[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Collins, Murkowski, Blunt, Moran,
Hoeven, Boozman, Durbin, Leahy, Tester, Udall, Schatz, and
Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DR. HEATHER WILSON, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order. This
morning I am pleased to welcome Secretary Wilson and General
Goldfein to review the Air Force budget request for 2020.
Secretary Wilson congratulations on being named the sole
finalist, in other words, the next President of the University
of Texas, El Paso. We appreciate your participation here today.
We also appreciate your service as a congressman, as Rhode
Scholar, everything that goes with it. And you have had the
complete package and you are going to continue doing things, I
know, for the country. We will hear from you again in other
capacities.
The Air Force budget request for 2020 is $165.6 billion, an
increase of $9.8 billion over the amounts enacted in 2019. And
while we are here today to focus on the budget request, we are
also interested in hearing about how the Air Force is executing
the 2019 funds, which we thought were pretty robust, but
needed.
The National Defense Strategy Commission recently stated
that the Air Force will be at the forefront of the next
conflict regardless of where it occurs or which adversary it
features. That is a long time. I think they are correct in that
assessment. The country expects that the Air Force will invest
in a lethal force that will be able to confront our adversaries
of the future, and it cannot fail to maintain a ready force
today. This committee will scrutinize the budget request that
we received to ensure that it supports the more than 20,000
airman deployed around the globe in 180 locations, and that it
adequately addresses the long-term challenges posed to us by
China and Russia.
Today we look forward to understanding how your 2020 budget
request reflects the priorities, your priorities, to include
the creation of the space force, the addition of operational
squadrons, and what types of aircraft comprise those squadrons,
the modernization of our nuclear capabilities, and further
development of hypersonic weapons. Secretary Wilson, General,
we appreciate your service to the country.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
The Subcommittee will come to order.
This morning, I am pleased to welcome Secretary Wilson and General
Goldfein to review the Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2020.
Secretary Wilson, congratulations on being named the sole finalist
to become the next President of the University of Texas at El Paso. We
appreciate your participation here today and your continued service
over the next months to ensure a smooth transition.
The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2020 of $165.6 billion
is an increase of about $9.8 billion over the amounts recently enacted.
While we are here to focus on this budget request, we are also
interested in hearing about how the Air Force is executing fiscal year
2019 funds, which were provided on time.
The National Defense Strategy Commission recently stated that the
Air Force will be at the forefront of the next conflict regardless of
where it occurs or which adversary it features. I think they are
correct in that assessment.
The country expects that the Air Force will invest in a lethal
force that will be able to confront our adversaries of the future, and
it cannot fail to maintain a ready force today.
This Committee will scrutinize the budget request that we have
received to ensure that it supports the more than 21,000 Airmen
deployed around the globe at 180 locations, and that it adequately
addresses the long-term challenges posed by China and Russia.
We look forward to understanding how your fiscal year 2020 budget
request reflects your priorities and initiatives to include the
creation of the Space Force, the addition of operational squadrons and
what types of aircraft comprise those squadrons, the modernization of
our nuclear capabilities, and further development of hypersonic
weapons.
Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, we appreciate your service
and look forward to hearing how your budget balances all of these
important priorities.
Senator Shelby. Now I turn to the Vice Chairman, Senator
Durbin, for his opening remarks. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman, and Madam
Secretary, and General Goldfein. Thank you for being with us
today. And I just learned as I sat down here about the next
step in your career. I wish you the very best, whatever your
final decision may be. You brought real skill and dedication to
your job as Secretary of the Air Force, and you have overcome
whatever is left of House careers that both of us brought to
our next endeavor and made the very, very best of it.
Let me tell you that I believe that we are facing a
critical budget cycle. We do not want to return to
sequestration. I do not believe that is healthy for this
Nation, certainly not for our defense. But I also have to
quickly add that I do not believe dreaming up $174 billion in
OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) funds is the answer. I
believe that that is short-sighted, both in terms of our
deficit and in terms of our budgeting.
If there is someone in the Administration who believes that
we can dramatically short-change non-defense spending and look
the other way at $174 billion OCO, they just did not look at
the results in the last election. We need a bipartisan answer
to the future of this budget process. One that serves our
Nation and one that serves our National Defense. I will not go
into a long riff about the wall and what it might involve. I am
sure that will be discussed at length in many other different
places. I would also raise the question about the whole concept
of the space force. This to me is an idea that needs to be
thoroughly vetted and carefully reviewed before we stand up
another branch of our military. Is this in the best interest of
America's National Defense? Is it going to necessarily involve
an investment in bureaucracy which comes with it, which may be
uncontrollable?
The late John McCain spoke of many times about the
possibility that we are putting more people in the Pentagon
than we are in field. We need to make sure that whatever we are
doing, we are consciously avoiding overspending where it is
unnecessary, and consciously spending taxpayers' dollars in the
name of National Defense in a thoughtful way.
So, I look forward to that conversation. Thank you for
being here.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Wilson, yours and the General's
opening statement will be made part of the record in its
entirety. You proceed as you wish. Welcome again.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DR. HEATHER WILSON
Secretary Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the opening
statement in the record, I will just summarize a few points, if
I might.
The Air Force budget proposal that we have put forward is
driven by the National Defense Strategy and the priority
mission set out in that strategy. I would highlight probably
three major things for you and then answer any questions that
you might have for us. The first is that this budget focuses on
building a more lethal and ready Air Force. We are more ready
for combat operations today than we were 2 years ago. Readiness
first and foremost is about people and their training. We have
closed the gap on the maintainer shortage that we faced 2 years
ago when we were 4,000 maintainers short, and now we have to
season those young Airmen and make them into masters of their
craft.
The fiscal year 2020 budget continues the steady increase
in air strength, with an addition of 4,400 personnel. It also
adds in funds to hire more civilians, particularly focused on
depot level maintenance, to make sure that our equipment is in
condition to be able to fight. And we have stopped the decline
in the number of pilots and increased funds for the training of
those pilots. With respect to readiness of our equipment, we
are modernizing across the board with the F-35, the KC-46, the
B-21 bomber, the nuclear deterrent, the T-X trainer, and of
course our helicopters. So, we have modernization going on
across the board. It has to be cost-effective modernization,
but tomorrow's modernization, or today's modernization results
in tomorrow's improvements in readiness.
So, the first thing, again, we are doing is building that
more lethal and ready force. We are also trying to fill
tomorrow's Air Force faster and smarter, taking advantage of
the authorities that the Congress has given us since 2016 and
2017 to improve Air Force acquisition. We cannot win this
contest against near-peer adversary with an acquisition system
from the cold war. And so, we are speeding up the way in which
we do things. Delegating authorities to the services works. We
have more control over our major programs, and we are taking
advantage of the new authorities to prototype an experiment,
which you have given us. Last week, we had our inaugural pitch
day in New York City. We did this both to engage small,
innovative companies, but also to change the way the Air Force
does business with those companies. You know, we ended up
contracting in a single day with 51 companies. The average time
for contract award was 15 minutes and the length of the
contract was one page. We are fielding tomorrow's Air Force
faster and smarter.
The third thing I would highlight is that our fiscal year
2020 budget builds on our advances made in fiscal year 2019,
and further accelerates our ability to operate in space. There
is a 17 percent increase in space funding over fiscal year 2019
for about $14 billion on classified Space Programs. The
Department of Defense recently submitted legislation to
establish the Space Force as a new service within the
Department of the Air Force. This proposal capitalizes on the
Air Force being the best in the world in space, and given the
new era of strategic competition, it is a move that would
posture us for the future.
In closing, this budget includes funds with an emergency
clause for Tyndall Air Force Base, and I would ask that, Mr.
Chairman, I know you are looking at and trying to craft a
supplemental to deal with some of these terrible storms that
have hit the Southeastern part of the United States. We look
forward to working with you on that because that supplemental
will be vital to recovery of Tyndall Air Force Base.
Senator Shelby. You say Tyndall?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir. Tyndall Air Force Base
recovery. And finally, I thank all of you for the certainty
that you have provided us in fiscal year 2019. We started out
this year with a budget at the beginning of the year, and at
the end of the first quarter, we looked at the financials and
we had executed about a quarter of our program in the first
quarter of the year. Sequestration would erase all of the gains
that we have made together over these last 3 years, and we look
forward to working with all of you to make sure that that does
not happen. The Air Force will compete, deter, and win. That is
our job, and we look forward to working with you to make sure
that that continues to be the way the Air Force does business.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. General Goldfein.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAVID L. GOLDFEIN, CHIEF OF STAFF
General Goldfein. Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Durbin,
and distinguished members of the committee. What an honor it is
to, once again, represent your Airmen, 685,000 Active Guard
Reserve and civilians who stand the watch and provide top cover
for the Nation and our joint and allied teammates.
This hearing is the first public gathering since Secretary
Wilson announced her pending departure from the Air Force, and
I want to say publicly on behalf of all Airmen and their
families, what an honor it has been to work with her every day
to make our Air Force more lethal and more ready. These past 2
years have been the most rewarding of my career, and this
budget reflects the culmination of our work together to build
the Air Force we need to compete, to deter, and if deterrent
fails, to fight and win. And I want to state for the record
that we are a better Air Force because of the leadership and
the vision of our Secretary, Dr. Heather Wilson.
Chairman, I went to war for the first time as a young
Captain flying F-16s out of Shaw Air Force Base in South
Carolina, just a few days after Saddam Hussein invaded his
neighbor in Kuwait. We were the second squadron of 34 that
deployed forward out of 134 fighter squadrons in the inventory.
At that time, we had 401 operational squadrons and 945,000
Active Guard Reserve and civilian Airmen in the Air Force that
formed the fist the Nation needed. 401 operational squadrons to
defeat a middleweight, non-nuclear power who threatened his
neighbor in the region that posed little threat to our homeland
and our way of life. Today, we have 312 operational squadrons,
down from 401. We have just 55 squadrons of Fighters, down from
134. And we have 685,000 Airmen, down from 945,000. We are not
the Air Force of Desert Storm, yet it is articulate in the
National Defense Strategy, today we face a significantly
different global security environment. China and Russia are
nuclear powers, and Russia continues to violate treaties as it
rebuilds and grows its nuclear capacity and capability.
When my predecessor, General Tony McPeak, was the Chief in
1991, he and his fellow joint Chiefs were focused on supporting
a single Combatant Commander, Joe Norman Schwarzkopf the
Commander of U.S. Central Command. Today, should deterrence
fail, and we find ourselves defending our Nation against a
major power, as the Chief, Secretary Wilson and I will be
simultaneously supporting at least three Combatant Commanders
who will be simultaneously asking for air, space and cyber
power. First Geographic Combatant Commander will request forces
to support his campaign, which may include back field for the
fighters, tankers, and command-and-control forces he will place
on nuclear alert given his role as the Supreme Allied Commander
of a Nuclear Alliance. The next call I expect to receive will
be from U.S. Strategic Command and he will tell me how many
bombers, tankers, and command control forces he will need to
execute his nuclear deterrence plan for protecting not only the
homeland, but also our allies and partners. And the third call
will be from Northern Command, which will tell me how many
fighters, tankers, ISR, and C-2 aircraft he will need to
execute his plan to defend the homeland. And the Air Force will
be asked to support these missions simultaneously, not
sequentially, while at the same time maintaining a global
presence to deter any rogue Nation who might take advantage of
our situation as we simultaneously maintain campaign pressure
on violent extremism.
This is the stark difference between fighting a
middleweight rogue nation without nuclear weapons versus
competing, deterring, and if deterrence fails, fighting and
winning a peer fight. It is why Secretary Wilson and I continue
to articulate in every forum that the Air Force is too small
for what the Nation is asking us to do. And it is why as you
said Chairman, the National Defense Strategy Commission stated,
regardless of where the next conflict occurs or which adversary
features, the Air Force will be at the forefront. With your
support, this budget request will continue to rebuild the
readiness and lethality of the Air Force, which you supported
last year with an on-time appropriation following a damaging
sequester and years of budget uncertainty, all while the Air
Force executed continuous combat operations.
Sir, history does not always repeat, but it does rhyme now
and then. My father fought as a young F-4 Pilot in Vietnam, and
he and many of his peers stayed in and rebuilt the Air Force
his son needed to fight and win in Desert Storm. My daughter
and my nephew are young Airmen today, and with your support, we
will rebuild the Air Force they need to fight and win in this
era of great power competition.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward
to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Heather Wilson and
General David L. Goldfein
strategic environment
Great power competition remains the central challenge to U.S.
prosperity and security. 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. These great power competitors are challenging U.S. dominance
in all warfighting domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace.
Additionally, they are confronting us with threats below the level of
open conflict, through information warfare, ambiguous or denied proxy
operations, and subversion.
To face these challenges, the United States Air Force must compete,
deter, and win across the five priority missions of the National
Defense Strategy:
--Defend the homeland,
--Provide a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent,
--Defeat a powerful conventional enemy, while we
--Deter opportunistic aggression, and
--Disrupt violent extremists in a cost-effective manner.
In fiscal year 2020, we will continue to build a more lethal and
ready Air Force, while fielding tomorrow's Air Force faster and
smarter.
an air force in demand
Last year, Congress appointed an independent and bipartisan
National Defense Strategy Commission to study the global security
environment and forces necessary to prevail in an era of great power
competition. Their conclusion unequivocally stated: ``regardless of
where the next conflict occurs or which adversary it features, the Air
Force will be at the forefront.''
As the joint force prepares for peer conflict, the Air Force
continues to be in very high demand. Our Airmen perform strategic and
vital missions in all domains, across the spectrum of conflict, and
from 65 feet below ground to our highest geosynchronous orbits.
More than 21,000 Airmen are deployed around the globe, employing
unrivaled air, space, and cyber power from over 179 locations. Last
year, our Airmen conducted more than 50,000 sorties and 3,400 precision
airstrikes alongside joint and partner forces in the campaign to defeat
ISIS. In Afghanistan, the Air Force executed 44,400 sorties in support
of our Afghan partners, and targeted Taliban and extremist networks
with more weapons than any time in at least 5 years. Our mobility
forces transported over 1.25 million personnel, 1 billion pounds of
warfighting equipment and supplies, and evacuated more than 5,400
patients for critical medical care. To bolster allies and partners, we
increased NATO interoperability and readiness through the European
Deterrence Initiative, and Air Force bombers flew over 60 sorties
through our Continuous Bomber Presence in the Indo-Pacific. 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.
The Air Force also performs global, strategic, and critical
missions from our homeland. We maintain our nuclear force at the
highest state of readiness: last year our Airmen conducted 16,425
intercontinental ballistic missile alert tours and 350 missile convoys
across three missile wings and five states. In space, we operate 80
satellites that provide communications, command and control, missile
warning, nuclear detonation detection, weather, and the Global
Positioning System (GPS) for the world. Our Airmen also support a
global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) network,
and last year completed nearly 57,000 missions, collected over 437,000
hours of full motion video, and produced over 1 million intelligence
products for our warfighters and policymakers. Every day, our Airmen
stand ready on a moment's notice to intercept airborne threats to our
homeland, and they defend Air Force and Department of Defense networks
from our adversaries' persistent cyber-attacks.
We can only meet these demands with predictable budgets driven by
the National Defense Strategy. In fiscal year 2019, the Department of
Defense received its first on-time appropriation in over a decade. That
agreement required substantial effort by the Congress, and we are
grateful for your support and confidence.
However, continued budgetary uncertainty threatens to disrupt the
progress we are making. Substantial budget cuts would erase the gains
we made over the last 3 years and inflict substantial damage to our
national defense. In 2013, in the wake of sequestration, we were forced
to stand down one-third of our combat flying squadrons. We cancelled
large-scale exercises and lost over one million work-hours of depot
maintenance.
Despite nearly 30 continuous years of combat, no enemy in the field
has done as much to harm the readiness of the Air Force than the
combined impact of artificial spending restrictions, worsened by
operating for 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of
varied and unpredictable duration.
Let's be clear. We cannot fully implement the National Defense
Strategy to protect America's vital national interests with
unpredictable and constrained budgets. We must come together to find a
way forward.
the air force we need has 386 operational squadrons
The National Defense Strategy calls on us to compete, deter, and
win against near-peer competitors and across a wide spectrum of
priority missions.
Last year, in Congressional testimony, you asked us what we needed
to implement the National Defense Strategy--not ``What is the Air Force
we can afford?'' but ``What is the Air Force We Need?'' We didn't know,
and we should know. You put that question in the 2018 National Defense
Authorization Act, when Congress directed us to study the forces and
capabilities we require to implement this strategy.
Using our current operational plans and future defense planning
scenarios projected into the 2025-2030 timeframe, we conducted
thousands of simulations and wargames to answer this question. Our
analysis produced an unmistakable conclusion: the Air Force is too
small for what our Nation needs. We currently have 312 operational
squadrons--the clenched fist of American air and space power. To
implement the National Defense Strategy and prevail over our highest
priority competitors, our Air Force needs 386 operational squadrons.
To put this in context, at the height of the Cold War, in 1987, the
Air Force had 401 operational squadrons. Four years later it would
combat the Iraqi military in Operation Desert Storm, and decisively
defeat Saddam's forces in just 43 days. Despite a shrinking budget and
force size, the Air Force continued flying combat missions in the
region, and added significant new demands and missions in the wake of
9-1.
The independent and bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission
also asserts the need for greater capacity in an era of great power
competition. We cannot credibly face our future with the Air Force of
today, evolved over two decades for counterinsurgency and
counterterrorism operations. We must grow and meet our adversaries from
a position of strength.
Our study also shows more of the same isn't the best answer. The
Air Force we need must evolve to incorporate advanced technology and
wield cutting-edge capabilities in new and innovative ways. Together
with our joint partners, we are developing Multi-Domain Operations as
our new warfighting framework.
While our land, sea, air, space, and cyber forces have become more
joint and coordinated, they are not sufficiently integrated for the
future fight. Multi-Domain Operations will integrate U.S. and allied
forces across all warfighting domains. This concept will rely on a
joint and interconnected network of sensors, weapons, and platforms.
Forces will rapidly share information and present our warfighting
commanders unprecedented levels of knowledge. With information
superiority, we will simultaneously converge warfighting effects from
all domains and produce intractable dilemmas for our adversaries.
Ultimately, Multi-Domain Operations will be executed by our
operational squadrons, the combat power of the Air Force. Not all
squadrons are the same size, and not all squadrons fly airplanes. The
National Military Strategy directs a balanced ``boxer's stance'' of
military readiness, and our operational squadrons form the clenched
fist of American resolve. But a fist is nothing without the power of
the body--our supporting squadrons--behind it. These squadrons repair
our aircraft, manage and secure our infrastructure, keep our logistics
and supplies flowing, and support our Airmen and their families. Our
operational and supporting squadrons will fight together, so they must
grow and modernize together.
america is building a more lethal and ready air force
Our National Defense Strategy directs a more lethal and ready
force, prepared to defeat our adversaries in high-end combat. This past
year, we focused the additional resources provided by Congress on our
pacing squadrons, the 204 operational squadrons required in the opening
days of a peer fight. With these resources, we are more ready for major
combat operations today than we were 2 years ago. More than 90 percent
of our pacing squadrons are ready to ``fight tonight'' with their lead
force packages--the first Airmen to deploy at the beginning of a
conflict. When we include their follow-on forces, these pacing
squadrons are on track to reach 80 percent readiness before the end of
fiscal year 2020, 6 years faster than originally projected. As our
front-line squadrons meet their readiness goals, we will also ensure
the remainder of our operational squadrons reach the 80 percent
readiness mark by 2022, as we continue to build toward the 386
operational squadrons we require.
People and Training. Readiness recovery is first and foremost about
people. Recently authorized increases in end strength helped eliminate
a shortage of 4,000 Active Duty maintainers. In 2 years we closed this
gap and are working to build expertise in these young Airmen. While Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve maintainers still face manning
challenges, our fiscal year 2020 budget continues this end strength
growth by adding 4,400 Airmen and 5,143 civilians to the Total Force.
To address our aircrew shortage, we are implementing initiatives to
increase the number of pilots we train, season them in operational
units, and retain experienced aircrews.
Last year we produced 1,21 pilots, 146 more than originally
expected. This budget builds on our progress and will produce 1,480
pilots in 2020. We are also exploring how to use new technologies in
our ``Pilot Training Next'' program, where we are using virtual reality
and more simulators to train pilots better and faster. As we season
these young Airmen, some of our new Active Duty pilots will begin their
flying careers with a Guard or Reserve squadron and benefit from the
deep experience we have there. We are also pursuing quality of life and
quality of service reforms to retain our aircrew. Our new Talent
Marketplace gives Airmen greater transparency on their assignment
process, and we are reducing the number of year-long deployments to
improve stability and reduce the burden on families.
Our Airmen are shifting their focus to great power competition, and
we must train and equip them for the high-end fight. This budget
proposal includes funds to modernize our live and virtual ranges and
infrastructure to provide relevant and realistic training capabilities
against our most advanced threats. The Nevada Test and Training Range,
the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the Utah Test and Training
Range, the Space Test and Training Range, and several smaller range
complexes will receive targeted funding to better replicate the
capabilities of our peer adversaries. We are exploring ways to expand
contract adversary air--aircrews who are trained to fly as ``bad
guys''--from a single test case to up to three locations, freeing our
Airmen to practice their own skills rather than spend time simulating
the skills of our adversaries. This budget includes 1.1 million
peacetime flying hours, the maximum amount of sustainable training, to
prepare our Airmen to fight alongside allies and partners as vital
members of our joint force.
Cost-Effective Maintenance and Logistics. We are focusing on
innovative ways to maintain and supply our aging fleets. Last year, a
team of Airmen conducted a detailed sustainment review and produced 45
recommendations to ensure our aircraft and equipment are ready to meet
Combatant Commander timelines. We are fielding innovative technologies
to streamline supply chains, drive engineering improvements, and manage
our fleets. We are using data to make our maintenance personnel more
efficient and effective, and we are testing analytic tools and
monitoring sensors to match industry best-practices, known as
``conditions based maintenance.'' By being able to better predict when
a part will fail, we can improve readiness while saving time and
money--initial tests on several E-3 and C-5 components show the
potential to reduce up to 30 percent of unscheduled maintenance. And
we're making reforms cost-effectively. Our Oklahoma Depot is now
completing major repairs on our KC-135 fleet 40 percent faster and at
half the cost of recent industry contract proposals.
A ready force needs a modernized logistics system to power it. Last
year, we established the Rapid Sustainment Office to improve readiness
and drive down the cost of repairs by using advanced manufacturing
technologies. Through partnerships with universities and industry, this
office is identifying emerging technologies that can reduce the cost of
maintaining our weapons systems.
We will scale these reforms across the Air Force. This budget
includes $16.4 billion in weapon system sustainment to support our home
station and deployed fleets. We are striving to achieve 80 percent
Mission Capable Rates in our F-16, F-22, and F-35 fleets by the end of
this fiscal year. We will continue to focus on supply inventory,
increasing our maintenance capacity, enhancing our training and
proficiency, and moderating our operational tempo to help our
maintainers meet this goal.
Aviation Safety. We will not compromise safety as we prepare our
Airmen and align resources for great power competition. Last year, the
Air Force experienced an uncharacteristic increase in in-flight mishaps
and fatalities for manned aircraft. The safety of our Airmen remains a
top priority, so we initiated several actions to bolster our mishap
prevention programs, including additional safety training and
operational pauses to discuss risk. Our mishap rates are decreasing
toward historic averages, and we will continue to improve these
programs over the next fiscal year. We are thankful for Congress'
support and interest in this important issue. We look forward to
working closely with our joint teammates and the newly created National
Commission on Military Aviation Safety, established by Congress in the
2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
A Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent. The Air Force
provides two-thirds of our nuclear triad and 75 percent of our nuclear
command, control, and communications capability. We demand the highest
standard of readiness from the Airmen who manage and safeguard our
nuclear enterprise. The triad remains the ultimate guarantor of
American, allied, and partner security, and underpins America's
military power and diplomacy worldwide. As our adversaries continue to
modernize and expand their nuclear weapons and delivery systems, the
National Defense Strategy, Nuclear Posture Review, and National Defense
Strategy Commission all reaffirm America's need for a modernized triad
of air, sea, and land-based nuclear weapons, tied together by a
resilient command and control architecture. These forces deter nuclear
and non-nuclear strategic attack, assure our allies and partners,
achieve our objectives if deterrence fails, and hedge against an
uncertain future. Today, we perform these missions with the smallest
and oldest nuclear enterprise in our history. It is imperative that we
sustain our existing triad and replace these aging systems. Our budget
proposal fully funds our major nuclear modernization programs.
Our Ground Based Strategic Deterrent will replace the aging
Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, first deployed in
1970. These ground-based missiles are the most responsive leg of the
triad, given their long range and constant state of readiness.
Our Long Range Standoff Weapon will replace the Air Launched Cruise
Missile and improve bomber lethality and survivability through 2060.
Our modernized B-52, B-2, and upcoming B-21 bombers are the most
visible and flexible leg of the triad. They can be deployed to signal
resolve, and their sustained flight times and ability to be recalled
increase stability and Presidential decision-making time.
Finally, we are modernizing our nuclear command and control system
to ensure the President has uninterrupted access to his leadership team
and command of nuclear forces, under all conditions, without fail.
Since the end of the Second World War over 70 years ago, every
President and every Congress has supported the nuclear triad as a vital
element of our national defense. We must continue to do so.
Modernization. America's potential adversaries are rapidly fielding
capabilities that approach our own. We must retain our technological
edge and equip our Airmen with highly advanced and lethal tools to
prevail in high-end combat.
As we design our future Air Force, we are examining different
operating concepts to frustrate our opponents and defeat them in
combat. We will need systems that can penetrate contested environments
or remain outside these zones and employ long-range weapons and
effects. We are investing $1.5 billion to test and prototype game-
changing technologies to cement our warfighting advantage, including
hypersonic weapons, directed energy, and adaptive jet propulsion. Our
next-generation penetrating bomber, the B-21 Raider, is proceeding on
schedule and building on 3 years of successful development. It will be
able to deliver both gravity bombs and the Long Range Standoff Weapon
to hold adversary targets at risk around the world. High-end conflicts
will require the long-range capability of an advanced bomber fleet, and
the B-21 is central to the expanded bomber capacity and capability we
need.
Our aerial refueling capability underwrites the global nature of
Air Force power and enables the rapid deployment of aircraft. We
recently welcomed our first KC-46 tankers and are proposing to buy 12
more KC-46 tankers in fiscal year 2020.
The future fight will require a robust network architecture and
battle management system. This budget funds our continued transition to
the Advanced Battle Management System, a family of systems that will
fuse data from multiple platforms across all warfighting domains.
Nearly every system on the battlefield will contribute data to this
network, and through advanced analytics, commanders will understand the
battlespace and be able to direct forces faster than our adversaries.
To develop the capability for successful Multi-Domain Operations, we
are upgrading legacy command and control nodes and have established an
architecture to ensure the many programs that must connect and share
information will work together. We are also upgrading and modernizing
our electronic warfare systems, organizations, and analysis capability
to dominate the electronic spectrum.
We remain committed to the dual-capable F-35 and its game- changing
capabilities, including its ability to deliver nuclear weapons, and
will continue purchasing 48 aircraft each year. No other weapons system
is designed to fuse information and make split-second decisions inside
defended enemy airspace. As the quarterback in the air fight, this
aircraft combines the capabilities of our joint, allied, and partner
teammates to deter or defeat our adversaries.
While budget increases are making a significant difference and
restoring the readiness of the force, our analysis indicates that we
must purchase additional aircraft in the future to fully implement the
National Defense Strategy. Our current fighter force of 55 squadrons is
too small.
At the same time, our F-15C fleet is aging, with two-thirds of the
fleet past its certified service life. This fleet is expensive to
maintain, and F-15C capability against advanced threats is diminishing
over time. Our budget proposes to replace the F-15C with a modernized
successor by purchasing the F-15EX. We propose to buy 80 aircraft over
the next 5 years. This decision allows us to benefit from foreign
partner investments in the F-15 line to begin cost-effectively
replacing our F-15C fleet.
Cyber Dominance. Every day, Airmen encounter sophisticated and
persistent adversaries in cyberspace, some of whom are now peer
competitors in this domain. To meet this challenge, we are producing
innovative cyber capabilities to repel these threats, defend our
networks, and support Combatant Commanders around the globe. These
capabilities also strengthen domestic cybersecurity efforts, and helped
counter adversary attempts to interfere in last year's election.
Our fiscal year 2020 budget submission advances how we train and
equip cyber forces for Multi-Domain Operations. We are investing in new
capabilities to identify network threats and vulnerabilities, and are
designing countermeasures to mitigate risks to our weapon systems. Last
May, our Cyber Mission Forces achieved operational capability 4 months
faster than predicted. We will continue leading joint efforts to supply
these Airmen with a new, integrated cyberspace operations suite, the
Unified Platform. To fully harness this capability, the Joint Cyber
Command and Control system will provide Combatant Commanders cyber
situational awareness and battle management of these forces. We face an
increasingly contested cyber domain, and these investments will provide
the tools we need to prevail in both competition and conflict.
Accelerating Defendable Space. Our adversaries have recognized the
advantages we gain from operating in space, and are developing
capabilities to deny us the use of space in crisis or war. They are
developing weapons that can blind or jam satellites with directed
energy and electronic warfare, target ground sites and infrastructure
through cyber-attacks, or physically destroy or damage our satellites
with missiles or dual-use, on-orbit spacecraft. While we all would
prefer that space remain free of conflict, we will deter and defeat
these threats in order to secure the satellite constellations that
power our military forces and civil societies.
In January of 2018, we transitioned the National Space Defense
Center from an experimentation and planning office with weekday
business hours to an around the clock operations center to protect and
defend our assets and interests in the space domain. In July, we
transitioned the Joint Space Operations Center to a Combined Space
Operations Center, integrating the efforts of allies, partners, and
commercial industry.
In the 2019 budget, we proposed a significant change to our space
plans. With the support of Congress, we added nearly $1 billion to the
fiscal year 2019 Air Force space program. Our fiscal year 2020 budget
builds on our advances and further accelerates efforts to protect and
defend our ability to operate in space. We propose a $14 billion
investment in our space portfolio in fiscal year 2020, a 17 percent
increase over our fiscal year 2019 budget. It frames our warfighting
approach and changes how we prototype and field innovative space
technologies to stay ahead of our competitors. This budget includes $55
million for the demonstration of technology for a proliferated
satellite constellation. In partnership with the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, we will assess the future of small, low-cost
platforms.
The Department of Defense recently submitted legislation to
establish the Space Force as a new armed service within the Department
of the Air Force. This legislation would consolidate missions from
across the Department into a single Space Force. It would establish a
civilian Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space and a Chief of
Staff of the Space Force who would be a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. This proposal capitalizes on the Air Force being the best in the
world at space, and given the new era of strategic competition, is the
right move to posture us for the future.
Finally, we are devoting greater time and resources to train and
develop our space operators as true warfighters. They will be the
cornerstone of U.S. Space Command, our newest Combatant Command.
we are fielding tomorrow's air force faster and smarter
An era of great power competition demands we rethink the way we buy
things. China is innovating faster than we are, and fielding game-
changing forces. We cannot win this contest with an acquisition system
from the Cold War. We must move fast to stay competitive, and we are
fundamentally transforming what we buy, how we buy it, and from whom we
buy it.
The 2016 and 2017 National Defense Authorization Acts restored
responsibility for acquisition to the Services, and granted us new
authorities to accelerate prototyping and fielding. With these
authorities, we are changing the way we buy things to get capability
from the lab bench to the warfighter faster.
Our experience shows that delegating authority works. Last summer
we set a goal to strip 100 years of unnecessary schedule from our
program plans. So far, we have saved over 78 years and are closing in
on our milestone.
Three contributing factors are making us faster. The first is
prototyping. For example, in hypersonics, we are leveraging available
technology from across the Department of Defense to build, fly, and buy
our Nation's first operational boost-glide weapon 5 years earlier than
anticipated. For our Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared
Missile Warning satellites, we are competitively prototyping a new
sensor, retiring this key risk nearly a year earlier, while also
strengthening the industrial base for future programs.
The second contributing factor to increase speed is the use of
tailored acquisition strategies. We have empowered our workforce to
structure decisions around the specific needs of their programs, as
opposed to the generic milestones of the traditional acquisition
process. Recently, our F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability
Systems split its Milestone C decision into two tailored reviews,
accelerating fielding by 18 months at no additional cost.
The third major effort to increase speed to the warfighter is agile
software development. The decades-old ``waterfall'' process for
developing software is too slow, very expensive, and often doesn't work
at all. We are making a wholesale shift to agile development, putting
acquirers and operators together to make rapid incremental software
improvements. We proved the concept with a new tool to plan air
refueling at the Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base,
where we command the air war against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.
Our agile software tool saved the Air Force millions of dollars in fuel
each month, reduced the requirement by two tankers and ten aircrews,
and delivered a modern software planning tool to operators in months,
not years.
We established the Kessel Run Experimentation Laboratory to
continue applying agile development for the warfighter and stood up a
Program Executive Office Digital to develop and proliferate best
practices across the Air Force. So far, major programs like F-22, the
Unified Platform for cyber warfare, and the Protected Tactical
Enterprise System are reaping the benefits of shifting to agile
development, accelerating delivery of tools to the warfighter.
Using authorities given to us by Congress is not just faster, it's
giving us better results. We are able to find design flaws earlier in
the development period, fix them faster, and ultimately save money with
better products. Our B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program will
use digital models of new engines to compare their performance, with
greater levels of confidence in the results. Not only will we save more
than 3 years from normal development timelines, we expect to achieve up
to 30 percent greater fuel efficiency by prototyping these models.
Our recent Light Attack Experiment was conducted under these
authorities and 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 extremism. Key to the experiment was the development of
an intelligence gathering and 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 and intend to expand the experiment in this budget to
include additional aircraft types (rotary, unmanned, turbojet) and
improved technologies. Additionally, we intend to continue our close
partnership with industry and allies to further this technology 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.
We are also committed to competition. The Air Force saved over $15
billion dollars through robust competition with the National Security
Space Launch, Global Positioning Satellite IIIF, the UH-1N helicopter
replacement, and the T-X jet trainer.
Our Space Enterprise Consortium is removing barriers to entry for
small business and non- traditional vendors, and these companies now
make up nearly 80 percent of the Consortium's 235 partner
organizations. By removing bureaucracy and giving authority to our
Program Managers, our Space and Missile Systems Center is awarding
prototype contracts in 90 days, twice as fast as traditional
contracting.
Technology is evolving faster than ever before, and we are
acquiring the intellectual property, data, and software rights to keep
pace with this change. When we retain ownership, contractors must
compete to sustain and improve these systems, producing better
performance and lowering costs. We have already secured these rights in
our UH-1 helicopter replacement and T-X jet trainer programs, and we
will continue pursuing these ownership rights to flexibly modernize our
force.
As we increase competition we are leading innovative approaches to
contracting with small businesses and start-ups, and last year we
awarded over $1 billion to such companies. By law, we must spend $660
million through our small business innovation and technology transfer
programs, and want to make partnering with the Air Force easy and
energizing. We created a new mechanism to get dollars into the hands of
small businesses faster than before. By combining government credit
card payments with one-page contracts, we created a small-dollar
contracting process that will ``pay in a day.'' Last November, we
sought to award 50 small business contracts in 50 hours. We surpassed
our expectations and more than doubled our goal, awarding 106 contracts
in only 42 hours.
We just completed our inaugural Pitch Day to build on this success.
We invited entrepreneurs and start-ups to pitch revolutionary solutions
to Air Force problems. During the two-day event, 51 businesses won
contracts and were immediately paid up to $158,000, often within 15
minutes of their presentations. America's small businesses and start-
ups are engines of innovation, and we are developing creative ways to
employ their talents.
These authorities do not sidestep key decisions or oversight, and
we will not sacrifice quality for speed. Early prototyping informs the
Department of Defense and Congress about a program's feasibility before
making costly decisions to buy it. We are mindful of the trust placed
in us, and re committed to giving you more transparency about how we
are using new authorities than what is required for traditional
procurement. We will soon release our second annual report on
acquisition, giving you all our results, and we will provide you
reports on our prototypes and experiments three times a year.
an air force to compete, deter, and win
The United States faces an increasingly complex global security
environment, characterized by overt challenges to the free and open
international order and the re-emergence of long-term, strategic
competition between nations. To meet these challenges, the Air Force is
evolving to project unmatched power through the air, space, and cyber
domains. We are prioritizing our readiness to fight tonight and are on
track to meet our readiness goals. The new authorities Congress has
given us are allowing us to field tomorrow's Air Force faster and
smarter. We must rebuild the capacity we lost and field a force that
will compete, deter, and win for the American people.
EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Secretary Wilson, the 2020
President's Budget Request includes $718 billion for the
Department of Defense, but to comply with the Budget Control
Act, the Department has requested a large amount for an
overseas Contingency Operate, OCO. In your written statement,
you say that the Air Force cannot fully co-implement the
National Defense Strategy with a constrained budget, and I
think that is a given. How would sequestration spending levels
impact your current operations and your efforts to restore
readiness and modernization of weapons systems? Be as specific
as you can in this open hearing.
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, our adversaries around the
world have not done as much to damage the United States Air
Force as sequester did and going through sequester again would
be devastating to this Force. It would undermine the advances
that we have made in the last 3 years. And just even go back to
look at what happened when it happened before, it basically
meant the grounding of about a third of the Air Force. There
was a million hours of maintenance that did not get done in our
depots, and we are still digging out from under the impact of
sequester. If we did it again, the cuts would be deeper, and
the impact would be more lasting.
HYPERSONIC WEAPONS
Senator Shelby. General Goldfein, 2019 Defense
Appropriations Act included additional funding to accelerate
and to bolster several areas prioritized in the National
Defense Strategy, including hypersonic weapons,
microelectronics, and test evaluation of infrastructure. We
understand a lot of that is difficult to talk about in this
setting today, but what could you tell us in an open hearing
that what you are doing with that?
General Goldfein. Sir, I will start and the Secretary I
know has been very active with her fellow Secretaries on
working together across the services on these issues,
especially in the business of hypersonics. So, we have
investment in this budget, in next generation of air dominance.
We have investment in this budget in networking the future of
warfare to ensure that every sensor and every shooter are
connected, and then it brings our asymmetric advantage to the
fight so we can produce multiple dilemmas for an adversary. It
has money in this budget to work on directed energy, and it has
money in this budget that takes us from a purely defensive
posture in space, to also bringing offensive capability. And I
will turn over to the Secretary on hypersonics.
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I think hypersonics is a
good example of where we are doing things faster and smarter by
working together with the other services. The three Service
Secretaries get together quite often. In one of our first
meetings, we decided to sign a memorandum of understanding on
hypersonics. Navy had funded the test of a warhead on an Army
system with an Army shell that they work pretty well, but the
Air Force had better rockets. So, what we are doing for a
Hypersonics Program is we are testing the Army shellers, the
outside of the system, with Air Force rockets, and we are
designing this with all three services involved so that it
could be dropped off an aircraft, launched from the ground, or
launched from the deck of a ship. By doing this jointly and
using best technology, going fast, learning from each other, we
have accelerated the deployment of a hypersonic weapon by 5
years.
Senator Shelby. And you eliminate some stove pipes there
that you do not need them.
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir.
KC-46 TANKERS
Senator Shelby. Secretary Wilson, the KC-46 tankers. We
understand that the Air Force has accepted the first KC-46
tankers earlier this year, but two deficiencies, I understand,
remain outstanding. What is the Air Force's plan to resolve
these, dealing with the deeper matter, and ultimately
recapitalize aging the tankers fleet because the tankers are
very important to project force, as you know.
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, our budget includes
purchase of the next, I think it is 12 KC-46 tankers in fiscal
year 2020. We have accepted the first tankers and brought them
into both Oklahoma and Kansas. There are two critical
deficiencies that we are working on. One had to do with the
stiffness of the boom for light aircraft, and particularly the
A-10, which is a very light aircraft. The boom actually met
international standard, so it met the standards and that is
actually the first change on this program that the Air Force
has requested is a redesign of one of the actuators on that
boom so that it can accept lighter aircraft. That was at our
expense. The Remote Vision System has some issues with it, in
the acuity of the system, and the Air Force and Boeing have
reached agreement on what the technical parameters have to be
for that fix, and it will be done at Boeing's expense.
Senator Shelby. You think that is going to be worked out in
the next year?
Secretary Wilson. They are working on the technical design.
Now, it will not actually be all back into all the systems,
probably----
Senator Shelby. But the boom is actually key to refueling,
is it not General?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. And I will tell you that having
been a receiver of getting fuels in some really bad places on
the world, I went out and flew the airplane and put it through
the wringer. And there were four criteria I was looking at.
Number one, how does it fly? Number two, how does it
communicate? Number three, how does it defend itself? And then
four, how does it tank? Because we bought us commercial stock
767 aircraft, we got a lot of great capability when it comes to
how it flies. And what I was very interested in is, how stable
it is for receivers, its ability to communicate. What I am
perhaps most excited about as we look at network warfare, the
future, is the fact that there are 13 additional stations where
we can place community nodes in the future to take full
advantage of that capability.
When it comes to defending itself, it has defensive
capabilities that do not exist on the KC-10 and the KC-135. And
then last issue was what the Secretary talked about, which is
its ability to tank, and those areas that they are working--I
mean, we are tough customers and we did not accept a single
airplane until the company agreed to fix the deficiencies that
they had. And we are going to continue to be tough customers
and hold them to account.
Senator Shelby. Well it is imperative that the system work,
for the warfighter, is it not?
General Goldfein. Absolutely.
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, if I could add, while there
is a deficiency in the Remote Vision System, it is one that we
are working around and where the warfighter said, you know, if
we go to war next week, we want to have this in our hands, not
sitting on the ramp because it actually tanks--it is better
than our current tankers when it is hardest to tank, at night,
in bad weather, without lights out. It is hardest in bright
sunlight, which is when it is easiest tank.
SPACE FORCE
Senator Shelby. Madam Secretary, Senator Durbin already
touched on this a little bit in his opening statement, Space
Force. The Department of Defense has submitted a legislative
proposal that will go to the Armed Services committee,
concurrent with the President's budget request for 2020 to
begin the establishment of the U.S. Space Force as a separate
military service within the Department of the Air Force. Can
you explain the reasoning behind the change, in particular the
need to address current and future space risk, and what does
this do to the Air Force? Is this important to do? A lot of
people believe that the Air Force is space, you know, that it
is about space. You want to get into that a little bit?
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, the United----
Senator Shelby. Maybe you do not want to, but----
[Laughter.]
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, the United States
is the best in the world in space, and our adversaries know it.
And they are seeking to develop the capabilities to deny us the
use of space in crisis or in war. This year we are standing up
a Combatant Command to be able to fight and win in space. And
we had a Combatant Command before 9/11, and that will help us I
think change back to a war-fighting mentality in space and
recognize the threats that are emerging. We also, and you also,
have approved significant changes in programs based on threat
and the strategy that we put forward in fiscal year 2019, and
we are asking for another boost in fiscal year 2020, a 17
percent increase in the space budget.
American policy is to maintain American dominance in space
so that space capabilities are available to the joint
warfighter, and so that we deter and attack. We have developed
the strategies in order to implement that. The organizational
change put forward in the President's proposal, elevates and
enhances the influence of space leaders in the Pentagon for the
long haul. I think all of these things taken together are the
right move for the country. There is a risk always that, you
know, I am particularly interested in space. Have been and
spent probably about a third of my time on space related
matters because of the emerging threat. You never know whether
that is going to be sustained over time.
And I think one of the fears, and it is probably a
legitimate fear, is that organizationally, space is smaller
than its significance within the Pentagon bureaucracy. And I
think that is something that we should consider as we evaluate
the President's proposal, that this will elevate and
institutionalize space as a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and within undersecretary in the United States Air
Force.
Senator Shelby. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
follow up on that because last year I kept hearing this
conversation about a Space Force, the satellites, and I thought
to myself, I do not know enough about this. I went and had a
classified briefing and I invite all the members of the
committee here, and I would hope that you will--I would be glad
to return to do it again. It was a fascinating moment to
understand exactly what we rely on in space when it comes to
satellites, and their vulnerability. The things that we have
come to take for granted in our lives, global positioning,
weather, on and on where satellites play critical role, and we
are vulnerable, as the Secretary said.
They are not just targets, they can be weapons, but at the
same time they can be vulnerable in times of conflict. And the
basic question we have to ask is whether or not this is part of
the Air Force that needs to be somehow separated as the Marine
Corps is separated within the Secretary of the Navy's
jurisdiction. Can you help me, Madam Secretary, understand by
perspective the numbers we are talking about. How many civilian
and military personnel are part of the Air Force today?
Secretary Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start out
with equipment. We have 80 satellites. The United States Air
Force operates 80 satellites. The Navy has 13 more, and a
communications satellite system called MUOS that they operate,
of those 80, 31 are GPS. So, most people do not know this, but
the blue dot on your phone is provided by the United States Air
Force. By a squadron of 40 Airmen in Colorado Springs,
Colorado, average age 22, which is just terrifying to all of
us. But so, we provide GPS to the world.
Satellite communications, we do for the joint Force,
weather, as you mentioned, as well as missile warning. We have
eight missile warning satellites. So, if you see on the
television the, you know, launch of missile from some rouge
State and you see the arch of that missile launch, we initially
detect that and then detect it where it is going from Space
Center. So that is what we do. It involves about 15,000 people
total, Army, Navy, and Air Force. About 90 percent of those
currently are United States Air Force.
Senator Durbin. And in the Air Force itself, how many
civilian and military employees? I am told it is over 800,000--
--
Secretary Wilson. 685,000.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Military, and then there is
civilian. And civilian, 685,000?
Secretary Wilson. Active Guard, Reserve, and civilian.
Senator Durbin. So, 685,000, your complement of military
and civilian in the Air Force, and about 15,000, you think, in
terms of those who are directly responsible for the Space Force
responsibility we have discussed?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Is that, about right?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Okay. And I might say to my colleagues
here, what we are talking about is creating a bureaucracy,
let's be very blunt about it, a bureaucracy to command these
15,000 people within the Air Force. What does that mean? I
mean, how many Generals are we talking about? Three stars, one
star. How much brass do we have to create under this proposal?
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, the legislative proposal
does say that there would be a Chief of Staff for the Space
Force and the remainder of what the structure is, is really
left, has a lot of wide discretion from the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force. I think it is
reasonable to presume that there are--if you are going to have
a four star, you have to have a certain number of four, and
three, and two, and one stars underneath it in order to support
the----
Senator Durbin. Can you give me any kind of idea of what we
are talking about in terms of bureaucracy that needs to be
created on top of what we currently have?
General Goldfein. Sir, I will tell that we were in a robust
debate, as you might imagine, within the Department to get
after the President's guidance, and we were debating everything
from initial guidance, which was separate Secretary, separate
Department, all the way to a sort of a JAG Corps, Medical
Corps. Where we landed, which is a separate service within the
Department of the Air Force is recognizable from war funding
standpoint. As soon as the decision was made, which is just
part of the legislative proposal being issued, given to
Congress, we put together the directive by the Acting Secretary
of Planning team led by a two-star General. They are now
working through all of the details associated with the
questions you are asking--How many generals? How many people?
Where will they reside?--and that planning team has been up and
operating now for a few weeks.
Senator Durbin. I say to my colleagues, think about this,
think about what we are going to ask you to do to create this
new bureaucracy, over 15,000 people who are doing, I think most
of us would agree, an extraordinary job already. We are told
that the bureaucracy that we would create would cost $2 billion
over the next 5 years. And that is just an estimate, as General
Goldfein said. There are experts that are looking carefully at
this. But we ought to be asking ourselves, are we just dazzled
by this notion of a Space Force? Is this going to make it safer
with $2 billion spent on new equipment, better equipment, more
training for those who operate equipment, be a better
investment in National Defense than a ``Space Force''?
We have the responsibility along with the Armed Services
committee to ask that question. If the late John McCain were
here, I think I know his answer to it. He basically pushed back
against the creation of brass and bureaucracy saying let's put
it into the capabilities and readiness so the people serving
our Nation are ready. So, I do not want to rain on the Space
Force parade, but I do think we are going to have a cold day of
reckoning here in terms of whether this is something which we
will come to regret when we look at if your bureaucracy which
may be rivaling the number of people it is supposed to be
serving.
Senator Shelby. Well, Senator Durbin. And before calling
Senator Moran. He is asking some serious questions here.
Ultimately, the Armed Services committee will first work on
this, but ultimately, we are going to fund it or not fund it,
right? Right here in this committee. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairman Shelby, thank you very much.
General, thank you for your presence. Heather, Secretary, it is
an honor to have you in front of us once again. I knew when I
met you, we were classmates of 1996 arriving in the House of
Representatives, that someday you would be President, and now
it is apparently coming true so congratulations. Secretary, you
indicated in your testimony before the subcommittee last year
five key changes to confront the reemergence of great power
competition in support of our National Defense strategy. And
among those five was light attacker aircraft.
LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT
Your goal, which you have reiterated many times was,
``fielding a force of U.S. light attack aircraft'' by using
``rapid fielding and rapid procurement strategies,'' and you
highlighted in your comments today about the rapidity, of the
ability to now for the Air Force to contract. For several
years, light attack aircraft has served as the sort, in my
mind, of the proof concept as to whether the Air Force could
use the tools that you have been given to field a force of
light attack aircraft. Those tools are rapid acquisition
authority that Congress provided you, ample funding provided by
the Appropriations Committee for testing and experimentation on
two turboprop platforms that you selected, the industry
partners' investment of their own capital to help the Air Force
meet requirements during this multi-year experiment process.
When the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
released a report just last December, 4 months ago, indicating
the Air Force ``intends to procure 359 aircraft for 8
operational squadrons and 3 flying training units.'' We
thought, I thought that the rapid acquisition process with
industry partners worked for our warfighters and for our
allies, and that the light attack was proof that this process
could work. However, it appears to me that there is no request
for dollars, for procurement, in this budget and it seems to me
that there is a schizophrenia at the Air Force about light
attack.
The messages are mixed, and I am hoping that you will be
able to tell me that you expect or requesting something more
than additional study, dollars for experimentation, and that we
are ready to move forward with the right light attack aircraft
procurement process. Is there such a request?
General Goldfein. Senator, I will take that and then turn
over to Secretary if she had any comments. You correctly stated
that this is all about supporting the National Defense Strategy
and it is important to talk about the strategy against violent
extremism, and then how we use the authority you gave us to get
at experimentation and prototype correctly in support of that
strategy. The long term strategy against violent extremism is
to drive violence down to the point where it can be managed
within the borders of governed nations. And so, what we did was
we looked at three core principles when we started this
experiment.
And the core principles was number one, this is about
allies and partners, this is about how do we get more allies
and partners in with us because my International Air Chiefs
tell me, I have got violence, I am dealing with it inside my
borders, I cannot afford an F-16, I am not going to get an F-
35, I need something and it has got to be interoperable so we
can join you in this fight. And this is a fight from the
Philippines to Nigeria, into the Central and South America. So,
they need--this needs to be about allies and partners.
The second core principle is this needs to be a mix of
capabilities that are interoperable because some of the Air
Chiefs tell me, I need a turboprop, some of them tell me I need
a turbojet, some of them want rotary-wings, some of them want
manned and unmanned. What ties it all together is an
intelligence-gathering and information sharing network that
allows them to be interoperable with us and with each other.
And the third core principle is that we from the beginning said
this has to be additive. There is no area across the United
States Air Force that we can trade for this because we are
doing this directly in support of the strategy. So, we took the
authorities that you gave us to work through this experiment,
and the two companies that joined us have been spectacular. We
put money towards it, they put money towards it, but when we
got to the end of the experiment period, the question we had
was do we have the strategy right? Do we have the
interoperability right to be able to put forward a request for
proposal to be able to get the allies and strategy--the allies
and partners where we need them to be.
And our determination was that we were not there yet. So,
what you will see in this budget is money that we are going to
use to procure a small number of aircraft from the two
companies that have been with us so far. We are going to place
a detachment of those at Nellis Air Force Base, where we do
conventional training, and detachment of those where we do
Special Operations at Hurlburt. The United States Marine Corps
has already said they are joining us. We are going to invite
allies and partners, and with the authorities you have given us
now that we own those prototypes, we will continue to
experiment to build the interoperable network that we have
already advanced and get allies and partner and bring more
capabilities to bear so that when we get to 2022 through 2024,
which is where we have laid procurement money in, we will be
able to make a smarter acquisition decision.
And when you compare what we have done, compared to a
normal timeline for acquisition that would take 5 to 10 years,
we are 2 years into this and the companies that have been with
us have been spectacular, and we look procuring a small number
and taking it to the next step.
Senator Moran. What are those numbers, both aircraft
numbers and dollared up numbers?
General Goldfein. The money that we have laid is $35
million in 2020. There is about, I believe, $400 million in
2022 to 2024 for procurement. How much and what we buy depends
on how the experiment goes, and we are hoping that we will get
a low-cost point for the ones we want to buy this year with the
2019 money so we can advance the experiment.
Senator Moran. I would highlight, General, the importance
of those turboprops for our allies.
General Goldfein. Absolutely.
Senator Moran. The simplicity of our ability to field this
mission with their assistance.
General Goldfein. Yes, sir.
Senator Moran. Or providing them assistance, is related to
the type of aircraft that is purchased.
Secretary Wilson. There is only one thing that I would add
to General Goldfein's comments and that is one other thing we
are doing this year is getting one of the industry groups to
really do a good global market analysis for what is the demand
out there for different kinds of aircraft, manned, unmanned,
helicopters, turboprop, in some cases turbojet. We know that
there are countries with F-5s that want to get rid of those. So
that we really understand what the allies want so that what we
do enables them to be able to buy something somewhere.
Senator Moran. Madam Secretary, General, did you do this
all in the right order? This is the necessity--this is
necessary for us to be at this point and still making that
decision, that determination, as compared to earlier in the
process?
Secretary Wilson. I am not sure I understand your question.
MARKET DETERMINATION
Senator Moran. Why is it that we are now at this point
making that market assessment, determining what the market
should bear, can bear, as compared to making that determination
prior to the beginning of this process for--we are now at the
stage in which I thought we would be a procurement. We are
still at the study stage of trying to determine what we should
purchase.
Secretary Wilson. I actually think we are beyond that. We
are going to be buying aircraft to continue the prototyping and
experimentation. In the second year of the prototyping and
experimentation, we were able to put a fully exportable, low-
cost network onto these aircraft so that the tactical air
controller on the ground can touch an iPad and it shows up in
the cockpit of the aircraft, so that you are communicating
among nodes. And we have done it in a way that does not
require--there is no export controls at all. So, I think we
have made a lot of progress. I do not think we were ready to
make a procurement decision, and we decided in particular we
need to get more of our allies and partners involved in this
from the get-go or it may not work.
Senator Moran. Thank you both.
Senator Shelby. Senator Tester.
MALMSTROM FACILITY
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you, Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein for being
here. Thank you for service and thank you to the Airmen that
you represent, service also. So, in order to maintain the
effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, it is your job to
identify the resources that are required to maintain and
modernize those nuclear assets. We have been working with the
Air Force for years to secure funding for a new weapons
generation facility at Malmstrom.
Now, the current facility is deteriorating. Giant cracks in
the walls are getting bigger and I am sure you know that
because of that, the deteriorating infrastructure has created
numerous safety and logistical and security challenges, and
that munitions operations will remain at risk due to
inefficiencies and failing infrastructure there at Malmstrom.
We are talking about a facility at which ICBM (intercontinental
ballistic missile) Warhead are maintained and stored. So, I
believe, as I think you do, that there is urgency here.
Secretary Wilson, will this project be included in Air Force
2020 budget request?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, the fiscal year 2020 budget does
include $235 million for the weapons storage facility there at
Malmstrom. It is based on the design that we used at F.E.
Warren, although there is a few things that are different,
including of course labor rates there and also soil conditions.
So that is a little more expensive, but it is based on the same
design.
Senator Tester. That is good. And so, the construction cost
went from $200 million to $235 million and what was the reason
for that increase?
Secretary Wilson. Sir, two things. First of all, labor
rates are different in Montana compared to Wyoming. And the
second is there is some differences in the soil, so we have to
do some differences in the construction.
Senator Tester. Okay, I have got it. I would have hoped,
and this is just a side comment, I would hope that the way this
is being staggered with Wyoming and then in Montana, and North
Dakota that we would gain some efficiencies there, but it does
not appear that that is the case.
Secretary Wilson. We will gain some efficiencies by using
the same design or the same basic design, but there's a lot of
things that go into cost, and we put $235 million into the
budget because we expect that it is going to be more expensive
for those two reasons.
Senator Tester. So, if $3.6 billion across all military
construction accounts to reprogram say for a border wall, then
I would imagine this project would be further delayed. Is that
fair?
Secretary Wilson. Sir, I do not think--this is in the
fiscal year 2020 proposed President's budget. So, it is not an
item that has already been----
Senator Tester. So, if money is pulled out of this year's
budget, you do not think it would shift twenties down?
Secretary Wilson. The budget that we have put forward, sir,
has $235 million for this military construction project.
Senator Tester. Okay, and so if money was pulled out of
this year's budget for military construction in this line item,
it would not shift? We are still in line to have it happen
regardless of what happens?
Secretary Wilson. That is my understanding as to how the
entire Defense Department budget was put together and presented
to you all yesterday, or Monday.
MONTANA NATIONAL GUARD C-130S
Senator Tester. Ok, that's good if it doesn't happen. I
would think that if money is not there, it will be back filled
with the next year's budget. But, I could be wrong on that.
The Montana National Guard is flying some of the oldest C-
130s in the Air Force. C-130Hs, they have not received all
their upgrades. There is issues with this, separate schools,
parts availability, additional training requirements for Pilots
and maintainers, moving from the J's to the H's. These are all
challenges for guard units. Flying aircraft is different from
the Active Duty component, so not to put you on the spot, but
what is your expectations for the 130Js? And since our
airplanes in Montana Air Guard have not received all the
updates as others have, would we be in the queue first?
General Goldfein. Sir, you know, I mentioned in the opening
statement that I went to Desert Storm. You know, we learned a
truly valuable lesson out of Desert Storm because I was flying
the newest F-16s and the Birmingham International Guard showed
up at the same base flying the oldest F-4s.
Senator Tester. Yes.
General Goldfein. And what we learned when we looked across
our Active Guard, you know, team was that we had not outfitted
the guard with the latest technology and our interoperability
suffered as a result.
Senator Tester. Bingo.
General Goldfein. And so, we reversed that coming out of
Desert Storm and that is why you see us now fielding new
weapons systems across the Active and the Guard. But when we do
so, we also take into account that our most experienced
maintainers and operators are in the International Guard. Very
often they come from the Active Duty to the National Guard.
Senator Tester. Sure, that is right.
General Goldfein. And so, their ability to be able to
manage weapons systems is somewhat different based in our
experience levels. So, we do have planned--right now there is
not additional C-130Js in the budget. We are upgrading the C-
130Hs, and if more money were to become available, the C-130Js
is something we would definitely look at.
Senator Tester. Well, I would think that it would be, and I
know you guys have a lot of priorities. We just talked about
the missile priorities with the ICBMs. But it would seem to me
that this would also be a priority. As we all want a strong
force, there is recruitment opportunities from folks who are
going out of the Active Military and going into the Guard. And
if in fact those folks have to go get retrained to fly on 130H
and we all love Little Rock, Boozman is not here. We all love
Little Rock, but the truth is that they might decide, I am just
going to go a different direction then and not stick with it.
So, I would hope that this could become more of a priority.
Thank you guys for what you do. Appreciate it.
General Goldfein. Senator, if I could just say to, again to
speak to your folks in Montana and elsewhere flying a C-130 and
I was Air Component Commander and Central Command for 2 years,
and I never once had to tell one of my joint teammates no when
it came to delivering critical supplies or personnel where they
were needed. And we did that with the C-130 fleet.
Senator Tester. Yes, I got it. It is a great mission. It is
a great mission, I do not need to tell you how all these planes
are. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hoeven.
HUEY REPLACEMENT
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and just to follow
up on Senator Tester's point, the point that you were making
general for the ICBM fields, they are flying Huey's out there.
So, and that is your Active Duty forces are flying Huey
helicopters out in the missile fields. So, when Senator Tester
talks about the importance of both the facilities and the new
aircraft for our missileers, you realize it is very important
when they are flying aircraft that is far older than the people
flying them--far older.
Secretary Wilson. Senator, in fact though, I think it was
in September, September or October we did choose the follow on
aircraft to replace the Huey's, so that decision was made and
the fiscal year 2020 budget buys four replacement test
articles, fiscal year 2020. So, we are beginning replacement of
the Huey.
Senator Hoeven. And those aircraft are?
Secretary Wilson. I am sorry, sir?
Senator Hoeven. And they are what?
Secretary Wilson. I never remember the numbers. So, what is
it?
Senator Hoeven. UH-60 Black Hawk.
Secretary Wilson. It is not the 60, but I will----
Senator Hoeven. Well, that is the right pick.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Wilson. I will mess up the number so I will----
[The information follows:]
MH-139.
Senator Hoeven. No, you will not. We are going to really
miss you. We are disappointed that you are leaving. You have
done a phenomenal job, and you are going to be dearly missed.
Hopefully we are going to keep General Goldfein around for a
good long while yet, but best wishes to you. But we really
appreciate your service and we will miss you greatly. You have
been tremendous. How are we doing on catching up on the pilot
shortage that we talked about?
PILOT SHORTAGE
Secretary Wilson. We have actually in the end of--we looked
at the numbers at the end of the year. We ended up producing a
few more pilots than we anticipated and kind of stopped the
slide. Next year in the fiscal year 2020 budget, we are going
to increase the number going through pilot training, and we
hope that our continued efforts at pilot retention and the
support for pilots trying to reduce the number of 365-day
overseas tours, trying to give pilots more control,
implementing our new talent management system so people get
more say in their next assignment, and more control over their
lives, that those will help with retention, but we also need to
increase production. So, it is production, seasoning, and
retention. If we continue on this path, producing about 1500
pilots a year, we think we will close the gap and have the
number of pilots we need by fiscal year 2023, fiscal year 2024
timeframe.
Senator Hoeven. Even with the increased commercial airline
hiring and so forth?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir we do, and part of it is we are
going to have to produce more pilots. So, we are going to have
to produce about 1500 pilots a year, rather than about 1100. We
can do that in a way with our current infrastructure, and then
we have to really focus on the quality of life, quality of
service.
General Goldfein. Senator, I also want to thank you
because, you know, I have talked a lot about this which is this
is the national shortage of pilots. To not only in Military
Aviation but also commercial and business aviation. And so, we
are also doing incentives to get America's youth flying again.
Civil Air Patrol, putting money into the Junior ROTC,
University of North Dakota, other avenues where we are trying
to get more pilots produced to be able to fulfill the
requirement across the Nation, and so I just want to thank you
for your work on that.
Senator Hoeven. That is appreciated, and I think the reason
you are starting to make traction or get traction is because
you are looking at all of these avenues to draw people into the
pilot ranks and I really commend you for it. Arctic Mission,
how are we doing on reaching out in the Arctic Mission?
ARCTIC MISSION
General Goldfein. So, we--Secretary Wilson and I have put
out an Op-Ed on that because the Air Force has got a
significant footprint in the Arctic Mission. First and
foremost, in Homeland Defense and making sure that we have the
assets that are up there that would be able to detect the
threats so we can protect the homeland. For power projection.
If you take a look at Alaska, by the time we complete the bid
for F-35s, it will be the State with the most number of 5th-
gen, high-end assets here that can launch as a platform into
the Arctic. And it is also about domain awareness. It is about
making sure that we have the weather forecasting and make sure
we have the space situational awareness.
So, we are very heavily invested in the Arctic, and we are
working right now with our partners, our Arctic partners,
Canada, Finland, Norway, and Sweden on Arctic challenge
exercise to ensure that we further advance our military
capabilities to protect that region.
Senator Hoeven. Well in North Dakota we speak fluent
Canadian, so if we can help you, you let us know.
[Laughter.]
MODERNIZATION OF NUCLEAR TRIAD
Senator Hoeven. Last question I have goes to the nuclear
triad. It is incredibly important, and we need to update it and
modernize it. I would like your thoughts in that regard.
Secretary Wilson. Senator, nuclear weapons and nuclear
deterrents have helped to keep the peace for over 70 years, and
the Air Force has two of the three legs of the triad as well as
about 75 percent of nuclear command, control, and
communication. Those legs of the triad are in need of
modernization, both the replacement of the Minuteman Missile,
but also the replacement of the Cruise Missile. These are
systems that are, you know, the Minuteman, the first stage of
the Minuteman that is in silos today was built in 1970. So, we
need to upgrade these systems and our budget includes the funds
for the continued work on the modernization of the nuclear
deterrent, as well as the upgrading of the nuclear command,
control, and communication.
Senator Hoeven. And the LRSO, incredibly important for the
safety of our aircraft fleet and pilots, right, and as we face
more sophisticated air defense systems?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. And of course, it is all in
support of the strategic, the STRATCOM Commander's mission. And
I will share with you, sir, that you knew, Secretary Mattis,
when he first came in from Stanford, he had some serious
questions about the nuclear enterprise and then to the process
of our going through the nuclear posture review, he became an
advocate for all three legs of the triad. And I will share with
you the same advice I gave him and then gave recently to
Secretary Shanahan. There are two things that I would advise in
terms of military advice.
Number one, I would never advise us to unilaterally disarm
our nuclear enterprise when our adversaries are arming theirs
and building more capacity and capability. That makes no sense
to me that we would ever go down that path. The second advice
is we should never, and I got to be careful here to stay on
unclassified terms, but I would never advocate or recommend
that we place ourselves in a position we would no longer have a
second strike capability, because potential adversaries are
calculating whether they can defeat us, and we want them to
enter into their calculus that we can always respond no matter
what they do. And with the triad we can.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Again, thank you, Madam
Secretary, very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. Senator Schatz.
WALL CONSTRUCTION
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, I want
to echo the phrase from this panel. You have been an exemplary
as Secretary of the Air Force and we are going to miss you. You
have been nonpartisan and bipartisan, easy to work with on the
level. Really appreciate your service. I want to follow up a
little bit on what Senator Tester was talking about with
respect to the way the MILCON $3.6 billion may be raided for
the purpose of constructing a wall on the southern border of
the United States. First question I have is has the Secretary
of Defense or anybody else asked you to begin the work of
producing a list of projects to delay?
Secretary Wilson. First of all, we do not have a list of
projects from Homeland Security that are necessary to support
the mission along the border, and we have not identified
specific Air Force projects that could be impacted. And of
course, as you know, we request our military construction based
on priority and military need.
Senator Schatz. I get that Homeland Security has to ask--
that they have to initiate a request and then they have to make
a determination about where wall being built would be in
furtherance of the admission of the troops on the border. I get
that part. After that determination is made, and after there is
a funding requirement that becomes a delta, the assumption is
this is going to be $3.6 billion, it may be less. But, I think
you would be wise to start preparing as you look at your list
of funded but un-obligated MILCON projects to see how you
prioritize them and whether or not you can afford to move any
of those to the right to delay or defund. Has that process
begun at all?
Secretary Wilson. We have not identified specific Air Force
projects that could be impacted.
Senator Schatz. So that process has not begun?
Secretary Wilson. And I think, you know, the Secretary, the
Acting Secretary of Defense has asked his colleague at Homeland
Security to identify what projects from the Homeland Security's
perspective are necessary to support the mission.
Senator Schatz. Right, but that is not the question I am
asking.
Secretary Wilson. That would then trigger some guidance,
presumably from the Second or Secretary of Defense, that we do
some work as services, but we have not identified specific Air
Force projects that could be impacted.
Senator Schatz. Okay. And, so I get it. So, you have not
done that work yet. And at the time that you do that work, will
you be transparent with the Congress with respect to your
criteria for moving stuff to the right or defunding or
delaying, and will you let us know where you are in the process
so that it does not become a black box?
Secretary Wilson. Yes.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. Is the expectation, let us say
it is $2 billion that gets raided for MILCON. Is the
expectation that the Congress then ``backfields the money,'' in
other words appropriates the money to the same project twice?
Secretary Wilson. I do not know. And I think part of that
is we do not know yet what the requirement will be from the
Department of Homeland Security and how much we are talking
about here, and whether there is other funds that might be
reprogrammed. So, I just do not know.
Senator Schatz. It just seems like this about to be, among
other things, a fiscal train-wreck because right--Senator
Tester was talking about his $230 million priority for his home
State to safely house ICBMs, as I understand it. That is in the
2020 budget request. So, assuming that everything that the
Democrats are saying happens to be correct with respect to our
inclination to so called backfield, in other words to
appropriate money twice, then whatever falls off your list, if
Tester's project--if everything that is in the 2020 President's
budget does not fall off the list, then if it falls off the
list, it is not actually first in line for the following year.
It is really falling off a cliff. And I guess the question is,
among all of the funded but un-obligated MILCON projects for
the Air Force, is there anything that you see that is not
essential for readiness?
Secretary Wilson. We request military construction based on
priority and military need. Some of it is readiness, some of it
is just straightforward modernization that you have got to
house new aircraft and so it is all necessary.
Senator Schatz. Right. And given that the Department of
Defense articulated to us that there is $100 billion shortfall
in MILCON overall, and given that we have always done MILCON on
a bipartisan basis and that whenever you ask for something, we
know that it is on the level. My question is very
straightforward, which is, is there anything on your list that
you think you do not need?
Secretary Wilson. No.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Schatz. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a real
pleasure to join the committee working with you and your very
capable staff, and Ranking Member Durbin also very capable
staff. That is the great thing about being on these, you know,
these subcommittees. It is all about taking care of the
military in a very, very bipartisan way and we certainly
appreciate your leadership in that regard. General Goldfein,
again, thank you so much for all that you do, and not only now
but have done through your career. Secretary Wilson, it has
been a real pleasure serving with you in the House, and now
serving with you now in our different capacities.
And I know that nobody has worked any harder than you, or
have, and nobody is any more knowledgeable. And we really do
appreciate you, again, for the many, many different ways that
you have served your country. One of the things I would like to
ask about, you know, we--I think there is concern about light
attack. You know, Secretary Moran--I am sorry not Secretary,
Senator Moran, got into that a little bit. I would like to ask
about the situation despite, you know, a perceived shift. One
of the requirements that is continued to be highlighted is
building partner capacity. You mentioned that earlier and
certainly is something we have all met that comes up all the
time. Objective in the National Defense strategy, the Guard
State Partnership Program, is an existing way we can achieve
the critical mission of building partnership capacity.
GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Assuming that we do move forward with light attack at some
point, what role do you see the Guard playing and how can the
Air Force take advantage of these existing State Guard
partnerships?
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Senator, I will start out and then
maybe General Goldfein might want to add. State partnership
program is a wonderful program and probably we do not talk
about it enough and the tremendous difference that it makes. It
is a partnership between State Guards and countries. It was
started after the fall of, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and
the emergence of new democracies in Eastern Europe, but it is
now expanded where there are 70 different state partnership
programs.
And they have a number of advantages, one of which is that
in many countries the military is much more like the National
Guard where it has National Defense but also civil society kind
of functions so more similar to the National Guard. But also,
their relationships are enduring, and people are in the Guard
for their entire career and they create deep relationships of
trust with our partners and allies in other Air Forces. So, I
think there is tremendous opportunity there with allies and
partners generally, whether it is in light attack or in other
things. I will just leave you this one story.
The Chief and I were in the Middle East and we went to
Jordan and met with the Air Chief there, and some of you may
remember that Jordan has F-16s. And some of you may remember
that one of their pilots had ejected over Isis occupied
territory in Syria, and was captured, and put in a cage, and
burned alive, and tortured, Jordanian pilot. The Jordanians
planned retaliatory strike. That retaliatory strike was led by
a Major in the Colorado National Guard who was on exchange with
the Jordanian Air Force. They did not forget that it and it
deepens a partnership that is career-long. Very useful.
General Goldfein. Sir, I will just add that, you know, one
of the first meetings I had in the opening weeks after becoming
Chief was at the State Department with the Deputy Secretary of
State. And I had a discussion with him about the role of the
Internet--my role as International Air Chief when it comes to
coalition-building and sustainment, and whether there was a
special partnership that we need to have with the State
Department because countries around the world that will join
coalition's and offer military capability have the same
challenges that we do, sometimes offering boots on the ground.
And if they do not have access to ports, they do not buy
Navy's. But one thing most countries have is an air component
to protect their sovereign borders, so therefore coalitions
very often come together first in the air and then stay longest
in the air.
And so, when we look at the strategy of driving violence
down across the globe to the point where it can be maintained
within its borders, you could see why our strategy with light
attack was to build an interoperable network in a number of--in
a variety of capabilities that allowed them to join us. And in
some ways for me it is the air equation of the math on the
ground in North Africa, 1,000 Americans plus 4,000 French
enables 35,000 fighters to be able to counter violence in North
Africa. This is the air component contribution to that.
Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Senator Baldwin.
AIR FORCE MISSION CAPABILITY
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In October,
Secretary of Defense, former Secretary of Defense Mattis
ordered that the Air Force get to 80 percent mission-capable
rates for its fighters. I would like to hear from you where the
Air Force is at this point in meeting that goal, and since the
directive came after you had received your 2019 budget, how
much money will it cost this year to meet that goal?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, we have identified reprogramming
that has to be done within the Air Force budget, particularly
for the F-22s and F-16s, and we are focused on the operational
squadrons where we measure our mission capability rates most
directly. I believe that we are probably going to meet that
objective with the F-16s. Given the impact of the hurricane on
the F-22s in Tyndall Air Force Base and all of the permanent
change-of-station moves associated with moving those F-22s, we
may not make it with the F-22s, but we do have to do the
reprogramming to get more money into weapon system sustainment
for the F-16 and the F-22 within the Air Force budget.
The responsibility for the funding for the sustained the F-
35s goes to the Joint Program Office and they manage that. I
can give you privately in a secure session the actual numbers
of where we are in both mission, capable rates, and also we
monitor not just mission capable rates of just about whether
the airplanes are ready to fly. An airplane sitting on a hangar
that is ready to fly is not necessarily ready to fight, and so
for us it is about the readiness of our squadrons to fly and
fight that matters.
Senator Baldwin. Okay. So, meeting this readiness goal
along with the modernization that we had a chance to discuss
earlier, things like the F-16 radar systems so that they can
operate alongside the next generation fighters, is particularly
important in a State like Wisconsin that has F-16s at Truax and
is a future site for F-35s. But it is also my understanding
that the Air Force has had trouble funding some really basic
base operations, road maintenance, garbage collection, basic
repair and modernization of facilities on installations, and
has embarked on, I know this committee has discussed earlier,
an ambitious plan to replace its missile defense satellites,
which also requires increased funding.
So, I imagine there are more items on the list that I have
not even gotten to, but I would ask what are the Air Force's
top 2 or 3 readiness gaps that you would like to see addressed?
AIR FORCE READINESS GAPS
General Goldfein. Ma'am, I will just start by telling you
that for the Secretary and me, greatness first and foremost is
about people. And so that is why you have seen us in a
continual growth of manpower, Active Guard, reserve, civilian
in strength, so we can rebuild the Force from that--we talked
about the 945,000 that we were back in 1991 to defeat a rogue
nation into the 685,000 we have. So, we have to fill our
squadrons to make sure that they are capable fighting
formations. We were very successful this year of closing the
gap on maintainers. We were 4,000 maintainers short and we
successfully have closed that.
Now our challenge we are working through right now is they
are young, and so while we have the numbers we need, now we
need to experience them. So, we are looking at how we do that
more rapidly. You brought up the roads and grounds and making
sure, you know, we are a land-based Force and we fight from our
bases. And so therefore we are putting a significant amount of
effort into not only how we sustain those bases, but also bases
forward that we would roll in on as the hold Force, because if
you look at the Combatant Commander plans, they expect the air
component to arrive first by virtue of the fact that we can fly
there quickly, halting enemy activity before we go forward.
Senator Baldwin. I agree that these are really important to
address. I am aware that the Department of Defense has only
authorized to transfer up to $4 billion dollars annually within
its own accounts, and with much of that being planned to be
used up by transferring money between accounts to pay for the
wall, I am not sure how all of these gaps and more will be
addressed. And so, as we are looking to conduct oversight on
both readiness funding as well as how the Department of Defense
is able to move these funds around, could you tell the
committee which readiness gap should be delayed, and which ones
are not priorities right now?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, the reprogramming that we need,
we can give you chapter and verse on what is required in order
to meet the mission-capable rates that we have been guided to
work towards, and I think there is one reprogramming request, I
believe, that has already come up to the Hill, although it may
be just on the verge of coming up here but will be able to
explain that in detail.
[The information follows:]
At the time of the hearing, the reprogramming request had not been
submitted to the Hill.
Secretary Wilson. But to meet the guidance that says we
need to get to 80 percent mission-capable rates, we do have to
do reprogramming, because the guidance came down in this fiscal
year.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Wilson,
let me add my voice to those of others who have thanked you for
your extraordinary service. As Secretary of the Air Force, you
truly have done an amazing job on everything from procurement,
to morale, to recruitment, to readiness. I cannot think of
anyone better, and I am very sad that you are leaving. You can
still tell them no in El Paso. Maybe you cannot, but I just
wanted to start off by thanking you and wishing you well.
REFUELING WING IN BANGOR, MAINE
The air refueling wing in Bangor, Maine, which I did not
get an opportunity to bring you to visit so I am hoping the
General will make up for that, has long been a workhorse unit
for the Air Force. It typically supports more than 1,000
transient aircraft annually.
In addition, it continues to deploy personnel at very high
rates worldwide. The wing's enormous workload is demonstrated
by the fact that it has processes twice as many gallons of fuel
as the average Air National Guard refueling wing, and its
strategic location obviously makes it absolutely critical. What
are we doing to make sure that a workhorse unit like this
refueling wing has the resources it needs at a time when it is
filled deploying individuals at a great rate, General?
General Goldfein. Ma'am, I will tell you that having been
pulled out of a lot of really bad places by some courageous
tanker crews, many of which I am sure are at Bangor, I would
not be sitting here had it not been for the courage of those
crews. So, as we recapitalize the tanker force, I go back to,
you know, it has being in a world of pure competition. Those
three phone calls that I will get as Chief, the Secretary will
get, that says the Combatant Commander, let's say in EUCOM
needs tankers. The Stratcom Commander to be able to support the
nuclear mission needs tankers. The Northcom Commander to be
able to defend the homeland, needs tankers. These are
simultaneous, no fail missions. Therein lies why we do see the
investment in the KC-46 and sustainment of the tankers that we
have so we can get to the 479 required that we will do in 2019,
to ensure that we have the tanker force required to do the
Nation's business. And I would just say, I believe that we are
a global force, a global power, because of global reach and it
is our tankers that give us that.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Secretary Wilson. Senator, if I could just add one brief
thing. The study that we did that was directed by the Congress,
that came really from the hearings last year when you all asked
us, you know, you always come up, we always come up and present
the Air Force we can afford given the budget that we have, and
you asked us, well what is the Air Force we need to execute the
National Defense Strategy. And that led to a piece of work that
you all directed that is ready to come up in classified form,
but we released and unclassified summary and it is no big
surprise to anyone that the Air Force we need is larger than
the Air Force we have. One of the biggest areas of unmet need,
particularly by the time we get to the 2025, 2030 timeframe, is
in tankers.
F-15 V. F-35
Senator Collins. Thank you. Secretary Wilson, in what seems
like a major change of direction, the budget request new F-15
fighter jets which have not been purchased by the Department of
Defense since 2001. If you were not constraints by an
inadequate budget, would your preference be for more F-35s?
Secretary Wilson. If the budget is unconstrained, there are
a lot of things I can think of----
[Laughter.]
Secretary Wilson [continuing]: That would be----
Senator Collins. But in terms of capability that the F-35
gives you?
Secretary Wilson. Let me talk a little bit about this or
Chief do you want to lead, or do you want----
General Goldfein. I will just say, ma'am, that very often
we throw the terms 4th generation and 5th generation around and
if I could just take a couple of minutes and explain the
importance of what 5th generation means and the F-35's role in
that. Because, you know, we will sometimes present charts that
show, you know, this red dome over countries so they can put a
block of wood over themselves to protect themselves that is
actually not accurate.
The best a country can do today is a block of swiss cheese.
There are holes there and it is our job in the Air Force to
know where they are, exploit them, and get in. And when we get
in, it is with a penetrating joint team. We are there in space.
We are there with High-Altitude ISR. We are there with B-21. We
are there with F-22. We are there with F-35. We are there with
our joint teammates, with submarines. We are there with special
operations. If I can, you know, send a message to any of our
adversaries, whoever sees an F-35, it would be we are here. Not
I am here, we are here, because the F-35 will never be alone.
But what the F-35 brings is not the traditional fighter
characteristics that we always think about. It is the
information fusion from multiple sources that comes together in
the cockpit and allows that F-35 to be the quarterback of the
penetrating team.
And there is no other weapon system that we design that can
do that role, and in that role, it is performing spectacularly.
Our challenge was that when you look at the force structure
there are four 4th-gen airplanes, F-16, F-15E, A-10, and F-15C,
that we need to fly into 2030s. The F-15C is not going to make
it. It is old and it is not going to fly past the mid-20s, and
we need that capacity to do all the missions I laid out for you
in my opening statement.
And so, where we find ourselves is in a position where we
have got to buy 72 aircraft a year to be able to reverse the
historical trends, and the F-15C is going to retire. We use the
best cost estimate that we had at the time and looked at the
various options and the most affordable option, as long as we
keep the F-35 absolutely on track with our program of record,
was to look at an F-15 variant to replace the F-15C. And so
that is why we are looking at that. It is one line of 4th-gen
to keep that mix right. But an F-15 will never be an F-35.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some more
questions that I would like to submit for the record if I may.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Collins. You can do
that. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Shelby.
Secretary Wilson, I would also like to echo what others have
said here and thank you for your service to the Nation and to
the United States Air Force during your distinguished career.
And I would like to congratulate you on your upcoming career
opportunity at UTEP. That is still staying close to New Mexico,
so I am sure you will enjoy that. And we are going to miss your
leadership at the Pentagon.
PFAS CONTAMINATION
Madam Secretary, as you are aware, an epidemic of PFAS
(polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination is infecting
communities adjacent to Air Force bases all over the country
and I know the General is familiar with this too. Families,
business owners, farmers, and service members who have suffered
from exposure to these toxic chemicals in New Mexico deserve
immediate relief, and the Air Force must take precautionary
steps to prevent further dangerous to public health. In
response, myself, Senator Heinrich, and Representative Lujan
are pressing the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Defense through the newly introduced legislation
to coordinate closely with the State of New Mexico to move
forward with remediation plans to clean up contaminated sites
and take all necessary steps to prevent further risk to public
health.
We have made sure to keep the Air Force informed as we have
worked on this issue. The Air Force has asserted that it does
not have legal authority under the law to provide clean water
or filtration for agriculture. Is that your understanding of
current authority?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, Senator Udall. That is correct. We
have authority to provide clean water to people, but not for
agricultural use under the current law.
Senator Udall. And our bill provides that authority. It
moves further than you believe you have authority for. Is the
Air Force prepared to work with us to find a way to ensure that
they have the authority?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, we will work with you on that
legislation and also there is a very broad coalition of people
concerned with this issue and if I could--because it affects
them. What we are talking about here is a chemical that was
safe for its intended use at the time it was used. It is called
PFAS and PFOS. It was used in firefighting foam by the Air
Force, but less than 3 percent of this chemical was sold to
firefighting foam companies. It is used in wrappers on fast
food. It is used for waterproofing on shoes. It is used in
Teflon coating on pans. So, it is used in a lot of different
things and it is now an emerging potential pollutant.
And the Air Force leaned forward and identified, looked at
all of our sites as to where it might be and began the process
of assessing whether there was any impact to the water and
taking mitigating actions. So, I think those are all the
services to really lean forward and do that, I think it was the
responsible thing to do. But we also need to recognize this as
a national issue and a problem, and probably is going to
involve not just the EPA and the Department of Defense, but
Agriculture, Health and Human Services. This is a--this is a
major issue for the country of which the Air Force is just one
small piece.
Senator Udall. You know, and just to elaborate on that, I
mean this is a toxic chemical, and what has happened in New
Mexico near Cannon is with the firefighting activities, the
PFAS chemical with large quantities of this has polluted the
aquifer, it has poisoned people. I have a farmer that is gone
and taken specifically from his blood and from the blood of his
wife to see. They have a very high levels of PFAS in their
blood. He is about ready to kill 4,000 cows because he has no
way through filtration, which I asked you about. The cows, he
cannot sell them. It could impact an even larger area, which is
all dairy farmers.
So, we are at the point of the spear on this. I mean New
Mexico and this base. You have poisoned people, you poisoned
agriculture, you poisoned the aquifer, and you poisoned the
feed that is raised for the farmers also has PFAS. So, we would
hope that you would be very, very aggressive about dealing with
this issue. We have been very frustrated with dealing with the
Air Force on this because you say you have the--wanted to have
the authority. We gave you legislation in November 27th. Your
response, which I would ask that response be put in the Record.
Consent to do that, Mr. Chairman. The response be put in the
Record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
Senator Udall. You have basically responded with something
that was not very helpful and basically says we do not want to
have the authority to do that. We sent revisions back to you on
February 14th and so March the 6th we introduced our bill. So,
our sense is the Air Force is not moving aggressively like it
should be moving, and I would like to know whether you believe
that you are going to take the authority and get the bull by
the horns. And, you know, you say here you want to have
authority. Well, support the bill. Will you support our bill?
Tell me today, will you support our bill so that we can move
forward and correct these things? General why don't you start.
Secretary Wilson. Senator, we have dozens of sites around
the country where this is an issue. It is a particular issue
with Cannon where we not only--when we have the authority to
provide clean water immediately and also prevent any additional
damage to the aquifer when it has to do with people. We do not
have the authority to deal with agriculture. To his credit, our
Assistant Secretary for Insulations and Environment has led the
effort in the Executive Branch to engage the Secretary of
Agriculture, the EPA, and Health and Human Services to see
whether they have authorities to be able to deal with the
agriculture issues. And as you know and we have been, all of us
have been concerned and frustrated by this, that there is no
standard for agriculture as well. So, it is an extremely
difficult situation. We are doing the best we can with the
authorities that we have, but it is a national problem, and
there is a coalition of members, some of whom are on this
committee as well, who are facing this issue.
Senator Udall. Well, have you all reviewed our legislation,
and will you support it?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, I have not seen your draft
legislation.
Senator Udall. Okay, well we have been sharing it with you
over the course of 3 months. And I think you knew this was what
I was going to ask about, so I am very disappointed as to where
we are today. And we can put it in all sorts of fancy words,
but the reality is of this one farmer and many farmers that are
in the region is the Air Force has poisoned his family, they
poisoned his livestock, they poisoned his water, and they
poisoned his crops. And we would expect under those
circumstances that the Air Force be very aggressive about
supporting legislation and doing all you can to make sure this
contamination does not spread further, and to take care and
make the people whole that have been hurt already. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman and Secretary let me
join everybody else in telling you how much we appreciate the
leadership you have shown, the work you have done, and our long
friendship, over 20 years now, has really always been important
to me. I have always had great confidence in the decisions you
would make in any job and particularly in this job. I am going
to come back to you in a minute and ask a little bit about
military families, things like the Military Family Flexibility
Act, the importance of military families as it relates to that
highly skilled technical workforce that you have in the Air
Force today. Let me ask a couple of follow-up equipment
questions to General Goldfein.
F-15 ISSUES
On the F-15 issue really two questions. One is, the F-15 is
a compliment to the F-35 is the future and the current and even
foreseeable future flying package, and then the other one you
mentioned a variation of the F-15, was that the F-15 PX or--so
do you want to talk about that just a little bit more?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. I would say that the F-15 like
all the 4th generation standoff bomber, any standoff capability
is complementary to that which is capable of penetrating. And
so, we look at it from a network team approach in the future of
warfare and I cannot overemphasize the importance of this. This
is why we took on the joint stars to advance battle management
system debate last year and why this is so important because
this is about the future of war fighting and how we move into a
network centric approach as opposed to a platform centric
approach. So, it is again why the F-35 does not fly alone, the
F-15 does not fly alone, they always fly as part of a joint
family and with allies and partners. So complimentary, yes, but
it is more than just the F-15 and the F-35.
Senator Blunt. And what is the F-15 PX add to the F-15?
General Goldfein. What it does in terms of cost, is when we
looked at, again the cost estimates that came from OSD/CAPE.
When we were looking at the requirement for us to buy capacity
to do all the missions that we were required to do, and they
looked at the overall cost--you get a look at the cost, not
with the procurement but the cost of operating over time. And
we looked at the overall operating cost, the F-15. You have
also got to look at the conversion cost, if you go from F-15C
to a different kind of airplane versus an F-15C to a like model
airplane where 90 percent of the parts are common, where you
can do local training for the operators and maintenance, and it
is about a $10 million conversion costs for aircraft that we
cannot fly any longer.
So that is part of the cost that was put into the equation.
The previous question was about combat capability, and that is
why I wanted to stress that. When it comes to combat capability
of the F-35 and the F-15, the F-15 will never be the F-35. It
was not designed to be.
Senator Blunt. And it does not cost nearly as much?
General Goldfein. Based on the best cost estimates that we
had at the time, it does not cost as much over the lifetime of
the weapon system. We have been very clear with both the Joint
Program Office and the company that we have got to drive the
operating cost of the F-35 down. And so were those numbers to
change, then we would have to relook at it.
C-130S AT ROSECRANS
Senator Blunt. Thank you, General. I might have a couple of
questions for the record on equipment, particularly of C-130s
at Rosecrans, but let us suppose talk a little about military
families and what we can do and are doing to make them more
appreciated in the package that the military serving person
puts together.
Secretary Wilson. Senator, there is a couple things that--
all three Service Secretaries sent a letter to their Governors
talking about the things that matter to our families. And if
you ask an Airman what really matters to you most, they will go
anywhere or do anything as long as their families are taken
care of. And one of those things where we need help from local
communities and from States, is the quality of the public
schools near the bases where we are stationed.
And a second is reciprocity of licensure for family members
who are assigned in your State. So, and that is a tough one
because, you know, there is all kinds of boards and commissions
over the realtors and the bankers and the lawyers and the
cosmetologists, and we understand that, but if you move from
Massachusetts to Missouri and you are a family therapist and
you have to wait 18 months to get certified in Missouri, then
it is a real problem.
So those two things can really make your State a State of
preference, if we can have great public schools and reciprocity
of licensure for family members.
Senator Blunt. Great, thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, I want to add my congratulations or condolences in
your new job. No, congratulations but we are going to miss you.
And I think they are very fortunate to have you down there. And
you and General Goldfein, I really appreciate the time you
spent with me at the Capitol the other day. Mr. Chairman, you
know that modest office I have there in the Capitol, we spent
some time going over the problems of the world.
Senator Shelby. It was something too.
Senator Leahy. We have, and in fact, I bragged about your
work when they were there.
CYBERSECURITY
You know, Madam Secretary, we talked before about
cybersecurity. I am more concerned about something--all our
grids closed down, we do not know who did--than I am more about
a missile fired, because a missile comes with a return address.
And I think anybody firing a missile knows that whoever comes
for us is going to be obliterated in a matter of minutes. But
cybersecurity in the commercial side, the defense side, closed
down our power grid in the middle of January in the Northeast,
things like that, and we do not know where it came from. And I
know you have worked hard to get cyber specialists. But then,
you have to work hard to retain them.
And this may sound parochial and it is, but Norwich
University in Vermont, in the senior military colleges--this is
the oldest private military college. They have an extensive
cyber program. One of the most popular is the Air Force
specialty codes and that is someone going into the Air Force,
and that is second only to flying. So, do you agree that
whether in Vermont or anywhere else, colleges and universities
like Norwich should give the Air Force ability to recruit based
on what they have done?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, Norwich is a good example of
that where we are trying to partner with universities and
communities to develop cyber talent through our universities,
and then benefit from it. One of the other things and I think
of your folks in Norwich will probably talk to you a little
about it, we are actually expanding our Language Enabled
Airman's Program to include not just the ability to speak
Spanish or Tagalog or something, but also to include computer
languages and recognizing that as a special skill that we can
compensate our Airmen for just like we compensated for a second
foreign language, if you will.
F-35 IN BURLINGTON
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Secretary. That is helpful
whatever it is. These young people want to get the skill, but
secondly, they learn that being in the military can be
something worthwhile. And General Goldfein, we talked about the
Vermont National Guard, the Air Guard, F-35 is arriving in
Burlington this fall. A lot different than any aircraft that
has been flown up there, or anywhere else. Its connectivity,
its use of data. They are going to need considerable training.
How do you determine what kind of funding goes to that kind of
unit with a new aircraft like that because of the training,
because of all the cyber background?
General Goldfein. Sir, there is a process we go through
that's a formal basing process that looks at and actually score
against the cost associated with bedding down new weapons
system, and so that was done. And obviously Burlington scored
very well. That is why we are bringing the F-35 there. So,
those costs are factored into the bed down, and then we roll
them into our normal training pipeline to ensure that we are
bringing that capability to bear. And, you and I discussed that
the unit we are talking about, 24 hours after they deployed to
Iraq were dropping bombs on the enemy, and had one of our top
records for the munitions expended during their timeframe.
That's a hell of a unit. I'm looking forward to seeing them get
the F-35.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. They believe when we say service,
it means service. And, last, I would look carefully at $42
billion your budget is designated OCO (Overseas Contingency
Operation), triple last year's level. We can talk about this
more, but try to ween off OCO. It is a gimmick and it makes it
difficult for those of us who is really trying to get us all a
budget. Thank you for what you said.
General Goldfein. Sir, if I could perhaps just use a moment
to speak to our Guard Reserve Cyber Airman because you brought
a great point in terms of how we retain talent. There is a
great story that General John Hyten tells. He pulled into a
parking spot in Joint Base Lewis-McChord and a young Airman,
senior Airman in a Tesla pulled up next to him. And he called
him out, he says, hey Airman come over here. He says, so you
have your parents' car or what have you got here. No sir, he
says, this is my car. He says, well how does an Airman afford a
Tesla. He said well I am doing my weekend drill duty but when I
do not do this, I am one of the directors of security at
Google. And so, one might ask the question, why would someone
who has that kind of income put on a uniform of the United
States Air Force and come to work on a weekend. And his answer
is because he wants to make a difference and that is what we
offer. And so, to all those out there who are in the cyber
business, we have a place for you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, General. Makes me proud. I know
it must make you proud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and General
thank you for your service, your leadership. You are clearly
making a difference. And to you Secretary Wilson, just my deep
and genuine thanks for your leadership, for your voice of
reason, and calmness, and just, professionalism throughout.
What you have added to this Administration is greatly
appreciated and will be deeply missed. I think it is great to
have all of us saying this, I do wish that we could influence
the decision but respect that decision that you have made but
your contribution is just greatly and deeply appreciated. Thank
you so very much, and I thank you for the conversation that we
had last week. My opportunity to share some of the issues and
concerns that I had. You heard me out on my concerns with the
Space Force and we had some discussion about the F-35s. I
appreciate General Goldfein, your explanation here as to how
the F-15 4th generation, F-35, your swiss cheese analogy, that
kind of helps somebody appreciate where this might fit in
because I have been concerned that this might be a dilution of
the support towards this 5th generation fleet with our F-35s.
So, I appreciate that, and I also thank you Secretary so
much for your continued reminder that we can do so much more
from the State's perspective to assist our Airmen and their
families, with a focus on schools and what we do with the
licensure. We are making a little bit of headway on the
licensure side of that in my State, but it is a great reminder
for all of us because it is these differences that do keep our
families in the Air Force, in our services and there. And so,
it is appreciated. I wanted to speak to JPARC (Joint Pacific
Alaska Range Complex) as well as the efforts that we have with
training, and I note with some appreciation that the posture
statement that you presented this morning identifies JPARC as
one of the regions that is going to receive the targeted
funding. I think we recognize the extraordinary asset that we
have with that training range up North. The posture statement
also speaks to the need to build additional capacity with
adversary air with the aggressor.
I understand the current Fleet of 18 primary assigned F-16
aggressor aircraft at Eielson is insufficient. We have had a
chance to talk a little bit about this, Madam Secretary. So, I
am told that an additional 6 F-16s are immediately needed to
support the Aggressor Mission and that more can be useful or
needed.
AIR FORCE POSTURE
So, the question to both of you this morning is with
regards to the need for additional support on the Aggressor
squadron, can the Air Force fulfill this requirement? I think
we recognize that when we have this extraordinary training
capacity up there, that the ultimate training is when you can
get that that hands-on, in the air with the actual aggressor.
So broadly to the issue of JPARC but more specific to the
adequacy of the aggressors?
General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am. You know it is something we
do not talk about a lot in terms of JPARC, but you know, this
is very often we have international partners who either cannot
get into Nellis for our red flag or prefer to do something of
lower visibility. And so, they can go in and they can plan this
incredible range, one of the largest range we have at JPARC.
So, we do have money in the budget, $8 million to upgrade the
threats simulators as we go forward. And it is our premier
range for doing that. When it comes to aggressors, we are
actually short on aggressors both at local training, home
station, and in our two large ranges, both Nellis Air Force
Base, and JPARC in Alaska.
The way we are getting after it is a combination of what we
call organic, F-16s that we own and a contract adversary--and
there are more and more companies that are getting in the
business of providing contract. We are also working with the
Navy who uses that as well, so I think what you are going to
see is us continuing to push for this right combination, the
sweet spot, between contract and organic to get at the
adversary issue.
Secretary Wilson. If I could just add, one of the things I
was out in Utah at Hill Air Force Base, of course I flew with
the aggressors to see JPARC when I was up in Alaska but one of
the things that the F-35 pilot mentioned to me was, it would
really help their training and readiness to reduce the
requirement to fly adversary air. So, we are using U.S. pilots
to study adversary tactics and pretend to be the bad guys when
maybe we can do that with contractors so that our pilots, who
really would go in to fight for the United States, can focus on
practicing their skills rather than just imitating. And I
thought that was a good point and it is the reason why we are
shifting to see whether we can do more contracted adversary
air.
ARCTIC CHALLENGE EXERCISE
Senator Murkowski. Great. I appreciate that. I know Senator
Baldwin wanted to ask one more question. Let me just very
quickly ask and you responded to Senator Hoeven's question
about the Arctic and you mentioned the Arctic challenge
exercise that will involve Alaska, Canada, and Sweden.
Obviously these exercises are critically important. I always
ask the question at any of these Appropriations hearings to
just ensure that we are keeping our eyes on the Arctic, and
sometimes it seems that the Air Force in Alaska is more Pacific
facing than Arctic facing.
And so, when you say what you have shared today, that is
comforting, it is good, it is necessary, but it is one thing to
do the training exercises and another thing to make sure that
we are making the kinds of investments that we need to address
emerging defense challenges in the Arctic, recognizing that it
is just a different environment up there. Are you satisfied
with where we are?
General Goldfein. Ma'am, I am satisfied, but I will tell
you that this is an opportunity to highlight the important
partnership we have with Canada in NORAD and we can defend our
homeland together just as we have for, you know, six decades.
And so, as Canada modernizes and we modernize, we being able to
be interoperable in both 5th generation and 4th generation is
absolutely essential as we go forward.
Senator Murkowski. Madam Secretary.
Secretary Wilson. I would just say, one of the things that,
you know, people think about the Arctic strategy from a naval
point of view, and of course the Navy is ship-based, but the
majority of Defense Department infrastructure in the Arctic is
United States Air Force. And then we have to know the domain,
so that is about the kind of intelligence surveillance and
reconnaissance missions there, the missile warning missions,
which are really focused about the threat that could--and
historically that is where we put the ballistic missile early-
warning radars because of the threat coming potentially from
that direction.
So there have been a number of upgrades that we have done
there, both at Clear, Alaska and also at Thule, and the
deepening partnership with our allies who are Arctic allies,
Danes, the Swedes, the Norwegians, Finland and of course
Canada, are going to be invaluable going forward.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. We appreciate the eye on the
Arctic because we know it is being viewed by others perhaps in
different lands, and we need to be ever aware. So again, thank
you both. I will turn to Senator Baldwin for an additional
question.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Secretary Wilson, I too want to
add my words of thanks for your service and that we will miss
you and I have enjoyed our work together since our days on the
Energy and Commerce committee back in the House of
Representatives, through to your service as Secretary of the
Air Force. I do not know if anyone else on the committee has
covered Space Force yet, but I did want to ask a couple of
questions.
SPACE FORCE
I know that the Department of Defense and the Air Force
have spent a great deal of energy responding to the President's
directions for the creation of a Space Force, and I am going to
withhold judgment until I see the proposal sent over by the
Department of Defense. But one thing I do not have to withhold
judgment on is one thing that I hope we all agree on that the
Air Force ought to be working on lowering the cost of access to
space and space launch. So, I have a couple of questions along
those lines. The Air Force buys launch as a service, am I
correct?
Secretary Wilson. That is correct.
Senator Baldwin. And even though launch is bought as a
service, the Air Force still invests in advancing the state of,
art of rocket propulsion technology, is that correct?
Secretary Wilson. Yes.
Senator Baldwin. Okay and to break the habit of using
Russian engines, the Air Force has invested considerably over
the last decade to mature and advance American made Stage 1
engine technology?
Secretary Wilson. Correct.
Senator Baldwin. Okay. What has the Air Force done to
advance Stage 2, also called Upper Stage Engine Technology?
Secretary Wilson. I will probably have to get back to you
on specifics on Upper Stage.
Senator Baldwin. Okay. And as you get back to me on that, I
am wanting to be made more aware of the progress being made by
the Air Force Research Laboratory's rocket propulsion
directorate, and I would appreciate learning what is happening
there because this committee has appropriated additional
funding in recent years to support the AFRL's efforts, and we
certainly want to be looking at the results of those efforts as
we appropriate for fiscal year 2020.
Secretary Wilson. Very happy to, and one of the things we
are doing in space is and I think we benefited more in space
than in any other element of our mission in trying to drive
acquisition faster and smarter. And we have a Space Enterprise
Consortium out of Space and Missile Systems Center in
California that has now, I think, 274 companies in it. About
three-quarters of them are highly innovative companies that
have not done business traditionally with the Defense
Department. And our average time to get a contract from request
for proposal to contract award is 90 days in the Consortium.
So, we are driving forward very aggressively to buy things
faster and smarter and leverage commercial space. Chief, did
you want to----
General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am. I want to just give, perhaps
a minute, on a warfighter's perspective on space and where we
are headed. So, from 2011 through 2013, I was deployed forward
as the Air Component Commander in Central Command, and one of
my responsibilities was to be the space coordinating authority.
And so, my job was to ensure that I understood all the
space capabilities that were available to be applied against an
active campaign in Central Command. And I want to give the
Administration credit because during that timeframe, I could
not say the word space and war-fighting in the same sentence.
Today, based on the President's declaration that space is a
war-fighting domain and it is not good enough for us just to be
there, we have to dominate. We are having an active dialogue, a
very healthy discussion about space as a war-fighting domain.
And the Secretary laid out the problem statement. I would offer
going forward that there are three lines of effort that we are
working on.
Number one, we have to defend what we have in space because
it is going to be there for a while, and we all depend on it.
But number two, it is not good enough to just step into the
ring and take hits. At some point you got to be able to punch
back and so we have got to be able to develop that capability
and fill it quickly so we stay ahead of the adversary. And the
third piece that we want to make sure we stay focused on us
building a Force that can fight and win, because space has been
a benign domain and so as we have a lot of efforts going
forward in the Air Force to ensure that we are developing the
cadre of space warriors to be able to do what the Nation
requires us to do.
So, from a warfighter's perspective, the most important
action going forward that I hope we can do this year is to
stand-up a Combatant Commander for space, because it normalizes
space war-fighting for us and us as a Department then know how
to act.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator. So, there are no
more questions for the witnesses. We thank you both. We
appreciate your appearance before the committee. Senators will
have an additional--well it does not say how long they can
submit additional written questions. But when those are
submitted, we would ask that you respond to them within 30
days.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Dr. Heather Wilson
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. What is your best estimate of the cost of a new F-15
combat equipped aircraft? (OPR: SAF/AQ)
Answer. The F-15EX estimated fly-away cost is approximately $80.3
million.
Question. My understanding is that Luke and Hill Air Force bases
are doing some innovative things to reduce maintenance and operating
costs of the F-35, and industry has a goal for the F-35 to be $25,000
cost per flying hour by 2025--is that on par or less than some F-15s
flying today? (OPR: SAF/FMBP)
Answer. While the industry has a goal for the F-35's Cost Per
Flying Hour (CPFH) to be $25,000 by 2025, according to the latest cost
estimates by OSD CAPE, the estimated CPFH for Then Year 2020 (TY20) are
as follows:
--F-35: $39,000
--F-15EX: $29,000
--F-15C: $34,000
Question. What analysis or competition was performed that called
for the purchase of new fourth-generation F-15's in the budget? (OPR:
AF/A8)
Answer. Analysis shows that we must procure 72 fighter aircraft a
year to account for aging aircraft retirements and to meet National
Defense Strategy and Operations Plans assigned missions. Air Force
analysis and fiscal reality combined with the global missions of the
Air Force demand a mix of 4th and 5th generation force structure to
balance near and mid-term readiness with future needs. Procuring F-15EX
aircraft leverages partner investments in 4th generation modernization,
an existing production line, uses existing infrastructure, and
minimizes conversion downtime for F-15 operators and maintainers. The
F-15EX will help us improve fighter aircraft capacity at a cost we
estimate to be 10 percent cheaper than the F-35A to procure and 35-40
percent cheaper to operate.
Question. Are you concerned that allocating funds to fourth
generation fighters will prevent the Air Force from buying the number
of F-35As needed to get a 50-percent fifth generation fleet in time to
meet the threats from Russia and China? (OPR: AF/A8)
Answer. We are committed to buying the F-35 in sufficient numbers
to meet the fighter force mix we need for the missions we've been given
in the National Defense Strategy. Funding for the F-15EX did not come
from the F-35 portfolio, nor will it in the future, as these two
aircraft are seen as complimentary, not competitive, in what they bring
to the fight.
Question. I commend the Air Force for making progress on reducing
the overall pilot and maintainer staffing gaps, but there is still some
work to be done. Last month GAO noted increasing loss rates of
experienced maintainers, and recommended that the Air Force develop
annual retention goals and a retention strategy for aircraft
maintainers. Have you taken corrective action and implemented such a
plan? (OPR: AF/A4)
Answer. Our Aircraft Maintenance Career Field Managers continue to
refine the Air Force Maintenance Retention strategy. Our goal is to
have our strategy framework completed by August 30, 2019. Career Field
Mangers are gathering current and historical retention data to conduct
analysis, are partnering with experts within the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Manpower, Personnel and Services, and have laid out goals and
objectives to meet the August 30, 2019 delivery date
Question. How can Congress assist the Air Force in addressing this
problem, particularly with respect to the Air National Guard? (OPR:
NGB)
Answer. As referenced in Government Accountably Office's report,
the Air National Guard (ANG) is experiencing a shortfall of assigned
maintainers and deficiencies in required skill levels for those
maintainers. The ANG requires increased military personnel funding to
incentivize recruiting and retention of critical maintenance career
fields and to provide adequate training days in order to expedite skill
level qualifications for deploying maintainers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
whiteman air force base vehicle maintenance facility (opr: saf/a4c)
Question. Secretary Wilson, I know you visited Whiteman very early
on in your tenure.
While there, you saw firsthand the problematic situation involving
Whiteman's vehicle maintenance facility.
The current aging 1950s era facility was originally designed for a
fleet of 300 vehicles. The current fleet is over 650 vehicles. The
facility needs a $24 million military construction project to meet
safety standards and prevent workarounds in support of Whiteman's
strategic mission.
This is Whiteman's top military construction project request and is
at the top of Air Force Global Strike Command's list as well.
In response to a letter I sent you on the project, you commented
that the Air Force had nearly 500 projects submitted by Air Force major
commands. Yet, the Air Force was only able to fund a small number given
difficult funding choices.
Can you please discuss the demands, and balance necessary, to fund
military construction projects to address the backlog of necessary
investments in critical infrastructure in the Air Force?
Answer. Most years, 75-80 percent of military construction
resources support combatant commander requirements and new mission
beddowns, leaving 20-25 percent for recapitalization of existing
missions and facilities Air Force-wide. Informed by major command
priorities, the Air Force prioritizes all enterprise-wide existing
mission requirements for these scarce recapitalization military
construction resources. In the last two decades, some budgets did not
provide enough military construction funds for all major commands to
fund even their top recapitalization priority. The Air Force maintains
an unfunded priority list, which includes unfunded recapitalization
requirements, so that we are postured to execute any additional
appropriations if they become available. Our fiscal year 2020 military
construction unfunded priority list includes the Consolidated Vehicle
Operations and Maintenance Facility project at Whiteman Air Force Base.
Given the limited percentage of military construction funds
available annually for recapitalization, we intend to leverage Facility
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) funds, along with
recapitalization military construction, to address our backlog of
deferred infrastructure maintenance. Going forward, robust FSRM
budgets, coupled with new authorities to use FSRM instead of military
construction for facility conversion, will allow major commands much
needed flexibility to address their top priorities and will enable the
Air Force to begin reducing our backlog of deferred maintenance.
air force we need (opr: af/a5)
Question. Secretary Wilson, last year you announced an effort to
get the Air Force to 386 squadrons in order to meet the intent of the
National Defense Strategy.
Can you provide us with an update on how the Air Force intends
carry out that plan to increase capability, capacity, and readiness?
Answer. The Air Force We Need growth from 312 to 386 operational
squadrons is a strategy-driven, rather than budget constrained,
analysis of what the Air Force requires to implement the National
Defense Strategy. Our budget this year was driven by the National
Defense Strategy and the prioritized missions set out in that strategy.
In terms of readiness, we focused on building a more lethal and ready
force--the Air Force is more ready for combat operations today than it
was 2 years ago. We closed the gap on our maintainer shortage to
address readiness shortfalls. In terms of capability and capacity, we
are modernizing across the board with the F-35, the KC-46, the B-21
bomber, the nuclear deterrent, the T-X trainer, and our helicopters. We
have aligned our budget priorities to the priorities of the National
Defense Strategy--and identified the need to grow to meet all of the
mission sets with our Air Force We Need analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
Question. I would like to know how your fiscal year 2020 request
invests in sustainment research. Specifically, what level of funding is
dedicated to sustainment research efforts and what programs or
partnerships does the Air Force intend to pursue to modernize
sustainment of your aircraft? (OPR: SAF/AQ)
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget Request includes
$659 million (Fiscal Years 2020-2024) for the Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL) science and technology research in sustainment
technologies for aircraft and intercontinental ballistic missile
systems. This involves approximately a dozen AFRL core technical areas
and over 50 projects in partnership with various system program office,
depot operations, and repair sites at Air Force bases. Key examples are
Low Observability improvements for F-35, F-22, and B-2, new non-
destructive evaluation (NDE) for fighters and transport aircraft,
advanced inspection processes and equipment for life extension, reduced
costs of various turbine engines, and digital engineering and machine
learning processes and tools for advanced Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile health prognostics. The newly formed Rapid Sustainment Office
leverages AFRL initiatives and transitions the new technologies into
active sustainment activities to reduce sustainment cost and improve
readiness.
Question. I would like your perspective on two proposals stemming
from OT&E's report to increase Cyber Red Teams capacity. The first
proposal is to resource partnerships with academia to create a pipeline
of cyber talent for Red Teams. The second proposal is to resource a
Joint Cyber Red Team construct, for example, the 177th Information
Warfare Aggressor Squadron at McConnell Air Force Base is an Air
National Guard, NSA and USCYBERCOM-certified red team that already
works hand-in-hand with the Army team based in Huntsville, and they
should be resourced to collaborate on testing to meet demand. (OPR: AF/
A2/6)
Answer. The Air Force is currently leveraging efforts like ``Hack
the Air Force'' where the Air Force has partnered with HackerOne to not
only uncover vulnerabilities in public facing websites, strengthening
the service's cyber posture, but also potentially identifying,
recruiting, or retaining cyber talent. Due to required elevated
clearance levels to access DoD network systems, elevated tools and
methods, the DoD is unable to fully partner with non-Federal agencies
for pipelines to increase Cyber Red Team capacity. Often, the
limitation on Cyber Red Team Capacity is the backlog of personnel
awaiting completion of clearance investigations. Partnerships with
Total Force aggressors would provide valuable additional capacity, and
we would welcome their assistance, provided they were resourced and
supported appropriately.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. Is the Air Force considering using RPAs for missile
defense and wide area surveillance as part of efforts to combat future
high-end adversaries? (OPR: AF/A2/6)
Answer. The Air Force is not currently planning or programming to
use RPAs for missile defense. The Missile Defense Agency has contracted
MQ-9 and MQ-9B aircraft, which have been structurally modified with
electro-optical/infra-red sensors in a nose turret, to assess the
feasibility and utility of this capability. The Air Force is working
with the Missile Defense Agency on potential warfighter concepts of
operations if a decision was made to field this capability. If fielded,
the Air Force favors use of a modular pod-based approach to minimize
the impact to existing RPA aircraft, missions, and force structure.
The Air Force's current RPA wide area surveillance capability is
Gorgon Stare 2, which flies on a limited number of MQ-9 aircraft
providing Wide Area Motion Imagery (WAMI) in permissive environments.
Carrying a Gorgon Stare precludes carrying weapons. The Air Force
studied Next Generation Sensors needed to combat future high-end
adversaries and considered wide area surveillance concepts, but they
were not prioritized for further development.
Question. Is the Air Force considering increasing the total number
of RPA combat lines in order to meet demands in the PACOM and EUCOM
AOR? (OPR: AF/A2/6)
Answer. The Air Force is programmed to support 60 MQ-9 combat lines
(CLs) plus 10 Government Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) CLs. The Air
Force is currently not considering increasing the total number of MQ-9
CLs.
Question. If a lack in personnel is the Department's biggest
challenge in increasing RPA combat lines, what kind of advancements
could be leveraged to address that challenge?
Answer. The Air Force does not currently intend to increase the
number of MQ-9 CLs. In addition to increasing personnel the Air Force
would have to address current limitations on equipment, specifically
Ground Control Stations (GCS), aircraft, and ground support equipment
for Launch and Recovery locations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. You testified that there was nothing in the Air Force's
budget request for Military Construction that is not necessary for
readiness. (OPR: AF/A4C)
What is the specific impact on Air Force readiness if funding for
Military Construction projects is reprogramed away from the Air Force?
Answer. The Acting Secretary of Defense is considering the option
of utilizing 10 USC 2808 authority to construct a barrier in support of
the use of the armed forces in addressing the national emergency for
which the armed forces are required. In the event Acting Secretary
Shanahan utilizes this authority, the Air Force will work with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure they are informed of the
potential military readiness impacts regarding any Air Force projects
that might be deferred.
Question. What projects not included in the fiscal year 2020 budget
submission would you accelerate or add if funding was available?
Answer. If additional funding were to become available, we would
seek military construction-related requirements, consistent with our
fiscal year 2020 military construction unfunded priority list. Our
first unfunded priority is $190 million to complete prior-year projects
with known cost increases over their programmed amounts. Without
additional funding, these projects will be delayed indefinitely, or
other authorized and appropriated projects would need to be deferred to
enable reprogramming.
Our second unfunded priority is $63 million for additional Military
Construction planning and design funds. Early design is one of the most
important aspects of a healthy military construction program; cost
estimating and budgeting will both improve if we have the resources to
begin design as early as possible, with ready-to-execute designs on the
shelf for future execution years.
Our unfunded priority list also includes our next 10 highest
priority projects that are ready to execute, but did not make it into
the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget. These critical projects
support Total Force requirements at bases across the United States:
--Mechanized Material Handling System Allied Support--Travis AFB,
California
--NC3 Support War Reserve Materiel Storage/Shipping Facility--
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
--SOCNORTH Theater Operational Support Facility--Peterson AFB,
Colorado
--Consolidated Vehicle Operations and Maintenance Facility--Whiteman
AFB, Missouri
--Air Force Personnel Center B-Wing--Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph
--41st Rescue Squadron HH-60W Apron--Moody AFB, GA
--Consolidate Prep School Dormitory--U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado
--Aerial Port Facility--Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport,
Minnesota (Air Force Reserve)
--Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron Training Administration Facility--
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland (Air Force Reserve)
--Fuels/Corrosion Control Hangar and Shops--Moffett Air National
Guard Base, California (Air National Guard)
Question. What are the early estimates of the cost of damage to
Offutt Air Force Base and other costs related to flooding?
Answer. The early flood damage estimate for Offutt Air Force Base
is $350 million in Operations and Maintenance costs. Cost estimates for
construction and equipment are still in development.
Question. You testified that the Air Force is partnering with
universities like Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont, to grow
cyber talent and recruit young people with proficiencies in computer
languages. (OPR: SAF/CN)
Will you provide more information about these partnership programs?
Answer. The AF primarily partners with universities through Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs. ROTC programs provide the AF an
avenue to directly access officers with cyber talent. Often, ROTC
programs will partner with Active, Guard, and Reserve units to connect
cadets to operational Air Force missions. This is the case at Norwich
University where the 229th Cyber Operations Squadron has established a
relationship with the ROTC program, and other Norwich University
programs, with an emphasis on cyber operations. The AF will access many
officers directly into the 17D career field, cyberspace operations. To
complement direct accessions into cyberspace operations, the AF is
piloting a training program similar to the Language Enabled Airmen
Program (LEAP) which provides Airmen, from all ranks and specialties,
training opportunities to sustain and enhance their foreign language
skills over the course of their service. Similarly, the AF is looking
at providing sustainment and enhancement training opportunities to
Airmen with computer language skills.
Question. How will you coordinate those programs with existing
cyber training and education programs?
Answer. ROTC remains our primary partnership vehicle with
universities to recruit cyber talent and young people with
proficiencies in computer languages. In addition, the AF Computer
Language Initiative (CLI) is aimed at uniting enterprise efforts to
ensure that the AF has Airmen with the digital talent to face current
and emerging challenges. The CLI brings together stakeholder
representatives from across the AF to ensure that policy, training,
tracking, and utilization efforts are synchronized. Finally, our
success with software factories, in particular Kessel Run, provides a
proven model for the AF to begin to normalize the process of
identifying our Airmen with proficiencies in computer languages,
providing additional training, then transitioning to an operational
software development capability.
Question. In the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget Request, the
account for Overseas Contingency Operations is tripled to include
funding over the budget cap. However, even when the so-called ``base-
to-OCO'' funding is removed, OCO remains close to level. (OPR: SAF/
FMBP)
What plans exist for the Air Force to transfer enduring OCO costs
to the base budget?
Answer. The Air Force plans to move enduring Overseas Contingency
Operations costs to the base budget, if directed or given guidance by
the Office of Secretary Defense (OSD). Any movement of requirements
from OCO to Base would need to include the funding being transferred as
well. Without funds across the FYDP, The Air Force would have to divert
funding from other efforts, such as readiness, to maintain the current
level of operational support in the deployed AOR.
Question. Are there cost savings to including enduring OCO costs in
the base budget?
Answer. There are potential cost savings; however, the real benefit
is that it sends the right message to the industry. Our budgeting
``strategy'' (base vs OCO) drives industry behavior for long term
planning and internal investment strategies. Without funds in the FYDP,
industry's appetite for making internal investments is reduced, which
can later drive the AF to incur costs for production line capacity
increases.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
c-130 wildfire aircraft (opr: saf/aq)
Question. In the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress
directed the Air Force to modify and transfer seven C-130 aircraft
currently operated by the Forest Service to California (Cal Fire) for
use in wildfire suppression. Please provide the overall budget estimate
and the current schedule for contract award, critical design review,
delivery of the first aircraft, and final delivery of the seventh
aircraft.
Answer. The Air Force is committed to delivering seven C-130H
aircraft to Cal Fire for wildfire suppression as directed by the fiscal
year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Per the fiscal year 2019
NDAA, the total program is capped at $150 million. Contract award,
critical design review, delivery of the first aircraft, and final
delivery of the seventh aircraft are projected for fourth quarter
fiscal year 2019, third quarter fiscal year 2020, second quarter fiscal
year 2021, and first quarter fiscal year 2022 respectively.
launch services agreement (saf/aq)
Question. The Air Force announced Launch Services Agreement (LSA)
awards to three companies in October 2018. The purpose of these awards
was to ``to quickly transition from the use of non- allied space launch
engines, implement sustainable competition for National Security Space
(NSS) launch services, and maintain assured access to space.''
A key program objective was to have certified launch vehicles ready
to send critical national security satellites to space by April 2022.
What is the current schedule toward certification for each of the three
LSA award winners, and is the Air Force aware of further delays to the
schedule announced in October 2018?
Answer. The Launch Services Agreement (LSA) requires any LSA
provider selected for a Phase 2 award to develop certified launch
systems by the first National Security Space mission procured under
Phase 2. The first Phase 2 launch is projected for 3rd Quarter fiscal
year 2022. The launch providers are continuing to make sufficient
progress towards this Initial Launch Capability. The specific schedules
and milestones for each of the LSA providers is held as proprietary
information.
Question. The Air Force has stated that Phase 2 missions would be
open to all bidders, including those not awarded under the LSA. What is
the Air Force's plan to ensure fair and equitable competition among
bids, given that some providers will be receiving hundreds of millions
of dollars in government funds while others will not. Will the Air
Force account for these government investments when evaluating the
total costs to the government in Phase 2? If not, why not?
Answer. The Air Force conducted a full and open competition for LSA
awards and all bidders had an opportunity to be awarded. The Air Force
has historically delineated separately awarded research and development
funds from a procurement decision for concurrent development efforts,
therefore, LSAs are considered to be an earned competitive advantage
and these investments will not be included in the evaluation of the
Phase 2 competition.
Question. The Air Force's current Phase 2 strategy precludes any
competition following the initial award in 2020 until at least 2027.
How does this limitation to competition meet the Air Force's objective
to establish ``sustainable competition for National Security Space
launch services?''
Answer. The Air Force assesses that the expected market in the
2022-2026 timeframe will conservatively support only two providers.
Working with two providers balances competition with National policy,
which requires the DoD to maintain at least two paths to space for NSS
satellites. In addition, awarding missions as a 5-year ``block buy''
provides the Air Force the ability to meet NSS requirements while
ensuring market stability, lowering prices, and reinforcing commitment
to industry. Following Phase 2, the Air Force plans to again compete
and award NSS missions for launches starting in fiscal year 2025.
Question. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program has
struggled for years with extremely high, unsustainable launch costs,
and a purpose of the LSA effort is to reduce the cost of launching
National Security Space payloads. Given that, why does the current
Phase 2 RFP rank price as functionally irrelevant?
Answer. The Air Force has consistently worked to meet the more
stressing National Security Space launch needs at lower cost. Launch
service cost is important, but mission success and readiness will
continue to be our most important factors of any source selection. By
implementing this balance, the Air Force is expecting a successful
Phase 2 competition where two commercial providers are selected that
can affordably meet all NSS requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. There have been reports about the Pentagon working with
NASA to have the national standard for PFOS/PFOA levels be raised from
70 ppt to 400 ppt for clean-up efforts and 1200 ppt for the emergency
level.\1\ This effort is would free the Air Force from a responsibility
to clean-up and assist contaminated people and lands in a great deal of
areas. (OPR: SAF/IE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/03/15/
with-lawsuits-on-the-horizon-dod-looks-for-ways-to-cut-contaminated-
water-cleanup-costs/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_
medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2018.03.19&utm_term=Editorial%20-
%20Early%20
Bird%20Brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What efforts have been done to push for this raised standard and
what are future plans that are in place to continue this effort?
Answer. The Air Force recognizes PFOS/PFOA contamination is a
national issue that needs a national regulatory solution. We support
the Environmental Protection Agency establishing regulatory standards
and a consistent cleanup approach for PFOS/PFOA based on the well-
established Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) process. We take our cleanup responsibilities
seriously, and conduct our cleanups in an open and transparent manner
following CERCLA. The Air Force and DoD are not seeking a different or
weaker cleanup standard, but want the standard risk-based cleanup
approach that is based on science and applies to everyone.
Question. As Russia and China aggressively pursue hypersonic
weapons capabilities, it is important that we ensure advancement of our
own hypersonic technology. Last year General John Hyten, Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that,
``We don't have any defense that could deny the employment of such a
weapon against us.'' \2\ (OPR: SAF/AQ)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/hypersonic-weapons-what-they-
are-and-why-us-cant-defend-against-them.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop hypersonic technology and possible counters, inland
tests will need to be conducted. Is the Air Force coordinating with
White Sands Missile Range to conduct the needed testing?
Answer. The Air Force reaches out to the various test ranges,
including White Sands Missile Range, for its hypersonics-related
science and technology and prototyping efforts. Each range has
different attributes: over land, over water, data rates, risks,
distances over which the testing can be conducted, etc. Test range
selection is based on test requirements and range availability. The Air
Force coordinates with White Sands Missile Range during the
requirements process for supporting hypersonic testing. The Program
Office for the Air Force's Air-launch Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)
prototyping effort plans to run some ground global positioning system
(GPS) performance testing at White Sands Missile Range. The ARRW
Program Office is also planning to perform sled testing at the Holloman
Air Force Base High Speed Test Track. The Air Force did participate in
initial discussions about overland hypersonic testing. However, it was
determined that White Sands Missile Range is too small for overland
hypersonic weapon testing. As such, the Air Force has no current plans
to accomplish hypersonic over land testing at White Sands.
Question. Can you update my office on Air Mobility Command's
efforts to utilize hypersonic point to point travel? What are the plans
to make this a reality and has the Air Force begun the interagency
efforts to conduct overland hypersonic tests?
Answer. The Air Force Research Laboratory, along with the major
commands and the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability, explore
various concepts in simulations and wargames to assess if and how well
they meet mission requirements or otherwise positively impact the
future of warfighting. Currently, Air Mobility Command has no plans to
invest in hypersonic point-to-point delivery.
Question. Secretary Wilson, in 2017, you submitted a detailed plan
how the military's space force would transition to a new branch. In
this report, you suggest the Space Development Agency be assigned to
the Air Force Space Rapid Capabilities Office. The Space Development
Agency would evolve to a ``hybrid'' organization with elements of the
RCO and National Reconnaissance Office. The RCO, you noted, ``exists
now and has the personnel and expertise to meet the needs of U.S. Space
Command.'' (OPR: SAF/SP)
I agree with your statement, and would like to know what role the
Air Force Space Rapid Capabilities Office would play in the
administration's most recent legislative proposal to establish the
Space Force?
Answer. The Air Force Space Rapid Capabilities Office is not
addressed in the administration's legislative proposal to establish the
Space Force. However, if a Space Force is approved by congress, the
Department of Defense intends to transfer all space acquisition
organizations to the Space Force.
Question. Please update me on the Space Development Agency (SDA)
and the metrics the Air Force is considering for locating this
important office. Do you agree that the SDA would benefit from being
co-located with the Space RCO? Please provide any reasons why or why
not?
Answer. The Air Force is not involved in the process to determine
the location of the Space Development Agency. On March 12th the Acting
Secretary of Defense established the agency under the authority,
direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering. The agency is currently located in the Washington,
D.C. area. In a 14 September memo, the Air Force proposed ``assigning
the function'' of the Space Development Agency to the Space Rapid
Capabilities Office. The Air Force recommended this action because the
Space Rapid Capabilities Office exists now, has special authorities
granted by Congress, and has the personnel and expertise to develop the
capabilities needed by U.S. Space Command.
Question. You reportedly wrote a memo to Defense Secretary Shanahan
recommending that the SDA be co-located with the Space RCO. Can you
please provide a copy of the memo to the committee for review?
Answer. Yes. Please find the memo, the Air Force concept for the
Space Development Agency, and other relevant correspondence enclosed.
Question. I wanted to quickly address Holloman's important role
addressing the pilot shortage to help the Air Force meet its F-16
mission. The New Mexico delegation has inquired with you and your
office several times, but I want to reiterate our position that the Air
force should move quickly to make the F-16 basing permanent at
Holloman. Do you have any updates on this decision? (OPR: SAF/IE)
Answer. The basing process for the F-16 permanent Formal Training
Unit continues. We anticipate the Secretary of the Air Force to select
candidate bases this summer. Following the site surveys, the Secretary
of the Air Force will make the preferred and reasonable alternatives
decision in the winter of 2019/2020. After the required environmental
analysis is complete, the Secretary of the Air Force will render the
final decision, anticipated in the winter of 2021/2022.
Question. Do you still agree that permanent basing will help the
Air Force manage its historical training requirements for pilots? (OPR:
AF/A3)
Answer. ACTF--Pilot production, to include seasoning, depends on
the proper distribution of aircraft and Instructor Pilots between the
Formal Training Unit (FTU) and line squadrons. As we work to set
targets to meet operational requirements, we need to ensure we have the
right balance of aircraft and Instructor Pilots in the operational
units to receive and season the FTU graduates. This work is on-going.
Question. The New Mexico Air National Guard performs important
work, including providing critical training to Special Operations
aircrews and supporting missions throughout the world. However, the
TACOS do not have a flying mission. (OPR: NGB)
Has the Air Force made any decision to assign a flying mission to
the New Mexico Air National Guard?
Answer. No decision has been made concerning a unit-equipped flying
mission for the New Mexico Air National Guard (NM ANG). Current NM ANG
contributions to Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), Air
Combat Command (ACC) and Air Education and Training Command (AETC) fill
vital Service requirements. We acknowledge New Mexico's strong desire
for an operational flying mission with unit- equipped aircraft and the
Air Force will continue to evaluate future opportunities for the state.
Question. Multiple platforms have been considered for the flying
mission at the ANG. Among these are HH 60's, the light attack aircraft,
and CV-22's. Will the Air Force commit to assigning one of these
proposed aircraft or another to New Mexico's ANG?
Answer. The HH-60, light attack aircraft (LAA) and CV-22 are all
potential candidates for assignment to the NM ANG, but there is no
existing or planned additional force structure available to support a
commitment on assigning a flying mission to the New Mexico ANG at this
time. An opportunity may arise in the future as we build towards the
Air Force We Need and grow our total number squadrons. If we do grow,
we will utilize our Strategic Basing Process to evaluate candidate
locations and arrive at a decision on where that will occur.
Question. Following the Air Force LSA announcement, each of the
three selected providers announced a 1 year schedule delay. Was the Air
Force aware of this schedule delay when it made its award decision, and
if so how did this impact the Air Force's decision? (OPR: SAF/AQ)
Answer. The Air Force comprehensively reviewed the launch service
providers' schedules proposed under the Launch Services Agreement (LSA)
solicitation. The launch providers have not adjusted their LSA
completion schedules as proposed and awarded. All LSA providers are
expected to be able to support the Phase 2 launch dates.
Question. Please describe how the Air Force plans to pursue its
Phase 2 procurement for the LSA and whether total costs to the
government will be considered for the award? (OPR: SAF/AQ)
Answer. The Phase 2 procurement will be a full and open competition
separate from the LSA development efforts. Several draft solicitations
have been released for industry comment and the final Request for
Proposal is forthcoming. Additionally, the Air Force conducted a full
and open competition for LSA awards and all bidders had an opportunity
to be awarded the contract. The Air Force has historically delineated
separately-awarded research and development funds from a procurement
decision for concurrent development efforts, therefore, LSAs are
considered to be an earned competitive advantage and these investments
will not be included in the evaluation of the Phase 2 competition.
Question. Have you, anyone on your staff, or anyone within the Air
Force participated in war planning for a potential war and/or attack in
Iran or its military? (OPR: AF/A5)
Answer. The Air Force by statute is responsible for fulfilling the
future operational requirements of the unified and specified combatant
commands as well as for preparation of the air forces necessary for the
effective prosecution of war. To meet these responsibilities as a
Service, the Air Force organizes, trains, and equips its forces to
conduct prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations
across a range of contingencies. Specific war planning for any
particular region is the responsibility of combatant commands. This
question is best answered in a different setting, and as a Service we
would only be able to talk about theoretical planning scenarios not
actual war plans.
Question. Have you, anyone on your staff, or anyone within the Air
Force participated in war planning for a potential war and/or attack in
Venezuela or against the Maduro regime? (OPR: AF/A5)
Answer. The Air Force by statute is responsible for fulfilling the
future operational requirements of the unified and specified combatant
commands as well as for preparation of the air forces necessary for the
effective prosecution of war. To meet these responsibilities as a
Service, the Air Force organizes, trains, and equips its forces to
conduct prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations
across a range of contingencies. Specific war planning for any
particular region is the responsibility of combatant commands. This
question is best answered in a different setting, and as a Service we
would only be able to talk about theoretical planning scenarios not
actual war plans.
Question. Would a war with Iran hinder the Air Force's ability to
prepare for near peer competition with China and Russia as outlined by
numerous defense policy documents? Has the Air Force completed any
estimates regarding what a war with Iran would cost in terms of
dollars, equipment, and lives? If so, please provide that analysis.
(OPR: AF/A5)
Answer. Logically, any military action against one nation has an
impact on capacity to prepare or engage in competition with another
nation. We have seen this over the past two decades, with our continual
engagement in the Middle East, and its impact on our full-spectrum
readiness. Any estimated regarding detailed consequences we have
discovered in scenario planning would need to be provided in a
classified setting.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
Question. After Hurricane Michael, the Air Force moved F-22s from
Tyndall Air Force Base to other squadrons across the country, including
the 199th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. (OPR:
SAF/IE)
Has the Air Force made a decision about basing F-22s back at
Tyndall?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force is using its strategic basing process to
determine the locations to meet the recommendations of the Government
Accountability Office report on F-22 organization and utilization
changes that could improve aircraft availability and pilot training.
The Secretary of the Air Force directed a study to assess the
feasibility of basing up to three F-35A squadrons at Tyndall. We
anticipate a Secretary of the Air Force preferred alternative decision
for the F-35 and F-22 this summer.
Question. Have you made recommendations about making any of the
temporary F-22 moves permanent?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force is using its strategic basing process to
determine the locations to meet the recommendations of the Government
Accountability Office report on F-22 organization and utilization
changes that could improve aircraft availability and pilot training. We
anticipate a Secretary of the Air Force preferred alternative decision
this summer.
Question. Last summer, GAO issued a report that said increasing the
number of aircraft with the 199th Fighter Squadron would generate more
sorties and improve maintenance performance. (OPR: AF/A8)
Regardless of the basing decision for Tyndall, will you commit to
keeping the 199th Fighter Squadron its current size of 24 primary
aircraft?
Answer. As the basing decision is being finalized, many factors
across fighter platforms are still being considered that do not allow
the USAF to fully commit to keeping the 199th Fighter Squadron at its
current size into the future. The end goal is to position aircraft
appropriately to meet the needs of the joint force and capitalize on
efficiencies where able.
Question. Will you work with me to get training aircraft to Hawaii
to provide an adversary air capability so we can free up F-22s that are
currently playing that role?
Answer. We look forward to working with you and your staff to
discuss the adversary air enterprise.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
f-35 ops 5 & 6 draft environmental impact statement (opr: saf/ie)
Question. As you know, the 115th Fighter Wing at Truax Air National
Guard Base was selected in 2017 through the Ops 5 basing process to be
the next ANG unit to perform the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter mission.
Can you please provide me with a detailed outline as to where the
process currently stands and when you expect the release of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and public comment hearing as well
as the impact of this timing on the planned bed-down schedule for Ops 5
& 6?
Answer. The Air Force is accomplishing the environmental analysis.
The Secretary of the Air Force will render a final decision once
informed of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.
We anticipate release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement late
this summer, with public hearings scheduled within 30 days of the
release of the document. This timeline does not affect the planned bed
down schedule, nor first aircraft arriving at Ops 5 in April 2023 and
in December 2023 at Ops 6.
pfos/pfoa (opr: saf/gc)
Question. (a) In the Department's view, which entity has the legal
responsibility for environmental and human health impacts, and related
cleanup and mitigation costs, related to the use of PFOS/PFOA for
crash, fire & rescue training and services at any non-USG, fee-owned
installations?
(b) A site which: is a NG site for which the DoD has some
contractual relationship with an Airport authority as a tenant, and
that agreement includes specifies requirements for training and
operations (such as Crash, Fire & Rescue), which is later to be found
to have contamination resulting from those requirements:
--What is DoD's role when the contamination is classified as
requiring cleanup under Federal superfund laws?
--What is DoD's role when the contamination is classified at the
Federal level as caused by emerging contaminants of concern,
and which does not have a Federal regulatory standard, but
which is subject to a regulatory cleanup standard at the State
level?
Answer. Generally. In general, the Air National Guard would
implement any necessary environmental response actions to address
contamination attributable to the Air National Guard, utilizing
authorities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
In the case of environmental releases of PFOS/PFOA attributable to
the Air National Guard, the Air Force by policy acts to meet the US
Environmental Protection Agency's Lifetime Health Advisory of 70 ppt
for PFOS/PFOA concentrations in drinking water. Where PFOS/PFOA
drinking water concentrations exceed 70 ppt, we immediately provide
alternate drinking water and implement long-term measures to ensure
safe drinking water.
The Air Force also investigates the source of PFOS/PFOA releases
and the extent of contamination. Following the risk-based CERCLA
process, Air Force would then conduct any response action that is
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
In the case of environmental releases of contaminants for which
there is a Federal standard, the Air Force would comply with that
standard. Where a State has properly promulgated and implemented a
standard that is more stringent than the Federal standard and such
standard either directly applies to the United States Government or
would constitute an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
under CERCLA, Air Force would comply with the State standard.
Extinguishing Fires on Aircraft Located on Civilian Airports. Where
there is an environmental need to respond to PFOS/PFOA releases that
are caused by Air National Guard use of fire-fighting foam to address
fires located at civilian airports that result from non-Air National
Guard operations, the responsibility for implementing or paying for the
environmental response may depend either on agreement language or on
the particular facts of the situation. For example, where an agreement
between the Air National Guard and the civilian airport, e.g., a
``Joint Use Agreement,'' identifies which party is responsible for
funding environmental response actions, the agreement would control. In
the absence of such an agreement allocating this responsibility,
responsibility for funding such response action may depend on the
entity whose fire caused the need for extinguishing action that
released PFOS/PFOA.
Question. Please provide a summary of USAF RDTE investments
designed to reduce the cost space access and space launch.
Answer. The Air Force is executing a strategy through the National
Security Space Launch program to ensure affordable access to space by
investing in next generation rocket propulsion and launch systems.
Successful development under the rocket propulsion partnerships led to
the next generation of rocket engine prototypes. These engine
prototypes are being leveraged to support the development of new
domestically-produced launch systems to meet all National Security
Space requirements while ending reliance on foreign rocket engines.
Through these partnerships, the Air Force has invested over $2 billion
to ensure there are viable and affordable domestic launch capabilities.
For the first time in 20 years, the Air Force will be able to meet all
national security launch needs through competition among multiple
launch providers, assuring continued access to space.
Question. What investments is the Air Force making to advance Stage
2 engine technology?
Answer. The Air Force is investing in the modernization of the RL10
Liquid Oxygen-Hydrogen upper stage engine built by Aerojet Rocketdyne
and used since the 1960s. Current variations are used on the United
Launch Alliance Centaur second stage, flown on Atlas V and Delta IV
rockets. The Air Force and Aerojet Rocketdyne are co-investing in
developing the next- generation RL10CX engine. The RL10CX replaces many
heritage parts and processes dating to the Apollo era, with additive
manufacturing, which reduces fabrication time and costs 30-50 percent
less. RL10CX is compatible with launch vehicles using RL10C engines,
including Northrop Grumman's OmegA and United Launch Alliance's Vulcan.
Question. What is the budget in the POM and over the FYDP for Air
Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) sponsored work on rocket propulsion,
specifically upper stage engine maturation?
Answer. The Air Force fiscal year 2020 President's Budget for an
upper stage engine rocket motor concept is $17.4 million. The Future
Years Defense Program funding across fiscal years 2020 to 2024 totals
$105.1 million for these efforts.
______
Questions Submitted to General David L. Goldfein
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
rosecrans c-130 issues (opr: af/a8)
Question. The 139th Airlift Wing at Rosecrans Air National Guard
Base provides critical C-130 training through its Advanced Airlift
Tactics Training Center (AATTC) and Weapon Instructor Course (WIC).
The AATTC provides academic and combat flying training tactics to
the active duty Air Force, National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and
nearly 20 allied nations.
The WIC increases pilot's combat capabilities and ensures they stay
current in their training in order to effectively engage in a joint
environment.
In the past, funding has not been explicitly programmed in the
budget. Instead, it was done on an ad hoc, yearly basis that caused
stress for the 139th. However, thanks to this committee working with
the Air Force and National Guard over the last several years, this
issue appears to be resolved. So thank you for your efforts in that
area.
General Goldfein, related to Rosecrans and C-130 issues, in
September 2018, I sent a letter to the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, General Jospeh Lengyel. I copied you on that letter.
The letter raised concerns over the decision to temporarily reduce
the Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) for Air National Guard C-130 units
from eight to seven.
I understand the temporary reduction is meant to help the Air
National Guard address readiness maintenance issues.
While I am supportive of the effort to address readiness issues, I
want to ensure that seven PAA does not become permanent.
Can you please discuss how you plan to work with the National Guard
on a plan to return to eight PAA as quickly as possible?
Answer. Based on fiscal year 2020 Presidents Budget (PB)
submissions, the 139 AW's current fleet of 7x Primary Mission Assigned
Inventory (PMAI) C-130Hs will not increase to 8. The fiscal year 2019
PB adjusted the unit's PMAI from 8 to 7 in an effort to reach the Air
Force directed goal of 10 percent fleet-wide Backup Aircraft Inventory
(BAI). Currently, the 139 AW has a total of 7 PMAI and 2 BAI. This BAI
increase improved AF readiness by allowing for increased maintainer-to-
aircraft ratio and facilitating modernization efforts while improving
C-130H mission capable rates. For the Air National Guard in particular,
the decrease from 8x PAI to 7x PAI did not drive a decrease in
manpower.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. I think we can both agree that the Airmen and women who
serve in our Air Force are the Department's most important asset. When
our servicemembers and their families face adversity and do not seek
help, the readiness and lethality of our Air Force is degraded. Task
Force True North (TFTN) is a pilot program currently taking place at
four bases around the country--including Minot Air Force Base in North
Dakota--that focuses on enhancing well- being, increasing resilience,
preventing detrimental outcomes such as suicide, sexual assault,
domestic violence and substance abuse, and optimizing human
performance. One unique initiative within the TFTN pilot program
involves embedding four licensed clinical social workers and one mental
health technician at the unit or squadron level. (OPR: AF/A1)
What do you see as the greatest challenge to expanding this type of
pilot program Department-wide?
Answer. We see the greatest challenge to be the availability and
recruitment of enough professionals to meet the program demand for
embedded providers.
Question. Are there specific areas where additional funding is
needed to ensure our Airmen and women have these types of programs in
place?
Answer. Yes. We have identified three areas where additional
funding is essential to success: manpower dollars, contractor dollars
and sustainment/operating dollars. We are in the process of defining
the required amounts through the AF's budget process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. The Vermont Air National Guard is due to receive the
first of its F-35A Lightning II aircraft this fall. This aircraft is
being fielded concurrently in the Air National Guard and the active
duty Air Force, unlike previous fighter aircraft. This means there are
few experienced active duty pilots, maintainers, and other personnel to
join the 158th Fighter Wing than under existing Air Force Air National
Guard unit transition models. (OPR: NGB)
How have you developed budgeting models for Military Personnel and
Operations and Maintenance costs for fiscal year 2019 and beyond for
the transition?
Answer. A funding baseline for Military Personnel and Operations
and Maintenance costs for the F-35 was established using funding from
the existing F-16 mission. The ANG has further refined the resourcing
requirements through a series Site Activation Task Force (SATAF) on-
site visits and monthly conversion reports from the unit. One variance
we've already discovered in this initial conversion is the concurrent
seasoning of ANG maintenance personnel, which required an additional
$3.3M this year. We expect to continually refine the budget throughout
the unit's 3-year conversion period and a manpower study will also be
conducted within 2 years of the unit achieving full operational
capability so that we can validate the assumptions and adjustments
we've made up until that point.
Question. Will you share a detailed table outlining those estimates
over the next five fiscal years?
Answer. The initial F-35 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and
Military Personnel (MILPERS) requirements for the 158 FW are satisfied
in the fiscal year 2020 budget; the breakout is shown in the table
below. Data for fiscal year 2021 and beyond is pre-decisional and will
be made available once the Service's budget is finalized each year.
Fiscal Year 2020
[$ in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Programmed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Flying Hours.................. 3260 3260
Weapons System Sustainment.... $105.3 $105.3
Manpower.......................... Mil/FT Mil/FT
595/189 619/188
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Will you report to the Committee over the course of the
transition with updated cost estimates in order to ensure the success
of and successful budgeting for the F-35A transitions and future
concurrent fielding?
Answer. The Air Force is actively documenting the experiences and
lessons learned during this early stage of F-35 fielding into the Total
Force and we look forward to providing the Committee with updates as we
move forward.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murkowski. The Defense committee will reconvene on
Wednesday, March 27th at 10:00 a.m. to receive testimony from
the Army. And until then, the subcommittee will stand in
recess. Thank you both very, very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., Wednesday, March 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]