trying to do is buy something that is lower
cost and lower to operate and allow us to pull our higher-cost-
to-operate fourth and fifth generation platforms out of the
permissive environment and do that in a more cost effective
manner and still be able to get the mission done and allow our
fourth and fifth generation aircraft to train for the high-end
fight. It is not to replace the A-10. It is to provide a
capability that we can put in a permissive environment and be
able to execute the mission. It will allow us to----
Senator King. A permissive environment is an environment
without antiaircraft. Is that what you are saying?
Lieutenant General Bunch. To a certain level, sir. We would
have some threats on the ground, a ground shoot from troops,
those kind of things, some lower end surface-to-air, not much,
but it is a more permissive environment which we could do many
of the missions we do in today's environment. We could execute
with a platform like that.
Senator King. Are you satisfied with the progress you have
made on developing this new vehicle, if you will?
Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I am satisfied with where we
are at. We need to do the next phase of the experiment so that
we can get additional information relative to logistics and
sustainment, and we are trying to put a network in.
Senator King. I want to submit a question for the record
about maintenance costs of the F-35. Secretary Wilson testified
that that was a real problem, and I would like some more detail
on that, what is being done to address that question.
Finally, General Robinson, Chairman Cotton and I had a
fascinating meeting about 6 months ago with a group of your
pilots. It was essentially a focus group. It was very
interesting to us that it was not money that they were mostly
interested in. It was they want to fly. They talked about
establishing if you want to be a pilot, you can be a pilot. You
do not have to go on a track to be a general officer or do
other things. I hope that is something you are considering as
you talk about this retention issue.
Major General Robinson. Yes, Ranking Member King. Basically
from our Air Crew Crisis Task Force in the next 4 to 6 months,
we are going to explore the possibilities for what we are
calling an aviation technical track, so a fly-only track for
our airmen. Then we have a report out to the Secretary of the
Air Force----
Senator King. If you have not done it already, I would urge
you to do what we did, get a bunch of pilots in a room with
somebody that knows how to facilitate a conversation and
without you guys sitting in the room and listen and get a
report on what they say. I thought--I think the chairman would
agree--it was very informative. I hope that is something you
might----
Major General Robinson. Yes, sir. We have done one of those
about a year ago, and we continue to look at opportunities to
do those again.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cotton. It was informative, and I do think what
Senator King says is a real option, similar to the Army's
warrant program. I know people in the Army who resigned their
commission after being a special forces team leader because
they did not want to sit at a desk and plan for other special
forces teams. They were given a chance to become a warrant
officer and stay with the team. I do think it is an option. I
know General Goldfein said that Lieutenant Goldfein probably
would have taken that option, and that might not have been the
best thing for the Air Force. Maybe General Robinson and
Lieutenants Harris and Bunch would have taken those options as
well, although your captains and majors informed us that they
were the best pilots, much better than the colonels, for your
information.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. Gentlemen, thank you again for your
testimony. It has been a very wide-ranging and informative
hearing.
There will be questions for the record, as Senator King
said, some others said. We will try to be prompt with those so
you can be prompt with your answers as well.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
national defense strategy
1. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, how does the President's budget request
for Air Force aviation align with, and support, the National Defense
Strategy and its emphasis on preparing for the high end fight? Please
provide specific examples.
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
department of defense budget
2. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, is the President's budget sufficient to
meet the needs of the Air Force in terms of readiness and
modernization?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
3. Senator McCain. Lt. Gen Bunch, Lt. Gen Harris, Major General
Robinson, what are the primary budgetary challenges you are facing in
the wake of the recently agreed to 2-year budget deal?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
4. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, the Defense budget request includes
zero real growth in spending from fiscal years 2020 to 2023. Given the
state of readiness and military capabilities today, how will Air Force
aviation sufficiently rebuild to meet the requirements of the National
Defense Strategy after fiscal year 2019, without additional funding?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
5. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, if the Department is responsible for
funding internal savings to help pay for additional capability and
capacity, please provide specific examples of what those savings will
be in the aviation accounts.
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
industrial base
6. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, how would you describe
the state of the industrial base that supports Air Force aviation
programs?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
7. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, what must this
subcommittee be particularly mindful of related to the industrial base?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
multiyear procurement or block buy authorities
8. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, are there programs
that would benefit from cost reduction initiatives, such as multiyear
procurement or block buys, that do not currently have these
authorities?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
physiological episodes
9. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, please describe the Air
Force's most recent efforts to mitigate physiological episodes.
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
10. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, is a limited number of
vendors hindering equipment modification efforts?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
11. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, can industry produce
enough specialized components?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
12. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, how much funding does
the budget request include for addressing physiological episodes in Air
Force aircraft? Please describe specific examples of items or efforts
that are funded in the budget.
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
13. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, are T-6s back flying at
their full envelope?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
fighter force structure capacity
14. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, how many fighter
aircraft does the Air Force currently have?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
15. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, how many of those are
combat coded?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
16. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, the Fiscal Year 2016
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) required the Air Force to
maintain a minimum of 1,900 fighter aircraft, of which at least 1,100
would be combat coded. In light of the National Defense Strategy, what
is the number of fighters required?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
17. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, how is the Air Force
assessing the optimal mix of fourth generation fighters, fifth
generation, and next generation?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
18. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, how has the National
Defense Strategy affected this assessment?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
19. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, has the Air Force
budget request changed in response? How?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
20. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, the fiscal year 2019
budget retains 56 combat squadrons. Are those squadrons fully equipped
and manned?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
21. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, how is the Air Force
balancing the desire to increase the number of squadrons versus fully
equipping and manning the ones you currently have?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
remotely piloted enterprise
22. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, can you provide the
committee an update on the Air Force's remotely piloted aircraft (RPA)
``Get Well'' plan?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
23. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, the Fiscal Year 2017
NDAA directed the Air Force to transition a significant number of RPA
pilots to enlisted personnel by the end of fiscal year 2020. What is
the status of that transition and do you expect to complete it in
compliance with the NDAA?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
modernization and recapitalization requirement
24. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, the Air Force is in
the early stages of an extensive modernization and recapitalization
effort with the F-35A, KC-46, B-21, T-X, VC-25B all requiring
significant research and procurement dollars. Investment in the next
generation air dominance capabilities have begun to ramp up
significantly. Not to mention the recapitalization of the nuclear
enterprise. How is the Air Force balancing all of these competing
priorities?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
25. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, how has the National
Defense Strategy changed Air Force modernization and recapitalization
priorities?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
26. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, the Budget Control
Act (BCA) remains the law of the land, so how is the Air Force
approaching managing its modernization and recapitalization with the
prospect of BCA funding levels beginning in fiscal year 2020?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
f-35 joint strike fighter
27. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, the new lot aircraft
are performing better, but the overall readiness rates of the F-35
remain below expectations. While the program is facing a steep
production ramp in the coming years, the sustainment enterprise is
struggling to maintain and sustain the already fielded aircraft. Are
you concerned about the affordability and effectiveness of the F-35
sustainment enterprise?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
28. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, what efforts is the
Air Force making to reduce the cost to sustain the F-35?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
29. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, are you concerned
that should the costs of sustainment not be lowered, it may force a
reduction in the total number of aircraft the Air Force buys?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
f-35 joint strike fighter operations
30. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, please provide an
update on F-35A deployed operations in both the U.S. Pacific Command
(PACOM) and U.S. European Command (EUCOM) areas of responsibilities
(AOR). What are the key challenges the Air Force has identified to
operating and sustaining the F-35 forward?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
f-35 follow-on modernization
31. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, the follow-on
modernization for the F-35 is scheduled to bring key warfighting
capabilities to the Air Force, but the schedule and budget remain in
flux. Are you concerned about the affordability and executability of
the Department's plan for Block 4 Continuous Capability Development and
Delivery (C2D2)?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
32. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, the Joint Program
Office is in the initial stages of its Continuous Capability
Development and Delivery of Block 4 modernization upgrades. At the same
time, the Air Force is beginning significant investment in next
generation air dominance capabilities. In a world of limited dollars,
how is the Air Force looking to balance between the two programs?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
f-35 program management
33. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, does the Joint
Program Office management structure properly align responsibility and
accountability?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
34. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, what are your views
on alternative management structures for the F-35 program, such as
establishing separate service or variant program offices rather than
maintaining a joint program office?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
b-21
35. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, the Department's
budget request included $2.3 billion for development of the B-21
bomber. In fiscal year 2018, it was $2.0 billion. Could you describe
what is planned to be done with the $2.3 billion request?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
36. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, has the Air Force
made any further reviews to determine if more information on the B-21
program can be released to the taxpayers who are funding this multi-
billion program?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
37. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, on numerous
occasions, Air Force leadership has stated the Air Force requires a
minimum of 100 B-21 bombers. Has the National Defense Strategy altered
the requirement for the B-21? Why or why not?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
kc-46
38. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, the KC-46 has endured
numerous delays and unforeseen technical challenges. The latest Air
Force estimate is first delivery of airplanes will not be until late in
this year. How has the contractor been held accountable for the
repeated delays?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
39. Senator McCain. Lt. Gen Bunch, what changes to required
criteria for first aircraft delivery has the Air Force made in the last
2 years?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
40. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, what are the next
contracted dates that are in jeopardy?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
41. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, does the Air Force
intend on seeking consideration should those contract elements be
breached?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
42. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, has the Air Force
given consideration to pursuing an unmanned variant of the KC-46? Why
or why not?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
43. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, what would be some
of the advantages and/or disadvantages of having an unmanned big wing
air refueling tanker?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
b-52h
44. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, as part of its
bomber roadmap the Air Force has committed to keeping the B-52 through
2040, while phasing out the B-2 and B-1 as the B-21 comes online in the
mid to late 2020s. Please explain the rationale for keeping the B-52
while divesting the B-2 and B-1.
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
45. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, in light of the
decision to keep the B-52 for the long term, does the Air Force have a
long term modernization plan for the B-52 that takes a holistic view of
the aircraft, given that the youngest B-52 is 56 years old today?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
46. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, the B-52H is
certified to employ the JASSM-ER [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff
Missile]. The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is based upon, and
shares significant commonality with, the JASSM-ER. Are there any
technical reasons why the LRASM could not be integrated onto the B-52H?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
47. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, are there any other
long-range, anti-ship missiles in the Air Force inventory?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
48. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, after years of
discussion, the Air Force has committed to re-engining the B-52H and
begun to put funding into its budget. Can you please explain the Air
Force's acquisition plan for re-engining, including estimated schedule
and budget?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
Airborne Battle Management
49. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, the Air Force has
opted to cancel its Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) recapitalization plan, arguing that the proposed replacement
is not survivable in the high-end fight. The Navy, on the other hand,
is investing heavily in the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Poseidon,
which both have similar vulnerability concerns as the proposed JSTARS
recap program. Please explain the Air Force's approach to airborne
battle management and how the Air Force and Navy intend to jointly
execute airborne battle management in a high-end fight.
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
jstars / advanced battle management system
50. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, the Air Force has
opted to cancel the JSTARS Recapitalization program and pursue an
Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). At the same time the legacy
JSTARS aircraft are due to be divested in the early to mid 2020s,
starting with 3 aircraft in fiscal year 2019. While the Air Force is
proposing an incremental approach to fielding ABMS, much of the
proposed plan remains aspirational. This committee remains concerned
that the Air Force is divesting existing capability before its
replacement is mature, let alone fielded. How is the Air Force managing
the risk inherent in its fielding of ABMS, particularly in the mid-
2020s to early 2030s, when there will no longer be legacy JSTARS to
fill in should the Air Force's plan be delayed or deemed unfeasible?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
51. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, the Air Force has
argued that the JSTARS Recap would not be survivable in a highly
contested environment. A key component of the Air Force's ABMS
alternative is space-based. However, Air Force leadership, including
General Goldfein and Secretary Wilson, have repeatedly stated that
space is now a contested domain. This committee is concerned that the
Air Force is simply moving capability from one contested domain to
another. Can you explain how moving capability from the air domain to
the space domain increases survivability?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
52. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, please provide an
update on the current state of the JSTARS Recap competition. What
happens while Congress deliberates on the Air Force request to cancel
the program?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
low cost attritable aircraft technology
53. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, The Air Force
Research Laboratory is pursuing a program to introduce an unmanned
aerial vehicle to support warfighters with a lower cost than
traditional manned aircraft, while meeting capability requirements for
support in contested environments. How is the Air Force thinking about
the use of attritable unmanned air vehicles, and manned/unmanned
teaming in general, in your concepts of operations?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
54. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, what is the status
and outlook for the Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology (LCAAT)
program?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
pilot retention
55. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, the Air Force has
reported a shortage of approximately 2,000 pilots, including a shortage
of 950 fighter pilots, essentially unchanged since last year. Please
update the committee on current efforts to address this critical
problem.
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
56. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, what efforts has the
Air Force implemented that are seeing positive impacts on retention?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
57. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, what more is needed
from Congress, in terms of authorities or otherwise?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
airborne data link plan
58. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch and Lieutenant General
Harris, Air Force leadership has talked about the importance of
networks to their visions of the future of the Air Force. The committee
is concerned that the Department of Defense's ideas for airborne data
links have lacked vision and been disjointed. Please discuss your
efforts in this area and how you are ensuring that the Air Force is
interoperable, not only within its own elements, but with the Navy,
Marine Corps, and Army as well.
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris did not respond
in time for printing. When received, answer will be retained in
committee files.
presidential protection
59. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, is the F-22 considered
a high end asset by the Air Force?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
60. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, does flying
Presidential protection missions increase readiness for the high-end
fight?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
61. Senator McCain. Major General Robinson, in light of the
National Defense Strategy's emphasis on focusing on training for a
potential for a near-peer adversary, does it make sense for the limited
number of F-22s to expend valuable flight hours and training time to
the Presidential protection mission?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
62. Senator McCain. Brig. Gen. Robinson, what is the Air Force
doing to ensure that our high-end assets are more focused on the high-
end fight?
Major General Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
light attack
63. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, the Air Force appears
to be on the cusp of procuring a fleet of light attack aircraft to
conduct operations against violent extremist organizations in a more
fiscally sustainable way and to free up fighter aircraft to focus on
training for the high-end fight. The Secretary of the Air Force has
highlighted the light attack program as a new way of doing
experimentation and acquisition fast. Yet, zero dollars were requested
in the fiscal year 2019 budget request. Action does not seem to be
meeting rhetoric when it comes to the pace of acquisition. What is
preventing the Air Force from procuring light attack aircraft and their
associated long lead material in fiscal year 2019?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
air force air-launched munitions
64. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris and Lieutenant
General Bunch, in your judgment, are your air-launched munitions
inventories sufficient to support current operations and the Defense
Strategic Guidance writ large?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris did not respond
in time for printing. When received, answer will be retained in
committee files.
65. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris and Lieutenant
General Bunch, are there individual air-launched munitions whose
inventories, either present or projected, are insufficient to meet
requirements? If so, what are they and what is being done to address
the shortfalls?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris did not respond
in time for printing. When received, answer will be retained in
committee files.
long range anti-ship missile
66. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, what is the long-term
plan for acquisition of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
67. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, does the Air Force
consider naval anti-surface warfare an important mission?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
68. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Harris, does the current
LRASM program of record provide sufficient capability and capacity to
support the NDS priority of China and Russia?
Lieutenant General Harris did not respond in time for printing.
When received, answer will be retained in committee files.
advanced weapons
69. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch and Lieutenant General
Harris, what steps is the Air Force taking to ensure they have
munitions that are relevant and effective against the increasingly
difficult defenses our potential adversaries are developing and
fielding? Please provide specific examples, including research and
development efforts.
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris did not respond
in time for printing. When received, answer will be retained in
committee files.
training infrastructure
70. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, as the Department focuses increasingly
on the high end fight, how important are adequate training ranges and
supporting equipment to ensuring our aviation forces are adequately
prepared?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
71. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, are there areas where our training
infrastructure needs to be improved, in terms of airspace, equipment or
other elements? Please provide specific examples.
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
72. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, Major General Robinson, please describe efforts the Air Force
is making to increase and improve the use of live, virtual and
constructive (LVC) training, and how those efforts are interoperable,
within and among all the services.
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris, Major General
Robinson did not respond in time for printing. When received, answer
will be retained in committee files.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz
next generation fighter communications
73. Senator Cruz. Lieutenant General Bunch, there is a great deal
of information in the public domain concerning the Fifth Generation
Fighters (F-22, F-35) inability to communicate and pass targeting data
between each other in a denied environment. The Committee understands
the Air Force has a roadmap to develop and field an advanced tactical
data link in the 2030 timeframe. However, the need for a common
solution for interoperability between Fifth-to-Fifth and more
importantly, Fourth-to-Fifth Generation fighters is a clear demand
signal from the combatant commands now.
In addition, the Air Force is pursuing constructs to achieve a
multi domain command and control capability and has noted that ``agile
communications'' is the foundational piece to achieve this goal. Over
the past 5 years, several live-fly and joint demonstrations in
operationally relevant environments have shown that technologies exist
that are mature, effective, and programmatically feasible against
current and future threats. Does the Air Force have the ability to pass
threat and targeting data between Fifth Generation Fighters (F-22, F-
35) and Fourth Generation Fighters (F-15, F-16, F/A-18) in a contested
environment without being detected?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
74. Senator Cruz. Lieutenant General Bunch, does the Air Force
currently have a requirement for a secure Low Probability of Intercept
(LPI)/Low Probability of Detection (LPD) data link with Anti-Jam
capabilities?
Lieutenant General Bunch did not respond in time for printing. When
received, answer will be retained in committee files.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Sasse
light attack aircraft (oa-x program)
75. Senator Sasse. Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General
Harris, the Air Force appears to be on the cusp of procuring a fleet of
light attack aircraft (OA-X program) to conduct operations against
violent extremist organizations in a more fiscally sustainable way and
to free up fighter aircraft to focus on training for the high-end
fight. The 2018 National Defense Strategy calls for a more resource-
sustainable approach to low-intensity threats, and the OA-X program
seems like a good fit for our National Defense Strategy. The Secretary
of the Air Force has highlighted the Light Attack program as a new way
of doing experimentation and acquisition fast. Surprisingly, the fiscal
year 2019 budget request asks for zero dollars for the OA-X program.
Action does not seem to be meeting rhetoric when it comes to the pace
of acquisition. What is preventing the Air Force from procuring light
attack aircraft and their associated long lead material in fiscal year
2019?
Lieutenant General Bunch, Lieutenant General Harris did not respond
in time for printing. When received, answer will be retained in
committee files.