[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.]