[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 117-51]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING
ON
FISCAL YEAR 2022 ROTARY WING AVIATION BUDGET REQUEST
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 30, 2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-434 WASHINGTON : 2021
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey, Chairman
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Vice SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Chair MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii DON BACON, Nebraska
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida RONNY JACKSON, Texas
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
Carla Zeppieri, Professional Staff Member
Kelly Repair, Professional Staff Member
Caroline Kehrli, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces........... 3
Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative from New Jersey,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces......... 1
WITNESSES
Bush, Douglas, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, Department of the Army;
accompanied by LTG Erik C. Peterson, USA, Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-8, Headquarters, U.S. Army............................ 4
Costello, Darlene, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of the
Air Force; accompanied by Maj Gen Richard G. Moore, Jr., USAF,
Director of Programs, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Plans and Programs, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force............... 8
Stefany, Frederick ``Jay,'' Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, Department of
the Navy; accompanied by LtGen Mark Wise, USMC, Deputy
Commandant for Aviation, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, and
RADM Andrew Loiselle, USN, Director, Air Warfare Division, N98,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations........................ 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bush, Douglas, joint with LTG Erik C. Peterson............... 31
Costello, Darlene, joint with Maj Gen Richard G. Moore, Jr... 51
Norcross, Hon. Donald........................................ 29
Stefany, Frederick ``Jay,'' joint with LtGen Mark Wise and
RADM Andrew Loiselle....................................... 41
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mrs. Hartzler................................................ 63
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
FISCAL YEAR 2022 ROTARY WING AVIATION BUDGET REQUEST
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 30, 2021.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:21 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Norcross
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD NORCROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND
LAND FORCES
Mr. Norcross. We will call this meeting to order.
First of all, again, we apologize for the confusion. We
were understanding that there would be a different vote
schedule, and we are going to make the best of this, because,
obviously, you have made your time available, and we are going
to do our best to get some votes in--or excuse me, testimony.
We will go to votes, and we will come back and make sure that
we do what is right for the American people, and, certainly,
for our military.
So with that, I would like to welcome everyone to Tactical
Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on military services'
fiscal year 2022 budget request for rotary wing aviation
programs. We have lifted most of the COVID restrictions here in
the House, but this is still a hybrid hearing, and that is so
true.
We have a few members that are participating remotely,
although they are not on right now. We expect them, but if
nobody is here, do I have to read it? Okay. We will cover
ourselves. Okay. We have somebody on there, so I have to read
the mandatory language.
I would like to welcome the members who are joining us
today, joining here and remotely. Members who are participating
remotely must be visible on screen for the purposes of identity
verification, establishing and maintaining a quorum,
participating in the proceedings, and voting. Remote attending
members must continue to use the software platform video
function the entire time while in attendance unless they
experience connectivity issues or other technical problems that
render them unable to participate on camera. If a member
experiences technical difficulties, they should contact the
committee staff for assistance.
Video of members participating will be broadcast in the
room and via television and internet feeds. Members
participating remotely must seek recognition verbally, and they
are asked to mute their microphones when they are not speaking.
Remote members may leave and rejoin the proceedings. However,
if remote members depart the hearing for a short while for
reasons other than joining a different proceeding, they should
leave the video function on. If members will be absent for a
significant period, or depart to join different proceedings,
they should exit the software program entirely, and then rejoin
it when they return.
Members may use the software platform's chat feature to
communicate with staff regarding only technical or logistical
support issues. I have designated a committee staff member to,
if necessary, mute unrecognized members' microphones to cancel
any inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the
proceedings. And, with that, I will now give my opening
statement.
Welcome back. We obviously have a large and distinguished
panel of witnesses here today, and I thank them for being on
time, even though not all of us were, and making the time to
have this discussion on what is incredibly important, the
services' rotary wing aviation program, and the process,
certainly the challenges we need to be aware of before we mark
up the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.
Rotary wing aircraft serves diverse and unique purposes
across the military branches, and each service is currently in
different stages of modernization of its helicopter fleets.
Successful modernization and sustainment of rotary wing
aircraft will lay a solid foundation for the futures of the
joint force.
The Army is embarking on an ambitious led Future Vertical
Lift, or FVL, aimed at developing and fielding two new major
rotary platforms at the same time--Future Attack [and]
Reconnaissance Aircraft, FARA, or Future Long Range Assault
Aircraft, FLRAA. With Future Years Defense Programs
information, this year's--excuse me. With it not in here, it is
difficult to assess what the FVL funding profile is going to
be. However, the subcommittee's understanding that the funding
plan for the FLRAA was never revised in the outyears after a
decision was made to accelerate the program by 4 years. Given
the concurrent acquisition of these programs, the Army should
explain how these programs will be appropriately resourced, and
what actions are being taken to manage the risk within the
Future Vertical Lift.
As in last year's budget, the Army did not include
procurement funding for the CH-47F Block II Chinook. Only the
new special operations forces aircraft are funded. The Chinook
program is conducting additional testing on the advanced rotor
blade now, and should have sufficient data collected and
analyzed for a production decision by the end of fiscal year
2021. Certainly, we are interested in discussing the way ahead
for the Chinook Block II.
With the Department of the Navy, the Navy has completed
acquisition of its fleet workhorse, the MH-60, and is beginning
to plan the service life extension program to keep these
aircraft relevant into the next decade, while the Marine Corps
is in the testing phase of two new, the CH-53K heavy lift
helicopter, and the VH-92, the replacement of the Presidential
helicopter program.
After 15 years of development, the CH-53K program is still
discovering new and operational difficulties that need to be
corrected. Now, I understand some of those are already
corrected, but granted, this is the purpose for the acquisition
system program, to bring out these problems before fielding the
systems. But, obviously, the 53K program should be much further
along at this point, and major problem discoveries is something
that we hope not to expect anymore of. We expect the Marine
Corps to explain how they anticipate controlling risks and the
cost of this program.
The Air Force is on their transitioning to a new combat
rescue helicopter, the HH-60 Whiskey, and a replacement
helicopter for the nuclear security missions, the MH-139 Grey
Wolf. I expect the Air Force witnesses to provide updates on
how these programs are progressing, and justify their requests,
or in this case, Grey Wolf, the lack of one for fiscal year
2022.
Finally, I am interested in what each of the services are
doing to increase survivability for the rotary wing fleet, and
if and how they are working together to leverage research and
investment in aircraft survivability equipment and for the
common benefit. Our helicopter pilots and crews deserve the
best self-protection and safety systems available.
With that, I want to take a moment and recognize our
ranking member of Tactical Air and Land, Mrs. Hartzler.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norcross can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND
FORCES
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I look forward
to receiving an update on the status of each service's unique
rotary wing aviation programs and their plans for both the
sustainment and modernization of their respective helicopter
fleet capabilities.
I remain deeply concerned that the President's fiscal year
2022 budget request does not adequately resource our national
security, and further places military leadership in an
untenable position of having to make impossible choices between
near-term operational readiness, sustainment of enduring
capabilities, and long-term modernization priorities.
Today's hearing will provide an opportunity for us to gain
a better insight of how each service's rotary wing aviation
fleets have been impacted by this budget, and whether any major
changes to sustaining programs or future equipping and
modernizing strategies will result.
With shrinking budgets and shifting focus, it is critical
that this subcommittee understands how each service views
rotary wing aircraft fitting into their future modernization
plans, and what added capabilities will be required in multi-
domain operations against a peer, or near-peer challenge in the
Indo-Pacific region.
I expect our witnesses to discuss what major sustainment,
readiness, and management issues each service is facing as you
adapt your rotary wing aviation portfolio to this new
operational focus, and what are you doing now to address these
issues? I am pleased to see that the Army is continuing to
prioritize the development of a Future Vertical Lift capability
as one of its top six modernization priorities. The Army is
clearly leading the way on Future Vertical Lift, developing
both the Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft, and the
Future Long Range Assault Aircraft at the same time. I look
forward to the discussion on both the development status, and
future potential of this major modernization effort. I also
hope to hear how the Navy and Marine Corps are working with the
Army and planning to capitalize on Army efforts and development
in their own future vertical lift programs.
Sustainment and modernization of existing rotary wing
platforms is also critical. As we look forward toward the
future of rotary wing aviation, we must not overlook the rotary
wing aircraft currently playing a significant role in the
missions and operations of our military services and our
National Guard today. Some of these units have been waiting for
necessary aircraft upgrades and replacements for quite some
time. Near to my heart, we have the Army's 1-135th Assault
Helicopter Battalion at Whiteman Air Force Base, who is
anxiously awaiting the arrival of its UH-60M Black Hawks to
replace its aging UH-60L fleet in 2023.
And, lastly, I expect each service to briefly discuss their
current aircraft survivability equipment projects and
developments. Helicopters fly low and relatively slowly,
rendering them especially vulnerable to enemy weapons. I want
to reemphasize the chairman's statement that our helicopter
pilots, crews, and passengers deserve the best self-protection
and safety systems available. This seems to be an area where
jointness would be without debate, leveraging research and
investment projects and aircraft survivability and safety for
the common benefit of all our warfighters.
I thank the chairman for organizing this important and
timely hearing before we mark up our fiscal year 2022 National
Defense Authorization Act, and I yield back.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Appreciate it.
And let's turn to our witnesses. Today, joining us is Mr.
Doug Bush, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, who we have had the
honor of two CODELs [congressional delegations] that have been
very informative. Good to have you here.
Lieutenant General Peterson, Deputy Chief of Staff of the
Army for Programs. Mr. Stefany is Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. Lieutenant
General Wise, Deputy Commandant for Aviation for the Marine
Corps. Rear Admiral Andrew Loiselle. Did I get that right?
Director of Air Warfare Division for Naval Operations. Ms.
Darlene Costello, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Major General Moore,
Director of Programs, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of
the Air Force for Plans and Programs. We have asked for opening
statements of one per service. And with that, Mr. Bush, please
proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS BUSH, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY LTG ERIK C. PETERSON, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, G-8, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY
Mr. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Norcross,
Ranking Member Hartzler, and distinguished members of the House
Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces, good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear
before you to discuss the Army's rotary wing aviation portfolio
and the resources requested in the President's budget for
fiscal year 2022. I am pleased to be joined today by my
teammate, Lieutenant General Erik Peterson, Deputy Chief of
Staff G-8, as well as our Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force
counterparts. We appreciate you making our written statement
part of the record for today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, our shared mission in the Army is to ensure
the Army continues to achieve overmatch against all potential
adversaries, ensuring that our Army can fulfill its mandate to
successfully deter, and if necessary, fight and win our
Nation's wars as part of the joint force.
Next, I would like to briefly take a moment to address the
subcommittee's specific requests outlined in the invitation.
First, the committee asked for an overview of Army aviation
modernization and equipping strategies for fiscal year 2022
that identified major planned changes in the strategy from
fiscal year 2021.
Overall, I think the fiscal year 2022 budget request for
the Army reflects continuity, and the Army's continued
commitment to its high-priority modernization programs. While
members will find adjustments were made to some programs, I
believe that the fiscal year 2022 budget request of $34.1
billion overall for Army research, development, and
acquisition, which includes $2.8 billion for aviation
procurement and $1.8 billion for aviation research and
development, reflects careful choices and supports continued
progress on the Army's top modernization priorities.
Second, the committee asked for an explanation of major new
modernization initiatives in fiscal year 2022. In response, I
would ask the committee members to review our joint witness
statement that summarizes our ongoing efforts to modify--to
modernize our current fleets, as well as the progress we were
making to develop future platforms, such as the ones mentioned
by the chairman, FARA, FLRAA, and also future unmanned aircraft
systems.
Third, the committee asked for an identification and
description and justification of unfunded priorities, major
equipment shortfalls, and unacceptable risk. With regard to
unfunded priorities, I would refer members to the Army Chief of
Staff's unfunded priority list. In addition, I am not aware of
any major equipment shortfalls or unacceptable risks in my area
of responsibility.
Fourth, the committee asked for an assessment of rotary
wing industrial base and its ability to support Army
modernization and sustainment. While no budget is without risk,
I am confident the request before you represents what we
consider acceptable risk to the rotary wing industrial base.
With the help of Congress, the Army has used multiyear
procurement contracts as a means to both achieve significant
cost savings, and ensure industrial base stability. I would ask
for the committee's support of the Army's fiscal year 2022
request for new multiyear procurement authority for both the
Apache and Black Hawk aircraft.
Fifth, the committee requested an overview of the Army's
aircraft survivability systems. Aircraft survivability is, of
course, a critical element of the Army's modernization and
readiness efforts to equip the force and maintain dominance.
The aircraft survivability portfolio provides advanced laser
defeat capabilities, such as the common infrared countermeasure
system, which will be an enduring system. For other systems, I
would request discussing that in a different setting.
Lastly, the committee asked us to provide any other budget
details and programs you believe merit attention to include
notable acquisition reform efforts. I think this budget request
reflects a careful balance, as I mentioned, between funding for
enduring and future modernization.
With respect to authorities, we are grateful to you and
your colleagues on the committee for reform initiatives that
have been instrumental in our efforts to streamline and gain
efficiencies in the acquisition process. This includes our use
of middle-tier acquisition authority for rapid prototyping to
accelerate efforts linked to our modernization priorities.
We have also used other transaction authority or OTAs to
help streamline the acquisition research activities, prototype
projects, and follow-on production. In both of these areas, you
have my commitment that the Army will use these authorities
conservatively, and only where needed to accomplish our
modernization objectives. You also have my commitment to ensure
appropriate internal Army oversight measures are in place to
monitor use of these authorities.
Let me close by saying that realization of our
modernization efforts is highly dependent on what is in the
Army's fiscal year 2022 budget request. The investments in this
budget request complement and reinforce the Army's
modernization efforts you have so far steadfastly supported.
The key is predictable, adequate, timely, and sustained funding
to ensure the United States Army remains the best equipped land
force in the world. I sincerely appreciate your time today and
look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bush and General
Peterson can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Mr. Stefany.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK ``JAY'' STEFANY, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; ACCOMPANIED BY LTGEN MARK
WISE, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION, HEADQUARTERS, U.S.
MARINE CORPS, AND RADM ANDREW LOISELLE, USN, DIRECTOR, AIR
WARFARE DIVISION, N98, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Mr. Stefany. Thank you. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member
Hartzler, distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf
of myself, Lieutenant General Mark Wise, the Deputy Commandant
for Aviation, and Rear Admiral Andrew Loiselle, Director of Air
Warfare, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to address the Department of the Navy's 2022 budget
request for rotary aviation. We are pleased to testify
alongside our Department of Army and Department of Air Force
colleagues.
Navy and Marine Corps forces operate forward and conduct a
broad range of military missions in support of the joint force.
The Department rotary craft capability is a key enabler of our
naval mobility. When coupled with air-capable ships, these
aircraft provide speed, range, and flexibility to give our
Nation unmatched global reach and expeditionary agility. Their
versatility is unmatched. Rotorcraft transport Marines,
sailors, equipment, and supplies from ships and land bases to
amphibious assault and for operations ashore. Rotorcraft pilots
make up more than 50 percent of our naval aviators, and,
support a broad range of mission from anti-submarine warfare to
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Our rotorcraft are
ready to fight tonight, and going forward, they will remain the
workhorses of the future naval force. Over the past year, we
took delivery of 33 new rotary aircraft, and we procured 56
more aircraft during the year. We also completed, just
recently, the initial operational testing of the VH-92 Alpha
Presidential helicopter.
To continue this progress toward the Commandant's Force
Design 2030 initiative, as well as the Chief of Naval
Operation's vision for distributed maritime operations, the
fiscal year 2022 budget request funds for the procurement of 53
new manned rotorcraft. While supporting the initial production
of [CH-]53 Kilo King Stallion helicopters, it also prioritizes
recapitalization of the helicopter training fleet through
continued procurement of the TH-73 Alpha training aircraft. The
Department is scheduled to take delivery of our very first TH-
73 Alpha later this week, and a total of 52 of those aircraft
are planned for delivery by the end of 2021.
The fiscal year 2022 budget also continues investment in
modernization and service life extensions for our MH-60 and H-1
fleets that are foundational to the Navy and Marine Corps
helicopter concept of operations. Modernization programs for
these platforms are focused on survivability and sensor
networks and communication that will keep the platforms
technically relevant as we look to develop the future of
vertical lift systems that will replace them.
Overall, this budget represents the deliberate, informed
development of a modernized, integrated, and all-domain naval
force for the future fight. It requires us to think
differently, move faster, and prioritize each dollar to meet an
uncertain environment. As we focus on building this all-domain
naval force to address our pacing threat presented by our
strategic competitors, we thank the Congress and this
subcommittee for your continued leadership and support. And
with that, we look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Stefany, General Wise,
and Admiral Loiselle can be found in the Appendix on page 41.]
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Ms. Costello, please.
STATEMENT OF DARLENE COSTELLO, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ GEN RICHARD G.
MOORE, JR., USAF, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR
FORCE
Ms. Costello. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Norcross. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Costello. Sorry about that.
Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of myself
and Major General Moore, we thank you for having us here today
to provide testimony on the Department of the Air Force's
fiscal year 2022 rotary wing aviation budget request.
Additionally, thank you for your continued leadership and
dedication to the United States military, and the Department of
the Air Force's 689,000 total force airmen and guardians
serving around the world today.
Our Nation faces a complex set of current and future
security challenges that require us to think different and act
different and with urgency. Our Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, General C.Q. Brown, has articulated what is at stake. He
has stated that unless we make significant changes to the Air
Force's programmed force, we will not meet the pacing threat of
China in 2030. And unless something changes, we will not be
able to accomplish the Air Force's core missions in the future
operating environment.
If we are to modernize to address the emerging threat, we
must efficiently use resources tied to our outdated and
underperforming platforms and weapons systems which are
decreasing in relevance today and will be irrelevant in the
future. We must strike a balance between risk in the near term
and risk in the future. The Department of the Air Force
rotorcraft are key components of the National Defense
Strategy's lethal force modernization effort. Our rotorcraft
are integral across a range of operations, including modern and
reliable personnel recovery, special operations, nuclear
security, and continuity of government.
Thanks to the support of this subcommittee, we have made
great strides in our efforts to improve rotorcraft readiness
and set the tone for modernization. But there remains work to
be done. The fiscal year period 2022 budget continues
investment in the Department of the Air Force critical
rotorcraft modernization programs. As you are aware, the
Department of the Air Force is the only service with a
dedicated force organized, trained, and equipped to execute
theater-wide personnel recovery.
To accomplish this vital mission, we must continue to
sustain, support, and upgrade the aging HH-60G fleet until we
can fully recapitalize with the HH-60W Jolly Green II. The HH-
60G retirements began this year with the continued retirement
timeline that aligns with completion of fielding 105 HH-60W
rotorcraft in fiscal year 2027. The first operational unit has
already been received. The first production HH-60W was
delivered on June 8 of this year. The fiscal year 2022
President's budget request adds 14 HH-60W aircraft to the 51
that are already funded.
The MH-139A program is an element of the Air Force nuclear
enterprise reform initiative, and also supports operational
airlift within the National Capital Region. The MH-139A offers
significant capability increases in areas of speed, range,
endurance, payload, and survivability. This program will
deliver up to 80 replacement helicopters, training devices, and
associated support equipment to replace the legacy UH-1Ns.
While technical issues have delayed the FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration] certification, we are confident Boeing can make
the necessary changes to minimize schedule delays going
forward.
To meet the challenges of the highly contested environment,
we are also developing the next generation of vertical takeoff
and landing platforms. Through AFWERX Agility Prime, we have
put more than $100 million on contract with over 20 electric
vertical takeoff and landing industry partners to move toward
fielding this transformative commercial technology for
distributed logistics and personnel transport. Early investment
in this technology will allow us to influence system design,
foster industry growth, and accelerate fielding.
We thank you for your leadership and support, and are eager
to work with this subcommittee to secure our Nation's vital
interests. We look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Costello and General
Moore can be found in the Appendix on page 51.]
Mr. Norcross. Thank you for your testimony, each of you.
Very much appreciate it. We are going to work through, again,
the votes here, and we are going to take whatever time is
necessary. We value what you do each and every day and your
time. And certainly our TAL [Tactical Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee] staff, who do such a wonderful job keeping us
informed, are focused on this, and please do not take the
little bit of disruption in any way diminishing what you do
each and every day. And, with that, I would like to start out
with questions myself, Mrs. Hartzler, and then we will go to
both the remote and here.
Mr. Bush, we have had conversation literally over the years
concerning the Chinook, and again, this year, some of the
deferments that were going on versus the original vision of the
Block II upgrades. We had the previous discussion about the
heavy lift for the Army and when that decision was to be made.
Let's make sure that we clear it up on the record. The decision
for what you are going to do is in the year 2023, because this
is--we had the conversation, and we had much discussion. I just
want to make sure we are clear on this.
Mr. Bush. Sir, my--yes. My understanding of the Army's
previous decision that still holds is that that was a calendar
year 2023 decision.
Mr. Norcross. Calendar year versus budget year. And forgive
us for throwing that off.
Obviously, developing two new programs at one time is
challenging at best, or trying to minimize that, and what you
have done preparing for it is truly noteworthy. However, the
timeframe going on is you potentially could have three going on
which could present some challenges. When you expect to get the
funding for 2021, the authorization, you expect to put those
under contract by the end of this fiscal year, or this calendar
year?
Mr. Bush. This fiscal year, sir.
Mr. Norcross. Okay. It makes a difference. If you are
listening to this, it gets confusing, but it is incredibly
important we start looking at that. Thank you. Really
appreciate that.
What I am going to do is try to get everybody in at least
for one, and we are going to go multiple rounds. This way, we
can have some more continuity.
Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Peterson, I am interested in the status
of the UH-60M upgrade program. As you know, Whiteman Air Force
Base currently has UH-60Ls and have been promised the delivery
of UH-60Ms in fiscal year 2023 to replace its aging fleet. So
can you assure me that the decrease in procurement of UH-60Ms
in the fiscal year 2022 budget will not impact this fielding
strategy and timeline?
General Peterson. I am struggling with the systems here.
Ranking Member, thank you for that question. And the--
first, to the 135th as well as the third--the 238th with the
HH-60 medevac variants, are still on track for their fiscal
year 2023-2024 fieldings, phased fieldings, consistent with our
continued investment in the Mike model program, two very
distinguished units. I had the pleasure of actually serving
with and helping mobilize portions of those in my previous
assignment. So we are not relenting from our commitments,
particularly with our National Guard units, to stay on track
with our modernization efforts, and our chief has been very
emphatic about that. So we are maintaining that momentum and
focus.
Mrs. Hartzler. Great. That is great news. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Norcross. Mr. Kahele, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
everyone, for participating today. I have a general question to
start with, and I guess it would be directed to General Wise.
You know, in previous committee hearings, especially with fixed
wing and the different components, we have heard of the
concerns of a decrease in the number of, I guess, pilots that
are graduating from our pilot programs, and a shortage of
pilots to fly our fixed wing aircraft and the projected
recruitment and successful graduation of pilots to fly those
aircraft.
Looking at the overall, you know, rotary wing request in
this budget, is there any concerns about producing enough
rotary pilots coming out of our training locations to fly these
new rotary wing aircraft that we want to procure?
General Wise. Sure. Thank you for the question. The short
answer to your question for rotary wing pilots is we are
actually in pretty good shape with regard to rotary wing. I
would say that our current manning is within the squadron's
ranges for all of our type model series from 96 percent manned
to 86 percent at the low end, and we consider healthy at 85. So
we are healthy in all regards, but that is, as you indicate,
not something you want to rest on.
Mr. Kahele. Sure.
General Wise. So we spend a lot of time with our training
folks, CNATRA [Chief of Naval Air Training], that works with
Admiral Loiselle, and we watch our production rates to ensure
that we are meeting our goals to make sure that we don't drop
any lower, or we see leading indicators that are coming. And
right now, we are still producing at a rate that we should stay
healthy for the foreseeable future on the rotary wing side.
Mr. Kahele. Great.
General Wise. Sure.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you.
Let me shift. I represent Hawaii, and, of course, INDOPACOM
[U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], and looking at--and this could be
a question for anyone on the committee. But looking at Admiral
Aquilino and previously Admiral Davidson and the Pacific
Deterrence Initiative and the, you know, rapidly building
Chinese military and what they are doing out in the western
Pacific, how do we see this budget request for the
modernization and the future investment of vertical lift
capability new and the replacement of our aging rotary fleet to
play into the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, and how we would
fight a war in the western Pacific that is largely, you know,
geographically challenged with, you know, vast oceans and areas
that we need to travel? How do you foresee that playing out in
these investments that we are making with rotary wing aircraft
that could have air refueling capability, could have the
capability for multiple crews so that they can extend their
ranges and their distances, and some of those challenges as we
take those rotary aircraft into the, you know, areas of
vulnerability based on the defensive systems and the weapons
that China has?
General Peterson. I would be happy to take a crack at that.
Mr. Kahele. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
General Peterson. Thank you very much for that question and
the insights associated with that. From the Army's perspective,
FLRAA and FARA, our FVL signature initiatives, are tailor-made
for the extended ranges and the dynamics and the threat of that
emergent fight. Both FLRAA and FARA are absolutely vital to our
modernization efforts. FARA is fulfilling the number one gap in
the Army aviation capability with a dedicated purpose-built
armed reconnaissance aircraft.
The key points to be made with FLRAA and FARA is they both
extend our reach with absolutely unprecedented speed, range,
endurance, and equally as important, the effects of long-range
precision munitions and other air-launched effects. And these
capabilities, combined with a networked kill chain, a joint
kill chain, will allow us to project capability from
unprecedented standoff and deliver stand-in effects. Those will
present multiple dilemmas to our foes, and they are going to
provide exceptional options to our joint force commanders.
The high-fidelity modeling that we have done and could
share in another forum with you clearly and empirically
demonstrates the value of these capabilities against near-peer
threats and in the specific areas that you referenced. So,
thank you.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you, General.
Mr. Norcross. We have 6 minutes and 50 seconds. Do you want
to go for it, or do you want to come back?
Dr. DesJarlais. Yeah. I will go ahead and ask one question.
Mr. Norcross. Okay. Then we recognize you for 5 minutes.
Dr. DesJarlais. Yeah. Okay.
Well, General Peterson, I actually was just about to ask
you that same question, so thank you. But I did want to pass
along, General Holmes from Tennessee sent me a note to send his
regards, and, I know, a good friend of both of ours.
So I will move to Ms. Costello and Major General Moore. It
has been very interesting to watch the work that the Air Force
has done with the Agility Prime program. Can you give the
committee a brief description of what Agility Prime is, as well
as some of the results that have been produced by the program?
Ms. Costello. Can you hear me? Agility Prime is a way that
we use our S&T [science and technology] money, our small
business money, to get industry that is out there investing
their own money on new technologies, and especially in this
case, with the electric lift capabilities, that they might be
investing in for other reasons, and seeing where that can
benefit our military. So if they found a way for electric
battery life to last longer, that would be beneficial for us.
If they found a better way to sustain and support and have
lower cost for sustainment, that is something we are looking
at.
So there have been multiple companies that we have
invested, given money to, allowed them to use our ranges, and
go off and demonstrate their capability, work on getting
certifications for airworthiness, and with the expectation that
there will be uses for that capability in the future. And we
are working with our operators to see where there are good
matches, if you will, for that. And it has proven to be very
interesting, and industry is quite interested in participating
in that, because they would like to be able to help the
Department of Defense in the future, and they do see that.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. I would like to just put in a plug
for the University of Tennessee Space Institute. I know they
are working on some of the problems with battery and power
source issues, so we are glad to help out.
Do you want to stop there?
Mr. Norcross. Yeah. We are going to have to recess. We are
going to take two votes.
Just to bring it to your attention, we were just told that
former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld passed away, certainly
somebody who gave very much to this country.
With that, we will recess, and we will be back in a short
while.
[Recess.]
Mr. Norcross. We will call this committee hearing back to
order.
We understand Mr. Horsford is on Webex. Can you hear me,
Steve? Steve. Going once. Going twice. And you will get back to
us. Obviously, people are in between votes, and we appreciate,
again, your indulgence. So that it is--it is back to me. Thank
you.
A number of things that have gone on, and I want to go to
you, Mr. Bush, and talk about the multiyear request, and why is
this important? Obviously, timing, complexity, but generally,
cost is a big factor. Why is this important, these programs
that you indicated that we go for multiyear on that?
Mr. Bush. So, thanks, Mr. Chairman. So one reason, of
course, is cost savings. So the Army's current estimate that
delivered to the committee for Black Hawk and Apache combined
is half a billion dollars, but could be over the 5 years of
the--sorry, sir, over the 5 years of the multiyears. So that is
one reason. And we would----
Mr. Norcross. That is a big one.
Mr. Bush. Yes. And possibly, hopefully be able to keep that
and invest it in other aviation.
The second reason is industrial-based stability and
predictability. It is a--which is where you get the cost
savings. They are able to do long-term contracts for things and
get discount prices. It also ensures the Army has those
production lines running. And then we have a known--two known
production lines that will be firm.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. And, actually, that leads right
into my second question about our industrial base. We are
always going through changes, evaluating new technologies
coming before us. But at the end of the day, having the
industrial base within the control of the United States, and
that has an asterisk next to it, because, you know, this is
incredibly important. We found out about the supply chain and
vulnerabilities, but I wanted to talk to you about the
industrial partners, particularly on our Future Vertical Lift.
There are some major contractors, obviously, who are doing
very well, but when we shift away from some of the--and I don't
like using the term legacy, but platforms that have been used
for a while, sometimes we get down to one supplier for a
critical part. We don't do this alone. We do it with our
industrial partners. When we look at Future Vertical Lift, it
is a program that you are reducing risk. We have had some great
demonstrators.
Talk to me about the industrial base, if you would,
General, and how important that is, particularly when we look
at developing that next generation of workforce who hears the
same narrative day in and day out. To make it in America, you
have got to go to college. But you know what? That is great,
but somebody has got to build the things. That is where it
comes back to the industrial base. Would you shed some light on
our industrial partners?
General Peterson. Thanks very much, Chairman, for that
question. First, the necessity and the vitality of our
industrial base directly influences our enduring readiness. We
don't build our own parts, for the most part. We don't have the
sustainability and repair on our own without our industrial
partners, our industry partners. So it is absolutely vital
across our enduring fleet, and that is the term that we are
using for those aircraft that we may not be modernizing
substantially, but we know that we are going to retain them in
our fleet for a substantial amount of time, and they have an
important contribution to make. The Apache, the Black Hawk, the
Chinook, they are part of our enduring fleet.
We are not divesting comprehensively of those. They have a
place. And we need to maintain those aircraft ready and have
part streams and repair parts for those for the foreseeable
future. We work very closely with our teammates in ASA(ALT)
[Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology] as well as Army Materiel Command to ensure that we
have viability in the industrial base to include suppliers for
those.
With respect to the workforce, I have had the pleasure of
visiting locations at all of our major manufacturers, and meet
the craftsmen and women on the floor who provide us with these
incredible, world-class capabilities that we have taken to
combat and brought home again, and thanked them for their
contributions, their commitment, and their part that they play
in our national defense. So the workforce in our industry
partners are an absolute vital portion of our overall efforts.
Thank you.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. And, certainly, it should
certainly be noted that during COVID, obviously, the service
men and women never got a break. But for those in our
industrial base who went to work every day, particularly early
on when they had little knowledge of how it was spreading, we
thank them also because we would not be here today if somehow
this industrial base stopped. And we really appreciate all
those who put themselves out there.
Just want to shift quickly over to Ms. Costello. The
subcommittee obviously has been supportive of the Army and
SOCOM [U.S. Special Operations Command]-led efforts for the
Degraded Visual Environment or the DVE system for helicopters,
and we are really pleased that the Air Force joined the effort.
And I talked about how we can work together, and budgeted the
system for the current HH-60G helicopter.
Now, in the 2022 request, it is canceled. Can you share
with us the thought process on that, that we geared up and now
we are gearing down, or quite frankly, stopping? Give me a
little bit of history of why we are where we are today.
Ms. Costello. So as the timeline for the aircraft moved out
to the right, and the timeline for an integration of that,
basically, the return on investment of when we would be able to
install it before we would be, you know, removing the aircraft
from our inventory became part of the equation. And that led
to, you know, assessing the risk of what we were going to fund
and not fund. And, therefore, our combatant commander looked at
that and decided to not fund at this point for that, for that
particular aircraft.
I don't know if you would like to add anything more
relative to the divestiture because that does have part to do
with the equation.
General Moore. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
So, as we changed the divestiture profile for the HH-60G
and compared that, as Ms. Costello said, to the install
timeline and the amount of investment, it just did not appear
to be a good use of taxpayer dollars. It doesn't mean we don't
believe in the system, and it doesn't mean we don't believe
that it is very productive for the pilots and very helpful for
them. It just didn't make sense in this particular case for
this particular aircraft. But we do share, Mr. Chairman, your
thoughts that it is a significant enhancement for the pilots,
and we will continue to look as we go forward with new fleets
at incorporating that into either the baseline configuration or
into a modification later on.
Mr. Norcross. So the dollars that were expended, they just
don't get lost. That technology is being forwarded to the newer
platform?
General Moore. So we have the opportunity to incorporate
that into the new aircraft. It is not a part of the baseline,
to my knowledge, but we do have the opportunity to incorporate
it. And as we are able with available funds, that is something
that we will certainly look at, because as I said, Mr.
Chairman, we do share your sense that it is something that is
helpful.
We have funded the HH-60W to what we believe is the minimum
combat configuration. There are additional modifications that
could go onto the airplane, but at this point, with the
resources that we have, not all of the modifications that were
originally planned for the HH-60W are included in the current
aircraft.
Mr. Norcross. So I understand the timeline, but how does it
become less of a safety issue that you wouldn't incorporate it?
General Moore. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I would say
that--first of all, I don't know that I would say that it is a
requirement for a safe aircraft. It is an enhancement to the
aircraft that does improve safety, but we don't believe it is a
safety of flight issue to not have it on the aircraft. And as I
mentioned, that technology will be available for the HH-60W,
but as we accelerated the timeline for the G model, compared to
the installation timeline, it just didn't seem to make fiscal--
it didn't seem to be fiscally responsible.
Mr. Norcross. Okay. That, I understand. Let me hold up on
that and defer to Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Wise, I would like to discuss the CH-53K
heavy-lift helicopter program and how the Marine Corps plans to
control costs now and through the life cycle of the program.
Right now, we are buying a helicopter with a higher unit cost
than the F-35. CH-53K costs were hovering around $125 million a
copy in fiscal year 2021. Costs should decrease once the
program gets to full-rate production, but now I see that the
Marine Corps plans to procure only 9 aircraft this year, down
from the 11 projected in fiscal year 2021 FYDP [Future Years
Defense Program].
Decreasing procurement numbers has become a trend over the
past few years. Combined with the Marine Corps current plan to
reduce from 8 to 5 squadrons, is it also the Marine Corps plan
to truncate the CH-53K procurement at a number below the
current requirement for 200 aircraft? And, if so, how will this
impact that current unit cost per aircraft?
General Wise. Senior Ranking Member, I very much appreciate
the question. For the control cost piece of it, I mean, that
is--as you know, we have attacked that in two directions. One
is trying to drive down the unit cost, which is worthy of
discussion. The unit cost on lot 5 which was this year is $97
million per copy. Where we are going in 2022, it appears it is
going to be about $94 million, so it is on the way down. And at
this point, it is down below the cost of an F-35 and trending
in the right direction.
So, a lot of the reductions in numbers over recent history
really had to do with trying to do risk-reduction initiatives
to get through some of the challenges. But right now, we have
actually had great success in getting through those challenges,
like engine gas reingestion has been--we are actually past that
now.
So, as we get ready to start into IOT&E [initial
operational test and evaluation], so operational tests, we are
actually starting next month, we are seeing some fairly
impressive readiness rates for the test birds that are going to
be doing that operational test.
So there are some good-news stories as we have done the
risk reduction initiatives and help driven down costs for
procurement. It also goes into the sustainment side of the
house, things like performance-based logistics, starting early
with that platform to get some of those parts into performance-
based logistics contracts to keep driving down the cost and
incentivize industry to drive down the costs. So there's a lot
of good things happening right there.
As far as the force design question and reduction, the
original requirement was about 220 aircraft. It was reduced to
200 in order to meet affordability. So as we look at force
design and how that will affect that program, if there is a
reduction, it will probably be less than we would normally
think, had we actually bought the program of record that was
the requirement to begin with.
But as we get to determining what that number is, any
reduction would not happen until the end of the life cycle or
the end of the program buy. So that would, working with
industry, reduce the likelihood that costs would rise depending
on the last lot buys.
Mrs. Hartzler. So you are saying you haven't decided yet
whether you are going to go below 200, and that will be
determined in the future, and if so, it will be the last lot
that gets cut?
General Wise. Yes, ma'am. If we do, and it is possible,
absolutely. It just won't be as low as you might think if you
did, like, the straight math for it, because of the requirement
being 220 initially. And part of that was also based on an
attrition rate that had not been updated to current models. So
it could go below 200, and it may, but I am not sure it is
going to go grossly below.
Mrs. Hartzler. You are not sure it will go closely below?
General Wise. Grossly below. I don't think it is going to
go----
Mrs. Hartzler. Grossly below. Clear as mud, all of this
general terms here. Okay. So, thank you.
The last question, Mr. Bush. It is my understanding that
the Army and the contractor on the Improved Turbine Engine
Program, the ITEP, have worked through the manufacturing
difficulties posed in the last year by COVID to keep ITEP on
schedule. However, previous year plans to accelerate the
schedule have now been ruled infeasible.
How confident are you that ITEP can remain on schedule for
integration onto the Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft,
the FARA? And what risk do you see for the program in fiscal
year 2022 funding if it is not provided at the requested
levels? And what risk would a CR [continuing resolution] pose
to the program timelines?
Mr. Bush. Thanks for the question, ma'am. So a couple of
those, I am going to have to get back to you on, but let me see
the best I can do here.
So, of course, the engine is vital for the Apache and Black
Hawk future, as well as the FARA, so it is a program the Army
is committed to. As you know, we went through many years with
two vendors, and now we have one that did encounter COVID-
related, in their case, difficulties. I think any reduction
from the 2022 request would put our current plan at risk. But
insofar as a detailed estimate regarding potential additional
delays, I would have to get back to you on that, ma'am.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 63.]
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
I understand we have Mr. Horsford, the gentleman from
Nevada.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman----
Mr. Norcross. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Horsford [continuing]. And the Ranking Member. Thank
you as well to our witnesses for your service and testimony
today.
Army National Guard aviators in my home State of Nevada
play an important role in protecting the communities in my
district from the ever-increasing threat posed by wildfires. I
am very proud of the work done every year by both our Army
National Guard UH-60 Black Hawk and CH-47 Chinook aircrews, as
well as the C-130 pilots of the Nevada Air National Guard.
Aerial firefighting provides the Nevada Division of
Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service with an important resource
that can protect firefighters on the ground by making precise
drops that often prove critical in shaping the fight against
wildfires. While it is not their primary purpose, the aerial
firefighting missions conducted by the Nevada National Guard
are some of the most dangerous missions they fly, to include
flying in combat. For that reason, I think it is vital that the
crews flying these dangerous missions have access to the most
capable platforms and modern systems available, both in my
State and across the West.
So, Mr. Bush and General Peterson, how does the Army factor
in missions like aerial firefighting into basing decisions for
upgraded UH-60s, given the consistent increase in demand for
these types of missions and the extreme risks that they pose to
aircrews?
General Peterson. Thank you very much for that question.
First, I would like to share your enthusiastic support and
appreciation for the role that our Army National Guard and our
Army Reserve units play in the defense of our homeland, and in
vital civil support missions.
With respect to specific prioritization for fielding of
modernization capabilities, those fielding decisions within the
Army National Guard are prioritized by the Army Guard and the
Guard Bureau with consultation and cooperation with the Army
Staff, but primarily based on the contributions they will make
to our wartime missions. For those combat aircraft, that is
their primary contribution. Although their day-in, day-out
mission is very vital and is clearly recognized, the
modernization priorities for our combat platforms is largely
based on the wartime traces, the contributions that those
organizations will make in a large-scale combat operation
fight.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. On a similar note, it is my
understanding that Special Operations Command will soon
complete the integration of the Degraded Visual Environment
pilotage system, or the DVE. Given the similar issues around
the risk of brownout, or otherwise severely degraded visual
environments faced by aircrews conducting aerial firefighting
missions, I am curious if the Army have considered building the
systems to National Guard crews tasked with this mission. Does
the Army currently intend to procure additional DVE systems for
National Guard aviation units who frequently conduct aerial
firefighting missions?
General Peterson. That is another great question. With
respect to our DVE investments right now and our developmental
program, we currently have 15 of the developmental systems
fielded on HH-60 medevac Black Hawks, and 25 fielded with our
special operations forces.
Interestingly, my most recent actual flight in an aircraft,
just a few months ago, was in a DVE-equipped MH-47G at Fort
Campbell, and the contribution of that system to a combat
profile, as well as enhancing safety, is substantial and is
very relevant.
We are using these initial prototype or developmental
fieldings to inform a long-term strategy and long-term
requirements, and we have an additional initial requirements
document currently in staffing that will inform longer term
Army strategy and investments. I do not believe that we have
openly discussed and considered the contribution this could
make in aerial firefighting, but we will certainly take that
for consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you and the committee to improve the safety of the
crews flying these dangerous missions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Ranking Member, and I
yield back.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Steve. Appreciate those questions.
Firefighting things that get smoke, unfamiliar areas, it
certainly reminds us of a couple of the accidents, I know the
one in Iraq, and certainly at our base in Afghanistan with the
cable going up, and incredibly important.
So, Mrs. Hartzler doesn't have any other questions. I have
one, and this is sort of a--I don't want to say a slow pitch,
but certainly to get your feedback on that. When we look at the
innovation and technology upgrades on many of what we are
looking for in the future in the rotary wing, incorporating
capabilities like unmanned flight on major new platforms, and
some are much more focused than others, but in any of these, it
is--the complexity is something that is all balanced with the
risk, the time, the cost on these platforms.
Would each of the services discuss what innovation your
services expect out of these future systems, and how far along
you are in the research, development, and what degree you think
unmanned capabilities will be part of your future fleet? Let's
start with the Army.
Mr. Bush. Mr. Chairman, I will start, and if I could turn
to General Peterson on the requirements.
So the Army does have multiple unmanned aircraft programs
underway. The overall--if I could describe it this way, is more
of thinking of them as like part of a team with manned
aircraft. So they are not operating completely independently in
most cases, but teamed with manned aircraft, including even
small UAS [unmanned aerial systems] that are launched through,
for example, the air-launched effects S&T and experimentation
efforts that can possibly do different missions for us.
So, I think moving along those lines to where we can get
better teaming between manned and unmanned aircraft I think is
still the Army's overall plan, while other efforts are
underway, and I would turn to General Peterson to talk about
requirements.
General Peterson. Specifically, some of the baseline
technologies that are already being explored and demonstrated
in both FLRAA and FARA will provide a foundation for us to move
forward with either optionally manned, partially manned, or
advanced elements of manned-unmanned teaming. Fly-by-wire
technology with our flight controls, the digital backbone, the
modular open system architecture that allows us to integrate
emergent capabilities in our aircraft for the future will all
provide a foundation and a launching point for these options or
opportunities.
Additionally, the Army's continued investment in AI
[artificial intelligence] and machine learning will provide us
the technological foundation for the decision making, or the
automation, that will allow these capabilities to move forward,
not only in our rotor wing platforms, but in other aspects of
our advanced combat capabilities and modernization priorities.
Mr. Norcross. You will be ready for it, and the technology
will be there in an appropriate way and at appropriate cost?
Mr. Peters. We are absolutely investing in it and making
progress. I would hesitate to give a date-time group for
integration or implementation of these capabilities, but they
are clearly a priority for our continued research and
development.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Our Navy, Marines.
Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir. Again, I will start and pass it to
my service brethren.
As I think where we have a Department of Navy unmanned
campaign plan that lays out those technologies and road maps to
get us to the place where, like our Army counterparts, we have
that manned-unmanned teaming of the future, a little different
maybe in our case, manned and unmanned aircraft but also,
unmanned with ships, amphibious ships, even submarines, that
connection of unmanned aircraft with both manned aircraft and
ships.
So with that introduction, I will pass it over to General
Wise.
General Wise. I would say for the Marine Corps the amount
of investment into unmanned systems is increasing clearly for
us. We are going into the MQ-9A roles now, but the other areas
that we are going to are not just ISR [intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance]. So a lot of the work that is
being done by General Peterson's team--and actually I spend
quite a bit of time with General Berry as well on development
of things that are going to have logistics applications
because, as we look at the vastness of the Pacific and trying
to do distributed operations with, you know, capacity
constraints, can we do it with more unmanned opportunities?
But part of the constraint there is not that we don't want
to do it. It is there are some of the technology limitations
that General Peterson was talking to, like the things that make
it truly autonomous. Can I not just get there, but can I sense
the zone and clear the zone and set down so that I can, you
know, get rid of the payload and go back and do it again?
So, a lot of opportunities coming. It is just maturing
things to a point where we can invest with a reasonable
certainty of success, but we are going in that direction.
Admiral Loiselle. So, Mr. Chairman, from the Navy's side,
we are already implementing our Fire Scout plan. So we have got
rotary wing unmanned already in the B and the C version. The C
is really about the size of a Bell 407 helicopter, so it is
large. You get some decent range out of it utilizing the
systems to do surveillance and that type of stuff.
It is also part of our replacement plan for the MH-53, and
utilizing the minehunting capabilities of the Fire Scout
system. So that is a lead-in to an overall family of unmanned
systems.
I had the pleasure of commanding the USS George H.W. Bush
when we got the very first arrested landing of a fixed-wing
airplane unmanned, and now we have just had our first plug of
an F-18 into an unmanned aerial refueling tanker. And so, we
are making some good progress. I am very pleased with the way
we are going and CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] is all in with
our unmanned campaign plan and so we see a significant amount
of development in our future.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
General Moore. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your question.
There are some use cases in the Air Force for unmanned aircraft
of a rotary wing nature. Agility Prime is looking at eVTOL
[electric vertical takeoff and landing], for example, and there
are some great use cases for that. As just a quick example, if
you think about the range at Nellis and the need to resupply or
move things around on that range and you can do it very
inexpensively with something like eVTOL, most of the use cases
that we have, however, are not in the rotary wing world.
But we are exploring obviously both autonomous aircraft and
manned-unmanned teaming. I think the XQ-58 is probably the most
powerful example that we have. It is already flying and what it
tends to do really, really well is perform as a node in the
airborne, in the Advanced Battle Management System. A
communications relay, a sensor, and as we look to a future is
that enabled by a sensing grid, many of the parts of that grid
will likely be formed by autonomous aircraft. So we certainly
are invested in this area and it is something that we are
paying attention to. It is something that is important with us.
The rotary wing aspect of it is not quite the heart of the
use case that we have but we do have some examples and Ms.
Costello has a recent one of those. I will pass to her, pending
any questions you have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Ms. Costello. And specifically within our Agility Prime
program, they are looking at autonomy as one of the areas of
interest. So with all of the companies that they are working,
autonomy is a focus area.
Since December of 2020, the Kitty Hawk example, autonomy-
for-medevac exercise, they actually matured and optimized the
Heaviside prototype with autonomous flight and demonstrated the
first medical evacuation by an electric aircraft. That is the
sort of thing they are investing in, and we hope to mature it
and be able to leverage it in the future. And, of course, we
are looking at an area of interest of unmanned, cargo-type
capability also. And so, those are the areas Agility Prime is
working. Thank you.
Mr. Norcross. Mrs. Hartzler, I have to go vote but I
understand my colleague from Hawaii has a question.
So I want to thank you in advance for your cooperation and
working with us.
But Mr. Kahele will be wrapping it up and, again, I
appreciate what each of you are doing and who you represent to
keep our Nation safe. Thank you.
Mr. Kahele. All right. Ms.--Mr. Chair, mahalo for giving
this opportunity to ask a few more questions that I had, and
then we will wrap it up. I will start with General Peterson.
Actually let me go back to first question I have for General
Wise.
Sir, you know, I live on the island of Hawaii, but I
represent Hawaii's Second Congressional District, and this is
not an issue that is just unique to Hawaii, and that is
helicopter noise, especially around Kaneohe Marine Corps Base.
And as someone who in a previous life operated C-17s out of K-
Bay for quite a while, I know those noise complaints from our
communities out there.
But as--you know, we are looking at the future of Kaneohe
Marine Corps Base, especially during weekend and nighttime
training which is required to maintain readiness, the aircraft
and helicopter flights can be loud and, you know, the base is
great. They are trying to do things out there to mitigate that.
But I just wanted to ask on behalf of the community
organizations and the neighborhood boards that represent the
windward side of the island of Oahu, are you committed to
working with those organizations, those neighborhood boards, or
at least through the base commanders at Kaneohe Marine Corps
Base, to address their concerns about noise and safety? And if
there is anything you want to add to that, I am sure they would
appreciate hearing it from you.
General Wise. Sir, I appreciate the question.
And I do assure you that the longstanding relationship we
have had with the community has, I think, been very positive
and for all the right reasons. And I would also say that from a
course rules perspective, as you are well aware, trying to make
sure that we minimize the opportunity to create challenges with
the community. We always try to avoid that, and sometimes we
don't, but the commitment is still there to look at every
opportunity to make sure that we are good partners and good
community partners, because we do enjoy our relationship very
much there, and we will continue to work with them.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you for that. And as someone who
represents the windward side, I know that they appreciate
Kaneohe Marine Corps Base and our military friends and families
that live on the island of Oahu. Thank you.
Okay. Over to General Peterson, the Army has consistently
discussed the need for speed and range, as well as
survivability, when it comes to Future Vertical Lift aircraft.
Could you explain to the committee why speed and range are so
critical to the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft and how this
new technology will enable the Army to leverage that aircraft
as a power projection platform, and then how will this
capability assist the Army with its strategy in the Indo-
Pacific theater and that great power competition?
General Peterson. Thank you for that question.
Essentially in basic terms what we are striving to
accomplish is doubling the performance of what we have
appreciated and has been exceptionally relevant for decades.
Speed and range will give us an absolutely unprecedented
capability, one that we have never experienced before, to
disaggregate, aggregate, operate from relative sanctuary, and
then project effects, as well as forces, at distances that our
enemies will not be able to predict, and not be able to counter
when we do this en masse in the face of that determined
adversity.
The speed allows us to close with our objectives at a rate
where we get inside of our foes' decision cycles, and gives us
the opportunity to concentrate those effects at the place of
our choosing. The ranges in the Indo-Pacific region are
obviously vast, and it adds to our relevance and our
contribution in that area as well.
Mr. Kahele. What is the impact on that mode of speed and
range on the medevac mission where we need to, you know, get
wounded soldiers to critical care as quickly, as early, as
safely as possible?
General Peterson. It is absolutely game-changing. It gives
us the opportunity to extract wounded soldiers much more
quickly, and get them to the higher levels of care. It gives us
also much more reach without support, sustainment, and exposure
of others to extend those legs as we have had to do in other
theaters in recent years. So that extended reach, again, gets
the wounded soldier to the competent medical care much more
quickly, but also reduces the logistical burden for those
extended ranges to provide that capability.
Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thank you for that.
General Peterson. And if I may, please, Mr. Bush has one
brief comment, as well, he would like to follow up on.
Mr. Bush. Sir, if I may, I did want to second everything
that you just heard, but also mention I was remiss in my
previous answer in not mentioning the tremendous innovation in
the commercial sector in unmanned aircraft that the Army and
the other services, I am sure, are drawing on. There is just as
much R&D [research and development] out there as there is in
the DOD [Department of Defense], and the Army Futures Command,
in particular, I think is doing a very good job of finding
things and experimenting with things in the commercial sector
for unmanned aircraft, rather than us developing things from
scratch, which I think, given the investments that are in the
private sector, is a really good approach.
Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thank you.
Let me jump over, last question, for the Air Force.
Ms. Costello and General Moore, earlier this month, General
Hinote testified before the Seapower and Projection Forces
Subcommittee that the Air Force is considering a vertical lift
platform to replace the C-130 as it seeks to move away from
fixed runway requirements. The general also said the Air Force
is watching the Army Future Vertical Lift program when it comes
to the development of vertical lift transport technology.
How would the on-time fielding of an Army Future Vertical
Lift transport aircraft such as the Future Long Range Assault
Aircraft benefit the Air Force as it looks to develop the next-
generation concepts, and when possibly would we see a potential
vertical lift C-130 replacement fielded?
General Moore. Well, thank you for the question. It
certainly--if you--as you spoke before about the distances in
the Pacific, one of the things that we think will be a part of
the need to perform well in the Pacific is the ability to move
around between different places, according to a concept we call
agile combat employment. And if you accept that fixed runways
are easy to find and, therefore, easy to target--particularly
in the first and second island chain, they are all within range
of Chinese ballistic missiles--the ability to operate in a
runway-independent way makes a great deal of sense and is an
important use case, and I am sure that is what General Hinote
talked about.
We are watching the Army Future Vertical Lift program very
carefully because it could provide the mechanics behind how we
could do this. As to when it would be fielded, I think that
would depend on what its actual range and payload capabilities
would be and when it delivers. But if you--if you consider what
the C-130, particularly the C-130H, can do in the Pacific, you
would certainly want to look to the next generation of lift
capability if you want to perform an agile combat employment
type of operation. Does that get to your question, sir?
Mr. Kahele. It does and, you know, I get excited about it
as somebody who has about 1,000 hours in the C-130, the H-2 and
the H-3, and, as you know, we have C-130s out in Yokota. We
could possibly look at other locations like Andersen for a
potential unit. But, you know, is this type of aircraft that
you see would potentially replace those older Hs that we are
looking at retiring, or how would that complement the J models
that we are investing in?
Of course, you know, newer C-130s that we are basing in the
Pacific, is this the type of aircraft that would be potentially
looked at in that first, second island chain, Yokota, Andersen,
maybe some other areas?
General Moore. Yes, sir. I think that would probably be the
most powerful use case and if you do consider a doubling of
performance, now you have--now you potentially have an aircraft
that can operate over the distances and therefore with the
speed required to actually become agile in the Pacific, and I
think that is what is going to be required if you consider the
capabilities that China has to target fixed locations. And as
well as speed and range performance, you really have to be able
to get away from a runway if you are going execute a concept
like that successfully.
So we are watching this closely and look forward to being
able to leverage what the Army develops. I would see it as a
complement to the J model. I would see that there still are use
cases for the Js, as well as for C-17s. Commercial partners
play in that space, as well, up to a certain point, but I would
see this as a complement that could add, or augment, the
capabilities that we already have in terms of strategic and
tactical lift.
Mr. Kahele. This would be something that would be really
totally new for the Air Force as well, having vertical lift
with, you know, these types of aircraft, you know, and a whole
new training program that would be incorporated into, you know,
those different Little Rock and Altus and the different bases
where we haven't even--not even doing any of these things, and
would have to incorporate that into those new programs.
General Moore. It would, yes, sir, and I would expect it,
if we were going to do that, we would leverage our experience
with the CV-22, as well as the experience that the Army has as
they field a system like this, because it would--particularly,
the tactics and the techniques and procedures but just the
basic airmanship would be different than what we do today.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you.
Okay. Well, on behalf of the chair and the full committee,
we want to thank you for your testimony, your discussion that
you provided the committee today. It has been a very dynamic
day here on the Hill with having to step in and out of votes.
But we sincerely appreciate your time, the attentiveness, your
work you put into your testimony.
So, with that being said, this committee stands adjourned
and aloha.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 30, 2021
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 30, 2021
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
June 30, 2021
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER
Mr. Bush. The impact of the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) Appropriations
Rescission and FY21 program decrement (a combined decrement of $57.5
million (M)) set the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP)
Developmental Testing (DT)/Milestone (MS) C back six months, putting
the program at high risk of an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)
schedule breech. FY22 is the last year the program can influence
schedule and avoid an APB schedule breech. Currently, the Army is
covering part of the program's shortfalls from FY20 and FY21 in the
FY22 budget request in the amount of $32.5M. However, ITEP will again
be at high risk of an APB schedule breech if the program is not fully
funded. Although the funding cuts today do not affect the Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) Competitive Prototyping (CP) effort, it
does affect the FARA Program of Record (PoR). ITEP must achieve MS C,
which is baselined to the AH-64/UH-60 programs, to award a Low Rate
Initial Production contract to procure engines for not only AH-64 and
UH-60 aircraft, but for the FARA PoR as well. The FARA program is
scheduled to begin DT during mid-FY25. Any funding cuts will impact
ITEP MS C, causing delays to the critical FARA Engineering and
Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, which includes DT. A Continuing
Resolution lasting more than six months will prevent the UH-60 Black
Hawk A-Kit Phase-2 Flight Tests, Publications and Provisioning Award in
March 2022, causing a month-for-month schedule slip to ITEP MS C. This
places the program at a high risk for an APB schedule breech and
potential delay of Initial Operational Capability. [See page 17.]