[Senate Hearing 116-508, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                               S. Hrg. 116-508, Pt. 4

               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR 
               APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 AND 
               THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

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

                                HEARINGS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON

                                S. 1790

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND 
   FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE 
   MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                               ----------                              

                                 PART 4

                                AIRLAND

                               ----------                              

                       APRIL 2, AND APRIL 9, 2019


         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-154 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman	JACK REED, Rhode Island
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi		JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska			KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
TOM COTTON, Arkansas			RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota		MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JONI ERNST, Iowa			TIM KAINE, Virginia
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina		ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska			MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia			ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota		GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona			JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida			TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee		DOUG JONES, Alabama
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri             
                                    
   		 John Bonsell, Staff Director
            Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director



_________________________________________________________________

                        Subcommittee on Airland

  TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman	ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi		RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina		ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska			GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota		TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona			DOUG JONES, Alabama
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  

                                  (ii)


                         C O N T E N T S

_________________________________________________________________

                             April 2, 2019

                                                                   Page

Army Modernization...............................................     1

                           Member Statements

Senator Tom Cotton...............................................     1

Senator Angus S. King, Jr........................................     2

                           Witness Statements

Ostrowski, Lieutenant General Paul A., USA, Principal Military        3
  Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 
  Logistics, and Technology, and Director of the Army Acquisition 
  Corps.

Pasquarette, Lieutenant General James F., USA, Deputy Chief of        4
  Staff, G-8, United States Army.

Richardson, Lieutenant General James M., USA, Deputy Commander,       5
  Army Futures Command, United States Army.

Questions for the Record.........................................    31

                             April 9, 2019

Air Force Modernization..........................................    41


                           Member Statements

Senator Tom Cotton...............................................    41

Senator Angus S. King, Jr........................................    42

                           Witness Statements

Bunch, Lieutenant General Arnold W., Jr., USAF, Military Deputy      43
  for Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Accompanied by 
  Lieutenant General Timothy G. Fay, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 
  for Strategy, Integration and Requirements, Headquarters United 
  States Air Force; and Major General Brian S. Robinson, USAF, 
  Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Headquarters 
  United States Air Force.

Questions for the Record.........................................    78

                                 (iii)

 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
               2020 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019

                      United States Senate,
                           Subcommittee on Airland,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                           ARMY MODERNIZATION

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m. in 
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Tom 
Cotton (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Subcommittee Members present: Senators Cotton, Sullivan, 
Scott, King, Blumenthal, Peters, Duckworth, and Jones.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON

    Senator Cotton. The Airland Subcommittee will come to 
order.
    Today, we meet to receive testimony on the U.S. Army's 
modernization efforts and its fiscal year 2020 budget request.
    We welcome Lieutenant General Paul Ostrowski, Principal 
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and Director of the 
Army Acquisition Corps; Lieutenant General James Pasquarette, 
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8; and Lieutenant General James 
Richardson, Deputy Commander, Army's Future Command. Thank you 
all very much for your distinguished service to our Nation and 
your appearance here today.
    The National Defense Strategy (NDS) directs our Nation's 
military to prepare for the return of great-power competition. 
This means the Army must be prepared to deter and, if 
necessary, decisively defeat potential near-peer adversaries, 
like China and Russia. In order to be prepared for future 
battlefields, the Army must rapidly modernize after the last 18 
years of counterinsurgency warfare. For that reason, the Army 
created Army Futures Command. This new command will help shape 
modernization requirements to meet these future threats.
    The senior Army leadership has undertaken a detailed and 
exhaustive look at every single program to ensure that each one 
supports our National Defense Strategy. The Army has already 
made hard decisions on programs that didn't meet the NDS in 
order to reallocate funding for some of these modernization 
efforts that will help the Army regain both its qualitative and 
quantitative advantage against near-peer competitors.
    These choices will require open and transparent debate with 
Congress along the way. We look forward to working with you to 
make the Army's modernization vision a reality as the Army 
reinvents itself to become the 21st Century fighting force that 
we need to be prepared to defeat a more lethal and dynamic 
battlefield of the future.
    Senator King.

            STATEMENT OF SENATOR ANGUS S. KING, JR.

    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
today's hearing.
    Welcome, to our witnesses. Look forward to your testimony.
    The National Defense Strategy, as the Chairman stated, 
reorients the Department of Defense (DOD) toward great-power 
competition, with an emphasis on China and Russia. The National 
Defense Strategy has serious implications for the Army, as our 
soldiers must be prepared for a high-end fight that requires 
modernized military platforms and upgraded equipment to ensure 
success on the battlefield, a fundamentally different military 
challenge than that which the Army has been facing in 
counterterrorism activities over the last 15 or 20 years.
    To meet the challenge, the Army has been focused on 
modernizing the force, transforming the process by which 
warfighting capability is delivered to our soldiers. As 
Secretary Esper and General Milley testified last week before 
the full committee, this reorganization has been necessary to, 
``to ensure the'' ``entire modernization enterprise'' can 
respond with, ``greater speed and efficiency.''
    As we consider the Army's budget request for fiscal year 
2020, we should evaluate it in context of how the Army is 
transforming the modernization enterprise. Specifically, the 
Army is pursuing a new modernization strategy focused on six 
major modernization priorities: long-range precision fire, 
next-generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift, Army 
network, air and missile defense capabilities, and improved 
soldier lethality. To support this effort, the Army has 
established eight cross-functional teams (CFTs) designed to 
break down acquisition stovepipes and expeditiously field new 
weapon systems that align with the Army's modernization 
priorities. I'm sure we're going to be talking about that this 
afternoon.
    In conjunction with the creation of the CFTs, the Army 
established Army Futures Command (AFC) last summer to oversee 
all of these modernization efforts. The creation of Army 
Futures Command is a significant organizational change for the 
Army, as Secretary Esper testified last week. Army's Futures 
Command is, ``developing the systems needed to maintain 
battlefield overmatch in future conflicts.'' This committee 
will closely monitor Futures Command to see what impact it will 
have on acquisition culture within the Army and to ensure that 
civilian oversight of the acquisition process remains strong, 
given the new authorities provided to the AFC. I would--I'm 
going to be looking today for an update from our witnesses on 
the status of the standup of the Futures Command and when we 
can reasonably expect that it will show results improving the 
Army's modernization record.
    In addition to these organizational changes, the Army's 
prioritized funding in the fiscal year 2020 budget for critical 
programs and technologies necessary to prevail against our most 
capable adversaries. The Army's budget includes $12.2 billion 
for research, development, test, and evaluation accounts, with 
a focus on funding those efforts aligned under the Army's six 
modernization priorities. This includes funding for the 
development of a new attack reconnaissance aircraft and 
prototype contracts for the optionally-manned fighting vehicle, 
the OMFV, to replace the legacy Bradley vehicles.
    With regard to procurement, the budget requests a total of 
$25.2 billion in funding for critical programs, including 
upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank, procurement of AH-64E Apache 
helicopters, and the UH-60M Black Hawk--Patriot MSE missiles, 
in addition. I'd like our witnesses today to discuss how the 
Army is balancing investments in capabilities for the future 
fight while at the same time upgrading legacy platforms for 
current threats.
    Finally, resources are not unlimited, and the Army must 
prioritize investments and make tough budget choices. The Army 
has emphasized that, during the budget review process, existing 
programs were closely scrutinized, with a focus on prioritizing 
funding for those programs that have supported the Army's 
modernization priorities. I'm going to ask our witnesses today 
to provide additional details on that process, as well as any 
efforts the Army is taking to ameliorate negative impacts to 
our industrial-base partners.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I 
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
    Senator Cotton. General Ostrowski.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL A. OSTROWSKI, USA, 
  PRINCIPAL MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
 ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR 
                 OF THE ARMY ACQUISITION CORPS

    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Chairman Cotton, Ranking 
Member King, and distinguished Members of the Senate Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Airland, good afternoon. Thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 
Army's modernization priorities and the strategy, resources, 
and key programs needed to support them.
    I'm joined today by Lieutenant General Jim Pasquarette, the 
Army G-8, who will follow my remarks by laying out the path 
that the Army has taken to construct the fiscal year 2020 
budget request, including many tough decisions that our senior 
leaders have made to prioritize funding our Army's top six 
modernization priorities. Next, Lieutenant Jim Richardson, 
Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Futures 
Command, will update you on ongoing efforts by the Army's eight 
cross-functional teams and the 31 signature efforts that are 
aligned with our priorities.
    But, first, I'd like to begin by discussing the national 
security context. Our operating environment is changing 
rapidly, marked by an uncertainty and an increasing pace of 
events. While we spent more than 15 years focused on operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, other potential peer and near-peer 
competitors, such as Russia and China, have studied us closely. 
They have used those lessons learned to develop new approaches 
to conflict designed to exploit the gaps and seams within our 
military capabilities.
    For nearly two decades, the Army has deferred modernization 
in order to support continuous combat operations while still 
globally looking at the security environment and seeing that it 
has grown more competitive and volatile. Army leadership has 
recognized the need for fundamental change and reorganized our 
entire modernization enterprise for greater speed and 
efficiency.
    Last year, the Army made its most significant 
organizational restructure in over 40 years by establishing the 
Army Futures Command. For the first time, one Command is 
driving constant development, requirements determination, 
organizational design, science and technology research, and 
solution development. Army Futures Command is a critical player 
in the Army's Future Force Modernization Enterprise, or FFME, 
which describes the Army's expertise, organizations, and 
infrastructure for rapidly developing and delivering the future 
force. The FFME includes three primary organizations 
responsible for modernization: the Army Futures Command, 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Logistics, Acquisition, and 
Technology, and the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8. The key to the 
FFME is synchronization through inclusivity. I would be remiss 
if I did not thank you for all of your efforts to implement the 
acquisition system and changes associated with it.
    From a reform perspective, the Army continues to implement 
the past acquisition initiatives that Congress has authorized, 
such as section 804 middle-tier acquisition, from the Fiscal 
Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, other transaction 
authority, and the experimentation and prototyping of weapon-
system components. With the requisite level of acquisition 
authority, the Army is using these precious tools to accelerate 
selected efforts linked to the Army's modernization programs.
    Before I turn over to Lieutenant General Pasquarette, thank 
you again for this opportunity to discuss Army modernization 
and for your strong support of soldiers, Army civilians, and 
their families. We look forward to your questions.
    Senator Cotton. General Pasquarette.

 STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES F. PASQUAR- ETTE, USA, 
         DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-8, UNITED STATES ARMY

    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Chairman Cotton, Ranking 
Member King, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to speak about the fiscal year 2020 
Army modernization budget request.
    This year's budget request includes $34 billion of 
investments in Army equipment, $8.9 billion of which supports 
development of our next-generation modernization priorities 
overseen by Army Futures Command. You will find no daylight 
between the National Defense Strategy in the areas we are 
investing in to ensure the U.S. Army remains the dominant land 
force in the world for decades to come.
    In building the 2020 budget, the Secretary of the Army and 
the Chief of Staff recognized that future defense budgets would 
likely stay flat or potentially decline. So, rather than seek 
for an increase in Army top line, they chose to reprioritize 
from within the Army's projected resources to pay for near-term 
readiness and future modernization requirements. As I believe 
you know, the leadership personally reviewed over 500 programs 
as a part of the budget formulation process. Those programs 
that did not directly contribute to lethality of the force or 
were assessed as ineffective in the future operational 
environment against near-peer threats became a funding source. 
In the end, this process resulted in the elimination or 
reduction of over 180 programs and the reprioritization of over 
$30 billion across the 2024 Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) 
in favor of the Army modernization priorities. These 
investments in the budget request will provide the next-
generation capability the Nation's soldiers need to win in a 
potential future conflict against Russia or China.
    I'd like to stress that we are not walking away from our 
critical legacy systems. We cannot walk away from them, as we 
will be operating on them for many years to come. For example, 
the Army will continue significant investments in the Abrams, 
Black Hawk, and Stryker programs within this current request 
and throughout the FYDP.
    Let me close by saying that realization of our 
modernization objectives is highly dependent on what is in the 
Army's fiscal year 2020 budget request. The investments in this 
request complement and reinforce what was jumpstarted in the 
fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 budgets on which we thank 
Congress for their great support.
    Finally, with continued predictable, adequate, timely, and 
sustained funding, the United States Army will continue to be 
the best-equipped land force the world has ever known. I 
sincerely appreciate your time today, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    Thank you.
    Senator Cotton. General Richardson.

   STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES M. RICHARDSON, USA, 
   DEPUTY COMMANDER, ARMY FUTURES COMMAND, UNITED STATES ARMY

    Lieutenant General Richardson. Chairman Cotton, Ranking 
Member King, distinguished Members of the Airland Subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to have this conversation today. 
Thank you for your steadfast support and demonstrated 
commitment to our soldiers, civilians, and their family 
members.
    The United States Army is at a strategic inflection point. 
The Army must modernize now, because the United States has 
near-peer competitors for the first time since the Cold War. 
Army Futures Command was established to address this challenge 
through a unified and integrated approach to developing and 
delivering concepts, requirements, and future-force designs. 
The Command is posturing the Army for the future by setting the 
strategic direction, integrating the Future Force Modernization 
Enterprise, aligning resources to the modernization priorities, 
and maintaining accountability for the modernization solutions.
    The underpinning of these modernization capabilities and 
organizational structures is Multi-Domain Operations 2028, 
known by the acronym as MDO. This concept articulates how Army 
forces as part of the Joint Force will compete with and, if 
needed, defeat a near-peer adversary, as tasked in the National 
Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. In order 
to synchronize the capabilities, development, and 
organizational concepts that the Army will need to conduct MDO, 
the Army is developing a modernization strategy. The Army 
modernization strategy will design how the U.S. Army will 
modernize to become a multi-domain-capable force in 2028. 
However, we will need to streamline processes in order to 
succeed.
    We are also focusing on organizational and physical 
resources on a select group of programs linked directly to the 
Army's modernization priorities. AFC's eight cross-functional 
teams support the Army modernization priorities by integrating 
capability and requirements, acquisition, science and 
technology, test and evaluation, resourcing, and logistics on a 
single team led by a general officer or an SES. We already 
seeing progress from their efforts, to date. As early as this 
fall, new capabilities, like the soldier lethality CFT enhanced 
night-vision goggle--binocular--will be entering our Army 
formations. I am confident that Army forces will have the 
concepts, capabilities, and organizational structures they need 
to fulfill our mission on the Nation's behalf.
    Thank you again for this opportunity, and I am looking 
forward to your questions.
    [The joint prepared statement of Lieutenant General Paul A. 
Ostrowski, Lieutenant General James F. Pasquarette and 
Lieutenant General James M. Richardson follows:]

   Joint Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General Paul A. Ostrowski, 
Lieutenant General James F. Pasquarette and Lieutenant General James M. 
                               Richardson
                              introduction
    Chairman Cotton, Ranking Member King, distinguished Members of the 
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland, thank you for your 
steadfast support and demonstrated commitment to our soldiers, our 
civilians, and their families. On behalf of the Secretary of the Army, 
the Honorable Mark T. Esper, and the Army Chief of Staff, General Mark 
A. Milley, we thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 
and look forward to our discussion.
    A modern Army must be well-equipped. It must possess the most 
advanced, capable, reliable, and survivable weapon systems and 
equipment that will guarantee our soldiers a clear advantage in all 
future conflicts. Air and ground force modernization remains an urgent 
necessity. We must have an Army prepared for high-intensity conflict 
that is modernized to extend overmatch against near-peer adversaries. 
The Army must be trained to fight as part of the Joint Force alongside 
our allies and partners, and sustain the ability to conduct irregular 
warfare.
    For nearly two decades, the Army has deferred modernization in 
order to support continuous combat operations all while the global 
security environment has grown more competitive and volatile. Army 
leadership has recognized the need for fundamental change, and 
reorganized our entire modernization enterprise for greater speed and 
efficiency. Last year, the Army made its most significant 
organizational restructure in over 40 years by establishing the Army 
Futures Command (AFC). For the first time, one command is driving 
concept development, requirements determination, organizational design, 
science and technology research, and solution development. AFC is 
guided by a clear set of modernization priorities that emphasize rapid 
maneuver, overwhelming fires, tactical innovation, and mission command.
                       the strategic environment
    Today, our operating environment is changing rapidly, marked by 
uncertainty and an increasing pace of events. As the 2018 National 
Defense Strategy indicates, strategic competition between nation states 
now surpassing violent extremism as the central challenge to American 
prosperity and security. The NDS prioritizes China and Russia as the 
respective primary long-term and near-term threats for the United 
States Military.
    Both Russia and China have embarked on an energetic push to 
reestablish influence, security, buffer zones, and national prestige. 
This is occurring in real time today in places like Ukraine, Syria, and 
the South China Sea. While we spent more than 15 years focused on 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; Russia, China, and other potential 
adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, have studied us closely. They 
have used those lessons learned to develop new approaches to conflict 
designed to exploit the gaps and seams within our military 
capabilities.
    Russia, China, and other potential adversaries intend to use their 
weapons and tactics to deny us access to key geography in theaters of 
operation. To accomplish this, they have developed sophisticated anti-
access and area denial (A2/AD) systems, fires, cyber, electronic 
warfare, and space-based capabilities that generate layers of stand-off 
to disrupt the deployment of military forces, deny the build-up of 
combat power, and separate Joint Force and allied capabilities in time 
and space. By making it so difficult and costly for us to act, China 
and Russia are hopeful we will be deterred from even entering into a 
conflict and simply acquiesce to their strategic misbehavior.
    Their A2/AD strategy relies on new capabilities intended to provide 
overmatch against U.S. capabilities that we have allowed to age and 
atrophy or that we have chosen to divest due to obligations in support 
of counterinsurgency investments. While potential adversaries have 
modernized their forces, the U.S. Army has essentially missed an entire 
generation of modernization. Meanwhile, the military modernization 
enterprise has become a Gordian knot of laws, regulations, risk averse 
organizations, and byzantine bureaucratic processes. These processes--
along with overly ambitious requirements, technology immaturity, and 
scarce resources--have led to the delay and cancelation of new systems 
while incrementally modernizing existing systems at increasingly 
greater cost.
    As we look ahead, we must ensure that we have the right concepts, 
capabilities, and organizations to deter Russia, China, and any other 
rising powers from any potential aggression. Our concepts and 
capabilities must be fully integrated and built based on how we will 
fight, not on how we would like to fight. Additionally, we must do this 
while growing and maintaining our readiness to make sure we always 
retain the advantage. We must make it very clear that we can defeat A2/
AD, and it will neither stop us nor rip apart the fabric of our 
alliances.
    The Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) concept will inform our 
modernization effort. The MDO Concept details how the Army, as part of 
the joint force, continuously and rapidly integrates cross-domain 
capabilities to defeat an adversary's efforts to create stand-off. Army 
forces, as an element of the Joint Force, conduct MDO to prevail in 
competition. Specifically, Army forces penetrate and disintegrate enemy 
anti-access and area denial systems, exploit the resultant freedom of 
maneuver to achieve strategic objectives, and force a return to 
competition on favorable terms.
                         modernizing the force
    The Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) 1.5 will describe how the 
U.S. Army will modernize in order to become a multi-domain capable 
force by 2028. This strategy outlines the ends, ways, and means for 
modernizing our Army to win future wars directly supporting the NDS 
line of effort ``Build a More Lethal Force'' and the Third Pillar of 
the 2017 National Security Strategy, ``Preserve Peace through 
Strength.''
    The Army has identified six enduring Modernization Priorities and 
is laser-focused on regaining superiority over our peer and near-peer 
competitors. The Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) President's Budget Request is 
the first budget in decades to begin to fully fund our modernization 
priorities. The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $8.9 billion to 
support the Army's Modernization Priorities, which represents a $3.9 
billion increase over the fiscal year 2019 enacted level. Across the 
Future Years Defense Program (fiscal year 2020-24), we are committed to 
investing a total of $51.7 billion to support the six Modernization 
Priorities. We are significantly increasing investment in our 
priorities to escalate the pace of technological development in areas 
where we face the greatest capability shortfalls. We must aggressively 
pursue these initiatives in fiscal year 2020 in order to start fielding 
the next generation of combat vehicles, aerial platforms and weapon 
systems by 2028, the timeframe we anticipate Russia will realize its 
modernization goals. The fiscal year 2020 Budget includes:

      Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF)--requests $1.3 billion 
for prototyping and initial fielding; improving range and lethality of 
cannon artillery and increasing missile capabilities. Includes funding 
for:
        Hypersonic systems by 2023 to stay ahead of recent 
Russian and Chinese advances and put their forces at risk from a 
distance; Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) provides increased range, 
lethality, pod capacity, and survivability.
        An Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) with the 
capability to fire artillery up to 70 kilometers, with more precision 
and volume than current systems;
        A strategic long-range cannon with a range that will 
exceed 1,000 miles.

      Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV)--requests 
approximately $2 billion to deliver the next generation of combat 
vehicles with greater firepower, mobility and protection than our 
current fleet. Includes funding for:
        An optionally manned fighting platform that maneuvers 
soldiers to a point of positional advantage to engage in close combat 
and deliver decisive lethality;
        Robotic combat vehicle variants to enhance our future 
force's ability to deliver decisive lethality, increased situational 
awareness, and formation overmatch.

      Future Vertical Lift (FVL)--requests approaching $800 
million to develop initial designs of manned systems and demonstrate 
unmanned systems with extended range, endurance and lifting capacity. 
Includes funding for:
        A future attack reconnaissance aircraft (FARA) that 
will include sensor and network packages that can coordinate with other 
aerial, long range precision fire, and ground platforms--optionally 
manned.
        A future long range assault aircraft (FLRAA) that can 
fly at 250-280 knots and operate in a degraded visual environment--
optionally manned;

      Army Network--requests almost $2.3 billion to build an 
integrated tactical network that supports continuous integration of 
combined arms and Joint capabilities. Includes funding for:
        A unified and resilient network effective in the most 
challenging contested and congested environments that leverages 
commercial satellites and has the capability to survive in a near-peer 
fight while providing direct support for our brigade combat teams.
        Assured Position Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) systems 
work to overpower, navigate through, and mitigate jamming to ensure our 
warfighters overmatch threats in an electronically contested 
environment.

      Air and Missile Defense (AMD)--requests approximately 
$1.4 billion to deliver initial capabilities that protect joint 
operations against adversary aircraft, missiles and drones. Includes 
funding to:
        Revitalize our atrophied mobile short range air defense 
to emerging near-peer capabilities in the MDO environment. This 
includes both theater systems and short range air defense.
        Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) provides 
protection of fixed and semi-fixed sites from unmanned aerial systems 
(UAS); cruise missiles (CM); and rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) 
projectiles.

      Soldier lethality requests approximately $1.2 billion to 
rapidly improve the individual lethality of the Close Combat Force by 
treating the soldier/squad as integrated combat platform. Includes 
funding for:
        Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) with a 
heads-up display, which will provide augmented reality, digitally fused 
thermal and image intensifying capabilities, and synthetic training 
environment which will ultimately change how our soldiers train, 
rehearse and fight on the battlefield.
        Synthetic Training Environment (STE) will converge our 
current Live, Virtual, Gaming, and Constructive environment into a 
single simulation training environment that will provide common global 
terrain established through common data within an open architecture and 
common application programming interfaces.
        Next generation squad weapon (NGSW), which includes 
both an automatic weapon and rifle that leap ahead from a World War II 
physics design, extending range and capability at target with the most 
capable small caliber weapon and ammunition to achieve overmatch 
against current and future adversaries.

    Under AFC, there are eight Cross-Functional Teams (CFTs) focused on 
31 signature systems. Six of the CFTs are aligned to each Army 
Modernization Priority plus two additional CFTs are aligned to A-PNT 
and STE. The CFTs are resourced and empowered to rapidly generate cost-
efficient capabilities that ensure overmatch against potential 
adversary capabilities, and can be rapidly fielded to warfighters.
                             the enterprise
    The Army's Future Force Modernization Enterprise, or FFME, 
describes the Army's expertise, organizations, and infrastructure for 
rapidly developing and delivering the future force. Its responsibility 
spans from identification of future threats and opportunities all the 
way to first unit equipped. The FFME includes three primary 
organizations responsible for modernization: AFC; the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 
(ASA(ALT)); and the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8 (DCS, G-8). 
However, FFME also extends to Army Commands, such as the U.S. Army 
Training and Doctrine Command and the U.S. Army Materiel Command; the 
Department of Defense and Joint community; and to external partners 
across industry, academia, and others.
    The key to the FFME is synchronization through inclusivity. Each of 
the organizations is focused on a particular portion of modernization, 
enabling them to focus resources and expertise together, while reducing 
redundancy. The FFME makes use of one of the ``principles of war''--
unity of effort--to largely eliminate bureaucratic infighting.
    The FFME unity of effort drives a process of early teaming between 
requirements development, Research and Development, Test and 
Evaluation, and acquisition communities to support rapid innovation 
through soldier touchpoints, demonstrations, prototyping, 
experimentation, and analysis. This process is designed to build 
velocity for validated requirements, to reduce the challenge of 
technology transition through the ``valley of death,'' and to support 
seamless progression into the acquisition life-cycle.
    The process works like this: AFC creates concepts for how Army 
forces will fight in the future. AFC then experiments to inform 
requirements. While not all initiatives need to be prototyped, once an 
initiative is mature enough, ASA(ALT) acquires and fields it. The Army 
DCS, G-8 matches resources to these requirements, based on Army 
strategic plans and Army concepts. Together, these organizations usher 
lethal, modern capabilities and formations from conceptual idea to a 
fielded reality in soldiers' hands.
    AFC's directorates bring together organizations that were 
previously scattered across the force, with little coordination. All of 
the Army's organizations that have a role in future studies, concepts 
development, capabilities development, experimentation, testing, and 
prototyping will work together in a coordinated effort. By bringing 
unity of effort and unity of command, AFC provides the same 
synchronization to these organizations that the FFME provides to the 
Army writ large.
    ASA(ALT) will continue its supervision of the Department of the 
Army's acquisition, logistics, and technology efforts. The Army 
Acquisition Executive retains his authority and responsibility for Army 
Acquisition to deliver capability to soldiers in order to achieve the 
modernization priorities and requirements as identified by AFC. In 
addition, ASA(ALT) continues to provide policy guidance and identify 
ways to streamline and improve acquisition processes, and maintains 
responsibility of training, educating and managing the Army acquisition 
workforce to deliver the right capability, at the right time, at an 
acceptable cost.
    This unity of effort will enable the Army to utilize our world-
class military and civilian workforce, incorporate constant soldier 
input, and then partner with innovative industries, entrepreneurs, 
academics, scientists, and engineers. That is how we will imagine, 
test, and build the capabilities future soldiers will need.
    The Army continues to implement the past acquisition reform 
initiatives that Congress has authorized such as Section 804 Middle 
Tier Acquisition (MTA) from the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense 
Authorization Act, Other Transaction Authority (OTA), and the 
prototyping of weapons systems components. With the requisite level of 
acquisition authority, the Army is using section 804 to accelerate 
select efforts linked to the Army's Modernization Priorities. Examples 
of these efforts include: ERCA, IVAS, Lower Tier Air and Missile 
Defense Sensor, NGCV, NGSW, Mobile Protective Firepower, Rapid Opioid 
Countermeasures System, and Standoff Activated Volcano Obstacle.
                               conclusion
    In summary, Army Modernization is driven by the impetus of 
increasingly capable near-peer competitors with advanced A2/AD 
capabilities. Our past focus on equipping for the near-term at the 
expense of preparing for the future will no longer suffice. Today's 
Army Modernization efforts are linked directly to challenges outlined 
in the NDS, and are focused on the enduring Army Modernization 
Priorities.
    Army senior leader emphasis is enabling the FFME. AFC, ASA(ALT), 
and DCS, G-8--are working together in a new way, leveraging authorities 
derived from Congress to improve the way we do business to free up 
resources that will make the Total Army more lethal, capable, and 
efficient. This extends to subordinate organizations within the FFME, 
such as the CFTs.
    The Army is moving quickly to address modernization shortfalls in 
process, resourcing, and output--and we are seeing results. Time is not 
on our side. With continued support from Congress, including 
predictable, adequate, sustained, and timely funding, the Army will 
build a force ready to deter potential adversaries. If deterrence fails 
we will be able to rapidly deploy, fight, and win as part of the Joint 
Force.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss Army Modernization 
and for your strong support of our soldiers, Army civilians, and their 
families. We look forward to your questions.

    Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen.
    General Richardson, let's stick with you. You know, 
sometimes we can get a little abstract and use too much jargon 
on this committee or in the Department of Defense. Let's just 
be concrete here about the threat we face. Over the last 18 
years, we've been fighting counterinsurgency, lower-intensity 
kinds of wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily, 
and also in nearby countries with related threats, like Syria 
or Somalia or what have you. While that's been happening, 
Russia and China have stolen the march on us, is that correct? 
In systems like artillery, armor, air defense, artillery, 
electronic warfare, and so forth?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Cotton. To what extent do those specific threats, 
not abstractions like near-great-power--or near-peer 
competition or great-power competition, but those specific 
threats, Russia and China, factor into the Army's thinking and 
priorities in its modernization strategy?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Sir, as we look at our 
potential adversaries and look at what their intentions are, 
to--one, to deny us access of geographical--their geographical 
theater of operations and develop sophisticated anti-access/
denial systems, such as radars, long-range precision fires, 
they have generated layers of defense and layers of standoff. 
Our modernization priorities, and specifically our 
modernization efforts, are geared and prioritized to defeat 
that standoff.
    You mentioned long-range precision fires. We have 
prioritized our long-range precision fires and strategic, 
operational, and tactical fires to suppress that formation. As 
well, we have focused our efforts in our non--next-generation 
combat vehicle to penetrate, as well. So, all of our efforts 
are threat-based, MDO, in line with our modernization 
priorities and our modernization efforts.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Two other kinds of threats that we might face, specifically 
Army threats, would be North Korea and Iran. Is there any 
modernization effort that the Army would want to undertake to 
counteract that kind of threat that is not already part of its 
modernization strategy to counteract the threat of Russia and 
China?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Sir, I think we are 
focused--with our modernization priorities and our 
modernization efforts, it will counter those threats. What 
comes to mind is air and missile defense, our number-four 
priority within the Army that's fully funded. Our air and 
missile defense is focused at the strategic and operational 
level to defeat those incoming threats, as well as at the 
tactical level to protect our formations.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    General Ostrowski, long-range precision fires is your top 
modernization effort priority. Is that correct?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
    Senator Cotton. I was looking through some of the briefing 
material that y'all sent ahead. Could you tell me what you plan 
to extend the range of the precision strike missile 2 at this 
date?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, as you know, currently 
we are under the INF Treaty and are limited to 499 kilometers. 
We----
    Senator Cotton. Okay. So, can I----
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski.--have the----
    Senator Cotton.--can I stop right there?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cotton. Four hundred and ninety-nine kilometers 
drives me up a wall. The INF Treaty is dead. It is not coming 
back. I hope that we have a plan to modernize our long-range 
precision-strike capabilities based on the threat that we face 
from countries like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China, 
without regard to a dead treaty. Do we?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Mr. Chairman, I assure you 
that we do. We have worked with industry, and we have that 
capability today.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you very much.
    General Pasquarette, obviously, to pay for a lot of these 
modernization efforts, there's been a lot of eliminations, 
reductions, or delays of various programs. I think the exact 
number is 186 different programs. I suspect we'll probably get 
into some of those specific items either in this Subcommittee 
or in the full committee. I know that there'll be a lot of 
Senators and Congressmen with, perhaps, some home state or home 
district interest in them. But, rather than getting into those 
specific items at this moment, could you talk, as a general 
matter, about the underlying analysis that went into those 
conclusions, and how the Army reached the conclusions, how they 
communicated them to the various stakeholders, whether the 
companies that make those systems, the districts and the states 
where those systems are made, that sort of thing?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The----
    Senator Cotton. Turn your microphone on, please.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Thank you. Rookie mistake, 
there.
    Yes, thanks for the question. There was analysis that was 
applied as we reviewed the programs by--with the Army's senior 
leadership. And, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we 
looked at lethality, which is highlighted in the NDS. If a 
program did not meet the lethality mark, it was considered a 
billpayer. We also looked at its ability to operate in 2028, 
when we want to be ready for potential conflict with Russia and 
China. And, if it didn't meet the mark there, again, it became 
a source. And finally, we looked at large programs, where there 
was a lot of dollars parked, that we feel--felt we could 
stretch out and delay within this program, within acceptable 
risk, and then move those dollars against the modernization 
priorities. So, that was the analysis that was applied in this 
program by our senior leadership, and it was the ruthless 
application--or, the application of ruthless prioritization, is 
the quote from our Secretary.
    Senator Cotton. Okay. Well, thank you all for that. I want 
to commend you, just like I commended the Secretary and the 
Chief last week, on all the work that went into that. No one 
has to agree with all 186 items to understand the rigorous 
thought that went into them, and to appreciate the Army 
responding to Congress' directive over the years to begin to 
focus on badly needed modernization efforts.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    I want to follow up and also compliment you for starting 
with a rigorous analysis of existing programs rather than just 
a request for new money. And I--one specific question. What was 
the total amount of the savings that you found in order to 
apply to the modernization effort?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Well, I can talk--across 
the program, Senator, it was--we reallocated over $30 billion 
in the 2024 FYDP. We--in--$8.9 of that, in 2020, that we moved 
around. So, we had $5 billion in the modernization priorities 
in fiscal year 2019, and it's increased to 8.9 billion here in 
fiscal year 2020, for a comparison.
    Senator King. Well, again, I want to compliment you on the 
process. I know that wasn't easy, there'll be a lot of 
discussion about it here. But, that's significant money, and I 
think that's an impressive effort.
    Lessons learned in that analysis? Did it lead you to 
thinking about other programs and to looking wider? This was 
a--this was an important exercise.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. You know, when we went 
through it, the Secretary has charged me--he says, ``I know we 
went through this, and we've taken some risk.'' As we were 
going through the current program, the--or the budget that 
we're building now, or the program in 2021 to 2025, he has 
asked us to come back, reassess it. Maybe the--there was--we 
maybe reached too far--and readdress that, or tee up options 
with further analysis.
    So, we believe, in most every case, it was acceptable risk. 
There's one or two issues, as we're going through with the 
Secretary and the Chief this time around, where we're looking 
at addressing or maybe we bit off a little more than we might 
have, to get it back to acceptable level of risk.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Where are we on the Army Futures Command standup? How many 
slots have been filled, out of how many do you anticipate? Do 
you have space? Where is that process?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Sir, we're constantly 
building capacity, every single day. Army Futures Command has 
occupied a building at the University of Texas system in 
Austin, Texas. We have a cap of 500, both civilians and 
military. We're sitting at approximately 40-percent strength of 
our headquarters staff right now. Our FOC, our fully-
operational capability, will be in the end of July. We have 
made a number of moves with our subordinate organizations. 
After standing up in September, where we cut the ribbon, we 
immediately brought the eight cross-functional teams underneath 
the organization.
    Senator King. Are these people being moved from other parts 
of the enterprise across the country?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. No one is being moved, sir. 
The eight cross-functional teams are located in their location. 
We brought our Army research and development----
    Senator King. So, the cross-functional teams are not in 
Austin.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. No, sir.
    Senator King. Is that what you're saying?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. The cross-functional teams 
are located all over the United States. We have--in the NGCV, 
in Detroit, Michigan. Our air and missile defense, as well as 
our long-range precision fires, is located at Fort Sill, 
Oklahoma. Our position, navigation, and timing, and future 
vertical lift cross-functional team is in Huntsville, Alabama. 
The network CFT is in Aberdeen Proving Grounds. As well, our 
STE [synthetic training equipment] CFT is now in Orlando, 
Florida. Everybody--no one moved. The only people that moved 
and are coming to the headquarters are the 500 people who are 
coming to Austin to occupy those positions up in the 
headquarters.
    Senator King. Are they principally coming from Washington, 
from----
    Lieutenant General Richardson. No, sir. We're hiring from 
all over the United States. We're hiring----
    Senator King. So, these are new hires.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. These are all new hires, 
sir.
    Senator King. Civilian and bringing in military----
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Yes, sir. Approximately 400 
civilians will occupy the headquarters, and 100 military. We 
want a very lean organization that's agile and adapted to 
better support the future-force modernization effort.
    Senator King. I'm running out of time, and I'm--we'll have 
time to return to this question. But, turning to development of 
new systems, new weapons, new platforms, I mean, that's really 
what we're talking about here. One of my concerns is small 
businesses. We've had testimony before the full committee, for 
example, that Silicon Valley doesn't want to do business with 
the Pentagon. It's too complicated, too burdensome, too 
lengthy. Are you aware of this issue and problem? What are we 
doing to address it?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. We absolutely are, Senator. 
We have actually stood up an organization called our Army 
Applications Lab--Laboratory in Austin that specifically 
focuses on the small business area, focused on those small 
companies that can bring technologies to bear. That's one of 
our organizations. As well, we track our Research and 
Development Command that's reaching out to small business in 
our S&T environment, as well. So, a big emphasis--and being in 
Austin has placed an emphasis on small business, and 
specifically those young entrepreneurs that bring technology to 
the Army that we would otherwise not have seen.
    Senator King. Thank you. My time is expired. We'll come 
back to some of those questions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Scott.
    Senator Scott. First off, thanks for your service.
    What--how important are allies, going forward? How do you 
think about the relationship with allies, and how do you work 
with them, and are they investing dollars, and things like 
that?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Senator, our allies are 
extremely important. I have met with a majority--I would 
probably say 20 countries, their general officers, with a big 
focus on the--on our Five Eyes partners. Those countries are 
going to be colocated in Army Futures Command. We're going to 
have Law & Order (L&O) representatives within the Command. We 
already have, and have started putting some of their officers 
and noncommissioned officers in our cross-functional teams.
    Interoperability is huge for our Army. We fight as a 
coalition, and we fight as joint partners. And it's been one of 
General Murray's top priorities, to ensure that we're 
interoperable, not only across the Joint Force, but our 
coalition forces.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. If I could just follow up 
on that. It's one of the three tenets of both the National 
Defense Strategy and our Army strategy, Senator, is the 
importance of allies and partners. And so, we have a robust 
exercise program in both Europe and INDOPACOM, our two focus 
theaters, where--that help us deepen those bonds. We believe 
it's making a big difference, and we believe, in the future, 
it's our way of countering the two threats we've been talking 
about here today, Russia and China.
    Senator Scott. Do we have--who are our allies in South 
America?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. We have partners in South 
America. I'm not sure if we actually have an alliance with 
anybody in South America. I'm familiar with the Pacific more 
specifically, and NATO, but I don't know if we actually have an 
alliance by using the technical term. We surely have partners 
down there through our U.S. Southern Command and our Army 
service component.
    Senator Scott. Are they--aren't the--are any of the 
countries in South America investing in their armed services?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. I really--little bit out of 
my lane. I'm not--I'd love to come back and get you that 
information, Senator.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Allies are a select group 
of countries with whom the United States has committed to 
pursue long-term goals, usually related to mutual defense. To 
be an Ally, the relevant treaty requires a commitment to come 
to the defense of the other country. Based on the definition, 
the United States has no Allies in South America. A Partner is 
any country with whom the United States engages in practical 
cooperation to advance mutual interests, often related to 
securing U.S. access to territory, infrastructure, information, 
and resources, and/or to build and apply their capacity and 
capabilities consistent with U.S. defense objectives. American 
partners in South America are: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Guyana and 
Suriname. Countries not considered Partners are Bolivia and 
Venezuela. South American countries that are investing in their 
armed services include: Brazil, Columbia, Chile, Argentina, 
Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Suriname, Uruguay, and 
Paraguay.

    Senator Scott. All right. What threats do you foresee in 
South America, in that area? Do you see many threats? We have 
Cuba, we have Venezuela.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. You know, I think, again, 
U.S. Southern Command is best suited to answer that.
    Senator Scott. Okay.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. We--there's always the drug 
issue that has been--the military's been a part of that in the 
past. But, I really am a little light on to be able to talk 
about the threat in that part of the world.
    Senator Scott. All right. Thanks.
    Thank you.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Jones.
    Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today.
    One of the things that I've been particularly interested in 
is the air and missile defense modernization priority. The 
budget requests $228 million for land-based hypersonic missile 
prototyping, which will go through the Army Space and Missile 
Defense Command, Redstone Arsenal, in Huntsville. But, also, 
the Air Force and the Navy are doing some work in the field 
hypersonics, as well. So, this I'll ask just generally of the 
panels. What steps are the services taking to ensure that 
they're creating compatible and interoperable technologies and 
avoiding duplication of effort?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Well, I'll start, Senator, 
and perhaps Paul or--may have some thoughts.
    This was worked last fall during program review with Office 
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and these decisions about 
which service would pursue which programs in hypersonics. The 
Army and the Navy are working together with a booster, a 34-
and-a-half-inch booster with a similar glide body, ones--
they're shot out of a submarine. Ours will be a land-based--a 
mobile launcher. And so, there is jointness in this, and 
efficiencies, just through that means, based on OSD guidance.
    We do believe there's a requirement for multiple different 
types of systems to put our adversaries at a dilemma, that they 
can't expect it from just one domain. And internal to the Army, 
we're looking at the most efficient way to do this within the 
various missiles that we've been tasked by OSD and that we're 
developing within our own means.
    So, there is--it's a new technology, and I think OSD is 
looking to reinforce this across joint lines, and manage it 
closely so we don't have that--inefficiencies that you talked 
about.
    Senator Jones. Great.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Paul, do you have any----
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Senator, I would just add 
that there's a tri-service memorandum agreement with respect to 
all the services on this, and our service secretaries serve on 
the board to ensure that each service is represented. And, in 
accordance with what Jim said, the bottom line is, we are in 
charge--the Army's in charge of the common glide body for all 
three of the services, and we are in the process of developing 
that. And, from the land-based perspective, we are in the 
process of being able to now--between now and 2023, we'll be 
testing our--not only the 50-inch, which is the current booster 
that's been shot before, but also the 34-and-a-half-inch. So, 
between now and 2023, we'll be--have six shots working with 
this particular system.
    Senator Jones. All right. Great. Thank you.
    General Pasquarette, the Army's unfunded requirements list 
includes $75 million for the future vertical lift, which, of 
course, is one of the six, you know, modernization priorities. 
Is that funding for capability set 3 or for something else? Do 
you know?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. So, I could take that----
    Senator Jones. Okay.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski.--if I could. The bottom line, 
sir, it is for capability set 3. What we realized was the fact 
that we could accelerate the future long-range assault 
aircraft, based on the process--what we went through with the 
joint multi role, where we had two competitors that the Army 
funded, as well as the companies themselves funded, whether it 
would be Bell-Textron or whether it be Boeing, Lockheed Martin, 
and Sikorsky. And, as you know, sir, both of those aircraft are 
now flying. So, we knew that we had the ability to move faster 
than what we had originally planned, so we've been able to 
condense that a little bit.
    Now, while the acquisition decision is still in Ms. Lord's 
hand--Honorable Lord's hands--the bottom line for the Army is, 
we're going to represent a strategy to her--an acquisition 
strategy to go after a nondevelopmental-item approach, which 
will speed up that acquisition so that we can get to a down-
select by 2022 in order to bring about a capability by fiscal 
year 2030.
    Senator Jones. Great.
    Can--I would like to just expand on that a little bit and 
talk about--and this is mainly just for the record, here--the 
significance of this project to the Army's mission, as set 
forth in the NDS. Anybody can answer that, but I'd like to just 
get that out for the record.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Yes, Senator, the 
significant--of future vertical lift is absolutely huge for the 
United States Army. We're coming at going after two aircraft. 
Producing two aircraft, both the attack reconnaissance version 
as well as the replacement for the Black Hawk assault version, 
at once is an undertaking, but it's something that we have done 
before. We did it with the Black Hawk and the Apache. What this 
capability will do will give us the range, the speed, and the 
survivability we have never had before. When you look at the 
speed of these helicopters, a UH-60 travels at 120 knots. We're 
looking--the replacement for that aircraft, at a minimum, to 
travel 250 knots, with ranges to air assault our forces out to 
200 nautical miles. This will not only increase our capability, 
but it will increase our survivability, as well at that speed. 
And we've been doing a lot of modeling and simulation with what 
we're doing, and we're having very, very positive results. So, 
we're looking forward to the future vertical lift aircraft, 
both from an attack reconnaissance perspective as well as an 
assault perspective.
    Senator Jones. Great. Well, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Peters.
    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My first question is for you, General Richardson. You know, 
in Michigan we're very proud to host the cross-functional team 
for the next-generation combat vehicle, which I know is the 
Army's number-two modernization priority. Certainly, the Army 
benefits from its location in Warren, Michigan, which is at the 
very heart of the auto industry and some exciting technologies 
that are coming out of our area, in terms of automation, self-
driving vehicles, which will transform not only the civilian 
auto market, but will also be transformative for military 
applications, as well.
    But, my question is--I'd like to get a better understanding 
of how the cross-functional team is going to interact with the 
headquarters, with AFC headquarters, and what it means for our 
stakeholders in the industrial base in Michigan, which is 
extensive. So, if my--and the reason I bring that up is that I 
understand that a robotic combat vehicle tech demo was 
scheduled for next month. It was originally going to be held in 
Camp Grayling, which is the National Guard base in Michigan, 
just north of--by a couple--3 hours north of Warren, an 
extensive maneuver area. But, it was moved to Byron, Texas, 
instead, which is not particularly close to Michigan compared 
to the National Guard base. It's concerning to some of the 
folks in the industrial base, because, here, you're moving a 
test away from where all of that activity is actually located.
    My question is, How should we expect the headquarters to 
interact with the cross-functional team? Who's ultimately 
making the decisions as it relates to modernization priorities 
like the next-generation combat vehicle?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Thank you for the question, 
Senator.
    The answer to your question--I will tell you that the 
cross-functional team and Detroit all working together with our 
program executive officers (PEO) brothers, acquisition 
officers, our science and technology community, contracting, 
the CFT--all are working together in Austin--I mean, in 
Detroit--has made a huge difference. We just recently released 
the request for proposals (RFP) for the next operationally-
manned fighting vehicle. Working with the industry, that team 
has had over 20 engagements with industry to ensure that our 
requirements are right and adjusted. As--and you spoke of the 
remote-control vehicle. Something that we learned with FCS or 
the other combat vehicles is that we wrote requirements, 
really, in a stovepipe. We wrote requirements, long ago, that 
did not consider the technology that exists today, or where we 
were going--what was technologically achievable for the future. 
This team, working together, are conducting experiments, one in 
2020, one in 2022 and 2023. They're designing and building 
these remote-control vehicles to learn, to inform the 
requirements of where we're going for tomorrow.
    As you talked about testing, sir, I'll have to get back to 
you why it moved, but I can tell you that what we're focused on 
in testing, and what we've learned, is, you have to have 
soldiers in the loop during the design, during the build phase, 
and during the test phase. The next-generation combat vehicle, 
CFT and all the members associated with it have a close 
relationship with 3rd United States Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. 
FORCECOM has dedicated a unit to that CFT to support its 
production of this equipment. That may be one of the reasons, 
but I need to get back with you on the specific reason why it 
moved. I don't have that answer, but I will get back with you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Richardson. The NGCV Robotic Combat 
Vehicle demonstration was moved to Texas to capitalize on the 
habitual relationship between the NGCV CFT and U.S. Army's 3rd 
Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. Future NGCV demonstrations will 
resume in Michigan and other locations that best serve Army 
Modernization efforts.

    Senator Peters. Well, I'd appreciate it. It's informative 
just so we have a better sense of how that decisionmaking 
process is. Obviously, we want to make sure that the reason why 
that facility was located there is because it's close to all of 
the resources that you mentioned are necessary in order to 
modernize and achieve the priority that you have set for the 
next-generation combat vehicle. So, I'd appreciate that, 
General.
    Now, in the--I have not a lot of time left, but I 
understand that the Army is also testing multiple systems to 
add additive--or, I should say, active protection system for 
the Stryker, General. I was told that we were going to hear, by 
the end of this quarter, as to where the testing was, and a 
finalist. I'm not aware that a vendor has been selected or 
occurred. So, if you could give us some sense of what we're 
looking at when it comes to active protection system, where--is 
there a new timeline now for us to understand what will happen 
next?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. As you already 
know, we've made a nondevelopmental-item approach to combat 
systems such as this, in terms of the active protection piece, 
with the Trophy on the Abrams tank and then, in terms of the 
Bradley, the Iron Fist system. Right now, we didn't do as well 
with respect to artists and their version of what we call Iron 
Curtain with the Stryker. So, we went back out to industry and 
asked industry to come back to us with their ideas as to how we 
could protect the Stryker vehicle, in terms of a 
nondevelopmental-item approach to armor protection systems. We 
have two companies that are joined to--that are in the process 
of competing for that. One is a venture between the company 
I'll call EDS, as well as Rafeal. So, DRS--I'm sorry--DRS and 
Rafeal--and the other one is Rheinmetall and UBT, have 
partnered, as well. So, we're in the process of evaluating 
their systems as they build those and we get them the vehicles. 
So, we will be in the process of going through that. It's going 
to take about a year, quite frankly, in order to put those 
systems on the vehicles, characterize them, and make a 
determination as to whether or not to move forward with either 
one of the two vendors, sir.
    Senator Peters. So, are you saying the new deadline is a 
year from now?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. What I'm saying, sir, is, we 
are in the process now of working with those two partnered 
companies, and the--they are in the process of--in terms of--
what they offered us before was blueprints and a build. So, 
they're in the process of doing that build. Once the build is 
put on the vehicle, then it's a matter of testing that in order 
to ensure that it works. And so, that whole process, from when 
we started, this several months ago, until the final product of 
a determination, it will take about a year. That's been the 
average with respect to the Trophy, and it was the average with 
respect to the Iron Fist, on Bradley.
    Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
    Senator Cotton. All right, gentlemen, round two.
    Let's stick with the NGCV; specifically, the optionally-
manned fighting vehicle (OMFV).
    Before I go into that, I think I'm going to make a point 
that I made last week with Secretary Esper and the Chief. So, 
you have something called the NGCV OMFV. I hope the Army has 
plans to give all of these new systems cool names that soldiers 
want to use and ride in. General Ostrowski?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I would--I believe that 
the Chief of Staff of the Army answered back with a couple of 
Senators' names, as a matter of fact, on that particular 
question.
    [Laughter.]
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. I think he even used yours, 
as well, Mr. Chairman. But, the----
    Senator Cotton. Flattery is not needed.
    [Laughter.]
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cotton. Although it's always appreciated.
    [Laughter.]
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Always, sir.
    I would tell you, sir, that that would be, obviously, what 
the Army does.
    Senator Cotton. No, you're good. No one wants to ride 
around in an NGCV. They want to ride around in a Bradley or 
maybe an Eisenhower, Sheridan.
    But, on a more serious note, obviously the optionally-
manned fighting vehicle is basic--it's designed to replace our 
Bradley, right? Armored personnel carrier? Is its main purpose 
still to get an infantry into the fight?
    General Richardson, I see you nodding----
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Absolutely, sir.
    Senator Cotton. Okay. How many original equipment 
manufacturers are you anticipating will bid on that contract?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Sir, we believe there'll be 
between three and five original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 
competing on that. They've had 12 industry days, up to this 
point. We believe the outcome will be very positive. We believe 
we'll get a fair price for a great vehicle.
    Senator Cotton. Well, it's good to hear that you're going 
to have serious competition on it.
    Let's move on to those infantrymen in the back of the OMFV, 
or the Ike, or whatever it's going to be called in the long 
term. The soldier lethality cross-functional team is working on 
both a new rifle and a new SAW, squad automatic weapon. Can you 
tell us how that is going?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I can. We put out the 
solicitation. At this point in time, we expect competitors to 
bring in their prototypes for both weapon systems in the month 
of May. We'll begin the evaluation process and select down--
down-select down to three in the month of July of this year. 
Following that, we'll run those three weapon systems--again, 
both a rifle and an automatic rifle--through their paces, for a 
down-select the first quarter of 2021. We'll be fully--we'll be 
fielding in the fourth quarter of 2021. So, the biggest points 
are first quarter 2021, down-select to one; and then, by the 
fourth quarter of two, we'll be in the process of fielding.
    Senator Cotton. What are the key features that you 
anticipate both of those weapons having, relative to the 
current M-4 and M-249?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The bottom line, sir, is the 
ability to address a threat of a peer or near-peer competitor. 
The current weapon systems that we have are okay in the fight, 
with respect to the war that we're currently in, in both Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The issue runs deeper, though, with respect to 
a peer or near-peer threat and their ability for individual 
protection that they have. What these weapon systems are 
designed to do is be able to reach out to greater ranges and 
have the penetrating power necessary in order to defeat threats 
at those ranges.
    Senator Cotton. That means they're going to have a bigger 
round, right?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. The intent is a 
6.8, which we will provide the actual projectile, they will 
provide the common cartridge. So, in other words, whether it's 
a--one that you see today, in terms of a brass cartridge, or 
whether it be a different type of cartridge, we are the ones 
that are going to provide them with the bullet, and they build 
their cartridge around that.
    Senator Cotton. What does that mean for the weight of those 
weapon systems compared to the current M-4 and M-249?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. The intent of the 
rounds that we have is to push them towards keeping it the same 
weight constraints as the 5.56. So, polymer casings, for 
instance. Case telescopes, for instance. These are new and 
innovative ways that industry has been working in order to try 
to make sure that the rounds are not much heavier, if heavier 
at all, than the current 5.56 rounds that we carry today.
    Senator Cotton. And to, again, just put it in layman's 
terms, this is all designed to shoot through the enemy's body 
armor?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That's correct, sir. At 
range.
    Senator Cotton. Okay. Any--what are the challenges you 
anticipate for the logistics system, making that change from 
the current 5.56 caliber?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. I expect very little, 
Senator. The reason is because of the fact that we are not 
going to issue this across the entire Army. These go to the top 
100 that are--100,000, actually, that are in the close fight 
with the threat. And so, we have the ability today. We use 
7.62, we use 5.56. Entering the 6.8 into this will not be an 
issue whatsoever, in terms of the logistics piece. Will it take 
a little bit of time to get it in? Yes, it will. But, it should 
not be an issue, just based on the fact that we're not issuing 
this to the whole 1-million-man Army.
    Senator Peters. Okay.
    Thank you, gentlemen.
    Senator Blumenthal?
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I am interested in the--and I appreciate your service and 
your being here today--the UH-60 modernization recapitalization 
program. The Army National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet, 
as you well know, continues to age, many units operating 
aircraft that are more than 25 years old. The Army's Black Hawk 
recapitalization efforts are extremely important to the Active, 
Guard, and Reserve components, as we know in Connecticut, 
because they provide a very significant increase in capability, 
reduce crew workload, and lower sustainment costs, which 
increase our unit readiness.
    The 1109th theater aviation sustainment maintenance group 
in Groton maintains Black Hawks, and the 169th general support 
aviation battalion in Windsor Locks flies Black Hawks. So, 
Connecticut is very familiar with the importance of these 
aircraft and the maintenance strain that results from 
continuing to fly these aging aircraft. The UH-60A have served 
the Army well, but the question is whether now is the time to 
recapitalize. There's a lot of evidence that there is, that it 
is time.
    General Ostrowski, do you agree that recapitalizing the 
Army National Guard Black Hawk fleet is a necessary investment? 
How would you--how would recapitalizing that fleet aid in the 
Army's capability and readiness?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I'll tell you, that is 
on the top list of the Secretary of the Army. He's made it very 
clear that what we're going to do is, by fiscal year 2022, that 
all of the alpha models will by outside the National Guard, so 
they'll be either Limas, Victors, or Mike model aircraft in the 
National Guard. By 2024, they'll--all the alpha models will be 
out of the Active Duty forces, as well. So, we've made the 
commitment to get rid of all the alpha-model aircraft by 2024 
within our Army. Going forward, the intent is also to convert 
all of the Lima aircraft of Victor models, as well, the glass 
cockpit, as you know. Again, between Mikes and Victors, by--in 
the 2030s, we will have transitioned both the Active Duty as 
well as the National Guard to either Limas or Mike models 
within our Army.
    Senator Blumenthal. And----
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Let me correct that, sir. 
Victors or Mike models within our Army.
    Senator Blumenthal. The CH-53K--and I apologize if I'm 
retreading on ground you've already covered, but how would you 
characterize the current state of that program?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I would just say that it 
is not an Army program. Obviously, I have heard rumors of cost 
increases and so forth on the program. But, I would have to 
defer you to the correct service on that. I don't have enough 
information to be able to tell you. I can certainly ensure that 
we provide it to you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I would just say that it 
is not an Army program. Obviously, I have heard rumors of cost 
increases and so forth on the program. But, I would have to 
defer you to the United States Marine Corps to provide you with 
further details.

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You guys are the experts, but we--one thing we can bring to 
this discussion is seeing other elements of some of the same 
problems that you're dealing with. Just an hour ago, I was in 
an Intelligence Committee meeting, and the number-one threat to 
our Nation that they articulated was cyber. This is sort of the 
reciprocal of my question about small businesses. A threat 
that's been identified in a lot of the hearings that I've been 
in, in the last several months, is cyber intrusion through 
small businesses, through subs. They would love to get a hold 
of the plans for the new vehicle or the new rocket or whatever 
you're doing. I hope that this is a--how do we protect 
ourselves from this kind of intrusion at the same time not 
burdening small businesses? You may have a business with 10 
people, and they can't really afford to have a full-blown 
cyber. We have to figure this out, because, otherwise, this is 
going to be--this is the path that our adversaries are using to 
get into the utilities, for example. So, I commend this problem 
to you, and want to have your thoughts.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Senator, you're absolutely 
right. Supply-chain management is--it's at the--extremely 
important for Army Futures Command, because, you're absolutely 
right, our cyberattacks will hit these small businesses. What 
we're looking at specifically in Army Futures Command is from a 
requirements perspective. What are the requirements that we're 
putting on industry for the protection of our systems and the 
network? Every single program that comes across General 
Murray's desk, it is a topic of discussion with this, and 
requirements are placed on that to ensure our security.
    Senator King. I would urge you to not accept assurances 
from the major contractors that everything is good. I've never 
had anybody appear before a committee that hasn't told me 
everything is good. I commend to you the Red Team approach----
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Absolutely.
    Senator King.--where, you know, a skull and crossbones 
appears on the CEO's computer, and it says, ``Your--
congratulations, you have been hacked, and your prize is the 
termination of your contract.'' You've got to be aggressive and 
active about this. You can't simply accept assurances. I hope 
that's the case.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Absolutely, sir. We take it 
from a requirements perspective at Army Futures Command, and 
then we'll do a battle handover to General Ostrowski from an 
acquisition perspective and what they demand of their customer, 
or the A can take it.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Well, I would just tell you, 
sir, that these are the meetings that we're having at the 
highest levels, not only within the Army, but also OSD. I sat 
in one, just last week, with the Acting Deputy Secretary of 
Defense on this very topic. That's how important it is across 
the entire spectrum. We realize that the reason that we are at 
parity today across all the services in many areas is based on 
the cyber espionage that has occurred over time.
    Senator King. That's right.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. And we----
    Senator King. They haven't taken the time to design and 
prototype. They've just stolen.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is absolutely correct. 
We have got to stop that. That's a tough order. Now, we can 
write it into contracts that we are demanding that they have 
the right cybertools in order to defeat the threat. But, let's 
be honest, the threat is extremely good at what they do, and it 
doesn't take more than a novice or a little bit better than 
that to tap into 90 percent of our small businesses today. And 
so, we can hold them to a standard, we can tell them that they 
have to meet it, but, unless you're policing it, you're not 
going to get anywhere. And then, on top of that, you might lose 
some of these innovative incubated companies that just strictly 
don't have the resources in order to do the kind of work that 
we're asking them to do on the systems that we're asking. So, 
we have to be able to help them with that process. We are 
starting to face these challenges, going forward. But, we know 
that if we don't, that we will continue to have parity and 
never gain the overmatch.
    Senator King. Well, lots of possibilities, but I'm glad to 
hear you're--it's the policing, it's the aggressive policing 
that I think is important. Also, we may have to air gap these 
subs from the majors. We may have to insert some barrier so 
that an adversary can't get into the prime's systems through a 
small sub.
    Question about acquisition. I'm a little unclear. Do--does 
Army Futures Command have acquisition authority and structure 
that's outside of the Department of Defense system? Is Ms. Lord 
involved in your process, or is this a separate process?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. I would tell you 
that the Futures Command uses the ASA (ALT), the Army 
Acquisition Executive, in order to drive the authorities for 
all of acquisition. So, my boss, Dr. Jette, controls all of 
acquisition within the Army, and we support--we directly 
support the initiatives by the Futures Command. So, that is how 
this is laid out.
    With respect to OSD and The Honorable Lord, Honorable Lord 
still has the milestone decision authority on a couple of Army 
programs. A lot of that, she has delegated based on her desire 
to allow the services the opportunity to run their programs. We 
applaud her efforts in that. So, we own 99 percent of all of 
the Army programs today. She owns just a very small number, in 
terms of her milestone decision authority. So, she's been a 
great partner in all of this.
    Senator King. Thank you. I have a great deal of respect for 
her expertise, and I hope that's being brought to bear in these 
situations.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Jones.
    Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just one question. One of the things we're going to be 
looking at over the next couple of years is contracting reform. 
So, General Ostrowski, I'd like to ask you just your general 
thoughts on contracting reform and what are some of the areas 
that we ought to be looking at.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I will tell you that, 
number one, the amount of effort that the Congress has put in 
to help us fix our acquisition system, writ large, has been 
phenomenal. The fact that we have a Futures Command that's able 
to reach out to incubating companies, to accelerator companies, 
to small businesses the way that they've been able to do is a 
function, largely, of the tools that you have given us, you 
provided us, and our ability to use those tools. I mentioned 
mid-tier acquisition, I mentioned the OTAs just a little bit 
earlier, other transaction authorities. So, all of these have 
been great tools.
    With respect to contracting, I will tell you that there are 
still several areas that we think need to be reformed. The 
first one is the area of protests. Right now, a competitor can 
protest an award to another in three different areas. They can 
protest at the agency level, which is the contracting officer 
level. They can protest again at the GAO level. Then they can 
also take it to the Court of Federal Claims. So, they get three 
bites at the apple. There is no disincentive for someone to 
protest an award, especially if they are the current incumbent 
and they are still able to milk out that contract for a longer 
period of time before turning it over to someone else.
    So, there needs to be some type of reform associated with 
that, allowing a particular contractor, one that wants to 
protest, one bite at the apple. One bite at the apple. For 
instance, last year, 515 protests were issued against the Army 
contracting. Five of those--only five of those did we lose. 
But, that's a lot of lost time. The GAO takes a minimum of 100 
days in order to make a ruling. And so, what--that puts us in a 
position, both the contractor that is--that won the contract as 
well as the program office are sitting idle, burning time, 
burning money during that process.
    So, stays are the other piece of this. GAO, if they could 
give us a stay, a decision on a stay within 10 days of getting 
the case. Without a stay, we could go ahead an continue work, 
but if they put a stay on it, we won't. But, if we could get an 
answer within 10 days, that would also be relatively important 
to us, such as what happens in a Court of Federal Claims, for 
instance. So, that's one--another initiative that I think needs 
to be considered with respect to contracting reform.
    Senator Jones. Thank you, General.
    I'll yield the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a couple of questions that I'd like to pursue that 
are not sort of high-tech questions in the area of cyber, but, 
as you know, the 2018 annual report issued by
    Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services 
recommended that the Secretary of Defense require all military 
services to provide women servicemembers with gender-
appropriate, properly-fitting personal protective equipment and 
gear for training and operational use. I'm sure that you are 
familiar with this issue. There have been significant efforts 
on the part of the Army and other services in this regard. 
Despite these efforts, that Advisory Committee determined that 
there are still challenges for women; in fact, a problematic 
lack of access to new gear during training and deployment, 
including for Guard and Reserve members, in addition to women 
servicemembers. That issue will become increasingly relevant, 
due to the increased numbers, thankfully, of women who are 
coming into the ranks. I wonder if you could update us as to 
the status of efforts to achieve those goals.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Senator, I will tell you that 
the Army is leaning forward, and has been for quite some time, 
with respect to personalized protective equipment for females. 
We've lowered the size of plates in order to address the 
anatomy. We've changed the design of the plate carriers in 
order to adjust that to the different levels of anatomy. We've 
changed the yoke on the collar of a lot of our body armor that 
still has that, in order to make up for the hair bun and other 
things. So, the Army's been leaning very far ahead with respect 
to cutting down the weight and tailoring those particular 
devices for our females.
    Now that we have women that are allowed to be into the 
combat arms, and we have our soldier protection system, which 
is our next-generation body armor and force-protection 
capability that's entering the service now, eight sets--eight 
different sizes are what we're fielding to the 121,000 front-
line combat armed soldiers within our ranks, to include our 
females. So, it's very important for us to get the sizing 
right, because we realize that they are an extremely important 
part of our force and now are in every single branch within our 
Army.
    So, we have been taking those methods for a long period of 
time, and we work very closely with Natick in order to ensure 
that the anatomy piece is addressed as we develop these systems 
so that we don't have to go back and second-guess and retrofit 
on a continual basis.
    Senator Blumenthal. I have one last question, which you may 
not be prepared to answer here, but, I recently, in the course 
of my contacts with veterans at various events over this past 
weekend, ran into one of our Connecticut veterans who had a 
military working dog as his companion. It reminded me that we 
work very hard, going back a number of years ago, on this 
committee to make sure that military working dogs are brought 
back from the combat theaters, and also that they are properly 
appreciated and cared for once they come back. I know that this 
may be outside your purview, but I wonder to what extent 
military working dogs are now used. I recognize that our force 
structure has been greatly reduced, and they were used 
primarily to detect IEDs and to protect our forces when we had 
greater numbers there. But, again, if you need to respond in 
writing, that's fine, too, but just to update us on the 
military working dogs. Not exactly high-tech, but still very 
important in many areas.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Senator, yes. We'll get 
back you--with you with the details. They still are incredibly 
important, not just in combat, but in peacetime applications.
    Senator Blumenthal. Right.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. So, we'll get you the 
details I think you're looking for here in the near term.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. The Army's Military Working 
Dog (MWD) Program continues to be a critical capability that 
supports a wide range of operational requirements, to include 
Overseas Contingency Operations around the globe. Additionally, 
the Army incorporates MWD requirements into all Geographic 
Combatant Command Operations Plans in order to combat emerging 
threats the Army may encounter across any contingency. Army 
MWDs also provide frequent support to missions outside their 
combat skill set. These missions include special security 
support to the U.S. Secret Service for the President of the 
United States, Vice President and Secretary of State, as well 
as operational law enforcement support to our installation 
commands.

    Senator Blumenthal. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here.
    One of my priorities is making sure we learn sometimes--
that sometimes hard lessons from past acquisition challenges, 
like the significant cost overruns, repeated delays, and 
ongoing technical problems we've seen with the F-35. What are 
some specific challenges or mistakes you all have identified in 
the past--not necessarily Army problems, but in past 
acquisition efforts, especially of our major weapons platforms? 
What are you doing to make sure those same challenges do not 
negatively impact future vertical lift as we move forward?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Senator, I'll start off with 
the answer. I'm sure General Ostrowski will jump in.
    We've studied all of our failed programs over the last 2 to 
3 years as we looked at acquisition reform of the United 
States--in the United States Army. What we found were--it 
starts off with the requirement, where we're writing 
requirements that are not technologically achievable. We also 
found that we're changing our requirements over time. We've put 
in place, with the cross-functional teams--if you look at--
whether it's FVL or the Joint--with JMR, with the joint 
demonstrator--we are starting to experiment with all of our 
major programs. We design, build, and test to learn about the 
technology. That informs us when we write that requirement. 
That is one of the biggest lessons learned--that we've learned. 
We have also learned, as it relates to the requirement, to get 
it right, is, you have to write it as a team. You have to bring 
in the acquisition professionals, the science and technology 
professionals, to ensure that it's technologically achievable. 
You have to bring in our acquisition logisticians to make sure 
it's--this piece of equipment is reliable. Because we don't 
want to field equipment on the backs of soldiers that is not 
reliable. So, what we have found in our process is, it starts 
off with the requirement, to make sure it's technologically 
achievable, that it's going to be reliable when we field this 
piece of equipment.
    The second area that we focused on as we go through our 
lifecycle program and our acquisition process, if we hand it 
over to the acquisition community, there's a supported and 
supporting relationship. They're supporting us in writing the 
requirement. We're supporting them as we move along this 
lifecycle and providing feedback. Because there are always 
going to be trades. But, the warfighter has to be involved in 
that. I think that's the power of the cross-functional teams, 
that's what AFC brings to the table. It's the integration and 
synchronization across the Future Force Modernization 
Enterprise.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. I would just offer one 
quick thing, and then Paul may add, I think.
    I was General Casey's XO, back in--almost exactly 10 years 
ago, when SECDEF canceled FCS. Really, I think, the challenge 
there, and the lesson learned--there's a great RAND study I 
just read on our lessons learned from FCS. It was incredibly 
complex, and we couldn't explain it to Congress, and we 
couldn't explain it to OSD. I think the other issue there, it 
wasn't tied to a threat. It was a capability that we were 
developing--complex, as I described, but we could--we weren't 
targeting against a certain threat, like we are today in our 
development against Russia and China.
    Senator Duckworth. I want to follow up on a question that 
was--you all answered a little bit earlier while I wasn't here, 
but, basically, keeping on the future vertical lift theme. Your 
written testimony breaks out the budget request into funding 
both a future attack recon aircraft and a future long-range 
assault aircraft. The question, I think, earlier asked is, How 
are you going to be able to--do you have experience developing 
two different aircraft systems? The answer was, ``Well, yes, we 
did both Apaches and Black Hawks at the same time.'' That was 
well over 30 years ago. General, I am not sure what you flew, 
but you and I know darn well that the difference between an 
Apache and a Black Hawk--same engine, same power system, same 
transmission system--it's not the same as what you're doing 
right now with FVL. With FVL, you have--very different 
aircraft, different ranges, different, you know, systems. So, 
how are you going to be able to do this, moving forward? I just 
want you to elaborate on how working on both of these lines 
simultaneously is driving or changing the requirements and 
improving the overall odds that each of these programs would be 
a success. I'm concerned that the Army is now developing a 
system that may be really meeting the requirements of the 
Marine Corps, a far smaller branch that has a very different 
requirement than what Army needs.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Well, I'll have Jim talk 
about it from a budgetary perspective, but these are 
absolutely, you're right, two separate programs, Senator. The 
priority the Secretary of the Army has set is our--is for our 
future attack reconnaissance aircraft, followed by the 
replacement for the Black Hawk, which is a future vertical lift 
assault aircraft. Today, as opposed to years ago, when we wrote 
a requirement--we just wrote a requirement and said, ``Go buy 
it.'' Today, we're learning. As you well know with the joint 
demonstrator that we've been working on for the last 4 years, 
we are learning daily with the technologies that that 
demonstration is producing. And taking that technology and 
going to put it into the aircraft as we go forward; therefore, 
reducing the risk of failure as we go forward. They are going 
to be different aircraft with similar capabilities--speed, 
range, survivability--but, yes, they will be different----
    Senator Duckworth. Completely different systems.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. They are different aircraft, 
different engines.
    Senator Duckworth. Yeah. So, it's not the same as the Hawk 
and the Apache.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. It's not. It's going to be--
you know, the future attack reconnaissance aircraft will 
utilize the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) engine that 
we've designed for the Black Hawk and the Apache. But, the--as 
you well know, the cap-set-3, the replacement for the Black 
Hawk, is a bigger aircraft and will require different engines.
    So, you're right, there are different systems. We're trying 
to make things as common as we can. For an example, the 
cockpit. But, they are different aircrafts, they're--difference 
in size, difference in weight, difference in power. But, based 
on the approach that we're taking with our experimentation, 
we're learning as we go, and they both may not come out at the 
same time. Obviously, money has a lot to do with it. The 
Secretary of the Army has set priorities. So, as we go forward, 
we will see.
    Senator Duckworth. I am very concerned with this process, 
and that--I hope that we have a tight rein on it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that we can follow this 
train of thought maybe in another hearing at some point.
    Senator Cotton. Someone earlier was talking about active 
protection system. Who was that? General Ostrowski? You want to 
say a little bit more about active protective systems, where we 
are today with the Bradley, where we want to be with the next-
generation combat vehicle?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, sir. On--with respect to 
Bradley, the intent--again, we picked the--a nondevelopmental 
item. This is the IMI Iron Fist effort. In 2019, we bought 
approximately 88 of those systems, and we're buying another 36 
this year in the budget for 2020. So, we want to get one 
brigade worth of Bradley equipped with active protection 
system, to start off with.
    At the same time, with respect to the Abrams tank, we are 
buying four brigades of the Trophy system and we'll be fielded 
by 2021 with respect to that particularly capability.
    From there, sir, we have a decision point. What we're 
looking forward is--the Army is developing its own, with the 
Research and Development Center at Warren, Michigan--what we 
call MAPS, so Mobile Active Protection System, which is going 
to turn into--vehicle protection system is a program of record. 
What we're looking for is the backbone, the digital backbone, 
an integrated backbone from which different companies can then 
come forward with an open-system architecture and provide us 
with radars and other sensors, optical sensors, and effectors, 
the ability to defeat, in particular, projectiles that are 
coming to us, whether it be a rocket-propelled grenade, whether 
it be a tank round. So, as a program of record, we want to move 
forward with our modular open systems architecture, as opposed 
to being tied to a proprietary solution, which is what we're 
going to get with Trophy and with Iron Fist. But, it's 
important to get a capability out there first. That's exactly 
what we've done with this nondevelopmental approach with those 
two particular vehicles. So, now it's just a matter of moving 
beyond that, but with the MAPS program, into vehicle protection 
system.
    Senator Cotton. Let's talk in layman's term, again. So, 
active protective system is something that goes out and tries 
to intercept the enemy's round. So, what you have today, to put 
it in bureaucratic jargon, is passive protection system. You 
know, you shoot a round at an Abrams or a Bradley's armor, and 
you hope that that armor is strong enough to stop that round. 
The bad guys are getting bigger rounds. I mean, probably the--
the best example of this that probably pops out in people's 
mind would be the grates that we used to put around Strykers in 
Iraq, designed to keep an RPG round off of the light-skinned 
armor of the Stryker. So, active protective systems are 
designed to intercept those rounds before they get to the armor 
in the first place. So, you're saying that, right now, you're 
buying off-the-shelf solutions to meet that need, but, in the 
long term, it's better to have an integrated system in a new 
kind of vehicle.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is correct, sir. That's 
why we were asking--the optionally-manned fighting vehicle will 
have an integrated APS system within it, as well. So, as 
vendors come forward, part of the requirement is that they will 
have an integrated active protection system that they can 
choose. So, it's very important for that. It's not only the 
hard kill, sir, it's also the soft kill. So, it's also the 
ability to affect a particular warhead coming at you through 
soft-kill means. So, not only just the kinetic hard kill, but 
also a soft kill. And you think of the counter infrared--
counter--or common infrared countermeasure, for instance, and 
what we use on our Apaches and Black Hawks and Chinooks, here 
in the future, the ability to dazzle that particular round, the 
warhead, the seeker.
    Senator Cotton. All right. Thanks.
    Let's go into something else that I--that one of you 
mentioned earlier: night optical devices. Was that you, General 
Richardson?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. I did, Senator.
    Senator Cotton. So, I know this is part of the soldier 
lethality cross-functional team. Talk to us about where we are 
on night vision, and where we hope to go.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Absolutely, Senator.
    Sixteen months ago, we stood up the soldier lethality 
cross-functional team. In 6 months, we'll be putting in the 
hands of soldiers a night-vision goggle that is 5X. It's a 
dual-tube goggle. It's not only RF passive white phosphorus, 
but it's thermal. We have been testing and designing, working 
with soldiers, for the last 9 months on developing this night-
vision goggle. It's been so successful with our Rangers and our 
infantry as they've been using this night-vision goggle in the 
daytime on the ranges, and they're going from marksman to 
expert. It was more than we thought it was going to be, from a 
day--from a night perspective. They're using it in the daytime. 
It----
    Senator Cotton. I know some captains who could have used 
that.
    Lieutenant General Richardson. It--absolutely, sir. And 
it--what it does is, it--it's survivable. As you know, when you 
wore goggles, it--the green tint comes out of the goggle and 
gives your position away. That is gone with the white 
phosphorus. It's a better goggle. You can see further. You can 
see at night, if there's smoke, someone behind a tree. It's 
hooked--there's a reticle that is hooked to your weapon system, 
where you can shoot it at whatever position you would like. 
It's supposed to be--and we're on track to field it in October, 
sir, to the first 100,000. It is definitely a winner. I have 
used the goggle. I have shot with the goggle. It's better than 
anything I've experienced in my Army career.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. If I could----
    Senator Cotton. General Pasquarette.
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette.--add quickly that the first 
unit equipped actually is going to be an armored brigade combat 
team that's going to rotate right afterwards to Korea, given 
the requirements that the commander over there has for that 
capability.
    Senator Cotton. So, General Richardson, I think maybe one 
of the biggest misperceptions about the way our infantry fights 
is night-vision capabilities. Obviously, we have the best in 
the world. That's why so many Army units say they own the night 
and they prefer to fight in the middle of the night, on a new 
moon. I think most civilians would think that their night-
vision goggles are the size and probably the weight of a, you 
know, quarter, maybe a silver dollar. That's not the case. 
Would you explain to us the difference, in terms of weight and 
shape of this next generation of night-vision goggles versus 
what our troops have been using?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Sir, the next-generation 
night-vision goggles, as far as weight, with the Night Vision 
Goggle Bushes (NVGB) that will be fielded this fall, is lighter 
than the goggle that we have today, even though it's dual-tube 
versus monocular. Where we're going to the--into the future is 
Integrated Vision Augmentation System (IVAS) that many people 
have heard of, where we can train--rehearse, train, and fight 
with the same night-vision goggle. We have a four-phased 
operation. In fact, I was down at Fort Pickett this past week, 
where we had just finished phase 1 of the operation, where you 
would have a--like a pair of Oakleys on your head, where, not 
only do you get able to have the night vision, dual, you know, 
fuse both thermal and night system, but you're able to train 
and rehearse that mission with a set of glasses that are not 
in--that the tubes have gone away, it's embedded in the 
glasses, which will significantly reduce the weight of where 
we're going. We're on track. General Ostrowski's team has done 
a wonderful job with this. We have three phases left to go, and 
we believe, in the next 2 years, that we'll put the IVAS system 
on soldiers, beginning third quarter of--fourth quarter of 
2022.
    Senator Cotton. Okay.
    General Ostrowski, let's return to the Intermediate-Range 
Nuclear Forces Treaty, which is dead, if I didn't make my point 
earlier. Will this be the last time we have a hearing with 
senior Army officers and talking about long-range fires that 
are slightly under 500 kilometers and slightly over 5500 
kilometers?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is the intent, Senator.
    Senator Cotton. So, in the future, all of our long-range 
fires, whether they're operational, whether they're strategic, 
will be designed to meet the enemy threat and neutralize that 
threat, not to adhere to a dead treaty.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Cotton. One final question that is more fundamental 
about the way the Army fights. We've heard a lot today about 
next-generation weapons. We've heard a lot--or some about 
robotics and artificial intelligence and so forth. Ever since 
mankind picked up a spear or a sling or a longbow, soldiers and 
their leaders have been trying to find weapons that give 
greater standoff and protect the fighting soldier, yet here 
we've been, in the last 18 years, in Iraq and Afghanistan, with 
our soldiers on the front line, in close-quarters combat, using 
rifles and sometimes knives and sometimes their bare hands. Is 
there anything that the Army is doing now that's going to 
forever eliminate that fundamental truth that war, when you get 
down to the end of the line, is fought by young men and women 
on the front lines against enemies just like themselves?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Well, I'll start.
    I think that's a--we're--we can't walk away from that, my 
estimation. I think we're looking hard at how we are going to 
fight in the future, and that's really under General Murray 
now, in AFC, on multidomain operations. But, at its core, we 
still think it's a human activity and it's going to require 
having soldiers. That is the finishing force at the point 
that's decisive. And so, that's why we're investing a lot of 
money and a lot of brainpower on soldier lethality, and why 
that is one of our six modernization priorities, to ensure that 
we have the overmatch where it matters most and where we're 
challenged right now. But, what Jim just talked about, I think, 
we'll have that, we'll be--we're on the right track to 
reestablish the overmatch that we want to maintain well into 
the future.
    Senator Cotton. General Richardson, General Ostrowski, 
anything to add?
    Lieutenant General Richardson. Sir, I agree with General 
Pasquarette. I will tell you that the soldier is the 
centerpiece of our formation, and everything that we do is 
designed to support that soldier. That's where we're focused 
with our eight cross-functional teams. No matter whether it's 
the night--next-generation combat vehicle or a future vertical 
lift, it's all integrated and networked to support that 
soldier.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Sir, I would just say and 
just add that wars are fought and won on land by soldiers that 
are committed to the fight. I don't see that changing. It 
hasn't changed in history, and I don't see it changing anytime 
soon.
    Senator Cotton. I agree. Obviously, we want more standoff 
for our troops. Some of their sister services, like the Navy 
and the Air Force, do great things to help provide them those 
standoff capabilities, some of the weapon systems we've 
discussed here, as well. But, at root, wars ultimately have to 
be fought between men and women, in the dirt, in the sand, in 
the mountains, in close quarters.
    Senator King. Spoken by a true Army veteran.
    Senator Cotton. Well, as Senator Blumenthal said, that's 
why we invest so much money in personal protective equipment, 
that's why we invest so much money in squad automatic weapons 
and rifles and night-vision goggles, because we can have all 
the automation we want, we can have all the artificial 
intelligence, all the standoff weapons--in the end, they're 
designed to serve that fighting man and woman out on the front 
lines.
    Gentlemen, thank you very much for your service to our 
Nation. Thank you for your testimony today. We look forward to 
working with you, going forward, on the fiscal year 2020 budget 
request.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator Thom Tillis
                           army modernization
    1. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Pasquarette, Lieutenant 
General Richardson, and Lieutenant General Ostrowski, numerous industry 
partners, including those involved in the CH-47 modernization program 
and the Heavy Dump Truck replacement, have expressed their concerns 
regarding the shift in funding away from legacy systems to investments 
in the Army's Modernization Priorities. Can you elaborate on the 
underlying analysis that caused you to curtail these programs and 
others similar to them?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. Yes. To find resources for Army 
Modernization Priorities, the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army 
personally scrubbed over 500 programs during what has become known as 
``Deep Dives.'' Those programs that did not directly contribute to 
lethality or were assessed as ineffective against near peer threats 
became a funding source. If the answer was ``no'' they considered 
eliminating, reducing or delaying the program. At the end of the 
program review process, 186 programs were eliminated, reduced or 
delayed--freeing up over half of the $33.1 billion found to realign 
against the Army Modernization Priorities within the Army topline. The 
remainder of those funds came from implementing aggressive reforms and 
efficiencies across the Army Enterprise.
    Lieutenant General Richardson Yes. To find resources for Army 
Modernization Priorities, the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army 
personally scrubbed over 500 programs during what has become known as 
``Deep Dives.'' Those programs that did not directly contribute to 
lethality or were assessed as ineffective against near peer threats 
became a funding source. If the answer was ``no'' they considered 
eliminating, reducing or delaying the program. At the end of the 
program review process, 186 programs were eliminated, reduced or 
delayed--freeing up over half of the $33.1 billion found to realign 
against the Army Modernization Priorities within the Army topline. The 
remainder of those funds came from implementing aggressive reforms and 
efficiencies across the Army Enterprise.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes. To find resources for Army 
Modernization Priorities, the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army 
personally scrubbed over 500 programs during what has become known as 
``Deep Dives.'' Those programs that did not directly contribute to 
lethality or were assessed as ineffective against near peer threats 
became a funding source. If the answer was ``no'' they considered 
eliminating, reducing or delaying the program. At the end of the 
program review process, 186 programs were eliminated, reduced or 
delayed--freeing up over half of the $33.1 billion found to realign 
against the Army Modernization Priorities within the Army topline. The 
remainder of those funds came from implementing aggressive reforms and 
efficiencies across the Army Enterprise.

    2. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Pasquarette, Lieutenant 
General Richardson, and Lieutenant General Ostrowski, as Army Futures 
Command develops, can you explain your vision for the command's 
ultimate role, including its projected size, and national footprint?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. The Army Futures Command (AFC) 
leads a continuous transformation of Army modernization in order to 
provide future warfighters with the concepts, capabilities and 
organizational structures they need to dominate a future battlefield. 
AFC's ultimate role is to develop the systems needed to maintain 
battlefield overmatch in future conflicts. We are charged with 
delivering decisive warfighting capabilities into the hands of soldiers 
faster with a greater return on investment. AFC has presence in 28 
states. At 100 percent manning the projected number of authorized 
personnel in the headquarters is 500 personnel (400 civilians/100 
military). The Austin Headquarters will represent 2.5 percent of the 
AFC workforce with 97.5 percent residing in the same communities as 
they did prior to the transfer of authorities.
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army Futures Command (AFC) leads 
a continuous transformation of Army modernization in order to provide 
future warfighters with the concepts, capabilities and organizational 
structures they need to dominate a future battlefield. AFC's ultimate 
role is to develop the systems needed to maintain battlefield overmatch 
in future conflicts. We are charged with delivering decisive 
warfighting capabilities into the hands of soldiers faster with a 
greater return on investment. AFC has presence in 28 states. At 100 
percent manning the projected number of authorized personnel in the 
headquarters is 500 personnel (400 civilians/100 military). The Austin 
Headquarters will represent 2.5 percent of the AFC workforce with 97.5 
percent residing in the same communities as they did prior to the 
transfer of authorities.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army Futures Command (AFC) leads 
a continuous transformation of Army modernization in order to provide 
future warfighters with the concepts, capabilities and organizational 
structures they need to dominate a future battlefield. AFC's ultimate 
role is to develop the systems needed to maintain battlefield overmatch 
in future conflicts. We are charged with delivering decisive 
warfighting capabilities into the hands of soldiers faster with a 
greater return on investment. AFC has presence in 28 states. At 100 
percent manning the projected number of authorized personnel in the 
headquarters is 500 personnel (400 civilians/100 military). The Austin 
Headquarters will represent 2.5 percent of the AFC workforce with 97.5 
percent residing in the same communities as they did prior to the 
transfer of authorities.

    3. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Pasquarette, Lieutenant 
General Richardson, and Lieutenant General Ostrowski, Tactical Radios 
were recently fielded in support of the newly formed Security Force 
Assistance Brigades. Considering that these purchases were not posted 
on FBO, can you comment on the procurement mechanism used to award 
these contracts that were in excess of $70 million?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. To meet the Security Force 
Assistance Brigades (SFAB) urgent operational needs statements and 
directed requirements for specific non-program of record tactical radio 
equipment essential to their unique mission, the Army utilized the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support Special Operational 
Equipment (SOE) Tailored Logistics Support Program (TLSP). The use of 
this DLA contract vehicle allowed the Army to meet SFAB equipping 
timelines by providing tactical radios for one SFAB. DLA's contract 
vehicle is Multiple. Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 
(IDIQ) Program that was competitively awarded to six (6) vendors. Under 
Multiple Award IDIQ contracts, all IDIQ awardees are provided a fair 
opportunity to be considered for each requirement exceeding $3500 under 
Delivery Order competition.
    Lieutenant General Richardson To meet the Security Force Assistance 
Brigades (SFAB) urgent operational needs statements and directed 
requirements for specific non-program of record tactical radio 
equipment essential to their unique mission, the Army utilized the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support Special Operational 
Equipment (SOE) Tailored Logistics Support Program (TLSP). The use of 
this DLA contract vehicle allowed the Army to meet SFAB equipping 
timelines by providing tactical radios for one SFAB. DLA's contract 
vehicle is Multiple. Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 
(IDIQ) Program that was competitively awarded to six (6) vendors. Under 
Multiple Award IDIQ contracts, all IDIQ awardees are provided a fair 
opportunity to be considered for each requirement exceeding $3500 under 
Delivery Order competition.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. To meet the Security Force Assistance 
Brigades (SFAB) urgent operational needs statements and directed 
requirements for specific non-program of record tactical radio 
equipment essential to their unique mission, the Army utilized the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support Special Operational 
Equipment (SOE) Tailored Logistics Support Program (TLSP). The use of 
this DLA contract vehicle allowed the Army to meet SFAB equipping 
timelines by providing tactical radios for one SFAB. DLA's contract 
vehicle is Multiple. Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 
(IDIQ) Program that was competitively awarded to six (6) vendors. Under 
Multiple Award IDIQ contracts, all IDIQ awardees are provided a fair 
opportunity to be considered for each requirement exceeding $3500 under 
Delivery Order competition.

    4. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Richardson, it is clear that 
innovation is a key driver behind the Army modernization process. 
Internally, the Army, through the Army Futures Command, has deployed 
innovative strategies to realign and synchronize its components to more 
effectively address and respond to future threats. In turn, Army Future 
Command has placed great emphasis on partnering with the nation's 
innovation community, including industry, academia, and entrepreneurs, 
to achieve its modernization goals. Could you please explain the 
process through which you plan to partner with these communities and 
how that will be coordinated with the development of AFC's internal 
modernization and requirements process?
    Lieutenant General Richardson AFC will promote collaboration 
between Army Application Lab, Combat Capabilities Develop Command labs 
and the rest of the DOD innovation enterprise. We will reduce 
bureaucratic barriers, drive innovation to develop advanced 
technologies and fund efforts that show promise in getting capabilities 
to the soldier faster. AFC will also facilitate and continue to build 
upon partnerships with academia and commercial industry. For example, 
we have established a presence at Carnegie Mellon University to 
incorporate artificial intelligence into our modernization efforts. 
Recently, the 101st ABN Division established a partnership with 
Vanderbilt University and we are encouraging our other Divisions to do 
the same with nearby universities. In May, NGCV CFT engaged with 
traditional and non-standard industry partners at Texas A&M University 
by hosting an industry live demonstration event that is open to anyone 
interested in offering RCV options to the Army. Army Futures Command 
also recently established a University Technology Development 
Directorate to further assist in its outreach efforts with academia.
                               __________
           Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                uh-60 modernization and recapitalization

    5. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, do you agree 
that recapitalizing the Army National Guard Black Hawk fleet is a 
necessary investment? How would recapitalizing the Black Hawk fleet 
improve the Army's capabilities and readiness?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. Yes, investment in the 
recapitalization program is necessary to ensure future combat 
capability, while reducing operational sustainment costs. The 
recapitalization program integrates enhanced capabilities, adds a 
digitized cockpit, extends the useful life, and reduces operational 
sustainment costs of the Black Hawk by replacing obsolete or damaged 
components.

    6. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, What is the 
Army's plan to recapitalize the aging UH-60 Blackhawks? Will you commit 
to ensuring that the National Guard is not left behind as the Army 
pushes to modernize?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army plans to recapitalize the 
UH-60 and replace the National Guard's H-60 Black Hawk fleet with 
modernized, digital cockpit versions (H-60M or UH60V). Under the 
current plan, the Army will divest the older UH-60A models from the 
National Guard in fiscal year 2022 (FY22), while the active Army will 
complete its divestment 2 years later, expected in fiscal year 2024. 
The recapitalization program is necessary to ensure future combat 
capability, while reducing operational sustainment costs. The 
recapitalization program integrates enhanced capabilities, adds a 
digitized cockpit, extends the useful life, and reduces operational 
sustainment costs of the Black Hawk by replacing obsolete or damaged 
components.

    7. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Ostrowski, how does your 
plan account for equipping the Army National Guard through the National 
Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA)? Will you commit to 
proportional and concurrent equipment appropriation between your 
National Guard and active components?
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. NGREA is a special appropriation 
added by Congress each year, intended for use by the Reserve Component 
to fill their equipment needs outside of the Services' annual 
procurement requests. Therefore, the Army's plan does not account for 
equipping the National Guard through NGREA. The Army's Black Hawk 
procurement plan, which is reflected in the President's Budget request 
for fiscal year 2020, supports the National Guard's wartime H-60 Black 
Hawk requirement. This plan includes replacing the National Guard's H-
60 Black Hawk fleet with modernized, digital cockpit versions (H-60M or 
UH60V). The Army does not equip the total force through a proportional 
and concurrent equipment appropriation between the Army components. The 
Army equips formations to meet Combatant Commanders' warfighting, 
Homeland Defense and strategic competition requirements. Modernization 
decisions attempt to sustain a lethal, resilient and adaptive Total 
Force that minimizes risk. As modernized items displace currently 
fielded older--yet operationally effective--items, the Army cascades 
the less capable items to the next priority unit, regardless of 
component. When cascades occur, the Army works to ensure 
interoperability between formations with different variants of systems. 
Whenever possible within resources available, the Army strives to 
achieve parity in equipping across the Total Force.
                            combat equipment
    8. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Pasquarette, Lieutenant 
General Richardson, and Lieutenant General Ostrowski, a leading cause 
of injury among servicemembers is ill-fitting Personal Protective 
Equipment (PPE) and combat gear, and that women disproportionately 
incur such injuries. What are you doing to ensure the next generation 
of combat equipment is better suited for women?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. The Army has fulfilled many 
initiatives to provide high performing Personal Protective Equipment 
specifically designed for female soldiers. We presently provide the 
Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest (F-IOTV) to deploying female 
soldiers; available in eight sizes and incorporates a darted front 
panel for better coverage; shorter length with narrower shoulders and 
more shoulder and waist adjustments; and a redesigned collar to better 
accommodate a hair bun. The Army plans to field the next generation 
Soldier Protection System (SPS) Torso Extremity Protection which will 
provide seven new sizes to accommodate male and female soldiers between 
the 2nd and 98th percentile range. Pelvic protection is specifically 
sized for women while providing equal protection as the male variant. 
Sizing is based on hip circumference vice waist circumference. The 
female sized Ballistic Combat Shirts feature collars which accommodate 
the hair bun. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in June 2019.
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army has fulfilled many 
initiatives to provide high performing Personal Protective Equipment 
specifically designed for female soldiers. We presently provide the 
Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest (F-IOTV) to deploying female 
soldiers; available in eight sizes and incorporates a darted front 
panel for better coverage; shorter length with narrower shoulders and 
more shoulder and waist adjustments; and a redesigned collar to better 
accommodate a hair bun. The Army plans to field the next generation 
Soldier Protection System (SPS) Torso Extremity Protection which will 
provide seven new sizes to accommodate male and female soldiers between 
the 2nd and 98th percentile range. Pelvic protection is specifically 
sized for women while providing equal protection as the male variant. 
Sizing is based on hip circumference vice waist circumference. The 
female sized Ballistic Combat Shirts feature collars which accommodate 
the hair bun. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in June 2019.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army has fulfilled many 
initiatives to provide high performing Personal Protective Equipment 
specifically designed for female soldiers. We presently provide the 
Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest (F-IOTV) to deploying female 
soldiers; available in eight sizes and incorporates a darted front 
panel for better coverage; shorter length with narrower shoulders and 
more shoulder and waist adjustments; and a redesigned collar to better 
accommodate a hair bun. The Army plans to field the next generation 
Soldier Protection System (SPS) Torso Extremity Protection which will 
provide seven new sizes to accommodate male and female soldiers between 
the 2nd and 98th percentile range. Pelvic protection is specifically 
sized for women while providing equal protection as the male variant. 
Sizing is based on hip circumference vice waist circumference. The 
female sized Ballistic Combat Shirts feature collars which accommodate 
the hair bun. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in June 2019.

    9. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Richardson, I am 
concerned with the barriers to equipment access across the Armed 
Services. Are you currently developing and fielding new PPE and combat 
gear in Army Futures Command?
    Lieutenant General Richardson New Personal Protective Equipment 
(PPE) and combat gear is being developed in the Soldier Lethality Cross 
Functional Team and the CCDC Soldier Center. These materiel solutions 
address current and emerging threats and include body armor and head 
borne protection systems with focus on reducing weight and increasing 
the level of protection for all soldiers.

    10. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Pasquarette, Lieutenant 
General Richardson, and Lieutenant General Ostrowski, in the past there 
have been issues with getting new equipment to our servicemembers prior 
to deployments so they deploy with the same equipment used in training 
before deployment. This is critical to preventing injuries and ensuring 
readiness. As you develop this equipment, how will the Army ensure the 
new equipment is available not only for deployments, but also while 
conducting pre-deployment training stateside?
    Lieutenant General Pasquarette. The Army makes every effort to 
ensure soldiers are properly trained on all equipment prior to 
deployment. For example, Organizational Clothing and Individual 
Equipment (OCIE) and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) are fitted and 
issued to Soldiers at Central Issuing Facilities (CIFs) or Rapid 
Fielding Initiative (RFI) venues. The fitting and issue activity 
ensures optimum sizing and proper adjustment (i.e., helmets, soft & 
hard armor, cold weather gear, rucksacks). Soldiers who have orders for 
a deployment receive and train with real-world mission OCIE/PPE prior 
to deployment. Soldiers who have not received orders for deployment on 
a named operation train with OCIE/PPE issued to them based on their 
local environment and job series (Military Occupational Specialty).
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army makes every effort to ensure 
soldiers are properly trained on all equipment prior to deployment. For 
example, Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) and 
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) are fitted and issued to soldiers 
at Central Issuing Facilities (CIFs) or Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) 
venues. The fitting and issue activity ensures optimum sizing and 
proper adjustment (i.e., helmets, soft & hard armor, cold weather gear, 
rucksacks). Soldiers who have orders for a deployment receive and train 
with real-world mission OCIE/PPE prior to deployment. Soldiers who have 
not received orders for deployment on a named operation train with 
OCIE/PPE issued to them based on their local environment and job series 
(Military Occupational Specialty).
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army makes every effort to ensure 
soldiers are properly trained on all equipment prior to deployment. For 
example, Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) and 
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) are fitted and issued to Soldiers 
at Central Issuing Facilities (CIFs) or Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) 
venues. The fitting and issue activity ensures optimum sizing and 
proper adjustment (i.e., helmets, soft & hard armor, cold weather gear, 
rucksacks). Soldiers who have orders for a deployment receive and train 
with real-world mission OCIE/PPE prior to deployment. Soldiers who have 
not received orders for deployment on a named operation train with 
OCIE/PPE issued to them based on their local environment and job series 
(Military Occupational Specialty).
                          future vertical lift
    11. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Richardson, the 
Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant conducted its first flight last month. Can 
you please provide an update on how the Army's Future Vertical Lift 
(FVL) program is progressing?
    Lieutenant General Richardson The flight of the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-
1 Defiant is another step in the Joint Multi Role Tech Demonstrator 
(JMR-TD) process that is helping Future Vertical Lift reduce risk as it 
develops new aircraft. The Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team 
is on schedule to field both Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft and 
Future Long Range Assault Aircraft to units in the 2030 timeframe. We 
will accomplish fielding by capitalizing on existing, mature technology 
and through a Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) enabling Future 
Vertical Lift to integrate the most reliable and capable technical 
solutions available from government efforts and commercial industry for 
Future Vertical Lift.

    12. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Richardson, do you 
believe--as your Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team leader 
Brigadier General Rugen does--that the Army is at an inflection point 
in aviation modernization and should now pursue a new design or concept 
for power lift?
    Lieutenant General Richardson Yes, I agree with Brigadier General 
Rugen. In the era of great power competition, we can't afford not to 
modernize. Future Vertical Lift must be more sustainable, lethal, 
survivable, and have greater stand-off in order to maintain our 
Vertical Lift dominance. We had to make a decision as to whether we 
keep incrementally upgrading our current rotary wing fleets designed in 
the 1970s or go with a ``clean sheet.'' A ``clean sheet'' design allows 
us to use leap ahead technology to achieve optimal manning with 
revolutionary increases in reach, speed, range, protection, lethality, 
and agility at the objective. The current rotary wing fleet is as 
capable as ever against the current threat. Now is the time to build an 
Army aviation force that is optimized for large-scale combat operations 
against peer or near-peer competitors.

    13. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Richardson, are you 
satisfied with the progress of the Future Vertical Lift Program? How 
can Congress best support your aviation modernization efforts?
    Lieutenant General Richardson While I am satisfied with where we 
are with Future Vertical Lift, we are always looking for opportunities 
to accelerate the programs to deliver advanced capabilities to our Army 
sooner. We've enjoyed recent successes under the Other Transaction 
Authorities that Congress has provided the Services and look to 
continue to leverage those authorities to deliver advanced capabilities 
to our Army.

    14. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Richardson, do you 
believe the Cross Functional Team organization is effective in leading 
modernization efforts in powered lift for the Army? What are the 
challenges and how are you addressing them?
    Lieutenant General Richardson Yes. The Cross Functional Team 
construct allows us to consolidate warfighter, technical, programmatic 
and acquisition communities to reduce time and investment in readiness 
priorities. The Cross Functional Team is an empowered team, designed to 
rapidly integrate and synchronize critical solutions across the 
modernization enterprise and deliver timely solutions to the 
warfighter. As we have demonstrated in the Future Long Range Assault 
Aircraft (FLRAA) and Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) 
schedules, the Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team has literally 
cut years off the normal requirements and procurement schedule by 
working with the acquisition and contracting community to maximize the 
use of Other Transaction Authorities (OTA), and worked with the Science 
and Technology community to capitalize on existing, mature technology 
as well as the Joint Multi Role Tech Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program to 
reduce risk in the accelerated timeline. Our challenge moving forward 
is ensuring we maximize existing technologies to meet our near-term 
requirements while developing an architecture that allows for the 
integration of future technological advances. The Joint Multi-Role 
Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program has helped to inform our 
strategy by identifying new technologies and capabilities. We are 
focused on utilizing a Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) to the 
greatest extent possible to build the flexibility we need to 
incorporate leap ahead technology and maintain our Vertical Lift 
dominance. Ultimately, we need to provide a capability to the 
Warfighter using an expedited acquisition approach that fills the 
capability gap now and into the future. Additionally, we are using a 
strategy that is significantly different from previous programs and 
leveraging new and expanded acquisition authorities. Use of Other 
Transactional Authorities (OTA) streamlining contracting methodology 
and preserving competition while driving down risk.
                               __________
             Questions Submitted by Senator Gary C. Peters
               army rdec and lab management flexibilities
    15. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson and Lieutenant 
General Ostrowski, in order to allow the Army's network of world class 
laboratories and research, development, and engineering centers to 
remain at the forefront of technology and innovation, this committee 
has provided laboratory and center directors with specialized 
authorities to cut bureaucratic red tape, streamline processes, and 
become more similar to the fast moving tech companies and innovators 
that the Army needs to model. The Army has been slow in implementing 
many of these authorities, in some cases with Army Futures Command 
delaying their implementation.
    Please provide a detailed update on the use and the plans for 
expanded use of the following authorities, and whether Futures Command 
and ASA(ALT) has authorized and supports the full use of these 
authorities: Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA Section 233-Pilot Program for the 
Enhancement of the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Centers 
of the Department of Defense; Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA Section 1124-Pilot 
Program On Enhanced Pay Authority For Certain Research And Technology 
Positions In The Science And Technology Reinvention Laboratories Of The 
Department Of Defense.
    Lieutenant General Richardson In July 2017, ASA(ALT) issued a 
policy approving all Army Science and Technology Reinvention 
Laboratories to participate in the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA Section 233 
pilot program. In June 2018, ASA(ALT) issued an implementation policy 
for the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA Section 1124 pilot program to attract, 
recruit and retain unique technical talent at the Army laboratories.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. In July 2017, ASA(ALT) issued a 
policy approving all Army Science and Technology Reinvention 
Laboratories to participate in the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA Section 233 
pilot program. In June 2018, ASA(ALT) issued an implementation policy 
for the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA Section 1124 pilot program to attract, 
recruit and retain unique technical talent at the Army laboratories.
  hiring restrictions at futures command labs and engineering centers
    16. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson, I understand 
that has Futures Command imposed hiring restrictions on the Labs and 
Engineering Centers, even though the committee has provided authority 
(10 USC 2358a) to allow lab directors to manage their workforce without 
regard to any limitation on positions in a manner consistent with 
available budgets. Why has this restriction been put into place?
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army Futures Command (AFC) has 
not imposed hiring restrictions on its labs and engineering centers.

    17. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson, what specific 
limits have been placed on hiring of new technical staff?
    Lieutenant General Richardson No limits have been placed by AFC on 
the hiring of new technical staff. The Direct and Expedited Hiring 
authorities, which lab and engineering center Directors execute has 
been instrumental in enabling AFC to remain competitive with industry 
partners.

    18. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson, what has been 
the impact of these restrictions on growing lab and engineering center 
technical workforce in emerging areas like robotics, Artificial 
Intelligence, hypersonics, and other relevant technical fields?
    Lieutenant General Richardson No impacts. AFC has placed no 
specific limits on hiring of new technical staff in emerging areas like 
robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Hypersonics, and other relevant 
technical fields.
                       basic university research
    19. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson and Lieutenant 
General Ostrowski, the Army's fiscal year 2020 budget request cuts 
funding for Army basic research programs from over $500 million in the 
fiscal year 2019 Appropriations bill down to slightly over $450 
million. This reduction means that fewer university groups and students 
will be researching Army-inspired technical challenges, resulting in 
less innovation and a reduced STEM and technical workforce in the 
pipeline to support Army mission and partners. What was the rationale 
for this reduction?
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army's fiscal year 2020 budget 
request does not cut funding for Army basic research programs. The 
fiscal year 2019 budget request was $446 million compared to $455 
million in fiscal year 2020. The enacted fiscal year 2019 budget for 
Army basic research programs was $60.5 million above the President's 
budget request. The Army has a holistic view of growing and 
diversifying the technical workforce in both quantity and quality to 
support the Science and Technology (S&T) Enterprise and to secure Army 
innovation and its technical capabilities. The S&T Enterprise is highly 
dependent on the development of the next generations of scientist and 
engineers; and we will ensure the budget request does not adversely 
impact the future STEM workforce.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army's fiscal year 2020 budget 
request does not cut funding for Army basic research programs. The 
fiscal year 2019 budget request was $446 million compared to $455 
million in fiscal year 2020. The enacted fiscal year 2019 budget for 
Army basic research programs was $60.5 million above the budget 
request. The Army has a holistic view of growing and diversifying the 
technical workforce in both quantity and quality to support the Science 
and Technology (S&T) Enterprise and to secure Army innovation and its 
technical capabilities. The S&T Enterprise is highly dependent on the 
development of the next generations of scientist and engineers; we will 
ensure the budget request does not adversely impact the future STEM 
workforce.

    20. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson and Lieutenant 
General Ostrowski, if more funds were available, what are your highest 
priority underfunded basic research areas?
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army's fiscal year 2020 budget 
request is adequate to maintain a healthy infusion of new ideas into 
the Army's technology base. The Army funds research in a large variety 
of areas since it is not possible to always know where the next 
breakthroughs come from; therefore, the Army's basic research 
investments provide foundational research in areas crucial for Army 
information superiority, intelligence supremacy, dominance in 
autonomous systems, soldier and platform protection, and advantage in 
novel weapons. Some of the investments also are in areas that are not 
yet identified priorities. Research areas of emphasis that could always 
fund more projects include advanced materials; artificial intelligence, 
machine learning, and autonomy; ultra-secure communications; robotics; 
directed energy; synthetic biology; social science and networks; and 
disruptive energetics and advanced warheads.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army's fiscal year 2020 budget 
request is adequate to maintain a healthy infusion of new ideas into 
the Army's technology base. The Army funds research in a large variety 
of areas since it is not possible to always know where the next 
breakthroughs come from; therefore, the Army's basic research 
investments provide foundational research in areas crucial for Army 
information superiority, intelligence supremacy, dominance in 
autonomous systems, soldier and platform protection, and advantage in 
novel weapons. Some of the investments also are in areas that are not 
yet identified priorities. Research areas of emphasis that could always 
fund more projects include advanced materials; artificial intelligence, 
machine learning, and autonomy; ultra-secure communications; robotics; 
directed energy; synthetic biology; social science and networks; and 
disruptive energetics and advanced warheads.

    21. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson and Lieutenant 
General Ostrowski, what in general has been the value of previous 
investments in Army basic research?
    Lieutenant General Richardson The Army's previous investments in 
basic research have improved understanding of principles/phenomena 
fundamental to realizing the next generation of superior warfighting 
capabilities. Basic research shapes future investments, informs concept 
development, and anticipates future science and technology (S&T) 
threats. For example, investments in basic research 20 years ago 
currently provide the scientific foundation to support the Army's 
Modernization efforts to provide capabilities in support of the 
National Defense Strategy and Multi-Domain Operations.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army's previous investments in 
basic research have improved understanding of principles/phenomena 
fundamental to realizing the next generation of superior warfighting 
capabilities. Basic research shapes future investments, informs concept 
development, and anticipates future science and technology (S&T) 
threats. For example, investments in basic research 20 years ago 
currently provide the scientific foundation to support the Army's 
Modernization efforts to provide capabilities in support of the 
National Defense Strategy and Multi-Domain Operations.

    22. Senator Peters. Lieutenant General Richardson and Lieutenant 
General Ostrowski, what specific fielded capabilities today were 
influenced and supported by advances made by past Army basic research?
    Lieutenant General Richardson Army basic research investments have 
informed and enabled development and transition of a number of fielded 
capabilities. While a comprehensive list is too robust, in one program 
area alone, new knowledge developed under a Multi University Research 
Initiative (MURI) project (Standoff Inverse Analysis and Manipulation 
of Electronic Systems (SIAMES)) on electronic target signatures and 
signal processing transferred to Navy Electronic Warfare (EW) programs 
and under the Office of Secretary of Defense Rapid Innovation Fund 
program software inserted in the Army EW and Planning Management Tool. 
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detection technology developed under 
the SIAMES MURI led to successful IED detection in Iraq. MG Justice 
presented the Commander's Award for Public Service to the Principle 
Investigator for ``saving lives in the current operational 
environment'', saying ``this put us back on the battlefield and gave us 
the ability to go out there knowing we can protect the young 
soldiers''. Single investigator programs and a MURI on Quasi-optical 
power combining led to graduate student forming a company that put 
unique microwave amplifiers in the satellite uplinks for HBO, STARZ, 
and other commercial satellite services and in most of the Army 
satellite uplinks. Almost all landmine detection systems now fielded in 
the Army rely on signal processing and hardware concepts developed 
during three demining MURI's and subsequent single investigator 
programs. Similar stories can be told in all areas of the basic 
research program. As a result, Army basic research investments have 
resulted in the developments that ranged from cost effective synthesis 
of biofuels for aviation platforms, to low-profile ultrathin antennas, 
to extended range munitions, to next generation weapons, to improved 
computer network defense, to advancements in vehicle armor.
    Lieutenant General Ostrowski. The Army's previous investments in 
basic research have improved understanding of scientific principles 
that are fundamental to realizing the next generation of superior 
warfighting capabilities. Basic research shapes future investments, 
informs concept development, and anticipates future science and 
technology (S&T) threats. The Army is capitalizing on investments in 
basic research from 20 years ago that currently provide the scientific 
foundation supporting their modernization efforts to provide 
capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy and Multi-
Domain Operations. In almost any area of fielded/warfighting 
capability, there are components where the basic research investment 
was responsible for either an evolutionary or revolutionary change.



 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 AND 
                    THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019

                      United States Senate,
                           Subcommittee on Airland,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                        AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m. in 
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Tom 
Cotton (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Subcommittee Members present: Senators Cotton, Scott, King, 
Blumenthal, and Jones.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON

    Senator Cotton. This hearing of the Airland Power 
Subcommittee will come to order.
    The Committee meets today to receive testimony on the 
modernization of the U.S. Air Force and its fiscal year 2020 
budget request.
    We welcome General Arnold Bunch, the Military Deputy to the 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics; General Tim Fay, Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Strategy, Integration and Requirements; and General 
Brian Robinson, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. 
Thank you all, gentlemen, for your appearance today.
    The National Defense Strategy (NDS) directs our Nation's 
military to prepare for the return of great power competition. 
This means we must be prepared to deter and, if necessary, 
defeat potential peer adversaries like China and Russia. In 
order for the Air Force to achieve that goal, it must be 
properly manned, trained, and equipped. Unfortunately, as 
pointed out by the National Defense Strategy Commission, we are 
still in a readiness and modernization crisis.
    By the end of 2016, the Air Force was at a historic low in 
readiness. Fewer than 10 percent of combat squadrons were ready 
to deploy and even fewer were prepared for a peer fight. We 
have made some progress in rebuilding readiness, but more needs 
to be done.
    Unfortunately, while our forces stagnated or declined, our 
adversaries recapitalized their forces with alarming speed. 
China and Russia now present a real threat to America, our 
allies, and increasingly the civilized world. In fact, in some 
areas they have surpassed us.
    Despite years of neglect, our men and women have done an 
outstanding job for the Nation, but it is past time for action.
    The Secretary of the Air Force recently testified that our 
Air Force is too small and too old to do what the Nation asks 
and that the Air Force needs to grow to 386 squadrons. I agree 
on the need to both grow and modernize.
    The future of our Air Force's readiness and relevance 
requires both now. Any successful modernization strategy must 
focus on results and meeting the needs of tomorrow's fight. 
Building relevant technology quickly will require discipline 
and acquisition strategies. It will also require rapid 
prototyping, experimentation, such as the light attack 
experiment in order to get modern, reliable, and lethal systems 
into the hands of our warfighters on time and on budget.
    I am interested to hear today from our witnesses what 
progress already has been made and what capabilities currently 
are in development. Executing this strategy will require an 
open and transparent dialogue with Congress. We look forward to 
working with you to make our shared modernization vision a 
reality and ensure the Air Force is prepared for the more 
lethal and dynamic battlefields of the future.
    Senator King?

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR ANGUS KING

    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to extend a welcome as well to each of 
our witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee. I look forward 
to hearing your testimony.
    Earlier this year, this Subcommittee heard from Army 
witnesses about the challenges in the Army modernization 
portfolio. I look forward to hearing today from the Air Force 
witnesses about the challenges and opportunities they face in 
modernizing the Air Force. Earlier this year, we also had a 
closed briefing on the B-21 bomber program.
    I am especially interested in hearing from the witnesses 
how the Air Force plans to manage its multiple modernization 
programs in ways that deliver the capabilities that our 
warfighters need in a timely manner to defeat our most capable 
adversaries while protecting our taxpayers' dollars.
    The Air Force has been particularly aggressive in 
implementing accelerated acquisition authorities, including for 
major defense acquisition programs. Congress has given the 
Department of Defense (DOD) these new authorities, and the job 
of Congress is now to oversee the Department to ensure that the 
Department uses its authorities to pursue these modernization 
programs in a more efficient and effective manner.
    Our witnesses this afternoon face huge challenges, which I 
am sure they know, as they strive to balance the need to 
support ongoing operations and sustain readiness with the need 
to modernize and keep the technological edge so critical to 
successful military operations. I cannot help but think of the 
old story about building the airplane as you are flying it, and 
you guys are pretty close to that challenge.
    Specifically, our Air Force will bear a large share of the 
burden of implementing the National Defense Strategy that 
identifies inter-state strategic competition with increasingly 
capable adversaries as the primary U.S. national security 
concern.
    These challenges have been made particularly difficult by 
the spending caps imposed in 2011 by the Budget Control Act 
(BCA). Last year, we had the benefit of an early budget and an 
agreement that included increases in the Department of Defense 
top line. This year we are again facing the constraints of the 
caps in the Budget Control Act unless Congress acts to the 
contrary.
    The President's budget includes an attempt to finesse the 
caps for the Department of Defense by moving a large portion of 
the base budget into the overseas contingency operations, or 
OCO, accounts that are exempt from the caps, specifically using 
something, a new term to me, ``OCO for base.'' I in one 
previous hearing said that is like rabbits for bicycles. The 
two things are not related. OCO is not base, but that is the 
world that we are in. While I support an adequate budget for 
the Department, I do not support such budgeting gimmicks. I 
hope that we can move quickly to achieve an honest agreement on 
the budget resolution for fiscal year 2020 that does not 
include such things as OCO for base so that we can avoid delays 
in getting the necessary resources to the Defense Department, 
to the Air Force, and to other parts of the United States 
Government.
    There are a number of other issues we need to discuss, but 
in the interest of time, I will stop here and wait for our 
discussion.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for calling this hearing.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator King.
    General Bunch?

  STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ARNOLD W. BUNCH, JR., USAF, 
 MILITARY DEPUTY FOR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
     AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS; 
ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL TIMOTHY G. FAY, USAF, DEPUTY 
  CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGY, INTEGRATION AND REQUIREMENTS, 
 HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; AND MAJOR GENERAL BRIAN 
    S. ROBINSON, USAF, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
        OPERATIONS, HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

    Lieutenant General Bunch. Good afternoon, Chairman Cotton, 
Ranking Member King, and distinguished Members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for having us here today to provide 
testimony on Air Force modernization and priorities for fiscal 
year 2020.
    Additionally, we appreciate your service, leadership, and 
dedication to rebuilding the United States military and 
supporting our airmen and their families. We also thank you for 
an on-time defense bill last year and hope that that trend 
continues. Stable, adequate, timely budgets are vital to our 
efforts to restore readiness and modernize to meet the Nation's 
challenges.
    Today I am accompanied by Lieutenant General Tim Fay and 
Major General Brian Robinson. We have prepared a joint 
statement that I request be entered into the official record, 
and I will provide brief opening remarks for the team.
    Senator Cotton. Without objection.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. When you consider the scale and 
scope of what our Nation demands of us, today's security 
environment is perhaps one of the most challenging we have 
faced as an Air Force. We face challenges in and across all 
domains in which we operate. We are in global competition 
across the spectrum of potential operations, ranging from 
countering malign influence in gray zones all the way to 
deterring nuclear war. We cannot allow the gap between national 
security demands and the resources provided to meet those 
demands to grow, all while we continue to operate at a pace 
that challenges readiness.
    As captured in the National Defense Strategy, the United 
States faces an increasingly complex global security 
environment, characterized by long-term strategic competition, 
a rapidly growing China and resurgent Russia aimed to coerce 
their regional neighbors, undermine longstanding alliances, and 
displace American influence from critical regions around the 
globe.
    Your Air Force must be ready to compete, deter, and win in 
these complex and evolving security environments. We must 
defend the Homeland and provide a safe, secure, and effective 
nuclear deterrent and be able to defeat a powerful conventional 
enemy and continue to disrupt violent extremists and other 
tasks. The Air Force must be prepared to do all of these 
missions each and every day.
    As we have analyzed this array of mission sets, the 
unmistakable conclusion is the Air Force is too small for what 
our Nation needs. Our airmen perform strategic and vital 
missions in all domains across the spectrum of conflict from 60 
feet below the ground to our highest geosynchronous orbits. We 
are always there meeting and rising to the challenges by 
defeating our adversaries, deterring threats, and ensuring our 
allies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and 
serving as a beacon of hope for many nations around the world.
    Thanks to your help in recent years, together we have made 
solid gains in improving wartime readiness and returning some 
fiscal stability, but there remains work to be done, 
particularly in the area of modernization, force structure 
capacity, and warfighting capability. The dialogue we have 
today will help us as we design and build a better future 
worthy of tomorrow's airmen and our Nation. We cannot win this 
contest with an acquisition system from the Cold war. We must 
modernize at the speed of relevance. We are building tomorrow's 
Air Force more lethal and ready, faster and smarter.
    We are utilizing the new authorities you granted us like 
section 804 and tailoring traditional acquisition approaches to 
buy equipment and capabilities and experiment and prototype in 
new ways to meet a rapidly innovating adversary. As of the end 
of February of 2019, we estimate that we have saved over 88 
years of acquisition schedule through the use of these tailored 
acquisitions and section 804 authorities. We are confident that 
our initial goal of saving 100 years will be accomplished in 
less than 1 year of the pursuit. As a result, we are 
modernizing at the speed of relevance.
    We are also doing this in a way that is as transparent or 
more transparent than how we have executed traditional 
acquisition programs by giving reports to Congress three times 
a year and updating when we get outside the bounds of what we 
have set for our guardrails.
    I must shift the focus of this for just a moment based on 
today's events. Today America lost a hero. Lieutenant Colonel 
Dick Cole, the last Doolittle Raider, died at the age of 103. 
Emblematic of what being an airman is all about, he and the 
other Doolittle Raiders embarked on a mission that they were 
told they may not return from. They did what airmen do. They 
went. Airmen like Lieutenant Colonel Dick Cole are the 
foundation of our Air Force.
    We look forward to working closely with the committee to 
ensure the ability to deliver air power for America when and 
where we are needed. Generals Fay, Robinson, and I look forward 
to answering questions from the Subcommittee this afternoon. 
Thank you for your continued support of the world's greatest 
air force.
    [The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Bunch, 
General Fay, and Major General Robinson follows:]

  Prepared Combined Statement by Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, 
  Lieutenant General Timothy G. Fay, 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 provide 
testimony on Air Force modernization. Additionally, thank you for your 
service, leadership and dedication to rebuilding the United States 
military. The modernization of America's Air Force is a critical 
national security issue worthy of attention and action.
    Today's security environment is perhaps one of the most challenging 
we've faced as an Air Force when you consider the scale and scope of 
what our Nation demands of us. We face challenges in and across all 
domains in which the Air Force operates. Our ability to compete, deter, 
and win are being challenged by others. We are in global competition 
across the spectrum of potential operations, ranging from countering 
malign influence in gray zones all the way to deterring nuclear war. 
Others have made gains as we return to great power competition. We 
cannot allow the gap between national security demands and the 
resources provided to meet those demands to grow all while we continue 
to operate at a pace that challenges readiness.
    Thanks to your help, in recent years, together we have made solid 
gains in improving wartime readiness and returning some fiscal 
stability, but there remains work to be done, particularly in the area 
of modernization, force structure capacity, and warfighting capability. 
The dialogue we have today will help us as we design and build a better 
future Air Force worthy of tomorrow's airmen and our Nation.
                         strategic environment
    The National Defense Strategy captures the national security 
challenges we face as a Nation. The United States faces an increasingly 
complex global security environment, characterized by long-term, 
strategic competition. A rapidly growing China and resurgent Russia aim 
to coerce their regional neighbors, undermine long-standing alliances, 
and displace American influence from critical regions around the globe.
    Our United States Air Force must be ready to compete, deter, and 
win in this complex and evolving security environment. We must defend 
the Homeland; provide a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent; 
and be able to defeat a powerful conventional enemy; deter 
opportunistic aggression; and continue to disrupt violent extremists. 
The Air Force must be prepared to do all of these missions every day.
    All of this drives how we design and modernize our forces and 
highlights the need for a larger military. As the bipartisan National 
Defense Strategy Commission (NDSC) stated in its final report, ``The 
United States needs a larger force than it has today if it is to meet 
the objectives of the strategy. The Air Force, Navy, and Army will all 
need capacity enhancements.'' Additionally, the same report 
acknowledges that the, ``Air Force will need more stealthy long-range 
fighters and bombers, tankers, lift capacity, and intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.'' As a Service and a 
Nation, we are the best at what we do, but in order to maintain our 
position we must work towards it. It is not a birthright.
                         an air force in demand
        ``Regardless of where the next conflict occurs or which 
        adversary it features, the Air Force will be at the 
        forefront.''--NDS Commission

    Our airmen are already at the forefront, performing vital missions 
in all domains--providing Global Vigilance, Reach and Power. Our airmen 
perform strategic and vital missions in all domains, across the 
spectrum of conflict, from 60 feet below ground to our highest 
geosynchronous orbits. Last year our airmen conducted more than 50,000 
sorties and 3,400 precision airstrikes in partnership with a joint 
ground force that destroyed ISIS as a conventional force. In 
Afghanistan, the Air Force executed 44,000 sorties in support of our 
Afghan partners, and targeted Taliban and extremist networks with more 
weapons than any time in the past 10 years which helped bring the 
Taliban to the negotiating table.
    In 2018, Air Force bombers flew over 840 missions in support of 
Operation Inherent Resolve, helping to defeat ISIS and the Resolute 
Support mission in Afghanistan. Our bombers executed over 60 Continuous 
Bomber Presence missions in the Indo-Pacific region, demonstrating U.S. 
commitment. American bombers also flew 12 assurance and deterrence 
missions, reinforcing NATO's eastern flank.
    Our mobility forces provided strategic maneuver to the Joint Force 
by transporting over 1.26 million personnel, 1 billion pounds of 
warfighting equipment and supplies, and evacuated over 5,400 patients 
for critical care. Airmen also delivered 152,000 short tons of relief 
supplies across Southwest Asia, supporting those who are displaced and 
suffering, and demonstrating U.S. commitment to building a stable and 
peaceful region. Our Tanker forces passed more the 1 billion pounds of 
fuel in-flight.
                air force we need (readiness & capacity)
    We have made great strides since fiscal year 2017 in readiness 
recovery--and it has been a team effort by all airmen to include our 
civilian leadership, Congress, and industry. Because of this effort, 
over 90 percent of our ``lead'' force packages in ``pacing squadrons'' 
are ready--the first airmen to respond at the beginning of a conflict. 
When we include their ``follow-on packages'', we are on track to reach 
80 percent readiness for our pacing units by 2020, 6 years faster than 
originally planned. In addition, we are continuing to pursue the 
SECDEF's goal of 80 percent Mission Capable rates for F-35, F-22 and F-
16 Aircraft.
    Readiness recovery is dependent on getting enough people with the 
right experience. Last year we increased our total force end strength 
by 5,800 personnel. Over the last two years, we eliminated a shortage 
of 4,000 maintainers and are currently working to build expertise in 
these young airmen. To address our aircrew shortage, we are 
implementing nearly 70 initiatives to increase the number of pilots we 
are training, season them in operational units, and retain experienced 
aircrews. In 2018, we produced 1,211 pilots, 146 more than originally 
expected.
    Our airmen are shifting their focus to great power competition, and 
we must train and equip them for the high-end fight. We continue to 
modernize our live and virtual training ranges and infrastructure to 
provide relevant and realistic training against our most advanced 
threats. We are investing to build the Nevada Test and Training Range, 
the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the Utah Test and Training 
Range, and several smaller range complexes to better replicate the 
capabilities of our peer adversaries. The reality is we cannot do it 
with only ranges, which is why we must invest in live and virtual 
training.
    We are continuing to recover our readiness and in this cycle are 
focusing on experiencing personnel, high-end training capability, and 
sustainment to meet National Defense Strategy demands. The Air Force is 
grateful to be recovering readiness as it comes close to its 30th year 
of continuous combat and contingency operations, but the road to 
recovery remains a long one.
                    current capacity and capability
    Our analysis aligns with the conclusions of the NDSC. When we 
assessed the operational plans and scenarios, we validated that the Air 
Force we need to meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy 
should grow from 312 to 386 operational squadrons, about a 25 percent 
increase. This would permit us to execute the National Defense Strategy 
with moderate risk. Just to be clear, this was a pure strategy-based 
analysis--not a budget constrained one--and it looked at the entirety 
of Air Force force structure.
Bomber Force Structure
    We must continue to modernize and sustain the legacy bomber fleets 
to ensure they remain viable and capable until we transition to the B-
21. Our budget proposal supports the Defense Department's principal 
priority to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent 
that safeguards the Homeland, assures allies, and deters adversaries.
 B-21
    The National Defense Strategy provided strategic direction to 
develop a new stealth bomber, and the B-21 Raider is the answer. The B-
21 has a mature and stable design and is transitioning to manufacturing 
development of the first test aircraft on the path to the significant 
first flight milestone. The President's Budget provides $3.0 billion of 
funding in fiscal year 2020, and $20 billion across the FYDP, to 
progress the program through the Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development to progress towards fielding this fleet.
    The B-21 will provide critical operational capability and 
flexibility across a wide range of military objectives providing both 
conventional and nuclear capabilities. The B-21 will be a highly 
survivable asset with the ability to penetrate modern air defenses to 
accomplish mission objectives in an anti-access/area denial 
environment. We will need a minimum of 100 B-21s in our inventory. We 
are also pursuing legacy bomber fleet upgrades in order to keep those 
assets sustainable and viable, which is necessary until the B-21 
becomes operational in sufficient numbers.
 B-52
    The last B-52H Stratofortress entered service in the United States 
Air Force in 1962, we expect to continue operating the B-52 through 
2050 and will continue to invest in modernization programs to keep the 
platform operationally relevant. Major modernization efforts include 
the Commercial Engine Replacement Program, $1.4 billion across the 
FYDP; Radar Modernization Program, $1.0 billion across the FYDP; and 
Combat Network Communications Technology, $74 million across the FYDP. 
The B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program will replace legacy 
engines with new commercial engines using section 804 processes to 
remove more than three years from the traditional program schedule. 
Boeing as lead integrator, is currently conducting risk reduction 
studies to fully define engine and aircraft requirements. Going 
forward, the Air Force will employ a ``hands-on'' approach, leveraging 
competitive prototyping and industry best practices to allow for early 
identification and mitigation of any risks. The Radar Modernization 
Program will modernize the current Strategic Radar (AN/APQ-166), which 
is based on 1960s technology and was last modified in the 1980s.
    B-52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) provides an 
integrated communication and mission management system, as well as a 
machine-to-machine interface for weapons retargeting. CONECT's digital 
infrastructure and architecture provides the backbone for the 1760 
Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade, which allows for internal carriage of J-
series weapons through modification of the Common Strategic Rotary 
Launchers, thus significantly increasing the B-52's capability to store 
and deliver the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Laser-JDAM, Joint 
Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and its extended range variant, 
and the Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) along with its jamming 
variant. The Air Force remains committed to B-52 modernization to 
ensure the nation's oldest and most versatile frontline long range 
bomber remains relevant through at least 2050.
 B-1
    The B-1B is a long-range, air-refuelable multirole bomber capable 
of flying intercontinental missions with the largest payload of guided 
and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. We continue to invest 
in B-1 modernization and sustainment to ensure the platform remains 
lethal and viable through 2040. The Integrated Battle Station upgrade, 
$56 million across the FYDP, will enhance crew situational awareness 
and precision engagement capabilities and is the B-1B's largest 
modernization effort ever. The first aircraft with this upgrade was 
delivered in January 2014, and a total of 50 B-1s are currently 
modified with this capability. This modernization effort will complete 
in 2020. Other efforts to update the B-1B's navigation and radar 
systems were completed in early 2016. These efforts improve the 
reliability and maintainability of these critical systems.
    The B-1B was the Air Force threshold platform for early operational 
capability of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, which transitioned from 
a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) demonstration to 
the Navy-led Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Program. Integration of 
this weapon, coupled with the B-1B's long range, high speed and large 
payload capacity, will posture the B-1B for an important role in any 
conflict in the Indo-Pacific region.
 B-2
    Until the B-21 is fielded, the B-2 will be the only long-range 
strike aircraft capable of penetrating and surviving advanced 
Integrated Air Defense Systems to deliver weapons against heavily 
defended targets.
    Its unique attributes of intercontinental range, precision strike, 
large conventional or nuclear payloads, ability to penetrate defenses, 
and low observable profile allow it to execute Nuclear Deterrence 
Operations, Nuclear Response, Global Strike, and Global Precision 
Attack missions. The Air Force will continue to modernize the B-2 to 
ensure it remains effective as enemy defensive systems advance. Current 
efforts to modernize the Defensive Management System, $1.5 billion 
within the FYDP, will ensure the B-2 can continue to counter 
sophisticated air defense networks and operate in highly contested 
environments.
    The Air Force has completed development efforts to re-host the 
Stores Management Operational Flight Program software in the Flexible 
Strike program, enabling the B-2 to take advantage of advanced digital 
weapon interfaces, such as those used by the B61-12 nuclear weapon. The 
Flexible Strike capability will begin fielding this year as part of the 
B-2 P6.2 block effort, which includes Military GPS User Equipment and 
B-2 hardware to support carrying the B61-12 weapon. The Air Force began 
installing the Common Very-Low-Frequency / Low Frequency (VLF/LF) 
Receiver and will complete fielding the system in all twenty B-2 
aircraft in fiscal year 2020. This program provides the B-2 with a VLF/
LF receiver for secure, survivable strategic communications capability.
    Other on-going B-2 programs address modernization efforts with $176 
million across the FYDP to enhance the Identification Friend or Foe 
(IFF) system, replace the Crash Survivable Memory Unit, and integrate 
hardware upgrades for the employment of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance 
Penetrator, as well as the B61-12 nuclear weapon. The Radar Aided 
Targeting System software upgrade began development in October 2018 and 
will provide improved navigational handoff to weapons in a GPS-denied 
environment. Next year the Air Force will begin exploring 
modifications, $23 million within the FYDP, to the B-2 to enhance the 
aircraft's capability against hardened, deeply buried targets. And, 
finally, the B-2 will continue sustainment efforts, $139 million across 
the FYDP, for the on-going Low Observable Signature and Supportability 
Modification effort, to improve aircraft maintainability and 
availability.
Fighter Force Structure
    We remain committed to the dual-capable F-35 and its game-changing 
capabilities, while we continue to modernize and sustain our aging 
legacy fleet. However, our current fighter force of 55 squadrons is too 
small. To restore readiness of the force we must refresh the fighter 
fleet with a mix of 4th and 5th generation aircraft to ensure the right 
capacity and capability to fully implement the National Defense 
Strategy.
  F-35
    The F-35A is the centerpiece of the United States Air Force's 5th 
generation multi-domain capability and it is a critical force 
multiplier for legacy forces. It directly supports National Defense 
Strategy objectives to, ``Build a More Lethal Force and Strengthen 
Alliances and Attract New Partners.'' We remain fully committed to the 
F-35 program of record of 1,763 aircraft. Our budget requests $6.5 
billion in fiscal year 2020, and $31.7 billion across the FYDP, to 
continue production and integrate vital capabilities. No money from 
this program was taken for the 4th generation refresh. We expect to 
have over 20 combat-ready F-35 squadrons in our inventory by 2030, but 
to ensure those squadrons are ready to achieve National Defense 
objectives in future threat environments, we must field full F-35 Block 
4 capabilities as quickly as possible.
    Our budget decreases the F-35 buy profile by 18 aircraft between 
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2023 in order to align the procurement 
timeline with capability development and reduce retrofit costs. We must 
also continue our work with the F-35 Program Office to deliver in three 
key areas as soon as possible: 1) Autonomic Logistics Information 
System must fully operate as intended; 2) F-35 Reprogramming Enterprise 
must update F-35 Mission Data Files at the speed of war to ensure 
operational relevancy; and 3) F-35 simulator must be current with 
fielded aircraft operational flight programs, have sufficient fidelity 
to provide effective training, and be Distributed Mission Operations 
Network-capable.
    We are taking steps to achieve 80 percent Mission Capable Rates by 
September 2019 in our combat coded F-35s by addressing prioritized 
efforts to improve supply chain performance, Reduce Depot span time, 
Accelerate Modifications, and Optimize Unit Level Performance.
  F-22
    The F-22 is the only operational multi-mission air superiority 
fighter aircraft that combines stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, 
and integrated avionics to make it the world's most capable air 
superiority aircraft. The F-22 request adds $953 million in fiscal year 
2020, and $5.2 billion across the FYDP, for modernization efforts 
essential to gain and maintain air superiority against evolving 
threats. The Capability Pipeline, a section 804 program, combines 
former TackLink16, TACMAN and GPS M-code programs to deliver slices of 
each capability on a regular cadence to the field. Future 
modernizations will leverage the ``Capability Pipeline'' as a vehicle 
to rapidly prototype and iteratively field critical enhancements with 
capabilities delivered to the fleet on a regular cadence and ensure 
first look, first shoot, first kill capability in highly contested 
environments.
  F-15
    The F-15C/D supports both Homeland Defense and the air superiority 
mission. Our F15C fleet is aging, with two-thirds of the fleet past its 
designed service life. The 234 F-15Cs in the Air Force inventory will 
reach the end of their design service life in the next six to eight 
years, and our analysis shows additional service life extension 
programs are not cost effective. Our budget proposes to replace our 
aging F-15C fleet with a modernized successor by purchasing the F-15EX. 
We propose to buy 80 aircraft across the next five years to begin a 
cost-effective replacement of our F-15C fleet. The Air Force remains 
fully committed to advanced 5th generation capabilities and the F-35. 
The decision to refresh the 4th generation fighter force helps mitigate 
capacity risk while balancing near term readiness concerns.
    The F-15E fleet provides all-weather, long range global precision 
attack in all but the highest threat environments. Our F-15 budget 
requests $2.1 billion In fiscal year 2020, and $12.6 billion thru the 
FYDP, to continue modernization efforts to ensure the aircraft remains 
viable through the 2040s. Modernizing the F-15E with Early Passive 
Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) demonstrates our 
commitment to building a more lethal Air Force. EPAWSS will allow the 
F-15E to attack targets in high threat environments that the aircraft 
cannot currently engage.
  F-16
    The F-16 is the Air Force's primary multi-role fighter and 
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) aircraft. This program is in 
the midst of the largest modernization period in program service 
history in order to remain operationally capable through the 2040s. The 
program adds $443 million in fiscal year 2020, and $3.8 billion across 
the FYDP, for modifications to ensure the F-16 can operate and survive 
in today's threat environment. Major efforts in this year's budget 
include a Service Life Extension Program comprising 12 structural 
modifications, effecting 300 aircraft, with the biggest structural 
changes being wings, canopy sill longeron, and lower bulkhead. In 
addition, there are several avionics capability upgrades including the 
Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar upgrade, this replaces 
the current mechanically scanned radar, with greater ability to detect, 
track, and identify low-observable, low-flying, and slow-flying target. 
This joint emerging operational need is critical for the F-16 platform 
to meet aerospace control alert mission requirements in order to 
properly defend the Homeland against modern threats, these radars will 
begin fielding in 2019. Another key avionics capability upgrade is 
Auto-Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS) that prevents most 
controlled flight into terrain by executing an automated recovery 
maneuver to avoid collisions. The AGCAS system already has eight 
confirmed saves on F-16 block 40/42/50/52 aircraft. Working with Air 
Force Research Laboratory, we integrated this capability on F-16 Block 
25/30/32 analog flight control computers when completed. We are excited 
to continue fielding this life saving capability for our warfighters.
  A-10
    The A-10 is an effective close air support platform for the current 
Counter Violent Extremist Organization fight. Our analysis anticipates 
that, without further wing funding, aircraft groundings due to wing 
lifespan will begin in fiscal year 2021, with at least 26 aircraft 
grounded by fiscal year 2023. To retain the A-10 fleet at 281, we must 
continue to replace the wings to ensure the A-10 remains operationally 
capable through the 2030s. Our current budget adds $168.9 million in 
fiscal year 2020, and $751.7 million across the FYDP, to modernize the 
A-10, including $100 million for 10 more wings. The new wing contract 
is currently in source selection with contract award planned for late 
Fiscal Year 2019. The 2016 and 2017 National Defense Authorization Acts 
restrict retiring or divesting A-10s until completion of the F-35 
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation comparative tests, associated 
reports, and the Secretary of the Air Force briefs the findings to 
Congressional committees. The Comparative Tests are scheduled to 
complete in Fall 2019, with Initial Operational Test & Evaluation and 
Air Force reports complete Spring 2020.
  Light Attack
    The Light Attack effort supports the National Defense Strategy 
second line of effort for our allies and partners, finding ways to 
increase their ability to contribute to the counter-violent extremist 
fight. The Light Attack Experiment taught us important lessons we would 
not have learned through a traditional acquisition process. This 
experiment sought to test whether an existing commercial aircraft could 
perform as a combat capable and cost-effective platform to support the 
global campaign to counter violent extremist organizations. Key to the 
experiment was the demonstration of an exportable information-sharing 
network that will improve interoperability with allies and partners. 
Based on available aircraft that met experimental criteria, we focused 
last year on only one aircraft type.
    With the Light Attack effort being additive to the Air Force's 
topline, the fiscal year 2020 budget requests $35 million, and $1 
billion across the FYDP, to expand the experiment in this budget to 
include additional aircraft types (rotary, unmanned, turbojet) and 
technologies. Additionally, we intend to continue our close partnership 
with industry and allies as we determine the best strategy going 
forward. We remain committed to developing a cost-effective and 
increasingly networked counter-violent extremist capability to deepen 
these partnerships and directly support the National Defense Strategy.
  Next Generation Air Dominance
    The Air Force is investing in technologies as part of a family of 
capabilities enabling air dominance in the most challenging operational 
environments. The requirement to establish and maintain air superiority 
within the battlespace cannot be
understated--it underpins the joint force operations in any theater. 
Air superiority remains a core function of the Air Force, however is 
not a birthright, and given threat advances, cannot be assumed. Next 
Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) is our program that supports studies, 
analyses, technical maturation, and prototyping activities leading to 
enhancements in lethality, survivability, interoperability, and 
persistence to ensure air superiority. This budget requests $1 billion 
in fiscal year 2020 and $6.6 billion across the FYDP to fund the 
continued development of a next generation open mission system 
architecture, advanced sensors, cutting-edge communications using open 
standards, and integration of the most promising technologies into the 
family of capabilities. Furthermore, this program incorporates novel 
agile acquisition practices through its competitive industry consortium 
approach that is yielding favorable results and provides greater value 
for the taxpayer. Our efforts are being shaped by multiple analyses, 
including recommendations from the CSAF approved Air Superiority 2030 
Flight Plan, recently completed NGAD Analysis of Alternatives, and 
several others from renowned analytic organizations. Continued 
investment in NGAD technologies is critical to ensuring continued air 
dominance within emerging threat environments for all future joint 
operations.
Trainers
  T-1, T-6, and T-38
    The Air Force is continuing investment efforts in its trainer 
platforms, including modernization programs for the T-1, T-6, and T-38 
fleets. The T-1A Avionics Modernization Program will modernize the T-1A 
fleet and address known obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing 
supply issues. The Air Force is completing installation of Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out across the entire T-6 
fleet, modernizing the Aircrew Training Devices and Crew System life 
support equipment, and providing logistics support. Additionally, 
research and development activities will be funded for the Next 
Generation On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) to improve the 
safety of pilot training and address on-going Physiological Events in 
the T-6 aircraft. Modifications are also required to sustain and 
upgrade the T-38C fleet, including Pacer Classic III, Talon Repair, 
Inspection, Maintenance, and front canopy replacement programs until T-
X is delivered. The fiscal year 2020 requests are $26.8 million, $13.0 
million, and $37.9 million for the T-1, T-6, and T-38 fleets, 
respectively.
  T-X
    The Advanced Pilot Trainer (T-X) contract was awarded to the Boeing 
Company on September 27, 2018. The Budget request in the FYDP has been 
reduced to reflect the approximate $10 billion cost savings realized 
from the original program cost estimate. T-X replaces the Air Education 
and Training Command's existing fleet of 429 T-38C aircraft with 351 
aircraft and associated simulators, ground equipment, spares, and 
support equipment. The T-X will provide student pilots with the skills 
and competencies required to be better prepared to transition into 4th 
and 5th generation fighter and bomber aircraft. The fiscal year 2020 
request of $348.4 million continues the program's Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development effort, ensuring we meet a 2024 Initial 
Operational Capability and 2034 Full Operational Capability.
Munitions
    While operational demand for preferred munitions continues, so do 
our efforts to secure sufficient inventories for our warfighters. 
During the last several years, we have successfully ramped up 
production capacity across the portfolio, and our fiscal year 2020 
Budget Request funds preferred munitions to industrial production 
capacity. Thanks to strong Congressional support and funding, this 
budget continues to improve on significant fiscal year 2019 munitions 
gains and emphasizes the munitions most relevant to the high-end fight. 
Consistent with prior budgets, the fiscal year 2020 request again 
leverages increased base budget and Overseas Contingency Operations 
(OCO) funding to rebuild inventories and replenish the large number of 
munitions expended to counter violent extremist organizations around 
the world. Additionally, this budget also requests funding to develop 
more lethal weapons capabilities to meet future operational 
requirements. As we continue working to synchronize munition 
inventories with National Defense Strategy objectives, the Air Force is 
grateful for the continuing Congressional support to confront these 
challenges. To ensure success, munitions procurement will remain an 
item of interest across the FYDP.
  Joint Direct Attack Munition and Small Diameter Bomb
    The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is the air-to-ground weapon 
of choice and the expenditure rate has increased 134 percent so far in 
fiscal year 2019 (6,202) compared to fiscal year 2018 (2,656). In 
fiscal year 2015, JDAM production capacity was 18,500 tailkits per 
year; by fiscal year 2018 tailkit production increased to 45,000 
tailkits per year to meet the needs of the Services and Foreign 
Military Sales (FMS) partners. The Air Force plans to procure 37,000 
tailkits in fiscal year 2020 with a request of $1.07 billion, with Navy 
and FMS partners procuring the remaining production capacity.
    Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB I) provides reduced collateral damage 
effects and increased load-out per sortie for our warfighters. Due to 
its high operational utility, the Air Force ramped the line from 3,000 
weapons per year in fiscal year 2015 to 8,000 weapons in fiscal year 
2017. The Air Force's fiscal year 2020 budget requests $275.4 million 
and plans to order 7,078 weapons and the remaining quantity is 
available to FMS partners.
    SDB II will complete Initial Operational Test and Evaluation in 
fiscal year 2019, and in conjunction with the Navy, the Air Force's 
fiscal year 2020 budget requests $212.4 million to procure 1,175 
weapons, maximizing the production capacity. 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. 
All of these production increases expedite the inventory replenishment 
of our critical munitions and build stockpiles for future needs.
    Finally, Hellfire missiles provide a time-sensitive, direct strike 
capability for our remotely-piloted aircraft and remain in high demand 
around the world. Production capacity, shared between Hellfire and 
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), was ramped up from 5,000 missiles 
per year in fiscal year 2015 to 11,000 missiles per year in fiscal year 
2019. The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $299.6 million and procures 
at least 3,859 Hellfire missiles. With other Services and critical FMS 
partners, the production line will remain funded to maximum production 
capacity.
  Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and Advanced Medium Range Air-
        to-Air Missile
    As the Air Force responds to current operational demands, we are 
also looking to the future to ensure we are prepared to defend against 
more advanced threats as directed in the National Defense Strategy. 
Doing so requires advanced weapons capabilities, and the fiscal year 
2020 budget request reflects the Air Force's plan to continue investing 
in those areas, specifically with the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff 
Missile (JASSM) and the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 
(AMRAAM). These weapons provide unique capabilities in an anti-access/
area denial (A2/AD) environment.
    JASSM is the premier air-to-ground, low observable missile for 
defeating threats in highly contested environments. The fiscal year 
2020 budget requests $503.4 million to procure 430 missiles. The 
program is focused on increasing inventory by implementing a strategy 
to ramp up production rates and monitor subsystems for obsolescence. To 
achieve this, we have partnered with industry to expand production 
capacity to satisfy a 47 percent increase in our inventory objective. 
The total production capacity for the fiscal year 2020 procurement will 
be 510, with the available max rate for JASSM increasing to 430.
    Production of AMRAAM missiles, a critical air dominance weapon, 
remains consistent with fiscal year 2019 procurement levels by 
requesting $332.3 million for 220 missiles, as industry partners begin 
to cut-in a solution to obsolescence issues through the Form Fit 
Function Refresh (F3R) effort. Cut-in of F3R begins this year with 
initial deliveries starting in fiscal year 2021, and production rate 
continues to ramp up thru fiscal year 2024.
  Stand-In Attack Weapon and Extended Range Weapon
    To defend the Nation in an increasingly competitive global 
environment, however, we must look beyond currently fielded weapons 
systems and invest in future advanced munitions capabilities. To that 
end, the Air Force continues to invest in the Stand-In Attack Weapon 
(SiAW) to deliver a strike capability to defeat rapidly relocatable 
targets that create the A2/AD environment. The fiscal year 2020 Budget 
requests $162.8 million, and $841.4 million across the FYDP. 
Additionally, the Air Force is investing $246.2 million in fiscal year 
2020, and $587 million across the FYDP, in the Extended Range Weapon 
(ERWn), a rapid prototyping program to develop an advanced multi-role 
interceptor missile to defend against and defeat missile threats. 
Finally, the fiscal year 2020 Budget request continues to invest in 
rapid prototyping programs to develop hypersonic weapons for long-
range, prompt strike capabilities.
Tanker Fleet
    Tankers are the lifeblood of our joint force's ability to respond 
to crises and contingencies quickly and are essential to keeping our 
Air Force fueled as a global force. The tanker fleet is comprised of 
396 KC-135s, 59 KC-10s, and 6 KC-46s that provide the backbone of rapid 
U.S. global operations. Delivery of 179 KC-46 Pegasus aircraft by 2028 
will replace less than half of the current tanker fleet and leave the 
Air Force with 300 aging KC-135s awaiting recapitalization.
  KC-46
    While we continue to sustain the current tanker capability, 
building the future tanker fleet remains one of the Air Force's top 
acquisition priorities. The KC-46 will deliver greater operational 
readiness, flexibility, and survivability to the Global Reach mission. 
The Air Force awarded Lot 4 on 10 September 2018, increasing the number 
of production aircraft on contract to 52. Lot 5 (15 aircraft) is 
projected to award in July 2019.
    The first four KC-46 aircraft were delivered to McConnell AFB, KS 
(Main Operating Base 1), 25-31 January 2019. Two additional KC-46s were 
delivered to Altus AFB, OK (Formal Training Unit), 8-9 February 2019. 
The Air Force will continue taking delivery of KC-46s over the next 
year at a rate of approximately 3 per month until the backlog of 
aircraft is exhausted, at which point the delivery rate will reduce to 
approximately 1.25 per month. The Air Force will begin Initial 
Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) in Spring 2019.
    Partnered with Air Mobility Command, we have worked hard to accept 
the KC-46 while ensuring its major deficiencies--the Remote Visual 
System (RVS) and boom--are properly addresses without undue burden on 
taxpayers or warfighters. We initiated a subject matter expert team 
that derived critical performance parameters for both the RVS and boom 
and codified these parameters in a legally-binding agreement with the 
vendor. Due to the extensive nature of the fixes, especially the RVS, 
both actions will take 3-4 years to implement and retrofit fully across 
our fleet. Consequently, our warfighters strongly desired the KC-46 in 
their hands, vice the vendor's, while these corrections are being 
implemented for training and readiness purposes. Despite its current 
deficiencies, the KC-46 is safe to operate (adhering to flight manual 
cautions we have provided to our operators) and is the Air Force's best 
tanker for contested environments due to enhanced situational 
awareness, battle management, and countermeasures.
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $59.6 million in RDT&E funding 
for the ongoing KC-46 Engineering and Manufacturing Development and 
post production modification efforts. Additionally, fiscal year 2020 
also has a request for $2.2 billion in procurement funding to award Lot 
6 (12 aircraft).
  KC-10 and KC-135
    The average age of our KC-135 and KC-10 tankers is 57 and 34 years 
old respectively. Both fleets are challenged by aircraft parts 
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source issues. However, with 
the help of organic Air Force depots and industry, we are able to 
maintain these platforms as effective and safe weapon systems for the 
warfighter. We are executing several key modernization, safety, and 
compliance initiatives to ensure our KC-135 fleet remains viable 
through at least 2045.
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $124.5 million to continue KC-
135 modernization efforts. The Block 45 program addresses 
supportability, reliability, and maintainability issues with legacy 
flight and engine instruments by integrating a digital flight director, 
autopilot, radio altimeter, and electronic engine instrument display 
for our operators. Additionally, the Real Time in the Cockpit program 
provides real time situational and battlespace awareness to aircrews.
    Furthermore, fiscal year 2020 also requests $13 million through the 
FYDP to keep our KC-10 fleet operational through its planned retirement 
and includes funding for service bulletins and low cost modifications 
to ensure Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification.
Presidential Airlift
  VC-25B
    The VC-25B program will replace the U.S. Air Force Presidential VC-
25A fleet, which faces capability gaps, rising maintenance costs, and 
parts obsolescence as it ages beyond 30 years. The VC-25B program will 
deliver two new aircraft to meet the requirements for the President to 
execute the three roles of Head of State, Chief Executive, and 
Commander-in-Chief. The Boeing 747-8 aircraft will be uniquely modified 
to provide the President, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air 
transportation with an equivalent level of communications capability 
and security available in the White House. The modifications to the 
747-8 aircraft will include an electrical power upgrade, dual auxiliary 
power units that are usable in flight, a mission communication system, 
an executive interior, military avionics, a self-defense system, 
autonomous enplaning and deplaning, and autonomous baggage loading. The 
fiscal year 2020 Budget request aligns funding with the Acquisition 
Program Baseline and requests $757.9 million to continue Engineering 
and Manufacturing Development to design, modify, test, and field VC-25B 
aircraft by 2024, or sooner.
Airlift
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget continues to further investment in the 
Air Force's critical airlift modernization programs for C-5 Super 
Galaxy, C-17 and the entire C-130 fleet.
  C-5
    The C-5 Super Galaxy provides all-weather worldwide strategic 
airlift for combat forces, equipment, and supplies, exemplifying Rapid 
Global Mobility outlined in the National Defense Strategy. Current 
investment programs focus on fleet obsolescence, maintainability, and 
safety of flight.
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $73.6 million in procurement 
funding, predominately for C-5 core mission computer/weather radar 
system equipment. This system replaces an antiquated radar system with 
diminishing manufacturing sources and upgrades the core mission 
computer processor to meet the demands of future software 
modifications.
    Additionally, fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $10.2 million in 
RDT&E funding to support communications, navigation, surveillance/air 
traffic management upgrades, including Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out modifications required for global 
airspace compliance. Replacement of the Multi-function Control and 
Displays is a new start in fiscal year 2020 also included in this RDT&E 
funding request.
  C-17
    The C-17 is the only aircraft in the Air Force inventory that 
combines tactical capability with strategic range to operate from 
austere airfields. The fleet of 222 aircraft provides our Nation 
unmatched flexibility to conduct theater and inter-theater direct 
delivery, airdrop, aeromedical, and special operations airlift 
missions. Agile and efficient software and hardware updates will ensure 
timely readiness, safety, and capability improvements as this premier 
airlift platform contributes to our national security objectives.
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $138 million in procurement 
funding to continue critical modifications to the C-17 fleet. This 
includes ADS-B Out to satisfy FAA and civil airspace compliance 
mandates, Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) for the identification and 
control of military aircraft, and Large Aircraft Infrared 
Countermeasures defensive systems. Additionally, $25.1 million of 
fiscal year 2020 RDT&E funding will address obsolescence and flight 
safety issues. The development of a replacement heads-up display will 
address obsolescence of the current C-17 heads-up display and improve 
the system's availability, reliability, and maintainability. The Beyond 
Line-of-Sight communication system effort modernizes multi-channel 
voice and data communication subsystems to ensure the C-17 keeps pace 
with changes in DoD communication infrastructure.
  C-130
    The C-130 fleet consists of legacy C-130H and C-130J aircraft, as 
well as special mission aircraft (AC/LC/EC/MC/HC/WC-130s). The C-130Hs 
and C-130Js are medium-size transport aircraft capable of completing a 
variety of tactical airlift operations across a broad range of 
missions. The fleet delivers air logistics support for all theater 
forces, including those involved in combat operations.
    The Air Force continues to modernize the C-130H legacy fleet 
through a four-pronged approach emphasizing aircraft safety, airspace 
compliance, modernization, and partial recapitalization. We remain 
committed to ensuring C-130H aircraft remain safe to operate through 
efforts such as center wing box replacements. By replacing aging 
center-wing boxes, we are able to breathe new life into some of our 
hardest flown aircraft enabling them to continue to safely operate well 
into the future. The C-130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 
Increment 1 ensures the legacy fleet is able to fly in international 
airspace by complying with 2020 U.S. and international airspace 
mandates. The AMP Increment 2 program is key to the modernization of 
the C-130H fleet. This program will improve the fleet's maintainability 
and reliability by providing a new digital avionics suite mitigating 
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source issues. The Air Force 
is also partially recapitalizing the legacy fleet with C-130Js. The 
fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $140 million in RDT&E and 
$52 million in procurement funding to support the legacy C-130H fleet.
    Partial C-130H recapitalizing also supports our Air Force special 
operations forces. The newer C-130Js provide our special forces with 
the extra weight carrying capacity, longer range, and better fuel 
efficiency. These special mission variants of the C-130J conduct 
airborne psychological operations and offensive electronic warfare (EC-
130J), weather reconnaissance (WC-130J), search and rescue (HC-130J), 
and special operations (MC-130J and AC-130J). Along with purchasing new 
aircraft, the Air Force has multiple modification efforts for the C-
130J to include center wing box replacement, large aircraft infrared 
countermeasures, and an accelerated avionics upgrade to meet 2020 
international airspace mandates as part of the C-130J Block 8.1 
upgrade. The C-130J Block 8.1 modernization program, currently in 
production, will begin delivering new communication and data link 
capabilities, a flight management system, and other key capabilities to 
the field. In addition, the Air Force plans to upgrade our C-130H and 
C-130J fleets with a Mobile User Objective System satellite 
communication system to ensure we can maintain key communication links 
anywhere in the world.
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $8.7 million for C-130J RDT&E 
and $142 million for C-130J modification efforts. There is also a 
request for $17.2 million for HC/MC-130J RDT&E and $958 million for HC/
MC-130J procurement and modification efforts.
Rotorcraft
    The fiscal year 2020 Budget continues investment in the Air Force's 
critical rotorcraft modernization programs, including the CV-22 Osprey, 
HH-60G, Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH), and UH-1N Replacement programs.
  CV-22
    The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $83.3 million, and 
$760.7 million across the FYDP, for the CV-22 fleet to assist in 
execution of the National Military Strategy by providing 
transformational mission capability to special operations forces 
warfighters. The Air Force continues to make improvements to the CV-22 
with modifications designed to improve reliability, survivability, and 
capability. Future efforts will make the CV-22 more cost-effective 
while ensuring the viability of its unique long-range payload capacity 
coupled with vertical take-off and landing capability.
  HH-60G and Combat Rescue Helicopter
    The Air Force is the only Service with a dedicated force organized, 
trained, and equipped to execute theater-wide Personnel Recovery. The 
HH-60G fleet currently accomplishes this mission by conducting day, 
night, and marginal weather Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) operations 
to recover isolated personnel in hostile or permissive environments. 
Due to the advancing age and current attrition rates of the HH-60G, the 
Air Force must continue to modify existing HH-60G helicopters while 
utilizing the Operational Loss Replacement program to meet combatant 
command requirements until we can fully recapitalize with the Combat 
Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program. The CRH will be specifically equipped 
to conduct CSAR across the entire spectrum of military operations. The 
fiscal year 2020 Budget adds one test aircraft to bring the total fleet 
to 113 air vehicles. The Air Force has fully funded the CRH program to 
meet National Military Strategy objectives through Personnel Recovery 
missions. The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $22.7 million and $1.1 
billion for the HH-60G and CRH programs, respectively.
  UH-1N
    The UH-1N Replacement helicopter is an element of the Air Force 
nuclear enterprise reform initiatives and also supports operational 
airlift within the National Capital Region. Last September, the Air 
Force awarded the $2.38 billion fixed price UH-1N Replacement contract. 
This contract will deliver up to 84 replacement helicopters, training 
devices, and associated support equipment to replace the legacy UH-1Ns. 
The fiscal year 2020 Budget requests $171 million for the UH-1N 
Replacement Program, which will fund the continued integration of non-
developmental items, the non-recurring engineering work required to 
certify the modified air vehicle, and preparations for the test 
program. The first two test aircraft will deliver in first quarter 
fiscal year 2020.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
    Aligned with the National Defense Strategy, the Air Force is aiming 
to reorient the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 
Enterprise by aligning ends, ways, and means to address the peer threat 
environment through the increased use of human-machine teaming. The end 
goal is a ready Next Generation ISR Enterprise possessing a decisive 
advantage for the warfighter while remaining competent across the 
entire spectrum of conflict.
    To meet the challenges of a highly contested environment, the 
future ISR portfolio will consist of a multi-domain, multi-
intelligence, collaborative sensing grid that utilizes advanced 
technology; it will be resilient, persistent, and penetrating to 
support both kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities alike. The fiscal 
year 2020 budget submission takes the first steps towards repurposing, 
retooling, automating and stabilizing the force to ensure the ISR 
Enterprise can achieve this vision within the next decade. The Air 
Force aims to increase both the quality and quantity of ISR 
capabilities with fewer airmen while remaining dominant across the 
Range of Military Operations. The very innovation and technologies our 
airmen have created in the field will allow our entire ISR Enterprise 
to advance and posture for operations in the Digital Age.
  MQ-9
    The Air Force's fiscal year 2020 investment funding request of $1.1 
billion will continue MQ-9 fleet modernization efforts aimed at 
providing cutting edge capabilities to the combatant commands. To date 
the MQ-9 fleet has flown approximately 2 million hours, with 91 percent 
of those hours supporting combat operations. This extraordinary level 
of warfighter support is facilitated by a unique program architecture 
in which MQ-9 sustainment and modernization efforts are managed as 
separate, yet fully integrated and complementary programs of record. 
This allows the Air Force to focus on operating and sustaining fielded 
MQ-9s while robust development and testing of planned modernizations is 
conducted in parallel. This strategy keeps the MQ-9 relevant with 
regards to the needs of the combatant commands while at the same time 
addressing future and emerging requirements. By structuring this way, 
mature and proven upgrades for the program at large are delivered when 
and where they are needed.
    MQ-9 modernization efforts include the new Block 50 Ground Control 
Station currently in development, a new DAS-4 sensor package, an 
Extended Range enhancement for Block 5 aircraft and an effective and 
reliable open systems architecture. Additionally, the MQ-9 program is 
actively engaged in mitigating the operational and maintenance impacts 
of sustaining a multi-configuration fleet as well as enabling airspace 
integration and access. The desired end state is a 100 percent Block 5 
MQ-9 fleet operated exclusively by Block 50 Ground Control Stations in 
Mission Control Element operations, with Block 30 Ground Control 
Stations used solely for launch and recovery operations.
  RC-135
    The Air Force is committed to sustaining and upgrading the RC-135 
fleet as it continues to be our most capable, relevant and viable 
signals intelligence platform. Continued modernization utilizing rapid 
acquisition and fielding processes is critical as we address emerging 
peer threats and the return to great power competition. The RC-135 is 
critical to our decision advantage as it provides vital intelligence 
data at unrivaled speeds to both the national-level intelligence 
community and the tactical-level warfighter.
    The fiscal year 2020 investment funding request of $289.9 million 
facilitates mission system improvements for the entire RC-135 variant 
fleet. Efforts include the automation of additional search and 
detection capabilities, improved near-real-time data distribution and 
collaborative processing, exploitation and dissemination supported by 
enhanced artificial intelligence algorithms. Finally, our partnership 
with the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force on the RC-135 continues to 
set the standard for cooperative efforts that strengthen alliances 
while increasing partner interoperability.
  RQ-4
    The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system provides high 
altitude, long endurance, all weather, wide area reconnaissance and 
surveillance. The fiscal year 2020 investment funding request of $257.5 
million, $1.6 billion across the FYDP, furthers modernization efforts, 
to include MS-177 sensor integration, a ground segment modernization 
program and a communications system modernization program.
    The MS-177 sensor is on track for Initial Operating Capability in 
the third quarter of fiscal year 2019. The MS-177 will utilize the 
Block 30 ISR Payload Adapter, which has been fully tested and approved 
for future modifications. The Ground Segment Modernization Program is 
progressing smoothly, with installation of upgraded cockpits at Grand 
Forks Air Force Base and Beale Air Force Base projected for completion 
in fiscal year 2020. Finally, the program's efforts to modernize ground 
and air vehicle communications equipment is also moving forward. The 
Communications System Modernization Program will improve RQ-4 
communications capability while alleviating Diminishing Manufacturing 
Source (DMS) issues with current equipment.
Multi-Domain Command and Control
    In future conflict, the prerequisite to achieving a strategic 
advantage over a peer competitor will be the ability to exercise Multi-
Domain Command and Control. The Air Force approach to Multi-Domain 
Control and Control is focused on complicating our future adversaries' 
abilities to defend themselves. The Air Force is developing a Multi-
domain Operations Center to fill a joint capability gap in command and 
control across regional and functional combatant commands. In fiscal 
year 2020, the Air Force will experiment with enterprise data to 
address network challenges with a goal of eventually fielding a ``Data 
Lake'' to serve as a command and control platform across air, space, 
and cyber domains. We plan to have an initial capability by fiscal year 
2022 and then continuously expand the capability through rapid software 
acquisition.
Advanced Battle Management System
    The Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) will realize the 
vision of multi-domain command and control to propel our warfighting 
capability through a layered family of systems construct. We are 
striving for the capability where any sensor can talk to any shooter 
whether in space, on land, at sea, in the air, or in cyberspace. Our 
aim is to have intelligence and targeting data transformed into timely 
and actionable information through trusted networks and intelligent 
algorithms that enable our people to focus on decisions. In this 
construct, information is a service, rather than a platform, and the 
layers of sensing and the communication pathways will provide 
reliability and assurance in a contested environment.
    We have started reviews to evaluate existing and emerging potential 
technologies and platforms across the Defense Department, the 
Intelligence Community, and the commercial world, to perform integrated 
analysis of the capability of various options to contribute to the 
fight and prioritize investment over time. We are beginning to develop 
requirements and standards for engineering discipline during execution, 
and all along the way to challenge ourselves and our Labs, commercial, 
and government partners to demonstrate capability early. As we pursue 
ABMS, we will maintain the right mix of legacy and future capabilities 
over time to be ready to fight. We are dedicated to pursuing ABMS 
thoughtfully. In total, from fiscal year 2019-fiscal year 2024, the Air 
Force is funding $3.8 billion towards the pursuit of ABMS across 
supporting programs. The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget request 
includes $525.5 million for investments across sensors, battle 
management command and control, communications, and architecture 
activities.
    To date there have been no changes to the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council requirements for the ABMS Initial Capabilities 
Document. The Initial Capabilities Document addresses JSTARS 
requirements for ground centric requirements, in addition to air 
centric targets as well. ABMS will be able to perform the mission sets 
associated with both the JSTARS and AWACS platforms and possibly assume 
other roles of the Theater Air Control System. Additionally, Ground 
Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) requirements are being folded into the 
overarching ABMS architecture.
    We are moving forward on ABMS, with the Analysis of Alternatives 
beginning in January 2019. It is being accomplished on a compressed 
schedule with release of results expected in the Fall 2019 timeframe. 
The on-going Analysis of Alternatives addresses our ability to conduct 
both the air moving target indicator (AMTI) mission and ground moving 
GMTI mission from permissive to highly contested environments in a 
disaggregated manner.
    Recently we hired a Chief Architect, as a permanent Senior 
Executive Service position, and he officially began work in this month. 
His first of many tasks will be to oversee the ABMS architecture 
design, enterprise communications and integration across programs. He 
will also identify technologies to enable horizontal and vertical 
integration across operating environments and warfighting domains.
Air Operations Center/Kessel Run
    Air Operations Center (AOC) Weapon System interoperability with the 
Multi-Domain Command and Control (MDC2) vision remains essential to the 
AOC way ahead. The fielded AOC Weapon System Increment 10.1 legacy 
system will not support the MDC2 vision without significant 
improvements and modernization, and the Air Force is committed to 
fielding a modern architecture for the AOC that enables MDC2's goal of 
a common command and control platform. The fiscal year 2020 President's 
Budget request includes $148 million to support sustainment and the 
additional AOC development capacity required to retire the AOC 10.1 
infrastructure and software while leveraging modern commercial software 
best practices. This year's budget request is required for the AOC to 
remain viable and will result in faster decision making capability, 
leading to more success in combat when fighting against a near-peer 
adversary.
  Kessel Run
    We are revolutionizing the way we build and deliver software. The 
Air Force's Software Factory, the Kessel Run organization, is proving 
we can get valuable software released faster, with higher quality and 
reduced risk using an agile software development operations (DevOps) 
approach. This approach focuses on obtaining immediate user feedback, 
allowing for rapid delivery of capability that matters most to the 
warfighters. Kessel Run's initial effort, the AOC Pathfinder, was 
successfully completed in July 2018 and transitioned to the AOC Weapon 
System Block 20 development effort using section 804 authorities of the 
fiscal year 2016 NDAA. The Air Force appreciates the use of these rapid 
prototyping and rapid fielding authorities, which have created a 
potential two-year schedule savings to retire the outdated legacy AOC 
10.1 baseline.
    We are leveraging the flexibility in these authorities to not only 
make development faster and delivering capabilities in weeks instead of 
years, but to also achieve better results for planning, executing, and 
assessing theater-wide air and space operations. To date, we have 
successfully deployed capabilities at Langley Air Force Base, Al Udeid 
Air Base and Osan Air Base to prove out agile DevOps at scale. Within 
these deployed capabilities, we have demonstrated the ability to 
increase the speed of initial software product delivery by as much as 
83 percent, and the ability to successfully deliver software 
application updates to users within hours. The Kessel Run organization 
also offers Enterprise Services, has expanded beyond AOC's current 17 
applications, and is developing a diverse portfolio of 12 additional 
applications including business enterprise systems and a logistics 
information system for the F-35.
Modular Open Systems Approach
    Modular, open systems, based in common and consensus based 
standards, reduces acquisition and lifecycle costs, improves innovation 
and competition, simplifies technology refresh, improves 
interoperability, and enables cheaper and faster modernization. The 
Open Architecture Management Office, established in January 2019, is 
posturing to be an Air Force wide office of expertise for common 
standards and open architecture efforts. The Open Architecture 
Management Office, located under the Air Force Life Cycle Management 
Center, currently manages the Open Mission System and Universal Command 
and Control Interface initiatives. These consensus based standards 
initiatives are being implemented on major weapon systems, such as the 
F-22 and B-52 Radar Modernization Program. There are also significant 
efforts to ensure these standards are compatible with other consensus 
standards such as the Future Airborne Capabilities Environment and 
Sensor Open System Architecture. The Air Force efforts in modular, open 
systems will enable rapid and reduced cost modernization.
                           future capability
    To compete against rising peer adversaries during this time of 
unprecedented commercial technology change requires a competitive 
acquisition system: one that is faster and more agile than all rivals. 
Our analysis, including multiple war simulations, workshops and 
wargames, clearly shows we must adopt the latest technology and deliver 
capability faster to stay ahead in the near-peer fight.
    To achieve our National Defense Strategy, ``the delivery of 
performance at the speed of relevance'' matters. We must design, build, 
integrate and field systems faster than any adversary. That is why we 
have taken full advantage of rapid acquisition authorities to 
accelerate our programs to maintain our cutting edge. Through 
authorities given to us by Congress, like section 804 and tailoring 
traditional acquisition approaches to match the program needs, we are 
trimming excess, non-statutory steps that have previously slowed 
programs down. As of the end of February 2019, we have saved 88.5 years 
through the use of tailored acquisitions and section 804 authorities. 
The initial goal of saving 100 years will be accomplished in less than 
one year of pursuit. As a result, we are getting better results and 
meeting warfighter needs faster. For instance, using section 804 
authorities, the Air Force is leading the development B-52 Commercial 
Engine Replacement Program, F-22 Capability Pipeline and Unified 
Platform. Stripping years from F-22 and Unified Platform programs are 
reaping the benefits as they shift to Agile Development Operations, 
accelerating delivery to the warfighter by over seven years. With the 
B-52 effort, we are duplicating commercial practices and aim at getting 
the new engine fielded three and a half years sooner than under a 
traditional Major Defense Acquisition Program.
    Another contributor to fielding tomorrow's Air Force faster is 
agile software development. With the establishment of the Program 
Executive Office Digital, Kessel Run and Kobayashi Maru software 
factories, and Software Engineering Squadrons, we are scaling the 
successes of recent pathfinders to implement modern commercial software 
development practices across the Air Force to speed delivery and close 
cyber vulnerabilities more rapidly.
    Faster acquisitions go hand-in-hand with smarter ones. One area 
where we are applying innovative thinking is in the area of 
sustainment. The new Air Force Rapid Sustainment Office has Program 
Executive Office authorities to drive innovation in sustainment 
programs, lower cost and improve readiness. The office is developing, 
transitioning and training Air Force maintainers to use technologies 
found in commercial manufacturing. Technological advances such as 
artificial intelligence, robotics and 3-D printing are being 
incorporated into our labs to lower costs and speed-up repairs for our 
warfighters. To date, the Air Force has certified broad swaths of metal 
and plastic additively manufactured parts, cold spray repair at our 
depots in Tinker and Robbins AFB, and over 140 predictive maintenance 
algorithms, saving cost while increasing readiness.
    Other smart practices center around the industrial base, both 
growing it and getting performance out of it. Over the past year, the 
Air Force saved the taxpayer over $15 billion through competitively 
awarding major contracts. We are committed to getting the most out of 
competition through maintaining stable requirements and remaining 
transparent with industry. We are also using new authorities, including 
section 804, for competitive prototyping in major programs like B-52 
Commercial Engine Replacement Program and Next Generation Overhead 
Persistent Infrared to expand our industrial base while lowering 
overall risk to the programs. Robust experimentation and prototyping 
are also enabling the Air force to develop disruptive technologies to 
retain our cutting edge while we sharpening industry's. New 
organizations, such as the Air Force Warfighting Integration 
Capability, AFWERX, and the Strategic Development Planning and 
Experimentation Office, are providing new ideas and tools to increase 
overall speed of idea to pathfinder to program.
    Outside of the Defense Industrial Base, we know many innovative 
ideas are being birthed in U.S. startup companies and that we are 
largely missing out on them. In order to break down barriers for small 
businesses who want to work on our toughest challenges, we have created 
an innovative new contracting approach. Using a one-page contract and a 
small-dollar contracting mechanism that can ``pay-in-a-day'', we 
invited small businesses to pitch their ideas to the Air Force on March 
6th and 7th. Of the 407 proposals received, we invited 59 companies to 
NYC to pitch their proposals. We were able to awarded 51 contracts 
valued at $8.75 million, with $3.5 million awarded that day within 3 to 
15 minutes. The week before Pitch Day we also held a Contracting 
Sprint, 25 February through 1 March, awarding 183 contracts and 
continuing to prove the concept of rapidly awarding contracts. Overall, 
this shows that we are able to move faster and smarter by awarding 242 
Small Business Innovation Research contracts valued at $75 million in 
the span of less than two weeks and expanding working relationships 
with startup companies and small businesses.
    Based on the success, we plan to repeat Pitch Days to increase Air 
Force access to a broader demographic of small disruptive companies 
revolutionizing U.S. and global technology industries. As we move into 
the future of building our Air Force for the future faster and smarter, 
the Fiscal Year 2020 President's Budget that has been submitted for 
your consideration is the avenue for us to fund the critical programs 
and initiatives to get there.
    We want to give credit and thanks to Congress. Without the Rapid 
Acquisition Authorities there would still be a half-century worth of 
unnecessary time in 20 of our programs that are using the new 
authorities in section 804 to develop and field faster. Additionally, 
we appreciate the delegation of Milestone Decision Authority to the 
Service Acquisition Executive; we have subsequently delegated all 
medium and small programs to the field, increasing overall decision-
making capacity and speed. Because of Congressional action, we can 
focus on performance--rather than process--in our rapid capability 
development efforts.
    We have many other initiatives that will commence later this year, 
all centered speeding our process to remain competitive for tomorrow's 
airmen as we remain dominant for today's. There will be no silver medal 
for building the world's second-best Air Force. We hope the steps we 
have taken with the authorities you have given us demonstrate that we 
do not intend to.

    Senator Cotton. General Fay, General Robinson, any remarks?
    Lieutenant General Fay. No, sir.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    One issue on which both Senator King and I have worked in 
the past is the shortage of pilots. Why do we not start, 
General Robinson, there specifically on that shortage and pilot 
retention efforts over the last couple years and where we 
stand?
    Major General Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Indeed, the Air Force has been focused on that very 
problem, as you alluded to. Where we stand today is we are 
increasing--there are three parts to the equation. It is 
producing pilots, seasoning or experiencing pilots to retain 
the experience, and then retaining the experienced pilots to 
the best that we can.
    The area that we focus greatly on is the production, and 
that is increasing our goal to get our pilot production up to 
1,480 pilots per year starting in fiscal year 2020. This year 
the glide path still continues to increase. In fiscal year 
2019, we are on track to produce 1,211 pilots and on track for 
fiscal year 2020 for that 1,480.
    Senator King. Could you put those numbers in context? What 
were we producing 2 or 3 years ago or 5 years ago, for example?
    Major General Robinson. Yes, sir.
    Two or 3 years ago, we were down on the order of about 
1,100 to 1,000, in that range, for production of pilots. Of 
course, the production for us is Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, 
as well as international allies and partners, and we have a 
small fraction of pilot training slots set aside for producing 
pilots for our able partners to do what we need to do in our 
missions globally.
    The other part we focused on is the retention perspective. 
We have done things to revitalize the squadron much like 
General Goldfein has talked about where we have reduced the 
administrative burden in the squadron by putting contractors in 
the squadron to take some of that burden off so that the pilots 
can focus on their primary missions.
    Senator Cotton. Can you be more exact by what you mean by 
those administrative burdens?
    Major General Robinson. We call those additional duties, so 
things like, for example, you would have somebody who is a 
mobility officer who tracks whether or not somebody is ready to 
deploy and mobilization requirements are met, training 
administration commander support staff, so looking at 
performance reports and awards and decorations in the 
administrative nature of the squadron. A lot of that has fallen 
on the Active Duty members to do over the past few years.
    Senator Cotton. Basically any extra tasks besides flying a 
high-performance aircraft and blowing up the bad guys.
    Major General Robinson. Yes, sir. We have taken some of 
that burden off.
    The other thing we have done in terms of retention is we 
have reduced the number of 365-day deployments. We cut those 
significantly approximately in half, reduced those to 179 days 
or less, as well as increased the bonus. We have taken 
advantage of the authorities that Congress has given us with 
regard to the aviation bonus as well. The combat air forces 
last year were offered a $35,000 bonus, the highest year, and 
based on what we see coming forward for mobility pilots in the 
next year or two, we are going to increase them as well to 
$35,000 a year.
    Senator Cotton. In return for how many years of service?
    Major General Robinson. It can go out to 9 years. There is 
a scale that they can take to the maximum. What we have done 
with that from that perspective is that has arrested the 
decline particularly in the combat air forces in terms of the 
bonus take rate. We have come up 1 percent--or actually 9 
percent up to 44 percent. The take rate, retention rate, if you 
will, for the rest of the Air Force is leveling off at 45 
percent. Still short of our goal of 65, but it has at least 
arrested the decline.
    Senator Cotton. Will the Air Force ever be able to match 
the compensation of what pilots can get in airlines or in other 
private aviation jobs?
    Major General Robinson. No, sir, I do not believe we can do 
that. Those are substantial salaries.
    Senator Cotton. Yes. I do not think we can either. I do not 
think Senator King thinks we can either. We can pay them well, 
and we can give them bonuses, which they deserve, but 
ultimately they joined the Air Force to serve and to fly those 
high-performance aircraft in defense of our Nation.
    Major General Robinson. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cotton. I am glad to hear that we are focusing on 
making sure they have the time to do that as opposed to being 
the admin duty clerk when they are back at their squadron.
    Another aspect of this problem is the RPA [remotely piloted 
aircraft] Get Well Plan. Could you give us an update on where 
things stand there?
    Major General Robinson. Yes, sir. On the RPA Get Well Plan, 
we are making quite a bit of headway there. In that respect, we 
have selected 87 aviators, if you will, for the enlisted pilot 
portion of that out of the 100. We are on track to make our 100 
enlisted aviators this year for the RQ4 [the Northrop Grumman 
RQ-4 Hawk]. Then we will continue to assess their performance. 
Initial feedback is their performance is very, very well, and 
they have handled a number of in-flight emergencies, for 
example, flawlessly just like you would as any other aircrew 
member that is trained properly to do that job.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Senator King?
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For the past 25 years or more, when the Air Force has been 
presented with the option of buying additional fourth 
generation aircraft, F-15's or F-16's, the Air Force has always 
said no. We are going to wait for that fifth generation 
aircraft. Yet, this budget includes $1.8 billion to buy eight 
F-15's in 2020 and a total of $7.9 billion over the FYDP 
[Future Years Defense Program] to purchase a total of 80.
    General Bunch, based on your personal and professional 
judgment, is buying more F-15's a sound decision?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, based on the situation we 
find ourselves in, we need both fourth and fifth gen aircraft 
to be able to execute our missions. We were counting on fourth 
gen aircraft such as the F-15E, the F-16, the A-10, as well as 
the F-15C to fly through the 2030s or deep into the 2030s. Our 
F-15C fleet is not going to make it.
    Last year in our hearing, we talked about the cost of 
trying to accomplish a service life extension program on the 
platform, and that was something that we were going to have to 
look at. We have now looked at that and what it takes to 
modernize that capability up in an F-15C, and the determination 
we made was that was not what we needed to do. We made the 
determination to buy F-15EX's so that we could keep our 
readiness at a higher level and meet the capacity need that we 
had for those fourth generation platforms.
    That is important from a readiness perspective because the 
time to transition from an F-15C to an F-15EX we estimate at 3 
to 6 months, while the time to transition from an F-15C to an 
F-35 could be anywhere from 18 to 36 months and would require 
MILCON [Military Construction] and other attributes that are 
not in our budget.
    Senator King. Essentially you see the continuation of the 
F-16, F-15's as a gap filler as we transition to F-35. Is that 
accurate?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. It is sure, and what I want to 
make sure--and I should have started my statement with it. We 
are not backing off in any way, shape, or form from the F-35 
program. We are fully committed to the program. We need it to 
serve as the quarterback as we try to penetrate anti-access/
area denial areas. It has an unbelievable suite, and it is the 
only platform that can penetrate and do those missions. We have 
to have that platform. This is about filling a capacity need 
that our F-15C's are not going to be available for.
    Senator King. Do you have figures either today or could you 
give me for the record the comparable operating cost per hour 
of the two aircraft, the F-16 and the F-35?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, you want F-16 or do you want 
F-15EX?
    Senator King. I am sorry. F-15EX.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Our current estimate right now is 
roughly $29,000 per hour. That is based on an estimate out in 
the future for the F-15EX. And the estimate for the F-35 at 
that same time right now is $44,000 per hour.
    Senator King. My question. How do we get the sustainment 
cost for the F-35 down so that it is affordable over time.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, it is a big focus of the 
Department. I will say it is something we are working with Ms. 
Lord's team, the Honorable McMahon, with the JPO [Joint Program 
Office], and with all the services to try to drive that down 
and with the contractor. We have set a goal. I heard the chief 
in his testimony last week say he wanted it under $30,000 an 
hour. We actually want it ``25 by 25'' is the phraseology we 
are trying to use. I do not know that they can make that. What 
we want them to do is try to drive those costs down. We are 
trying to increase the amount of efforts that are going on at 
the squadron level that we do not have to involve the 
contractor with. We are trying to improve ALIS [Autonomic 
Logistics Information System] so the performance is better so 
that we do not have to ship parts back maybe that we do not 
need to, or we have a better status of what is going on with 
the platform. We are trying to stand up the organic depots 
quicker so that we can do the work internally. We have a 
multifaceted approach, as well as identifying the components 
that are the high failures ones and the high cost ones and 
putting action plans together to attack those to get those into 
the field in a timely manner to both drive down costs and 
increase mission capable rates.
    Senator King. I think you answered this in part in your 
answer, but what are the elements of that per hour cost?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, this is one where there are 
a lot of factors that play into it, and if you ask three people 
about cost per flying hour, you got to really make sure you are 
all talking about the exact specific things.
    What I will do is I will take it for the record and give 
you exactly what we count in the dollar figure that we have, 
but it is additional people that are supporting. It is the 
spares. It is the parts. It is everything associated with 
operating that aircraft, and I want to make sure I give you the 
exact components that add up into it.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Bunch. OSD CAPE estimates of Cost Per 
Flying Hour (CPFH) account for fixed and variable costs of 
manpower, operations, maintenance, sustaining support, and 
continuing systems improvement. For the fiscal year 2020 
President's Budget, the $44,000 F-35A CPFH is based on a 
$50,000 fiscal year 2017 actual in fiscal year 2017 dollars, 
modified by applying real growth to non-fuel and non-MILPERS 
costs to account for inflation and an 85 percent learning curve 
to account for production improvements. The $44,000 CPFH is an 
average across 2020 to 2035 in fiscal year 2020 dollars.
    The $29,000 F-15EX CPFH average is based on a curve that 
was informed by industry CPFH estimates and fiscal year 2018 F-
15E actual CPFH escalated to fiscal year 2020 dollars 
($30,400).
    Both F-35 and F-15EX estimates are based on 250 flight 
hours per aircraft per year.
    Please note: other CPFH estimates may not contain the same 
elements and their dollars may be stated in years other than 
fiscal year 2020 dollars. For example, the F-35 Joint Program 
Office is required by statue to report cost figures in fiscal 
year 2012 dollars.

    Senator King. Well, your answer was very comprehensive. I 
take it from your answer there is a sense of urgency about this 
because if we are going to buy 1,700 of these airplanes, we are 
not going to be able to do anything but maintain them if we 
cannot bring that cost down.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, there is most definitely a 
sense of urgency in the Department, and we are having regular 
meetings to look at how we are executing the action plan. Cost 
is a big factor, sir, but I need the aircraft available and 
operating as well. It is a multi-pronged approach to get the 
most mission capability and combat capability that we can.
    Senator King. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Can I follow up? I am a 
little over time.
    In this calculation, there should be a calculation of 
incremental warfighting capability that we are buying. If we 
are paying more per hour, but the F-35 has capabilities that 
its predecessors did not have, I do not know how to calculate 
that dollars per lethality index. Do you see what I am driving 
at?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. I do understand what you are 
talking about, sir. We will tell you today there are missions 
that if you send a fourth gen and a fifth gen aircraft into the 
mission, the fourth gen is going to die. There are missions 
that we absolutely----
    Senator King. That is a high cost.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. That is a high cost. That is what 
we are looking at and the reason we are willing to pay more, 
but we need to get it down lower so that we can sustain the 
numbers that we have.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. One quick follow-up. Senator King referred 
to this F-15/F-35 issue as a gap filler. General Bunch, you 
stressed that the Air Force is not backing off the F-35. Is 
part of the reason that we have this gap now that we need to 
fill is that we did not acquire the number of F-22's that the 
Air Force had planned to?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, in the early 1990s, we 
planned to buy well over 600 F-22's.
    Senator Cotton. We did not quite make it to 600. Did we?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. We did not make it there, sir. 
One hundred eighty-seven. That caused our F-15C fleet to have 
to last longer and go far beyond where we thought that would be 
flying in our inventory.
    Senator Cotton. If there is any lesson to be learned from 
what we face today, it is looking back to that decision perhaps 
and playing it forward and saying we should get as many of 
these F-35's as quickly as we can in large numbers that we can.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. We do need to get them quickly, 
but I also need to----
    Senator Cotton. Senator Jones?
    Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I hate to continue to follow up on the F-15 issue, but as 
you can see, it is pretty important to folks. What I am curious 
about is just logistically. If we purchase new F-15's, are they 
going to be housed and based at bases instead of F-35's? I 
mean, those have been designated. We are putting them in place. 
Obviously, Dannelly Field has been designated. Is that 
something we need to worry about?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we are buying F-15EX's to 
replace the F-15C fleet. We will go through the strategic 
basing process to determine where we do that. Why that is so 
important for us is, as we understand it right now, 90 percent 
of the support equipment is the same for an F-15EX as it is for 
an F-15C. Seventy to 80 percent of the parts and components are 
the same. I do not have to do MILCON. There are a lot of 
variables that play into that, but right now, we are looking at 
the F-15EX's going to the bases that we already have F-15's.
    Senator Jones. Okay, great. Well, thank you for that.
    There is an unfunded line item for somewhere between 200 
and 320 personnel to better manage the military family housing 
programs at 63 bases. Based on the information we have received 
not only at the committee, but certainly in our personal 
offices, as well as these two hearings that we have held, we 
all agree we got to do something to improve the programs for 
military housing. I am really happy to see that we are trying 
to do it.
    Would these additional personnel that you are talking about 
be civilian or contractor, and what exactly would these 
personnel do to improve the management of the housing programs? 
General Fay, do you want to take that one?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, I think we are going to have 
to take that one for the record. I know that our IE 
[Installations, Environment, and Energy] experts are the ones 
working that issue right now. I know probably the most 
important aspect they are working right now is the bill of 
rights that we are working for all of our military tenants on 
our military bases to make sure there is clear understanding 
among all parties involved of what the responsibilities and the 
rights are and how those relationships work. But as far as 
exactly what is the composition of those personnel, we will 
have to get you an answer.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Fay. The Air Force's fiscal year 2020 
unfunded request for $31.2 million is to support additional 
manpower to perform enhanced Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative (MHPI) project oversight and ensure our military 
families are provided safe and quality homes. The exact number 
of personnel is still being determined. The additional 
personnel will primarily be civilian employees and will restore 
housing offices to optimum staffing levels. Contractor 
positions will only be used to supplement short term 
requirements. The additional personnel will enable more 
comprehensive oversight of work performed on homes during 
emergency and routine maintenance. Personnel will be trained to 
inspect homes for life, health, safety deficiencies and code 
compliance and to follow through until the quality of work is 
satisfactory and complete. A dedicated resident advocate 
position is also planned to assist residents with unresolved 
issues, lead resident council groups, and to educate residents 
on their tenant rights.

    Senator Jones. You are just anticipating, which is fine.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. I cannot tell you exactly. I can 
tell you that taking care of our families and making sure we 
have that right is very critical, and we are taking the steps 
we need to to get at that.
    Senator Jones. Great. Well, I know that that is somewhat of 
a work in progress, especially after all that has come to light 
in the last few months. All I would ask is that--you know, we 
have got two or three places in Alabama that have had some 
issues, and if you would just please stay in touch with us and 
keep us advised of the progress on all those issues, I would 
very much appreciate it.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jones. I will yield remainder of my time, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Let us go to some bigger picture items and then maybe we 
will turn back to some specific programmatic matters.
    General Fay, the Department's overall budget request--
Department of Defense--is still less than the recommended level 
of funding growth by the National Defense Strategy Commission. 
I understand that the Air Force, like the other services, had 
to make some tough choices. Can you tell us, given these 
constraints, where you see the most risk in your Department's 
budget request?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Essentially what we have seen and what we have heard from 
some of the other folks that have testified is 3 to 5 percent 
is what we need to do to be able to modernize and maintain the 
readiness of the force. Three percent above inflation is 
roughly what it takes to help us start getting at the readiness 
issues that we have had, with 5 percent roughly above inflation 
of about what it would take for us to be able to get after the 
modernization.
    I think that kind of addresses where we are taking the most 
risk in the Department. We are always in that balance, if you 
will, between readiness, modernization, and capacity. I think 
we have already heard some of those tensions in the testimony 
today. We are always working to keep that force lethal and 
ready, which is number one because we have to be ready to go to 
war tonight, ready to fight tonight. We are working very hard 
on recovering readiness right now. I think you see that we have 
done a great job with our pacing units, and we have knocked 6 
years off our readiness recovery in a number of those units. 
The modernization is absolutely demanded based on the security 
environment that we are operating on. We need to get after 
fifth generation modernization, and we need B-21's, F-35's, KC-
46's to be able to ensure that we maintain our superiority over 
our potential adversaries. At the same time, we cannot shrink 
because we have a certain capacity that is required to meet the 
demands of the warfighter and to meet the demands required in 
the future. All of those tensions I would say is where we 
continually take risk in our budget.
    Senator Cotton. Looking to fiscal year 2020, last week I 
had a similar conversation with the Secretary and the Chief. 
Some of the testimony we have heard here we heard last week was 
couched in terms of return to sequestration. I think it is 
highly unlikely given what we have seen over the last 6 years 
of stop and start budgeting practices and getting 2-year 
agreements to lift the budget caps and then pass spending 
bills.
    I want to probe a little more deeply and you can go in more 
detail perhaps than we were able to last week about a different 
scenario, one that we have not seen but some in Congress are 
starting to propose, which would be a full year continuing 
resolution (CR), the thinking by those proponents being that, 
well, you know, the Department of Defense has had 2 years of 
large top line budget increases and spending bills that allow 
them to reset their priorities. They should be able to live 
with a full-year continuing resolution.
    Could you explain to the committee why that might pose risk 
to the Air Force?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Mr. Chairman, there is essentially 
a significant impact on us if we are under a continuing 
resolution. Essentially the two big impacts are we are not able 
to do any sort of new start program and there are also military 
construction impacts on us.
    Specifically, if we were under a CR for approximately a 6-
month period, there would be at least 16 new mission MILCON 
projects that would not happen. There would be another 18 
military construction projects underway that would not happen. 
We did a rough look, and if it was a 6-month CR, you would be 
looking at 89 programs that would not be able to start. Those 
are things like our next generation GPS [global positioning 
system]. They are
F-22 modifications. They are F-35 modifications, very important 
required warfighter requirements. Our readiness gains would 
begin to eek out, and then we would also anticipate our desired 
growth of the 4,400 airmen that we were looking for in the 2020 
budget would not happen. Sir, those are real specifics.
    Now, sir, if it goes all the way to a year and we hit 
sequestration, you heard the Secretary and the Chief testify to 
the draconian impact that would have on us if we hit those BCA 
caps. You are talking about things--in rough order of 
magnitude, $29 billion, four times what we had during the last 
sequester. Our entire military personnel account is $31 billion 
for an order of magnitude on how gigantic that is. We would 
have to do things like make a decision to stop flying, not just 
a little, but all. Our entire flying in our program is $6.1 
billion. Stop fixing all of our aircraft. Our entire weapon 
systems sustainment account is $15 billion. All base 
operations, all airfield operations, all munitions stop.
    Or you could trade all science and technology, all 
procurement on such things as B-21's, KC-46's, F-35's, next 
generation air dominance, all of our space investment would be 
gone, and all our fourth and fifth generation modifications.
    If we get to BCA, sir, draconian, bad on CR, very 
frustrating to get anything done and to advance the ball in 
lethality and readiness, modernization, and doing things faster 
and smarter.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you, General Fay.
    General Bunch, one final question along these lines. Can 
you tell us why the Air Force UPL [unfunded priority list] is 
more than a billion dollars than it was last year despite the 
top line growth?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, thank you for that question.
    We had not finished our Air Force We Need analysis when we 
concluded our budget. That was a factor that played into it. 
That analysis, of course, supported the fact that we needed to 
get to 386 operational squadrons.
    The unfunded priority list that the Chief provided gives 
Congress the option to jump start us and accelerates toward 
building to that Air Force we need by allowing us to buy 
additional fighter and air refueling capability. Those are two 
of the ones that must increase in the Air Force We Need 
analysis.
    The other part that is in our unfunded priority list is 
$579 million to recover readiness losses if we are unable to 
get a supplemental to support Tyndall and Offutt. Right now, we 
are cash flowing that so we can keep those efforts going 
forward. We will have to take it out of somewhere, and those 
will be readiness things we will not be able to get at.
    Senator Cotton. That is a result of a stalled disaster 
supplemental spending bill. Correct?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Senator King?
    Senator King. Thank you.
    If someone comes up to me on the street who is mildly 
knowledgeable and says, what are we getting for this F-35, this 
program has had a lot of overruns, it has taken a long time, 
what do you the pilots think of it, and is it really worth the 
extra money? Maine people are very practical. That is a 
question I am liable to get.
    Lieutenant General Fay. Ranking Member King, what I would 
do is I would refer you to talk to the pilots that are flying 
the aircraft and operating the aircraft. The results that we 
are getting back from those that are operating the aircraft is 
the aircraft is absolutely phenomenal, that it gives them 
situational awareness that they do not [otherwise have]. It 
allows them to act as a quarterback for the rest of what I will 
say is the traditional force. What I mean by that is because 
the F-35 has such phenomenal situational awareness and 
understanding, they are able to share that with other platforms 
that do not have the same ability that the F-35 has. That makes 
them more lethal and more able to operate in combat. We have 
seen just fantastic performances coming out of high-end combat 
training exercises, our Red Flags.
    I will give credit to the Marine Corps and refer you to 
them. They have actually seen their first combat deployment 
with the
F-35B that they fly. We have some feedback from them that would 
be appropriate for another forum.
    But overall what I would say is performance of the 
aircraft, when it is operating, is really second to none.
    Senator King. This is from the pilots themselves.
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, that is from the operators, 
the pilots flying the airplanes, operating the aircraft, the 
units that are prepared to employ them.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, if I can add on that. 
Everything that Tim just said is everything I am hearing not 
only from them but from partners that are flying the aircraft. 
We are hearing nothing but phenomenal things and about how it 
is so much more situational awareness with that platform. They 
are changing how they report defense things. I mean, it is just 
completely different. It is a game-changer for everybody 
involved.
    The piece that I do want to kind of add into this is, but 
we have to keep modernizing it to get after the threat. We have 
funded the C2D2 [continuous capability development and 
delivery] effort to keep the software going. We are doing 
things like adding the agile software development to get 
capabilities out into the field quicker. One of those, Auto 
GCAS [Automated Ground Collision Avoidance System]--we have 
pulled that to the left. We think we will start fielding that 
this summer. The last estimate I had was June. We can get that. 
That is 4 years earlier than we had originally planned. But we 
got to get at continuing to develop it and to continue to 
develop those capabilities to get at where we see the threat 
coming in 2025.
    Senator King. I take it that the underlying design is built 
for modernization. We do not have to build a sixth generation 
in order to upgrade the capabilities of the fifth generation.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we need to invest in both. 
The fifth gen is critical for what we are trying to do, and we 
can continue it and it will be a part of what we do far out 
into the future. But we also must continue to invest in 
technologies that would take us to that next level as we see 
those threats evolving.
    Senator King. Well, my question is, is the F-35 designed in 
such a way that changes can be made incrementally without 
fundamentally altering the platform?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. I apologize, sir. I did not 
understand your question.
    Yes, we can. One of the upgrades we are going to do is add 
more computing power to it so that it can do more things in the 
future. We can incrementally add the software and we have got a 
roadmap laid out for all of our partners and the United States 
to go far out into the future for what we need the platform to 
be able to do without changing any of the outer mold lines or 
anything else.
    Senator King. Let me change the subject. You are using the 
804 authorities in a variety of ways. I supported those. 
Senator McCain certainly did. But you have a budget request for 
the next generation overhead persistent infrared, OPIR, at $1.4 
billion, replace the space-based infrared, the SBIRS, and you 
are going to use 804 programs.
    Given the history of the SBIRS, which was Nunn-McCurdy 
breaches, long lead times, a lot of extra money, do you really 
think that this project is suitable for 804 authority?
    Here is why I am asking the question. I do not want a 
disaster that undermines the political support for the 804 
authority.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, it is a fair question. When 
Dr. Roper reviewed and we reviewed the program, we felt that it 
was. We had a common bus that we could utilize. We were trying 
to meet an urgent JROC [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] 
requirement to have a capability on orbit in 2025. That is what 
the program was established to be able to go do. We are trying 
to pull it left. The team has gone through independent tech 
assessments within the Air Force. The team has already got 
contractors on contract to move forward to do the work. They 
are already starting to do the risk reduction, and we are 
already starting to design our prototype payloads. That is the 
real advantage of the 804 efforts is that we can get the 
prototyping and do some of that hardware stuff before we would 
normally have been able to go through all those acquisition 
processes.
    Senator King. Well, you understand my concern.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir.
    Senator King. Do not screw it up.
    [Laughter.]
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, the commitment that we have 
is that we are utilizing the 804 authorities more than the 
other services. Our words are ``speed with discipline.'' We 
need to be as good or better on the 804 programs as we are on 
the traditional programs so that we do not lose the confidence 
of the Congress that we can execute, and we must be transparent 
with you when we run into issues.
    Senator King. One final question on this subject. I also 
serve on the Committee on Intelligence. A sort of dumb 
question. Why is NRO [National Reconnaissance Office] not doing 
this? Why does the Air Force have to design its own satellites 
when we have got a whole agency that does nothing but design 
satellites?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I can take that one. I think 
we do them both for different mission sets, and we work as 
partners and we are actually working some where we are doing 
the acquisition together to get at different mission areas.
    Senator King. I would like you to give me an answer for the 
record on that.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Bunch. Driven from U.S. Strategic 
Command requirements, the Air Force provides capabilities for 
inherently warfighting purposes. Strategic missile warning, a 
key enabler of nuclear deterrence, provides timely warning of 
strategic and theater ballistic missile attacks. This mission 
area is the foundation of the nation's missile defense system 
as it provides the initial indications and warnings needed to 
identify, track, and protect against a missile attack. Other 
examples of mission areas for which the Air Force provides 
warfighting capabilities are missile warning, space control, 
and positioning, navigation, and timing.
    Warfighting capabilities are delivered by the Department of 
Defense under authorities provided by title 10 of the U.S. 
Code. The NRO, a member organization of the Intelligence 
Community, is focused on building satellites to provide 
intelligence data and operates under authorities provided by 
title 50 of the U.S. Code.

    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Scott?
    Senator Scott. First, thanks for your service. Thanks for 
all your commitments to Florida. You got a lot of assets in 
Florida.
    Can you let me know where you think we are on rebuilding 
Tyndall and then after that, talk about the movement of the F-
22's from Eglin?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, where I think we are on 
building at Tyndall right now is--I think you heard the 
testimony from the Secretary last week--is based on the fact 
that we have not been able to get a supplemental, we are coming 
up to some very difficult decisions that she is going to have 
to make in the very near future about whether we can continue 
with Tyndall's recovery or whether we are going to have to 
pause.
    Senator Scott. You just take it out of other----
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, that is all we are doing is we 
are cash flowing it from other accounts. Right now, there are 
other projects in other States that are not being accomplished 
because of what we are cash flowing and kind of betting on with 
a supplemental to get us to that recovery point with Tyndall.
    Sir, I would offer the same for Offutt Air Force Base in 
Nebraska. We are in the same situation for both bases.
    Senator Scott. That was with the flooding just recently?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Yes, sir, the significant flooding 
that hit them as well. In addition to the very difficult time 
we had at Tyndall with over 95 percent of our facilities being 
damaged during that hurricane, we had a significant amount of 
our base at Offutt under water here very recently.
    Senator Scott. How hard is it going to be if we do not get 
the disaster bill done? I do not think Offutt is even in 
Senator Shelby's bill. Right?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, I cannot speak to what is in 
the bill.
    Senator Scott. I do not think it is because it happened 
afterwards.
    But take Tyndall as an example. What if you have to stop 
and restart? Is that going to cost a lot more money?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, I cannot say for sure what it 
will cost money-wise, but I can tell you it will cause 
disruption. It will be difficult on mission. It will be 
difficult on people, and certainly it is going to break some 
things across the Air Force. I believe the Secretary has 
testified even further that if we are unable to get a 
supplemental going further into the summer and then into the 
fall, that she is going to have to make decisions that could 
impact readiness and maintenance and flying as well. Some very 
tough decisions for her or her successor are coming if we are 
unable to do the supplemental.
    Senator Scott. Do you want to explain the F-22 decision and 
the impact that will have on--I know the impact it will have on 
Florida, but just overall. What was the thought process of 
that?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, I think what we can talk to on 
the F-22 is--and when we took a look at kind of looking at a 
max effectiveness, a max efficiency laydown for the airplane-- 
and I think the Government Accountability Office also took a 
look at this about kind of what would that look like so we 
could capitalize on things like our simulators, our training 
ranges, maximizing our maintenance, and recovering--and 
certainly our low observable facilities were an important 
consideration in that and some of the other specialized 
equipment we need for the F-22--we kind of took a look at a 
decision on where we could base those based on what happened at 
Tyndall to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.
    Senator Scott. Is there a similar training range like in 
the eastern Gulf? Is there a similar training range off of 
Virginia's coast, or do they still have to go down to Florida 
to do their training?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, I actually cannot answer that 
question. I can take that for the record. I know there are 
training ranges off the Virginia coast where our F-22's execute 
and train every single day. I do not know whether one is larger 
than the other.
    But I will tell you that that range off the coast of 
Florida is actually a very important range to us. ``National 
treasure'' is the word we often use because we do a lot of good 
tests there. That is a unique range for a lot of reasons, and 
``national treasure'' is the best terminology we could call it.
    Senator Scott. Is it important that we continue to take the 
eastern Gulf off of any chance of doing any oil drilling for 
the military?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, again, I cannot speak to oil 
drilling. I would have to probably circle back for the record 
on that as well.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Fay. The specific Special Use Airspace 
in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, historically used by the F-22s, 
is Warning Areas W-151 and W-470. Likewise, there are numerous 
Warning Areas off the eastern coast of the United States, 
similar in volume and attributes, proximately scheduled by both 
Air Force and Navy units. Of particular note is Warning Area W-
386 off the coast of Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, scheduled 
by the U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, 
Virginia Capes. Through local agreement and with the exception 
of high priority Navy taskings, the F-22 from Joint Base 
Langley-Eustice have almost exclusive use of this Special Use 
Airspace.

    Lieutenant General Bunch. As a former test center commander 
who the Eglin range fell under as the commander, that range is 
a national treasure. There are unique things we can do only in 
that range with that water space and the ability to freely 
operate. It is one that we would like to be consulted on if a 
decision is made to change away from the lines that are there. 
I would encourage us to be allowed to be part of that 
conversation so that the overall impacts to what we are doing 
from a test and training perspective are considered as we make 
a final decision.
    Senator Scott. Thank you.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Blumenthal?
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I know there has been some fairly extensive discussion of 
the F-35. I want to focus on a question that I think so far has 
not been asked. My understanding is that the Air Force is 
working with industry on a program called Adaptive Engine 
Transition Program, AETP. You are familiar with it. The goal is 
to develop a next generation engine for the Air Force variant 
of the F-35 and other future fighter aircraft. We are 
implementing the F-35 and already thinking about the next 
generation of engine, which is a good thing. Senator King has 
asked about the improvements that can be made to the F-35 as it 
is produced. This area may be one.
    The baseline improvement threshold for the fighter aircraft 
airline is a 10 percent increase in thrust I believe and a 25 
percent increase in fuel efficiency. Once fielded, this 
increased capability will have a cascading positive impact, 
very importantly, that allows for longer missions and greater 
standoff from threats for refueling tankers.
    It is important that the Air Force gives industry the 
clarity it needs for the future of this program to allow for 
proper planning and investment in this vital next gen 
technology. Being from the State where Pratt Whitney produces 
engines, I am very interested in your thoughts about the 
funding for this program because I understand it is going to 
expire fairly soon. Am I right about that?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I am not aware that it is 
going to expire. What I will say is it is a critical program 
that goes to a new generation of engines to provide the thrust 
that you discussed and much greater fuel efficiency so we could 
go farther with the aircraft or we could reduce the tanker 
footprint to support operations. It is one that as we have done 
it with the two contractors that we have equally funded to go 
forward on the program or we have funded to go on the program, 
that we are doing mission analysis as to what the impacts of 
that is on the overall force structure and whatever else it may 
change.
    It is a program right now that we are in debate about how 
we go forward on. That is a discussion that is going on within 
the Air Force. Where we are right now is they are building 
production representative engines and we are running them in 
the tunnels for a great deal of time so that we get the right 
data.
    The other part we are looking at on those is looking at 
whether we can scale those engines up or down so that we could 
utilize them in other areas.
    Senator Blumenthal. Utilize on other planes, other type of 
aircraft?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir, because if I can scale 
it up or down and I get the same performance, then I may be 
able to get other improvements. Now, that would take time to 
get a production line set up because what we have been focused 
on is building something that would go into an F-35 if we 
wanted to go there.
    Right now, it is a ground run, and we have got both 
contractors funded to complete that. The Department is looking 
at having further discussions about how we take or what the 
next step we take forward is. But it is critical technology 
that the companies are working on to keep us with a tech 
advantage against our potential adversaries.
    Senator Blumenthal. Does it have an expiration date?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I have had the team in and 
briefed me within the last 2 months multiple times. I am not 
aware that they are running at an expiration of funds, but I 
will take it for the record to go back and I will get back to 
you. If that is an issue, that is not one that I am aware of at 
this time.
    Senator Blumenthal. If you could, just let me know.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, sir. We will make sure we 
get you the right information.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Lieutenant General Bunch. There are no funds currently 
being executed in the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) 
that are set to expire.
    The AETP prototyping effort is scheduled to successfully 
demonstrate the adaptive architecture's ability to achieve 
significant gains in fuel efficiency, thrust, and thermal 
management at the completion of the prototyping effort in 
fiscal year 2021. Therefore, the fiscal year 2020 President's 
Budget does not currently show any funding beyond fiscal year 
2021 for AETP in Program Element 0604004F, Advanced Engine 
Development.
    The Air Force is reviewing potential follow-on efforts that 
will most appropriately leverage this revolutionary new 
technology to include a potential F-35 engine upgrade as well 
as other potential air platforms.

    Senator Blumenthal. The other question I wanted to ask in 
the brief time I have left is the personal protective equipment 
and gear training for females in the Air Force. The 2018 annual 
report issued by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the 
Services, as you know, recommended the Secretary of Defense 
require all of the services to provide women in the Air Force 
and all the other services with gender-appropriate properly 
fitting personal protective equipment and gear for training and 
operational use.
    When I asked the Army acquisition corps, Lieutenant General 
Ostrowski about this issue, he said that the Army has already 
made adjustments in its gear and its equipment and other 
relevant body armor and so forth.
    Perhaps you can describe for us what the state of your work 
is on that issue.
    Major General Robinson. Senator, thank you for that 
question. I will take a first stab at answering that.
    The truth of the matter is the Air Force has been very, 
very focused on that. Our Human Performance Program Office 
assessment has been looking at this for well over a year. The 
focus so far has been on aircrew fight equipment primarily, and 
we have looked at how do we produce more aptly suited flight 
suits, survival gear, as well as parachute restraining 
harnesses, and even ejection seats that are more amenable to 
both genders in terms of comfort and to reduce stress on the 
persons themselves.
    We have also looked at flight helmets, aircrew flight 
equipment and helmets, and make sure they fit appropriately for 
the different skull sizes and the comfort factors there, as 
well as different urinary devices, if you will, for those long, 
extended over war to fight so that they can take care of the 
biological needs as well, much in the same manner as the male 
gender can.
    The Vice Chief of Staff has recently asked us to focus on 
the defender force the security forces, to your point about 
what we call battle rattle or body armor to make sure that all 
the gear that they have to wear on the ground forces and that 
role is also looked at. He has actually put us on task to take 
a good, hard look at that. That is just recently in the last 
about 3 weeks or so.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The other piece that I will add 
to that, sir, because it is so important is we are increasing 
our education and our communication to make sure that everyone 
understands what is out there.
    We are also increasing our training of our life support 
technicians and everybody because that is not something that 
they as up [to date] as we needed them to be. We are changing 
that.
    The other one that we are doing, in an attempt to get 
additional feedback, is we just recently funded the development 
of an app that we can put out so that our female aviators can 
give direct feedback to issues they want looked at so that we 
can try to get at it more rapidly and aggressively.
    We had a group out at AFWERX within the last 2 months where 
we had a big study and had brought a bunch of aviators in to 
get at what problems we needed to be trying to tackle.
    As General Robinson said, we are now focused on defenders. 
We have got a team that is standing up right now. What we have 
done within the acquisition group, within the acquisition team 
is we have designated a program executive officer to be the 
lead for that. We have a lead MAJCOM [major command] that is 
going to come forward this year with a POM [Program Objective 
Memorandum] input, and we are trying to get at it so that we 
put the right level of focus on that. We are making sure that 
it gets the appropriate funding as the Chief has asked us to do 
to ensure that it is looked at as the budget is closed so that 
we are getting the proper amount of funding into those areas.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Senator King?
    Senator King. A quick update on two projects. KC-46. Where 
are we with the debris problem, with who is paying for what, 
and when are we going to be fielding these airplanes?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I will start with the 
thought. We have not started accepting aircraft yet. We did 
stop, and we are not accepting aircraft at this time. We are in 
the discussions as to when that will start back up. We think 
late this month, but I am not going to go to a specific date. 
We have meetings with Boeing on a regular basis and the Defense 
Contract Management Agency to make sure that we are doing the 
right steps to measure performance. We have asked for 
corrective action plans that go through what steps are going to 
be taken to reduce that, and then we are going to measure the 
success against that over time so that we determine where we 
are at. We are actually opening up sealed areas that were 
sealed before and doing further inspections. We are seeing 
progress, but we are not ready to start accepting aircraft yet. 
That is the first question that I think you asked.
    Senator King. Is Boeing being cooperative and forthcoming 
on this process?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Boeing is being very cooperative 
and very forthcoming with what we are doing into this area and 
it is increasing its work to do these inspections. But they 
readily admit they need to do this. We are not having any 
issues in that area whatsoever, sir.
    Senator King. Good.
    Finally, as I mentioned, Senator Cotton and I had a 
briefing on the B-21 back in February. But what can you tell us 
in an open setting about progress, whether you feel the 
contract is being adequately monitored, progress is being made? 
Are we on the right track, no surprises coming?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I am very confident in how 
the program is proceeding at this time. We are still within our 
acquisition thresholds and baselines. It is executing the way 
we want. We got past critical design review. Our next major 
milestone is first flight. We are using concepts here.
    You asked earlier about what are we doing to make sure we 
stay on cost and how we do this for the longer term to make 
sure we do not have problems. Open mission systems that we have 
got is a standard in there, open architecture. We are doing 
model-based systems engineering. We have brought the warfighter 
in early to make sure we are getting the right inputs in. We 
are, I will tell you, actively managing the program from a 
senior leader perspective with visits and dialogues with 
industry to ensure that we know exactly where they are at on 
the program and what issues they are having. We are still 
making great progress, sir. I am very comfortable with where we 
are right now.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    I am glad that we touched on the B-21. We mentioned earlier 
the F-22 and how we planned 600 and we ended up with 187. I 
think on the B-2 we planned 80 and ended up with 21. Not good 
performance.
    Senator King and I will probably continue to have those 
classified settings, for your information, once a year, once 
every 6 months to ensure the program is where we want it to be. 
General Bunch, you look like you have a comment.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we welcome the opportunity 
to come talk about the program with you or any of the staff.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Let me follow up on the KC-46. Actually before I do that, 
let me just touch on another bomber for the old bomber pilots.
    The Air Force is going to extend the life of the B-52 out 
to the 2040s I believe. That is a pretty old aircraft already. 
General Bunch, can you tell your airmen that that aircraft is 
not older than you. Is it?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I actually got a note on 
that, and I am afraid I am a little bit older than it.
    Senator Cotton. Surely not. I know we have a lot of 
Senators that are older than that airplane. Sorry. Stepping on 
toes here.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cotton. But I would say if it ain't broke, don't 
fix it. It still fills a lot of capability requirements that we 
have.
    But could you explain why the B-52 will be in use out for 
another 20-plus years if the B-1 and B-2, much younger 
aircraft, will not?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, the good news is I am actually 
younger than the B-52.
    Senator Cotton. Your airmen will be shocked to hear that.
    Lieutenant General Fay. I know. With the hair, I get that 
sometimes, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. It is your airmen who probably gave you 
that hair.
    Lieutenant General Fay. Yes, sir. As a B-52 guy, I can tell 
you I absolutely love the airplane, a great airplane for 
America.
    Its modernization plan is on track. We have taken a look at 
all the things that we need to modernize. The engines are 
obviously something that folks are talking about a lot right 
now as we move into that program aggressively to make sure that 
we have got good engines on it that are fuel efficient and easy 
to maintain and operate. We are also going to replace the 
radar. We are doing some work on the avionics to get them up to 
21st century standards, and we are also working on some of the 
weapons capability that the airplane has to be able to employ 
with.
    Overall, it is a pretty good refresh for the airplane. The 
service life of the airframe has got a long ways to run. You 
said 2040, and we actually could say 2050 based on kind of 
where we think we are at now. I will tell you that our 
maintainers are doing a fantastic job and our sustainers, 
making sure that that airplane is in good shape and able to 
operate.
    At the end of the day, this is about combat capability for 
the warfighter. Its capacity, its diversity, its range, its 
payload are a unique combination that make us probably have at 
least 75 of them in the fleet for a long time to come.
    Senator Cotton. If Lieutenant General Fay were Lieutenant 
Fay again today, you would be very excited about continuing to 
fly the B-52?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Sir, I would trade tomorrow my desk 
in the Pentagon for the right seat of a B-52 any day of the 
week.
    Senator Cotton. Okay.
    Back to what Senator King was talking about on the KC-46. 
The buy was reduced this year by three. I believe that was from 
15 to 12. General Bunch, can you explain that?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. It was, sir. We weighed it out. 
As we got to the end, we got three additional last year from 
Congress, and we thank you very much for that. What we got 
ourselves in a situation here based on priorities and what we 
needed. We took it for other higher priorities. We took three 
out of the budget, and we did that in 2022 and 2023 as well.
    Senator Cotton. Either for General Bunch or General Fay, 
let us talk about light attack. This is a saga going back now 
over 10 years. It seemed like last year the Air Force was on 
the cusp of procuring a fleet of light attack, and it appears 
this year it has been rescoped and changed. Can we get an 
explanation of that and what is going on?
    Lieutenant General Fay. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you 
for the authorities that allowed us to do that because I think 
what our Chief would tell you and I think what he has testified 
to is the fact that we are able to do that experiment, that we 
were able to move rapidly and move out was exactly what we 
think the intent of the 804 authorities was.
    We moved out on that with an eye on our allies' and 
partners' line of effort and our National Defense Strategy. We 
were looking for ways to include them in our counter violent 
extremist organization fight globally. This was one of the ways 
we wanted to get after it. I will say that one of the good 
lessons learned that we took out of that that we are applying 
today already is the network, the fact that we are able to take 
those airplanes and with technology that we can export to any 
partner or ally, connect them in a way that makes them part of 
the network in their country or to connect to the larger 
network, if you will, in this counter violent extremist 
organization fight. That was one of the good things that we 
took out of our experiment.
    Where we are going with that, based on what we have 
learned, is we are probably going to expand the scope of that 
experiment a little bit. We are going to take a look at some 
other potential platforms that we could use based on the needs 
of a wide variety of allies and partners. We are going to bring 
them under the tent, include them in the experiment, as well as 
the United States Marine Corps. In 2022, we are set up to make 
a decision about if we want to procure aircraft based on what 
we learn during that experiment. That is kind of our way 
forward.
    Now, we are going to buy a small number of those aircraft 
this year from the original experiment--the two different types 
of aircraft. We are looking at taking those aircraft and 
putting them to use and, again, extending the experiment, 
learning what we can work with allies and partners to get after 
this.
    Senator Cotton. Senator Blumenthal?
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As a trial lawyer, I was taught never to ask a question 
when you have no idea what the answer is going to be, but I am 
going to do it.
    The A-10. You know, there are advocates for the A-10. You 
know who you are. I would like to know from you what is the 
replacement for the A-10 in terms of its versatility in the 
kind of fights that we had in Afghanistan and Iraq where troops 
on the ground need that kind of air support in the midst of 
kinetic situations.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, let me start by telling you 
what it is not. It is light attack. Two different programs. 
Light attack in no way, shape, or form was ever intended to be 
a replacement for the A-10. There are some that have come out 
with that. They are separate and distinct. I want to be real 
clear that we are all good on that.
    The second part is right now we are not planning on 
replacing the A-10 for an extended period of time. We got a new 
wing contract that is in source selection. We expect to award 
later this year. We are going to have options to buy--I am 
going to say it is up to 112. I may not have the number exactly 
right, but well over 100 based on how we see the force 
structure plan out long-term.
    Right now, we are in operational test on the F-35 doing the 
comparative testing that Congress told us we needed to do 
between the F-35 and the A-10. Any decisions we would make on 
the A-10 we would not do till long after that, but right now we 
are planning on flying them into the 2030s.
    Senator Blumenthal. Planning on doing what?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Flying the A-10's out into the 
2030s. Yes, sir.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I am going to read the first 
sentence of your testimony on that. A-10 is an effective close 
air support platform for the current counter violent extremist 
organization fight. Does that mean we will not have an aircraft 
performing that mission for the next how many years?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, we can do that mission with 
a lot of platforms. The A-10 is very efficient and effective in 
that area, and that will be part of the considerations that we 
would make before we would decide if we wanted to change where 
we are going with our force structure, was how would we meet 
that need. The Chief has been really clear. We are 100 percent 
committed to close air support and what we do with our troops. 
We do it with a variety of different platforms. The A-10 is 
very effective and it will be something that we would consider. 
I will stop there so that the requirements guy can give you a 
better answer than me.
    Lieutenant General Fay. Senator, I just want to clarify 
your question. If your question was are we going to continue to 
use the A-10 in the counter violent extremist organization 
fight, the answer is absolutely.
    Senator Blumenthal. But you will continue using it for that 
mission, but it is being phased out. Maybe I misheard or 
misinterpreted your response.
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Sir, I think I said we are going 
to fly it through the 2030s before we do any reduction.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are the numbers not diminishing in 
terms of what you have available?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Because of the way the wing 
contract and the timing of that, we will start grounding 
aircraft in 2021, but we will stay above the number of fighter 
aircraft that Congress has told us we must. We will have to 
force manage our force structure to meet the numbers. But the 
part that we also will find out when we award this contract, is 
how quickly can we do this, how many are we going to have to 
ground. But we will actively manage the fleet to make sure that 
we meet our requirements for those units.
    Senator Blumenthal. I understand. Thank you. Sorry to be a 
bit dense there. Thank you.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cotton. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your 
appearance today and thanks for your service to Nation.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

           Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                            combat equipment
    1. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, can you provide 
any examples of improvements to flight gear and body armor you are 
fielding to improve fit and functionality for women?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The Air Force is focused on female 
fitment integration. We are actively working programs to implement 
female-specific 2-piece flight suits, bladder relief devices, body 
armor carrier vests for female defenders, and ejections seats 
accommodating smaller-stature and lower weight individuals.

    2. Senator Blumenthal. Major General Robinson, a leading cause of 
injury among servicemembers is ill-fitting Personal Protective 
Equipment (PPE) and combat gear. Women disproportionately incur such 
injuries. What are you doing to ensure the next generation of combat 
equipment is better suited for women?
    Major General Robinson. The Air Force is standing up Combat Ready 
Airman (CRA) as a single program office to develop, acquire, field and 
sustain standardized, integrated, and state of the art equipment for 
all airmen. We continue to work with sister services to develop common 
Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) and PPE 
solutions that are specifically designed to meet unique female 
anthropometric requirements within its programs.

    3. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, in the past, there 
have been issues with getting new equipment to our servicemembers prior 
to deployments so they deploy with the same equipment used in training 
before deployment. This is critical to preventing injuries and ensuring 
readiness. As you develop this equipment, how will the Air Force ensure 
the new equipment is available not only for deployments, but also while 
conducting pre-deployment training stateside?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The Air Force Materiel Command has taken 
steps to institute central management processes and practices for all 
mobility Individual Protective Equipment (IPE) warehoused within 
Logistics Readiness Squadrons/Individual Protective Equipment Elements. 
This will ensure all deployers have the required equipment for pre-
deployment training and deployments by balancing inventory excesses and 
shortages amongst bases. The remaining shortages have been addressed by 
consolidating all funding requirements and coordinating a single 
comprehensive funding plan through Air Force Installation and Mission 
Support Center. The AF is also standing up Combat Ready Airman as a 
single program office to develop, acquire, field and sustain 
standardized, integrated, and state of the art equipment for all 
airmen. The intended result will be to not only ensure adequate 
inventory levels, but modernize IPE across the FYDP by leveraging and 
fielding new technologies that will be available to future deployers 
prior to deployment.
                          c-130h modernization
    4. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, can you provide 
any updates to the approval process since I wrote to Secretary Wilson 
on this issue?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The NP2000 8-bladed propeller is a 
performance enhancing modification approved and currently funded for 44 
total C-130H aircraft. Currently, 11 aircraft have had been modified 
with NP2000 propellers. The remaining 33 aircraft will begin NP2000 
installations in June 2020. Since your letter, we have continued flight 
testing of the NP2000 propeller with other C-130H propulsion 
modifications all scheduled for completion Fall 2019. Data from this 
test and the accompanying analysis of performance information will 
inform Air Force leadership of composite propeller capabilities as a 
baseline for future decisions for the C-130H fleet.

    5. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, in light of the 
recent tragic events and the revelation that our Air Force C-130H 
aircrews face serious risk while flying the legacy propeller, what is 
the proposed timeline for installation of the NP-2000 propeller on the 
C-130Hs like the ones we have in Connecticut?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes, the USAF supports additional 
Congressional appropriations for the purpose of increasing propeller 
production.

    6. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, I understand that 
Collins Aerospace is currently producing enough propellers for two 
aircraft per month. Due to the risk associated with the legacy 
propeller, would you support an increase to three or four aircraft per 
month if Congress appropriated additional funding to support the 
increased production costs?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The Air Force does not consider the 
NP2000 upgrade to be a safety or efficiency upgrade. The NP2000 8-
bladed propeller is a performance enhancing modification approved and 
currently funded for 44 total C-130H aircraft. Currently, 11 aircraft 
have had been modified with NP2000 propellers. The remaining 33 
aircraft will begin NP2000 installations in June 2020. The Air Force 
continues flight testing of the NP2000 propeller with other C-130H 
propulsion modifications scheduled for completion in Fall 2019. Data 
from this test and the accompanying analysis of performance information 
will inform Air Force leadership of composite propeller capabilities as 
a baseline for future decisions for the C-130H fleet.
               aetp (adaptive engine transition program)
    7. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, can you provide an 
update on the program, are you confident that industry can meet your 
capability requirements?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The Adaptive Engine Transition Program 
(AETP) is an fiscal year 2016-21 technology maturation/risk reduction 
prototyping effort to design, fabricate, and test the first-ever 
complete, flight-weight adaptive engines in preparation for next-
generation propulsion system development for multiple combat aircraft.
    The AETP prototyping effort is scheduled to successfully 
demonstrate the adaptive architecture's ability to achieve significant 
gains in fuel efficiency, thrust, and thermal management at the 
completion of the prototyping effort in fiscal year 2021.
    We are confident that our industry partners will continue to meet 
milestones of this prototyping effort and will successfully complete 
all capability requirements.

    8. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, I understand the 
funding for this program is set to expire as soon as 2022. What is the 
future vision for this program past the F-35A engine replacement?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The AETP prototyping effort is scheduled 
to successfully demonstrate the adaptive architecture's ability to 
achieve significant gains in fuel efficiency, thrust, and thermal 
management at the completion of the prototyping effort in fiscal year 
2021. Therefore, the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget does not 
currently show any funding beyond fiscal year 2021 for AETP in Program 
Element 0604004F, Advanced Engine Development.
    The Air Force is reviewing potential follow-on efforts that will 
most appropriately leverage this revolutionary new technology to 
include a potential F-35 engine upgrade as well as other potential air 
platforms.

    9. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, is there any 
potential to down select to one industry partner in 2022 after the 
Option 1 active engine control review (ACR)?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The AETP prototyping effort has been 
designed with multiple potential transition paths. There is a potential 
to down select to a single industry partner for the F-35 application 
after the Adaptive Engine Requirements Document Compatibility Review 
(ACR). The Air Force values a robust industrial base with multiple 
industry partners to ensure the continued development of this 
revolutionary new technology.
    The potential to continue with multiple industry partners for the 
F-35 application will need to be weighed against fiscal requirements as 
the Air Force plans for potential follow-on efforts.

    10. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, this next 
generation engine technology has applications beyond just the Air 
Force. Is the next generation F-35 engine you are testing potentially 
compatible with the Carrier variant of the F-35?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The AETP prototyping effort will result 
in the first-ever complete, flight-weight adaptive engine prototypes 
that have gone through design, fabrication, and testing for an F-35A. 
While the engine prototypes have been specifically designed for the F-
35A, the engine prototype will require only minimal modifications to 
enable integration into the F-35C.

    11. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Bunch, have you 
coordinated or discussed this program with the Navy and Marine Corps to 
determine if you can achieve an economy of effort in fielding the next-
generation fighter engine?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. Yes. The Air Force has ongoing 
discussions with our sister services and OSD to determine the most 
appropriate level of collaboration to successfully transition this 
revolutionary new technology.
                               __________
            Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
                                 f-15ex
    12. Senator Warren. Lieutenant General Bunch, in your testimony 
before the Subcommittee, you stated that the Air Force intends to go 
through the strategic basing process to determine which units will 
receive F-15EX aircraft. Does the Air Force plan to field the F-15EX 
across both Active Component and Air National Guard squadrons, as the 
F-15C is fielded today?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The F-15EX is intended to replace the Air 
Force's oldest F-15C/D aircraft. The decision of fielding locations and 
timelines will be made using the Air Force Strategic Basing process.

    13. Senator Warren. Lieutenant General Fay and Major General 
Robinson, the Air Force maintains a diverse array of capabilities 
across the Air Force fighter, bomber and mobility fleets--all of which 
complement and support one another. It is important that this committee 
understand the Air Force's decision to procure the F-15EX from an 
operational perspective. What unique capabilities does the F-15EX bring 
to the Air Force tactical fighter inventory, whether in terms of range, 
payload or stand-off?
    Lieutenant General Fay. The F-15EX will be able to carry more air-
to-air missiles than any other 4th generation aircraft in the USAF 
inventory. Additionally, the F-15EX will be able to employ large 
munitions in the above 2,000 pound weapons class. A more detailed 
discussion of the F-15EX's unique capabilities is best provided in a 
classified setting, which we are ready to provide at your request.
    Major General Robinson. The F-15EX will be able to carry more air-
to-air missiles than any other 4th generation aircraft in the USAF 
inventory. Additionally, the F-15EX will be able to employ large 
munitions in the above 2,000 pound weapons class. A more detailed 
discussion of the F-15EX's unique capabilities is best provided in a 
classified setting, which we are ready to provide at your request.
                               __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Doug Jones
                        military family housing
    14. Senator Jones. Lieutenant General Bunch, in the Air Force's 
unfunded list, there is a line item for between 200 and 320 personnel 
to better manage the Military Family Housing programs at 63 CONUS 
(Continental United States) bases. Would these additional personnel be 
civilian or contractor, and what exactly would they do to improve the 
management of the housing programs?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. The Air Force's fiscal year 2020 unfunded 
request for $31.2 million is to support additional manpower to perform 
enhanced Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project 
oversight and ensure our military families are provided safe and 
quality homes. The exact number of personnel is still being determined. 
The additional personnel will primarily be civilian employees and will 
restore housing offices to optimum staffing levels. Contractor 
positions will only be used to supplement short term requirements. The 
additional personnel will enable more comprehensive oversight of work 
performed on homes during emergency and routine maintenance. Personnel 
will be trained to inspect homes for life, health, safety deficiencies 
and code compliance and to follow through until the quality of work is 
satisfactory and complete. A dedicated resident advocate position is 
also planned to assist residents with unresolved issues, lead resident 
council groups, and to educate residents on their tenant rights.
        spacecom (u.s. space command) hq (headquarters) location
    15. Senator Jones. Lieutenant General Bunch, it is my understanding 
that Huntsville, Alabama is being considered for the headquarters of 
SPACECOM, and I believe Huntsville would be the ideal location for the 
new combatant command, given the space equities already in the area. 
Can you tell us the timeframe for this decision and the factors being 
considered?
    Lieutenant General Bunch. On 15 April 2019, the Acting Deputy 
Secretary of Defense designated the Secretary of the Air Force as the 
interim Combatant Command Support Agent for U.S. Space Command upon 
establishment. The Air Force through their Strategic Basing process 
will be responsible for selecting the permanent location for U.S. Space 
Command. On 14 May 2019, the Secretary of the Air Force announced the 
enterprise definition, candidate bases, reasonable alternatives (for 
purposes of environmental analysis), and site survey criteria for 
United States Space Command.
    The enterprise definition is: a Department of Defense space 
installation that contains a (future) United States Space Command 
component or center. Site survey criteria include mission (alignment 
with critical space force expertise, co-location with a United States 
Space Command component or center, access to a C-17 capable airfield), 
capacity (administrative building requirements, communications 
connectivity, base operating support), environmental (air quality, 
biological and cultural resources), and costs (one-time and recurring). 
The Air Force anticipates a final basing decision in late summer/early 
fall timeframe.

                                 [all]