[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                 
                          [H.A.S.C. No. 117-46]

                                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

                               __________

                         FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                   ON

                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

                    FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                             JUNE 16, 2021

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-821                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                                     
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                    ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JACKIE SPEIER, California            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               MO BROOKS, Alabama
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland,          SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
RO KHANNA, California                TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  MATT GAETZ, Florida
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 DON BACON, Nebraska
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       JIM BANKS, Indiana
JASON CROW, Colorado                 LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    Chair                            C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
SARA JACOBS, California              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington       BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                PAT FALLON, Texas
JIMMY PANETTA, California
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada

                     Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
                Maria Vastola, Professional Staff Member
                 Ryan Tully, Professional Staff Member
                      Natalie de Benedetti, Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     3
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

Brown, Gen Charles Q., Jr., USAF, Chief of Staff, United States 
  Air Force......................................................     6
Raymond, Gen John W., USSF, Chief of Space Operations, United 
  States Space Force.............................................     7
Roth, Hon. John P., Acting Secretary of the Air Force............     4

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Roth, Hon. John P., joint with Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., and 
      Gen John W. Raymond........................................    65

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Letter from Acting Secretary Roth............................    97

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Dr. DesJarlais...............................................   101
    Mr. Garamendi................................................   103
    Ms. Houlahan.................................................   101
    Mr. Lamborn..................................................   102
    Mr. Larsen...................................................   101
    Mrs. Luria...................................................   102
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   102
    Mr. Wittman..................................................   102

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Fallon...................................................   117
    Ms. Houlahan.................................................   115
    Mr. Horsford.................................................   118
    Mr. Kelly....................................................   115
    Mr. Lamborn..................................................   111
    Mr. Moore....................................................   116
    Mr. Morelle..................................................   115
    Ms. Sherrill.................................................   119
    Ms. Speier...................................................   112
    Mr. Turner...................................................   107
     
     
     
.     
     DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                          Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 16, 2021.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in room 
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
       WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The Chairman. Good morning. We will call the meeting to 
order.
    Once again, as members are now aware, we are back to 
allowing as many members who want to come into the committee to 
come into the committee. We are, however, still doing it 
remotely for those who prefer to participate virtually. So, 
towards that end, we have rules for that virtual participation, 
which I will read to get us started.
    Members who are joining remotely must be visible on screen 
for the purpose of identity verification, establishing and 
maintaining a quorum, and participating in the proceeding and 
voting. These members must continue to use the software 
platforms's video function 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.
    A video of members' participation will be broadcast in the 
room and via the television/internet feeds. Members 
participating remotely must seek recognition verbally, and they 
are asked to mute their microphones when they are not speaking.
    Members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep 
the software platform's video function on the entire [time] 
they attend the proceeding. Members may leave and rejoin the 
proceeding. If members depart 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 a different proceeding, 
they should exit the software platform entirely, and then 
rejoin it if they return. Members may use the software 
platform's chat feature to communicate with staff regarding 
technical or logistical support issues only.
    And finally, I have designated a committee staff member to, 
if necessary, unmute unrecognized members' microphones to 
cancel any inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the 
proceedings.
    Thank you.
    This morning we are having our full committee hearing on 
the Department of the Air Force for fiscal year 2022. And with 
us this morning we have John Roth, who is the Acting Secretary 
of the Air Force; General Charles Brown, Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force; and General John Raymond, Chief of Space Operations.
    Let me say, right off the bat, you have the coolest flag 
back there. I don't know if it is because it is new, or 
whatever, but it pops. So, we look at that, and it is like it 
has got that new flag smell to it.
    [Laughter.]
    Good luck.
    Welcome, gentlemen. We appreciate it.
    And these are very challenging times, as we know, and I 
think the dominant theme that has come out of the Biden 
administration is to really focus on Russia and China, and 
China, in particular, as the phrase has gone, the ``pacing 
threat'' that we face.
    And I think the most interesting challenge in all of this, 
as we're dealing with--the other challenges haven't gone away: 
the transnational terrorist threats, Iran, North Korea, climate 
change, instability throughout the globe. They are still there, 
and your job, and the job throughout the Pentagon, is how do 
you continue to meet those ongoing threats while making that 
pivot to recognize the rise of China and, to a different 
extent, the challenges that Russia presents.
    And you will hear a lot this morning about all that you do 
not have. There is considerable concern that there is not 
enough money in this year's Pentagon budget. I will say I have 
been doing this for a little over 25 years now; I have not yet 
met the Pentagon official who would not like to have more 
money, and I understand that. And sometimes that is the case, 
and sometimes that is necessary.
    But what I really want us to focus on, or what I have 
written about here recently, is how we can get more out of the 
money that we are spending. I think there is a considerable 
concern, when you look at the last 20 years, and you see a 
number of the big-ticket programs that haven't worked out as 
planned, that have been over budget. In many cases, they have 
wound up being cancelled before they were even used. We need to 
get better at that.
    Even if we had all the money in the world, it is not a good 
idea to waste it, to not have products and platforms that are 
actually doing what we intended them to do. In this area, 
certainly, we have had the conversations about the expense of 
the F-35. Recognizing how important that platform is to our 
future, what can we do to get it at a more cost-effective rate? 
The cost of maintenance, the operating costs that come with it 
are much higher than we expected; and also, we have not, as 
yet, achieved the capability that we were hoping to get.
    So, what happened? How are we doing better? And what is the 
future of fighter attack aircraft? As we know, the NGAD [Next 
Generation Air Dominance] program is in development now. How 
does that mix? We have had conversations about, then, how to 
use the--I forget; F-15EX, I think it is--to extend the life 
and capability of some of our older platforms. How is that mix 
working out?
    We have also, of course, had trouble with the tanker 
program. What have we learned from all of that and what are we 
doing better now? Because, I will tell you this much, I am 
absolutely convinced, if we could go back the last 20 years and 
get after those programs that wound up being incredibly 
wasteful, did not perform, way over budget, we wouldn't have 
anything to worry about in terms of money.
    Now I do understand that waste is part of all human 
endeavors. It is not like you can't go over to the Medicaid/
Medicare programs and find waste. Or we all experienced what 
happened with unemployment this past year. It happens. But we 
have to do better going forward to meet those challenges.
    And in particular, I want to emphasize the work of the 
Future of Defense Task Force, and now, the Supply Chain Task 
Force that is focused on how we can meet the emerging threats 
and the emerging needs--aside from Russia/China, the 
information warfare environment that we find ourselves in that 
makes the simple massing of firepower not the be-all and end-
all anymore. If they can shut down, if our adversaries can shut 
down all of our systems by taking out one satellite or by using 
one cyberattack, then we have got a problem. We have got to 
update those systems, make them more survivable, and we also 
have to increase our capability of making the information 
systems of our adversaries vulnerable. We would love to hear 
how that works out going forward.
    On the Space Force side, obviously, it is a new entity. I 
really want to thank Ranking Member Rogers and subcommittee 
Chairman Jim Cooper for their leadership in creating this. I 
think it was absolutely necessary. As mentioned, space is 
central to everything we do. We have to make sure that our 
satellites are survivable, redundant, and that, basically, they 
continue to do the critical work that they do. So, we would be 
really interested in hearing how we are doing on improving the 
quality of those satellites, space launch, everything that goes 
into making sure that we have the architecture up there that we 
need and that we can protect it, even in times of conflict.
    So, I appreciate you all being here, look forward to 
testimony. There is a lot to work on, a lot to talk about, and 
I know the members will have a lot of questions. So, we will 
look forward to that discussion.
    And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Rogers for his 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA, 
          RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I really appreciate the witnesses being here and taking 
the time it takes to prepare for this. It is very helpful to 
us. And I appreciate your service to our country.
    I remain gravely concerned about the President's defense 
budget proposal. The defense top line constitutes a cut of over 
$4 billion in real dollars. With this budget, it appears risk 
is being driven by the top line instead of the top line being 
driven by risk. That means our warfighters are being deprived 
of the resources they need to deter and, if necessary, win a 
war against China or other adversaries.
    Even with an overall increase, the Department of the Air 
Force is still forced to make unnecessary sacrifices due to an 
inadequate top line. The Air Force is slashing its procurement 
budget by more than 12 percent and divesting over 200 aircraft. 
They tell me this will produce $4.5 billion in so-called 
savings--savings the Air Force says it needs to invest in 
modernization, except that is not what is actually happening. 
Only half of the $4.5 billion is invested in research and 
development of modernized systems. I am not sure what is 
happening with the other part of that $4.5 billion. I guess it 
is being spent on school bus electrification or some other non-
defense priority the President has.
    These cuts and divestments greatly increase near-term risk 
by exacerbating gaps in capabilities. To put it bluntly, we are 
gambling that China, or some other adversary, won't force us 
into a conflict before 2030. That makes many of us uneasy.
    Making matters worse is the lack of a Future Years Defense 
Program. Without it, Congress and the American people have no 
way of knowing whether these risks are being properly balanced. 
I strongly encourage the witnesses to produce a FYDP as soon as 
possible.
    Acting Secretary Roth, I continue to be disappointed with 
the slow implementation of the acquisition changes for the 
Space Force. Not only have you failed to get us the required 
reports, but the space acquisition position required by law 
remains unfilled. I remain very focused on these issues and 
expect to hear today how you plan to make it up for lost time.
    This budget does have a silver lining: the bipartisan 
agreement to invest in and modernize all three legs of the 
nuclear deterrent seems to have held with this budget. Key 
programs such as the B-21 bomber, the Long Range Standoff 
Weapon, and the Ground Based Strategic Defense [GBSD] are fully 
funded. I also understand that GBSD will now be $38 billion 
cheaper than extending the aging Minuteman III. Obviously, this 
is good news.
    These programs began under President Obama and continued 
under the last administration. Now, the bipartisan support from 
both Democrat and Republican Presidents for these programs 
speaks volumes. I look forward to working with Chairman Smith, 
Chairman Reed, and Ranking Member Inhofe to ensure that 
continues.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Roth, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. ROTH, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE AIR 
                             FORCE

    Mr. Roth. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, 
members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today.
    I am also honored to have General Brown and General Raymond 
join me here in representing the nearly 700,000 airmen and 
guardians that defend our Nation. We are thankful for your 
consistent and persistent support over the years that has 
enabled us to build the world's greatest Air and Space Forces.
    As an integrated force, our airmen and guardians stand 
ready, willing, and able to meet responsibilities to our Nation 
and continue defending the high ground. From 300 feet to 300 
miles off the ground, we protect the homeland; we project 
power, and we defend democracy.
    The long-term strategic competition with China and Russia 
demands that we focus on the capabilities we need to invest in 
today to win tomorrow. Our Nation's competitive strategic 
advantage relies on air and space superiority which is 
underpinned by rapid technological advancement and the 
extension of space as a warfighting domain.
    In line with Secretary Austin's priorities to defend the 
Nation, take care of our people, and succeed through teamwork, 
our fiscal year 2022 budget is the beginning of a journey to 
the Air and Space Forces of 2030. It builds the capabilities 
that allow the Department to modernize while continuing to meet 
national security objectives and defend the high ground. 
Specifically, we are committed to investing in, one, empowering 
airmen and guardians; two, capability-focused modernization; 
three, connecting us to the joint force; and four, expanding 
partnerships.
    First, our airmen and guardians remain the heart of our 
ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat our competitors. We 
are transforming our talent management systems to ensure we 
develop and train leaders with competence, character, and 
skills required to win high-end fights. And we remain devoted 
to recruiting and retaining a diverse corps of multi-capable, 
innovative talent to outmaneuver our adversaries today and in 
the future. We owe it to our force to provide them with an 
environment where all can thrive. That is why we are directing 
critical resources to rid of our ranks of any corrosive 
elements and injustices that degrade our ability to provide a 
lethal, ready force.
    Second, to remain the world's greatest Air and Space Force, 
we must look to the future through a lens of capability-focused 
modernization. Evidenced by nuclear modernization and the next-
generation air dominance platforms, our digital acquisition 
approach revolutionizes how we design and field capabilities to 
the warfighters. Moving forward, we will expand on these 
digital revolutions while also investing in next-generation 
space systems that are resilient and defensive. Space is no 
longer a benign domain. Our U.S. Space Force is purpose-built 
to deter and protect free access to space.
    Third, combatant commanders require an agile military that 
operates seamlessly across all domains at both speed and scale. 
That is why we continue to invest in capabilities like the 
Advanced Battle Management System, our contribution to the 
Joint All-Domain Command and Control, which will connect every 
sensor to every shooter across all domains.
    Likewise, access to and freedom of action in space is 
central to connecting us to the joint force. In its second 
year, the U.S. Space Force is laser-focused on integration. 
Investments in space capabilities increase the effectiveness of 
operations across all domains. The result is a U.S. military 
that is better connected, better informed, faster, and more 
precise.
    Finally, U.S. Air and Space Forces do not fight alone. We 
benefit from the expertise and capabilities of our sister 
services and coalition forces, as well as from the whole of 
government, commercial industry, and academia. We will continue 
to invest in enduring relationships while expanding new 
partnerships to transform how we fight future wars.
    Members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to 
testify. I look forward to your support and am confident that, 
with your help, the Air and Space Forces will be armed with the 
capabilities necessary to protect our Nation and defend the 
high ground. We welcome your questions and ask that this 
opening statement be entered into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Roth, General Brown, 
and General Raymond can be found in the Appendix on page 65.]
    The Chairman. General Brown, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF GEN CHARLES Q. BROWN, JR., USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

    General Brown. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 
Rogers, and distinguished members of this committee.
    I am humbled to serve as the Nation's 22nd Air Force Chief 
of Staff and to represent the 689,000 total force airmen 
serving today. The support of our airmen and their families is 
greatly appreciated.
    It is an honor to appear before you today with Acting 
Secretary Roth and my fellow service chief and long-time friend 
of many years, General Raymond.
    As a general officer, I have spent the last decade-plus in 
joint positions overseas and/or supporting operations in the 
Middle East, Europe, Africa, and most recently, the Indo-
Pacific. With this context, and being able to look at the Air 
Force from varied perspectives, I have personally seen the re-
emergence of strategic competition and how the character of war 
has changed. The strategic environment has rapidly evolved and 
we haven't changed fast enough.
    The People's Republic of China has recognized that modern 
warfare is a contest among systems, not individual units or 
platforms. Accordingly, Secretary Austin has prioritized China 
as our pacing threat. Meanwhile, Russia continues to modernize 
its armed forces, increasing the capability of its missiles, 
strike aircraft, warships, artillery systems, and nuclear 
weapons. Competition in future warfare will be conducted across 
all domains simultaneously. It will be transregional and a 
global undertaking with complex actions and actors intertwined.
    To account for these changes, our Nation and our Air Force 
must change faster than we have been. If we continue on a path 
of incremental change, our advantage erodes and losing becomes 
a distinct possibility.
    The Air Force recently updated our mission statement to 
fly, fight, and win anytime, anywhere. To execute this mission 
now and into the future, we must transition our Air Force and 
our operational concepts from today to tomorrow, and we must do 
so much faster. That is why I wrote ``Accelerate Change or 
Lose,'' to call attention to the changes in the strategic 
environment, because the mix of the capabilities that our Air 
Force has now that were good enough yesterday or good today 
will likely fail tomorrow. Our future Air Force must be agile, 
resilient, and connected, with the ability to generate near-
instantaneous effects anytime, anywhere; not just sometime in 
some places, but anytime, anywhere.
    The Air Force is the only service that provides our joint 
teammates, allies, and partners the assurance of air 
superiority, the advantage of global strike, and the agility of 
rapid global mobility, through a range of capabilities most 
requested by today's combatant commanders. Additionally, the 
Air Force's ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance] and command and control capabilities provide 
the ability to sense, make sense, and act.
    But, while our past and current capabilities have sufficed 
for the last three decades, they will not effectively perform 
in tomorrow's highly contested environment. To address these 
challenges that will endanger our national security tomorrow, 
the transition to the future Air Force design must start today.
    Finally, we must have a foundational responsibility to our 
airmen and their families. I remain focused on ensuring we are 
ready and that we have the tools and infrastructure and talent 
management systems to provide an environment where all can 
reach their full potential. The future Air Force design 
advances our core missions and new approaches to warfighting 
that will holistically support every combatant commander and 
benefit every service chief. Investing in the Air Force is an 
investment in the joint force. Ladies and gentlemen, the bottom 
line is simple. We must modernize for the future and focus on 
capabilities that maintain our advantage both today and 
tomorrow.
    For decades, we collaborated with Congress and our industry 
partners to modernize for the future. Now, to fulfill our 
responsibility to ensure our national security, we must be 
willing to change--to make the tough choices required to 
deliberately transform our Air Force to the future force we 
need to compete, deter, and win. We have done it before and I 
am confident together we can do it again.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    General Raymond.

    STATEMENT OF GEN JOHN W. RAYMOND, USSF, CHIEF OF SPACE 
             OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

    General Raymond. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 
Rogers, and distinguished members of this committee. It is an 
honor to appear before you today with Secretary Roth, the 
Acting Secretary of the Air Force, and General C.Q. Brown, the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a long-time friend and 
teammate. On behalf of the guardians stationed worldwide, let 
me begin by thanking you for the continued leadership and 
strong support that you have provided to the Space Force.
    The United States is a space-faring nation. We have long 
understood that our Nation is strongest economically, 
diplomatically, and militarily when we have access to and 
freedom to maneuver in space. For the past three decades, we 
have been able to take that access and freedom to maneuver for 
granted.
    Unfortunately, as the National Defense Strategy and the 
newer Interim National Security Strategy identified, this is no 
longer the case. Both China, our pacing threat, and Russia are 
doing two things to eliminate the lead that the U.S. currently 
enjoys in space.
    First, they are rapidly developing their own space 
capabilities for their own use, giving them that same advantage 
that we enjoy.
    And secondly, they are building weapon systems specifically 
designed to deny U.S. capabilities in space and our access to 
space. These threats include robust jamming of GPS [Global 
Positioning System] and communication satellites; directed-
energy systems that can blind, disrupt, or damage our 
satellites; anti-satellite weapons, both in space and launched 
from the ground, that are designed to destroy U.S. satellites 
in orbit; and cyber capabilities that can deny our access to 
the domain.
    Thankfully, with the strong support of this Congress, and 
especially this committee, the United States seized on the 
opportunity to make needed changes to stay ahead of that 
growing threat by establishing the United States Space Force. 
This leadership is resonating globally and is already 
delivering results for our Nation.
    We have slashed bureaucracy at every level in order to 
empower our guardians to move at speed and to increase the 
accountability necessary to operate in this domain. We have put 
together a forward-leaning human capital strategy, allowing us 
to build a more highly trained, educated, and developed 
warfighting force while taking care of guardians and their 
families throughout their career.
    We wrote our first doctrine to clearly articulate the 
independent value of space power to joint and coalition forces, 
and this importance is fully captured in the Department's new 
joint warfighting construct that is being developed.
    Our international partnerships are stronger, with many of 
our partner nations following our lead by elevating space in 
their militaries.
    We have created a new end-to-end capability development 
process from force design and requirements to acquisition and 
testing, enabled by a digital thread to move at speed while 
driving unity of effort across the Department.
    We have rejected stovepipes by actively working with the 
joint force, other government agencies, and industry to 
compete, deter, and win at an affordable cost.
    The Space Force cannot, and will not, tolerate business as 
usual. Our demanding mission and lean force demand nothing less 
than a new standard of efficiency. This budget reflects the 
shift of many Department of Defense space activities into the 
Space Force. Yet, we remain roughly 2.5 percent of the overall 
Department of Defense budget. We are committed to stretching 
every dollar to its limit to buy as much capability as possible 
for our Nation.
    Our joint force does not close on its warfighting 
requirements without space. Space is the force multiplier that 
we must continue to invest in, so we can compete, deter, and 
win, and without it, we risk losing.
    This fiscal year 2022 budget balances the need to protect 
capabilities that we have on orbit while shifting and 
modernizing to a more defendable architecture in the future. It 
is an investment that provides assured space capabilities to 
our sister services, our Nation, and our coalition partners.
    These demanding tasks would not have been possible without 
the sustained support from Congress, including this committee, 
and for that, I thank you. Again, we cannot afford to lose 
space.
    I am absolutely honored and humbled to serve as the first 
Chief of Space Operations and to have the opportunity to serve 
side by side with the incredible guardians that I am privileged 
to lead. It is because of them that our Nation enjoys the 
benefits of space today, and it is because of them, America's 
sons and daughters, that we will compete, deter, and win in the 
future.
    I look forward to your questions.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    General Raymond, on the satellite issue that I raised, in 
simplest terms, what do we need to do, what are the most 
critical steps necessary to make sure that we have the 
architecture in space that we need and that we can protect it?
    General Raymond. Yes, sir. We have to shift to a new 
architecture. We have to modernize our forces. The capabilities 
that we have in space today are exquisite. They are the world's 
best. They are expensive. But they are not defendable. They 
were built for a different domain. We have to shift, and we 
have to shift to a more diversified architecture. And we have 
to shift to an architecture that has resiliency built into it 
and not bolted on as an afterthought.
    As you mentioned in your opening comments, sir, we have got 
to figure out how to do this and what we might do differently 
to leverage our advantage. And I think there are two things we 
can do in space. The first thing is we can leverage a 
burgeoning commercial industry to greater capability than we 
are doing today, and we need to. The other thing that we need 
to do is we need to leverage our international partners to a 
greater extent. The way we get after this is by designing a 
force structure that allows all to play, to be coalition-
friendly from the beginning, and to allow these small, 
innovative companies to have more of a premier role in that 
architecture.
    The Chairman. What is in the budget this year that you 
would point to and say, ``This is what is moving us in that 
direction?'' What are your biggest priorities in this year's 
budget?
    General Raymond. The biggest priorities in this year's 
budget, if you look at the budget, we balance four things. We 
balance protecting what we have. We have been working on that 
for the last couple of years. We balance shifting to a new 
architecture, and there are examples in the budget where we are 
doing that. Third is we have to develop an offense to be able 
to deny benefits to an adversary, to impose costs. And fourth, 
we have to look at what other missions that currently are being 
done in other domains that should shift to space, and you will 
see examples of that as well. It is that balance that we are 
trying to get right. And again, by developing an architecture 
that is more diversified, we think we can do it in a way that 
doesn't break the national treasury.
    The Chairman. And, General Brown, as I mentioned in my 
opening remarks, what is your vision 5, 10 years--well, from 
now through the next 5 or 10 years--for our fighter attack 
aircraft, between the F-35, the NGAD, proposals for more F-
15EXes? How does that mix work?
    General Brown. What we want to do as an Air Force is have a 
mix of multi-role capability across the fleet of fighters. And 
right now, we have a seven-fighter fleet going down to a four-
plus-one. And in that four-plus-one, the F-35 is the 
cornerstone of that capability. It is the only fifth-gen 
[generation] capability that we are building today. Tied to 
that is the NGAD.
    Then we have a replacement for the F-22. The F-22 we will 
continue to modernize to ensure that it has the capabilities to 
meet the threat over the next 10 to 15 years, as we bring NGAD 
on, which brings on additional systems that provide range and 
reach, particularly for air superiority. The F-15E that we 
currently have today will be complemented by the F-15EX, and 
the F-15EX will be a replacement to the F-15C, again, a multi-
role capability. It will actually be able to carry a much 
larger weapons load on this particular air platform and provide 
us some additional capability, with a newer platform to help us 
drive down our average age of our fleet.
    The Chairman. And are you confident that this budget 
supports that vision?
    General Brown. I am. I am. And as I mentioned in my opening 
comments, we are in a position of transition, and that is the 
aspect of starting down the path of, really for the F-15EX to 
replace the F-15C, because the F-15C has been around for a 
period of time and it is starting to really show its age.
    The others, the F-16 is part of this four-plus-one. The 
newer F-16s will retire some of the older block F-16s, but the 
newer block still has another 15 to 20 years of service life on 
it as well.
    And then, the last one is the A-10. The A-10 has been a 
great platform, particularly in the past 20 years in our fight 
in the Middle East. We will take a small reduction in A-10s in 
this particular budget, and then modernize and re-wing the 
remaining A-10s. And the A-10 will be with us really into the 
middle of the next decade.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Brown, I have made it pretty clear in my opening 
statement that I am unhappy with this top line. Yesterday, we 
had your naval counterparts sitting at that table, and General 
Berger said, and I quote, ``If our budgets don't even match 
inflation, then the risk is high that at some point in the 
future we are overmatched, and that's not a place I want to 
be.'' Close quote. Admiral Gilday said, quote, ``If the Navy's 
top line remains flat or lower, the fleet will decrease.'' 
Close quote. Do you share their concerns about this top line 
and what it would mean to our readiness and capabilities?
    General Brown. Ranking Member Rogers, I do. And this is 
exactly why I wrote ``Accelerate Change or Lose,'' because I do 
see risk if we do not--whether you increase the budget or not, 
and realize that increasing the budget will be helpful, but, as 
the chairman mentioned, we have got to do things differently, 
but smarter in executing the budget we do have.
    And part of that is, actually, in this fiscal year 2022 
budget, the ability to modernize, which includes retiring and 
making a transition from where we are today to a more 
modernized fleet in the future--aircraft fleet in the future 
and capabilities in the future, to ensure that we do not have 
future risk. And that is a balance of risk between where we are 
today with today's combatant commanders, in addition to 
ensuring not all of the risk is incurred 10-15 years from now, 
not only for the Air Force and the joint team, but also for the 
Nation.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes, well, I completely agree with the 
chairman's view about being smarter. And one of the ways we 
have got to be smarter is with the F-35 and getting the 
problems worked out there where we don't have the problems that 
we suffer now.
    But, going back to Admiral Gilday and General Berger, both 
indicated their support for the National Defense Strategy 
Commission's recommendation for a 3-5 percent increase in 
defense spending. Do you share their support of that 
recommendation?
    General Brown. I do.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. And I want to ask, you heard me say 
in the opening statement that your fiscal year 2022 procurement 
request is 12 percent lower than fiscal year 2021. Explain to 
me how we are going to be able to maintain readiness to meet 
peer threats with that reduction.
    General Brown. Ranking Member Rogers, it is combination 
of--we have actually increased our RDT&E [research, 
development, test, and evaluation] and some of our research and 
development. And part of that research and development is going 
to help us make that transition to additional capabilities at 
the same time we are looking to modernize with our procurement. 
It is important that, as we procure, that we are procuring 
capabilities that are going to be relevant for the future, and 
that is where the RDT&E comes into this as well.
    So, from my perspective, to be able to balance between the 
procurement and the research and development to ensure we are 
getting the right capabilities, particularly as you look at a 
more software-focused approach with our digital acquisition, 
with digital engineering, open mission systems, and agile 
software. Moving down that path is where we will be able to be 
very responsive against the threats we expect, that we see 
today and the threats we expect to see in the future.
    Mr. Rogers. Right.
    Secretary Roth, when can we expect to see someone nominated 
to fill the Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and 
Integration?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, we need to fill the position. So, I concur 
with everybody's concerns that that position has not been 
filled. I think as you are aware, it is a Senate-confirmed 
political appointee. So, we would have to await a nominee, and 
the nominee would have to go through the confirmation process.
    Mr. Rogers. When are you going to nominate somebody?
    Mr. Roth. Well, as you well know, it is not my call. So, I 
would hope sooner rather than later. I mean, for the time 
being, we are looking forward to actually getting the Secretary 
of the Air Force confirmed, and then, after that, to your 
point, filling in the rest of the team. That is an important 
position, and we really do need to fill it.
    Let me make one point. One issue, perhaps why it wasn't 
filled previously, is that position is supposed to be the 
service acquisition executive for space, but not until 1 
October 2022. And so, our thought is maybe to amend the 
language a little bit to say, ``no later than 1 October 2022''. 
Because you want the person who takes that position to hit the 
ground running in terms of taking charge of space acquisition.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes, and not screw it up.
    Mr. Roth. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. When are we going to get the FYDP?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, that, too, I have to defer to OSD [Office of 
the Secretary of Defense]. You have to understand that, as we 
prepare this fiscal year 2022 budget with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the focus, given the short timeframe--and 
we were late to begin with--but given the short timeframe, the 
focus was entirely on fiscal year 2022. There were no decisions 
made about the outyears. So, there really isn't an outyear FYDP 
to be provided at this point in time.
    Mr. Rogers. My last question is, Secretary Roth, over half 
of the KC-46A fleet is under contract and we still don't have 
an aircraft that can reliably hold or deliver fuel. The 
earliest these fixes are projected to be ready is 2024. Has the 
Air Force considered recompeting that contract?
    Mr. Roth. We have not considered recompeting that contract. 
We think the best way forward--there are things the airplane 
can do today, including refueling, air medical kinds of things, 
and also, passengers and that type of thing. So, it is 
participating in exercises and doing a real job. But we think 
we would be best served taking delivery of the aircraft that 
are under contract, and then, proceeding, as you indicated, to 
fix the things that need to be fixed.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Langevin is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Before I do that, we stick to a strict 5-minute thing here. 
So, if you are in the middle of an answer, I am not being rude, 
but I will cut it off to get to the next person. So, if you can 
try to hit that 5-minute mark to the extent possible, that will 
be helpful to the committee.
    Mr. Langevin, you are recognized.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
okay?
    The Chairman. Got you loud and clear.
    Mr. Langevin. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today and 
for your service to the country.
    I would like to start with General Brown, if I could. 
General, the Air Force continues to make great progress with 
directed energy. The THOR [Tactical High Power Operational 
Responder] system was successfully tested overseas, and I 
applaud the establishment of the Directed Energy Utility 
Concept Experiment for airborne laser systems. General, how do 
directed-energy weapons fit into the Air Force of the 2030s?
    General Brown. First of all, I appreciate the question. As 
you highlight it, we have made some progress using directed 
energy against our small unmanned aerial systems. But what I 
think about, this capability has great potential when you look 
at the critical infrastructure and base defense in the future. 
There is work to be done in the aspect of technology, but the 
thing that makes it attractive to me is the cost curves using 
directed energy against--much less expensive directed energy 
versus a missile interceptor, against the incoming threats we 
might have in various locations. So, it is not only putting it 
on aircraft, but even for ground-based defense around our 
bases, I think it will be important how we develop and continue 
to use directed energy.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, General. Another area, the Air 
Force's written testimony states that the Air Force is 
prioritizing ABMS [Advanced Battle Management System] resources 
for investment in digital network environment and 
infrastructure. However, $150 million of the $203 million 
budget is for the Airborne Edge Node. How is devoting two-
thirds of the Advanced Battle Management System budget to a 
single communications pod prioritizing network infrastructure?
    General Brown. As we do the Airborne Edge Node, that is the 
first major step of us putting an ABMS on our aircraft. And it 
goes onto the KC-46. It is not just the KC-46, but it actually 
starts the process for us to be able to continue to develop 
that capability, to put it on other airplanes and other 
communication nodes to really drive the aspect of ABMS to 
create a network of capability to be able to use and push 
information. Because ABMS is really about pushing information 
to drive decision-making for the joint force and the Air Force.
    Mr. Langevin. In the era of great power competition, where 
we are going to be playing the away game on a field that is 
tailored to deny our advantages, General, what are you doing to 
protect our systems, both from cyber and electronic warfare 
threats, but also ensuring and improving the survivability of 
assets like tankers and command-and-control platforms that are 
high-value and easy-to-shoot-down targets?
    General Brown. There is a combination of things, as you 
highlight. For cyber, in particular, as we work with Cyber 
Command on that capability, but also internal to the Air Force, 
the ability as we go forward and work our oncoming systems to 
ensure they have the appropriate cybersecurity to be able to 
execute the mission. At the same time, from a broader aspect, 
how we modernize our force to ensure their survival in the 
future will be important, based on the technologies that are 
available, as we continue to move forward.
    And then, the last piece is our ability now to use Agile 
Combat Employment as one aspect, but also, with ABMS, to be 
able to connect to increase the situational awareness for our 
force helps improve their survivability and their decision-
making, as we work as part of the Air Force, but also with the 
joint team on cyber and other areas to protect the force and 
execution.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
    The last question for General Raymond. Most of our efforts 
in directed energy have been focused on terrestrial assets, but 
directed-energy weapons are a significant threat and possible 
defensive tool for space assets. From your perspective, are we 
developing our directed-energy portfolio appropriately to be an 
effective capability for space dominance?
    General Raymond. Yes, sir, we are. And what I would offer 
to you is I would like to come back and get you in a closed 
hearing and be able to go into more details on exactly what it 
is that we are doing. But it is important. As you said, we have 
to be able to protect these capabilities that we rely so 
heavily on. The force design work that we are doing takes that 
into account and balances our ability to accomplish the 
mission, the ability to protect and defend that mission, and 
cost, and how fast you can get those capabilities on orbit. I 
would welcome the opportunity to go into much more details in a 
classified setting.
    Mr. Langevin. I would welcome that, too.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, 
especially me, for the ``me'' is the son of a World War II Army 
Air Corps veteran of the Flying Tigers in China and India. As I 
mentioned to you, too, I am also the grateful uncle of a person 
serving in the Air Force right now. So, I know firsthand of 
your success and capabilities.
    General Brown, I am grateful to support the men and women 
of the 169th Fighter Wing at McEntire Joint National Air Guard 
Base in South Carolina. McEntire has been successful in 
limiting their pilot manning gap, maintaining 95 percent of 
their fighter pilot requirement. This contrasts with the 
overall Air National Guard Component fighter pilot inventory of 
76 percent, a gap that has persisted for several years.
    What specific lessons can be learned by shared components 
to reduce the fighter pilot shortfall across the service, and 
how does the fiscal year 2022 request support your pilot 
shortfall mitigation strategy?
    General Brown. Thank you for the question. And having spent 
4 years at Shaw, I am very familiar with Joint Base McEntire.
    There are two aspects when we look at our pilot shortfall. 
It is production and retention. You highlighted retention, and 
that is an area that we are working on. We have had a little 
bump during COVID. But the key aspect for me is production, and 
not only for the Active Duty, but really for the total force as 
well.
    And so, in the fiscal year 2022 budget, we are focused on 
production, with Pilot Training Next as one of the aspects. How 
we will probably work with our civilian sim [simulator] 
instructor for locality pay; Accelerated Path to Wings, as 
members or individuals come in that actually already have 
flying experience, and how we adapt our course to use that.
    I will also share with you that during COVID we were able 
to maintain the same level of production that we did in a pre-
COVID environment, which, to me, shows the real quality and 
dedication from our airmen to be able to deliver in a very 
different environment. Our goal is to get to 1,500 a year, and 
I think we are on that path.
    Mr. Wilson. And thank you for raising your Shaw heritage. I 
am really grateful. I somewhat share that with Congressman Jim 
Clyburn and Congressman Ralph Norman, but I also appreciate the 
cooperation between McEntire and Shaw, how beneficial that is 
for both bases.
    Also, General, as a former air component commander for the 
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, you understand the increasingly 
complex security environment posed by China's peacetime 
military buildup better than most. In fact, this is the largest 
peacetime military buildup in the history of the world. Our 
reliance on well-developed airstrips at established bases is a 
vulnerability against China, where their missile arsenal is 
capable of neutralizing our major force protection platforms. 
How does this budget support efforts to build expeditionary air 
launch capabilities throughout the Pacific? How are you 
adapting these capabilities to accommodate the logistical 
requirements of the F-35 platform?
    General Brown. There is a combination of things. First of 
all, when you think about the air-launched weapons aspect, we 
are focused on--we have reached the inventory for some of our 
preferred weapons that we use in today's inventory. But it is 
also how we look at some of our more advanced weapons, like 
JASSM [Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile] or hypersonic 
capability to provide us the additional capabilities against 
that increasing threat.
    From the aspect of logistics and working across our force, 
Agile Combat Employment and our ability to look at how we 
deploy differently, and how we organize a bit differently, and 
how we support from a logistics standpoint, will be important.
    And then, finally, on the F-35 and its logistics, over the 
past 2 years, we have actually had deployments of F-35s. We 
have learned quite a bit, particularly in the Middle East, in 
how we expand that capability to be able to deploy and 
understand the logistics aspects of supporting the F-35. We 
have made some progress and done fairly well in the Middle 
East. It is now time to expand that and look at how we do this 
in the Indo-Pacific as well.
    Mr. Wilson. And, hey, as we conclude, in regard to F-35s, I 
would like to point out what a wonderful facility McEntire 
would be for F-35s. And we have already seen the success of F-
35 deployment in South Carolina at the Beaufort Marine Corps 
Air Station, and they are, indeed, appreciated as the sound of 
freedom.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    General Brown, the KC-46A tanker question, the Air Force I 
believe has requested $73.5 million in RDT&E for the 46A. Is 
that funding going to help address the six Category I 
deficiencies in the 46? If not, what is the other use for that?
    General Brown. It is. Two key areas on the KC-46 that this 
will help address is the stiff boom, which is a challenge for 
some of our aircraft to get higher altitudes in heavy weapons 
loads, and then, the other is increased communications on the 
KC-46 to make it compliant with some of the DOD [U.S. 
Department of Defense] mandates, international mandates, to be 
able to operate in various airspace. And that is where a good 
portion of that money is going to.
    Mr. Larsen. A large portion of that?
    General Brown. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Larsen. Yes, okay. Great.
    The second question for you on a different issue, can you 
just outline the AFWERX budget in fiscal year 2022 and the 
areas where that can be streamlined or improved? And that might 
be for Mr. Roth as well. Maybe Mr. Roth could, or whichever.
    Mr. Roth. Okay. Well, first of all, I mean, we are very 
excited about AFWERX. I mean, AFWERX is exactly the kind of 
thing we think we need to be involved in going forward. I mean, 
one word or one phrase for the leader of AFWERX is he is our 
chief commercialization officer. And so, the whole point of 
AFWERX is to leverage our money with commercial money and to 
bring into the Defense Department, bring into the Air Force, 
the kinds of actors and players and contractors that don't 
normally do business with us.
    And so, for example, for the last 2 years, in 2019 and 
2020, AFWERX awarded something on the order of 1,400 contracts 
worth about $700 million. Seventy-five percent of those 
contracts were with new performers, people who had not done 
business with the Defense Department before.
    And so, again, we are pretty excited about what they can do 
and how we can leverage them going forward. In fact, we think 
they were such a good idea, we are going to stand up a 
SpaceWERX as well to try to see if we can expand the kinds of 
initiatives that we have.
    Mr. Larsen. All right. That is fair enough.
    Last year, Representative Don Young and I had a provision 
in the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] to submit a 
report on upgrading the DEW sites, the defense early warning 
sites, in Alaska. And we want to know what the status either of 
those upgrades are or the status of the report is for the 
record.
    Mr. Roth. I will have to follow up in terms of what the 
status of the report is. We do have money in the budget to look 
at, continue to look at emerging technologies for the North 
Warning System. So, we are continuing to get after that. We 
will have to follow up and get back to you on exactly where 
that report is.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 101.]
    Mr. Larsen. I appreciate that. It was in the NDAA and did 
ask you to get back to us on that.
    As well, General VanHerck testified at this committee on 
his concerns as the commander of NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern 
Command] on his inability to have really a full situational 
awareness when it comes to threats across the Pole. And perhaps 
in that future closed hearing, closed meeting we have with you, 
you can, from the Air Force and Space Force perspective, help 
us understand how you are working with NORTHCOM to address 
those known gaps for detecting threats. Can I get a commitment 
on that from you all? I see nodding heads, but can you say 
``yes,'' so the clerk can pick that up?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, sir.
    General Brown. Yes, sir.
    General Raymond. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much.
    And then, finally--and probably for, I don't know, for 
Secretary Roth and General Brown--this is a 5G question. It is 
not necessarily an ABMS question, just to be clear about it. 
But how are you planning to integrate the use of 5G as your 
backbone for communications in the structure in ABMS? And are 
any of the 12 DOD pilot projects on 5G throughout the bases in 
the CONUS [continental United States], any of those related to 
learning about how to apply 5G into ABMS?
    Mr. Roth. I can start and the general can fill in some 
blanks.
    Mr. Larsen. Thirty seconds.
    Mr. Roth. Yes. Okay. Moving data at speed and scale is the 
essence of the Joint All-Domain Operations. It is the essence 
of the Advanced Battle Management System. It is the essence of 
warfare in 2030. So, capabilities like AI [artificial 
intelligence], machine learning, and 5G are all important 
aspects of the connectivity that we need to seek for the 
future.
    General Brown. We are using it, particularly out at Nellis, 
to help us with ABMS and to learn more about how to use 5G.
    Mr. Larsen. You are talking about Nellis?
    General Brown. Right.
    Mr. Larsen. That is great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Turner is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, as I have told you personally, I am a big 
fan of yours. I appreciate your service and your appearing 
before the committee and your answers today. And I want to 
thank you for your career of service at DOD.
    You come from a finance background. And so, I am going to 
ask you a question that relates to that. This year we received 
the budget in June, which means that there is no way, of 
course, we are going to be able to get any of our work done 
before the fiscal year. As you know, there is no real rational 
basis as to why we operate under the fiscal year that we do. It 
is legislative. We could fix it. We could move the fiscal year 
to the calendar year, which would save 3 months annually for 
the Department of Defense. Could you please give us some 
perspective in your experience as to the effects of continuing 
resolutions, both financially and capabilities-wise, for the 
Department of Defense? And would moving the fiscal year to the 
calendar year help?
    Mr. Roth. Well, in terms of managing on a continuing 
resolution, I think, for better or worse, unfortunately, we 
have a lot of experience managing under continuing resolutions. 
So, I would say short term--and I am talking about a matter of 
a couple of months--that we have adjusted our spending patterns 
in a way that we can probably accommodate a fairly short-term 
continuing resolution, 2 to 3 months, and that type of thing.
    Anything beyond that, as you know, the restrictions against 
new starts or expanding any efforts start to hurt dramatically 
and start having both contractual and operational impacts as 
well. So, long-term continuing resolutions are very corrosive 
and will require a lot of sort of alternative plan B kinds of 
things--breaking contracts into smaller pieces, which ends up 
costing you money in the long run.
    Back to your reference to my many years in this building, 
unfortunately, I can actually remember when we shifted to 1 
October. Okay? I was a young pup at the time, but I actually 
went through the transition. It was back in 1976 and 1977. And 
the idea there was to provide more time to get all the 
appropriations and authorization acts done in time, because at 
the time the fiscal year was 1 July through 30 June. And so, 
you can see how that worked out.
    So, my only caution is--I don't know--work seems to expand 
to fill the vacuum, so to speak, and I am not sure that that is 
ultimately a solution. Closing out a fiscal year, in moving the 
beginning of a fiscal year to 1 January, you are also, then, 
closing out a fiscal year in December, and that gets to be 
problematic for the staff. You are talking about Christmas in 
December and trying to do all the accounting adjustments and 
contracting to end a fiscal year. So, it just becomes a bit of 
an administrative burden, but, you know, the track record of 
actually getting bills done by the beginning of a fiscal year, 
no matter which date you pick, has always been a challenge.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that.
    General Raymond, thank you for your leadership. You are the 
first in the Nation to be our Chief of Staff for Space Force. 
You have made it a point to ensure that there is greater 
declassification of information as to what our adversaries are 
doing. That has had a great deal of effect on our ability to 
debate policy. Would you please talk a moment about that 
process and how important you believe that is?
    General Raymond. I think it is absolutely critical. Our 
goal is not to get into a conflict that begins or extends into 
space; it is to deter it. And if you want to deter, you have to 
be able to message to your adversaries.
    We have seen both China and Russia develop capabilities and 
test those capabilities in a very concerning way. This past 
year, I talked very publicly for the first time about a Russian 
anti-satellite weapon that was purpose-built to destroy U.S. 
satellites in low Earth orbit. And that satellite is like the 
Russian nesting doll; it is the doll inside of a doll inside of 
a doll. When the doll launches, it opens up, another satellite 
comes out; it opens up and sends out a projectile--not safe and 
responsible behavior, not professional behavior. We have called 
them out, and since that time, Russia has actually come to the 
table and we have had some strategic dialog talks with them.
    So, it is extremely important that the average person 
understands just how reliant they are on space and understands 
just how vulnerable they are with the threat that we are seeing 
today.
    Mr. Turner. General Brown, we have the past three 
administrations who have supported nuclear modernization and 
the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Could you speak for a 
moment how important it is that we support and complete the 
nuclear modernization in light of what our adversaries are 
doing?
    General Brown. Sure. We need to have a safe, secure, 
reliable nuclear portfolio that still deters a threat. And so, 
we do have an advancing threat, and it is important we keep the 
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and other aspects of our 
nuclear portfolio on track.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cooper is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have already noted 
the stark nature of this hearing. To have General Raymond here 
as a coequal service chief is, indeed, a historic moment. I 
have the opportunity to speak with General Raymond with some 
frequency, so I would like to yield now to Elaine Luria for my 
questioning.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you, Mr. Cooper.
    So, General Brown, I was looking and, in 2009, there was a 
new, but actually an old concept that emerged called the air-
sea battle. And this has the goal of countering what was then 
termed the A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] threat in the 
Western Pacific theater of operations. And I think it has 
already been stated through your remarks here today that you do 
consider China as our most immediate threat. Looking at this 
threat, would you consider a conflict with China primarily, if 
not exclusively, an air-sea battle?
    General Brown. I do think, based on where I see the threat 
going, it is not just air-sea, but I would also say that the 
first mover would probably be in cyber and space, which is why 
I am happy to have General Raymond here with me, and really 
part of the Department of the Air Force that we can work very 
closely.
    But, just looking at the environment of how quick things 
could happen, air definitely plays a role. To me, that is an 
aspect of being able to understand our capabilities in the air 
as well as watching how the People's Republic of China has 
really advanced their capability in terms of their air force as 
well. To me, that is why I really do see both air and sea, but, 
really, across the joint team and across all domains is where I 
expect a conflict to occur.
    Mrs. Luria. But, going further with that, actually, they 
say that no good plan survives the enemy. Well, this plan of 
developing an air-sea battle, it didn't survive contact with 
the Joint Staff. So, in 2015, it was consumed in the name of 
jointness, and a spokesman said that ``The missing part of the 
air-sea battle concept was the land portion.'' So, just think 
about that: the missing part of an air-sea battle concept was 
the land portion. So, I guess the spokesman both forgot about 
the Marine Corps and, also, the concept within the Western 
Pacific. Would you agree that it is not part of our plan or 
strategy or thought that we would actually conduct a large-
scale land invasion in any conflict with China?
    General Brown. What I really believe, if you look into 
where we are today as a joint force, and you look at the joint 
fighting concept, you are going to have capabilities across all 
domains, across all services----
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. So, just in the interest of time, do you 
envision a large-scale land invasion in a conflict with China?
    General Brown. It is kind of hard to predict what would 
happen, but I want to make sure we have options in the future 
to ensure that we can use all----
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. So, since this is a budget hearing, I 
just wanted to shift to your budget submission. Yesterday, we 
talked to the Navy about their budget submission. One thing 
remains true, from year to year, it seems that each service is 
getting a one-third share. So, in my opinion at least, it 
doesn't seem that the next large-scale conflict in the Western 
Pacific, if that were with China, would require a large 
standing Army, but that is exactly what we have and that is 
exactly what this defense budget submission calls for.
    So, do you agree with that current apportionment within the 
Department of Defense, one-third, one-third, one third for each 
service, or do you believe that the Air Force and the Navy 
require more resources in order to deal with this current 
conflict?
    General Brown. Naturally, I would like to have more, but I 
also think it is the analysis that we have to do internal to 
the Air Force to make the case for the things that we need to 
support not only the Air Force, but also the joint force. But, 
as you look at the joint warfighting concept, how we look at 
the redundancies between the services, how we look at the gaps 
to ensure we have the right capabilities not only for the Air 
Force, for the joint force as well.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. I wanted to point out an article that 
came out recently called, ``The Budget (and Fleet) That Might 
Have Been''--and they include in their ``fleet'' Air Force as 
well--by Blake Herzinger. It suggested a small cut in the Army 
could yield huge returns for the Navy and the Air Force alike.
    And I only have a little bit of time left, but, out of this 
air-sea battle came a focus on anti-ship weapons delivered from 
the air. So, several quick questions. How many bombers do you 
have in the Western Pacific today armed with the AGM-158 and 
how many AGM-158s did you request in this year's budget?
    General Brown. We don't have a continuous bomber presence 
in the Indo-Pacific today. And so, we have a bomber task force 
that goes in and out. And I'll have to get you the exact 
numbers of the munitions.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. And how many Quickstrike mines do you 
have in today's inventory?
    General Brown. I would have to get back to you on that one 
as well.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 102.]
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. And how many bombers will you remove from 
the Air Force's inventory this year?
    General Brown. It will be 17.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay.
    General Brown. That is in fiscal year 2021.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, thank you, and I appreciate your 
comments that you feel you need more resources, but the point 
of my line of questioning was to say that I really strongly 
believe that the Air Force and the Navy have a larger role to 
play in the Western Pacific, and was hoping that you would come 
here, just as Admiral Gilday yesterday, and advocate for that, 
because I think this is truly essential to the defense of our 
Nation and what we might face in the Western Pacific in the 
future.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you,
    Mr. Lamborn is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Secretary Roth, now I agree almost all the 
time with my colleagues and friends from Alabama, but there is 
one issue I have to raise where we do differ. Colorado Springs, 
although the home of Space Command currently, was rejected in 
favor of Huntsville for its future home. Now Huntsville has a 
great history in rocketry, missile defense, and civilian space, 
but military space is an entirely different world. Operating 
and defending satellites, both DOD and IC [intelligence 
community] satellites, is done almost exclusively now in 
Colorado Springs, where seven of the nine Space Deltas, or 
space wings, now reside, and one other is nearby in Colorado, 
and one other is in California. Ripping the command away from 
operations and moving it a thousand miles away makes no 
military sense. Our understanding is that this was a political 
decision made by the last administration, and the Air Force, 
while initially selecting Colorado Springs, had to go back and 
scramble to justify a different siting decision.
    So, Mr. Roth, last month during testimony, General 
Dickinson told us that civilians were the bedrock of Space 
Command and he wants to incentivize as many as possible to 
move. He also admitted that Huntsville did not have a 
survivable communications network, which does exist in 
abundance at the current location in Colorado Springs, and that 
such a network would have to be built from scratch at great 
expense in Huntsville. Despite this, the Department of the Air 
Force said of their basing process that they did not consider 
the cost of moving civilians or attrition rates and they did 
not consider survivable communications as a requirement.
    And lastly, when General Raymond commanded Space Command, 
he operated out of Peterson's Building 1. American taxpayers 
have recently invested millions to upgrade facilities at 
Peterson in order to enhance Space Command's capabilities. So, 
the command is even more entrenched there, and yet, the Air 
Force did not even consider keeping the headquarters in 
Building 1.
    So, how seriously should we view a process that did not 
consider the cost and attrition rate of moving civilians, the 
survivable communications requirement, and using existing 
infrastructure, among many other significant flaws?
    Mr. Roth. The selection of Huntsville as the preferred 
location by my predecessor was the result of our strategic 
basing process. And that process is an analytically based 
process. It uses something on the order of, I think, 21 
criteria. In both cases, in both Colorado Springs and in 
Huntsville, Alabama, both were going to require new buildings. 
Based on the requirement for something north of 1,400 people, 
we were going to have to build a building, whether it was in 
Colorado Springs or whether it was in Huntsville. And it turns 
out the basic construction cost and the maintenance costs, and 
the like, in Huntsville was significantly less than Colorado 
Springs.
    I have personally no evidence that the decision was 
politically motivated. It was the result of our strategic 
basing process, and we have worked with all the stakeholders to 
try to do the analysis and we are now in the process of doing 
the environmental analysis.
    As I think you are aware, the GAO [Government 
Accountability Office] and the DOD IG [Inspector General] are 
going and looking at it and analyzing it and investigating----
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay.
    Mr. Roth [continuing]. The basis of the decisions. So, I 
will yield to them and see what it is, in fact, they find. I 
think the results aren't going to be available until later this 
year.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Let me interrupt you because time is 
running out.
    So, you will commit to providing the committee with all of 
the background documents and internal communications of the 
Department of the Air Force's Space Command decision-making 
process, both the original one that was scuttled and the second 
one which was completed in January of this year?
    Mr. Roth. Yes. I think, to a large extent, we already have. 
We try to make the process as open and transparent as possible. 
If requested, we will send you the folks who were involved in 
that decision and we will walk you through the criteria and the 
math, and all of that. I am more than happy to----
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. Because there are some things 
still missing there.
    And changing subjects, you mentioned the environment, an 
environmental assessment. Redstone Arsenal has been listed on 
the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency's] National 
Priorities List as a Superfund site since 1994. Was its status 
as an EPA Superfund site considered during the basing decision 
process?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, I will have to get back to you. I am not 
aware of whether it was or was not. We will have to get back to 
you with that.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 102.]
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Courtney is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.
    I would like to spend a few minutes on airlift, which, 
again, at the Projection Forces Subcommittee, myself and my 
colleague, Mr. Wittman, have been very involved with the KC-46, 
the C-130s programs, as well as the B-1 bombers. So, I actually 
think the KC-46 path that is now set is somewhat of a good-news 
story. I think Dr. Roper from the Air Force did a good job in 
terms of forcing Boeing's hand to get a hardware solution to 
the RVS [Remote Vision System] problem. I would just note that 
Congress in the NDAA has kind of put some steel in his spine in 
terms of making sure that we were not going to accept a 
platform that was not adequate for the crew. And now, it is all 
about execution.
    Our sort of guiding principle was to make sure that we were 
listening to TRANSCOM [U.S. Transportation Command] as well as 
the Air Force during this whole process. It does seem that now 
the two have come together in terms of a way to use KC-46s in a 
less sort of intensive, I guess, manner while we are 
transitioning the fix over the next few years.
    General Brown, is that your sort of approach and do you 
support that? Again, we are careful here not to just sort of 
accept a half-baked result. We want to get what the taxpayer 
paid for, but, nonetheless, we have got to move forward.
    General Brown. I am. And the aspect right now with the KC-
46--it does have capability to refuel a good portion of our 
fleet, not only the Air Force, but also part of the joint 
force, to move cargo, to do air medical evacuation. We are 
making that capability available to TRANSCOM. I have had 
several conversations with General Lyons, and we have come to 
an agreement on how best to do this. It is also helpful because 
the airmen that are actually operating our KC-10s and KC-135s 
today are the same airmen that are going to have to operate the 
KC-46, operate and maintain the KC-46, when it comes off the 
line. But we have got to make the transition to be able to 
train that manpower, those airmen, to ensure that we can, as 
the KC-46 continues to develop its capabilities, we have them 
available to be able to continue to execute as the KC-46 gains 
its capability.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, it makes a lot of sense. Again, it was 
clear to all of us, though, who took a ride a few months ago--
and there was about a dozen or so House Members and Senators--I 
mean, in a contested environment, though, it is still not ready 
for primetime until we get the hardware fixed. So, again, it 
sounds like you found sort of a happy medium in terms of 
utilization, but we are going to be tracking very closely, 
because, as I mentioned, we have been very involved in this.
    Secondly, on the C-130s, we in the last NDAA put a floor in 
terms of the size of the fleet at 287 C-130s. Again, there was 
a little bit of heartburn, I know, from the Air Force when that 
was done. However, we wanted to see what the Mobility 
Capability Requirement Study, which has been ongoing, in terms 
of airlift was going to come back with. We have gotten sort of 
a--it is a late-breaking development, literally within the last 
24 hours or so, but it does seem to validate that the OPLANs 
[operation plans] and all of the studies show that we do need 
to have a fleet at roughly that same number.
    And we look forward to working with you and your staff as 
that report gets digested. And I know there was a discussion 
before this morning's hearing. And again, we will sort of leave 
it at that for now.
    General Brown. Sure.
    Mr. Courtney. And lastly, on the B-1 bombers, General Nahom 
was over at the subcommittee on June 8th, and he testified 
that, quote, ``Until these units''--in other words, the B-21s--
``shake hands with the B-1s, we have no intention of going 
below 45,'' in terms of the fleet, ``because the combatant 
commanders need that firepower in the next 5, 7, 10 years, 
until the B-21s start showing up in the numbers we need.''
    So, I just want to confirm his testimony that we are not 
going to be retiring B-1s and dip below that 45 sort of minimum 
requirement. And again, if you could just speak to that?
    General Brown. That is accurate. And that is my intent, not 
only in bombers, but other capabilities as well, is to make 
sure we have a good transition between the capabilities we have 
today and the capabilities we have for the future and minimize 
risk to our combatant commanders in today's requirements.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Again, as I said, this has been an 
area, also, where Congress has been very involved, and we have 
a very compressed schedule, as has been said before, in terms 
of markups. So, we look forward to working with you and your 
staff.
    And with that, I yield back, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Wittman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us 
today.
    Secretary Roth, I would like to go to you. Listen, I am 
exacerbated. Here we are with an aircraft that should have been 
delivered as a working aircraft. That is the KC-46A. And we are 
paying $226 million a copy for a lemon. Every month we hear 
another Category I deficiency, and we are being told, ``Oh, 
don't worry about it. It has some utility. It can fly.'' Well, 
you know, there is not much other than that that it has the 
utility for. And I am really, really frustrated because, early 
on, we said, ``Why are you accepting aircraft that have these 
multiple deficiencies, that can't do the mission?'' And now, 
you have an additional cost of keeping other aircraft that you 
wanted to retire in the fleet.
    Listen, the platform is broken. I think the program is 
irreparable, and the underlying cause is a bad contract. Now we 
learn that an FMS [foreign military sales] partner is being 
upcharged up to 1,500 percent for spare parts. That is just 
unbelievable.
    And I find myself asking these questions continually, and I 
have a question for you. This is a bad contract. Have you 
thought about recompeting this contract when this contract 
ends, the current contract ends? Or have you thought about 
recompeting it this year? Something has got to give on this. We 
have a number of aircraft that are sitting on the tarmac that 
aren't even being flown. And we talk about aircrews; we talk 
about, ``Oh, gosh, we're going to get it there.'' I keep 
getting promises after promises after promises, and we have 
tarmacs full of aircraft. And I understand you have got to 
train airmen and move them onto the next platform, but this 
aircraft is not fully mission-capable. It is time that 
something changes.
    Acting Secretary Roth, what are your thoughts?
    Mr. Roth. We need to work on the KC-46 and make it the 
air----
    Mr. Wittman. No, you don't need to work on it. You need to 
get it----
    Mr. Roth. Okay.
    Mr. Wittman. You need to get it to the point where it is 
functional----
    Mr. Roth. Yes.
    Mr. Wittman [continuing]. Fully functional.
    Mr. Roth. Well, again, we agree and we have been working 
with the contractor, as was responded to before. We are going 
to work on the remote visual system. We are going to work on 
the boom. And hopefully, they will be ready by fiscal year 2023 
or fiscal year 2024.
    At this point, we don't see either the economic or business 
sense of recompeting the contract. We do think it is a good 
idea to keep accepting aircraft, such as they are. They can do 
a bit more than I think you give the credit for. And we are 
going to use the KC-46 as a node, and as we work out some of 
the ABMS technology, and the like.
    So, our sense is the best----
    Mr. Wittman. Mr. Secretary----
    Mr. Roth. I am sorry. Okay.
    Mr. Wittman. Listen, with all due respect, you say it can 
do a little bit more than we say it can do. We look at Category 
I deficiencies. It can't hold fuel. It is supposed to be a 
tanker. You have human waste onboard that it can't seem to 
hold. The aircraft is full of foreign object debris when it is 
being manufactured. Those seem like pretty significant things 
to me. The description of the aircraft as a tanker and it can't 
hold fuel? I am not sure where you see the utility in saying 
that this is an aircraft. Yes, it can fly; you can put people 
in it, but I would argue there are a lot of other aircraft out 
there that can do the same thing. At some point--at some 
point--I think you have to take decisive action for this.
    Let me move on to another question while I still have some 
time left. I want to get to, also, what our FMS partners are 
being charged for spare parts, and potentially, what we are 
paying for spare parts. It seems as though this is becoming a 
check-writer for Boeing on a bad contract--1,500 percent 
upcharge on spare parts. Is this true, and if so, why, and what 
are we doing about that? That is another element of this that I 
think is highly problematic.
    Mr. Roth. I need to get back. I don't have all the details 
on that. So, I take your point for the time being. As I 
understand, the customer--in this case, Japan--wanted a 
contract very quickly. We provided it to them, and they are 
relatively satisfied. But, that said, let me go back and check 
the facts. Our folks in the acquisition community are taking a 
look at what actually played out, and we owe you an answer on 
what exactly happened.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 102.]
    Mr. Wittman. Going back to the contract, it just doesn't 
seem like to me that the contract in its current state is good 
for the Air Force, and I would argue Boeing should be looking 
at this and saying it is not good for Boeing. They have lost 
over $5 billion with this contract. It seems like, under those 
circumstances, it would make sense to look at recompeting the 
contract. It doesn't seem like anybody in this contract is 
getting what they need.
    Mr. Roth. I take your point. Right now, our business sense 
is that recompeting it would not, in fact, be a good move. But 
we will take your point under consideration and go forward. 
Right now, we think the best thing to do is to try to execute 
the program as best as possible and fix it. I take your point.
    Mr. Wittman. I would strongly urge you to look at 
recompeting.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garamendi. I was hoping that Mr. Turner was here, and 
why he has made an assault on Christmas, his opening comment at 
all these hearings--the war on Christmas, Mr. Turner, please.
    Moving on, General Brown, you have requested $2.6 billion 
for the GBSD in fiscal year 2022. The Air Force estimates that 
we will spend well over $85 billion in the next decade on this 
system. I suspect that that is probably low, given the history 
of all of these major platforms. With this price tag continuing 
to rise over the next decade, what tradeoffs is the Air Force 
making in the relatively flat budget environment that we have? 
Perhaps weapons sustainment systems, perhaps the F-35 can be 
more than 54 percent fully mission-capable. What tradeoffs are 
you making so that you can fund the GBSD?
    General Brown. As far as the tradeoffs, it is really across 
our budget we will have to make adjustments to ensure to fully 
fund the nuclear modernization because nuclear modernization 
and the triad is really the rock foundation of our deterrent. 
It supports every one of our OPLANs. It supports and allows us 
to be able to execute conventionally. And so, there will be a 
balance between not only our nuclear, but also some other 
conventional capabilities. I don't have specifics I can give to 
you to be able to tie one to the other, but as we look across 
the entire budget, that is where we have to look and how we 
balance.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. So, the GBSD is your top priority, and 
the ability of F-35 to actually fly more than 54 percent of the 
time fully mission-capable is not a priority?
    General Brown. The mission capability of the F-35 is also a 
priority. You can try to connect the two together, but I think 
it is a fuller aspect across the entire United States Air Force 
that I look at. The F-35 is an important program to us as well, 
just like our nuclear portfolio is.
    Mr. Garamendi. So, you are satisfied with the F-35 at 54 
percent mission-capable and you are not going to put any more 
money into it? Instead, you are going to fund the GBSD?
    General Brown. I am not satisfied with 54 percent. In fact, 
I think it is a bit higher than 54 percent. And so, our balance 
here is to be able to put not only into our nuclear portfolio, 
but also I am focused on sustainment with the F-35. It 
increases mission capability. I have had direct engagements 
with the CEO [chief executive officer] of Lockheed Martin on 
several occasions, as well as worked with the Joint Program 
Office to increase its capability, but it is really the aspect 
of us working together not only internal to the Air Force, but 
with the Joint Program Office and with our industry partner.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, in 2020, which was just 5 months ago, 
that entire year full mission capability, 54 percent. If you 
are satisfied with that, then fund the GBSD. Don't take any 
money out of the GBSD to buy perhaps more engines. I will let 
that just hang there.
    You have a new warhead for the GBSD, is that correct?
    General Brown. We do.
    Mr. Garamendi. Could you describe the process of the 
development of that new warhead, which I believe is the 87-1? 
How is that going?
    General Brown. From everything I understand, it is going 
well, but it is not only internal to the Air Force, but it is 
also working with DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] on that 
warhead as well.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, indeed, you are correct, it is the 
DOE, but they said in testimony just this week that they will 
not be able to develop the W87-1 pits until well into the 2035 
decade. So, it won't be available as you develop the GBSD, as 
you intend to deploy the GBSD. So, what warhead are you putting 
on the GBSD, since the 87-1 will not be available at any time 
during your deployment period; that is, to 2036?
    General Brown. Well, I have not been privy or been told 
about the particular issues with the warhead. I will have to 
get back with you on the specifics----
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 103.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, presumably, the GBSD was specifically 
designed for a new warhead. The new warhead will not be 
available during the implementation of the GBSD; that is, until 
2036 and beyond. Are you aware of the additional cost that the 
NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] is planning for 
the development of the pits?
    General Brown. I am not aware of the cost.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well----
    The Chairman. Sadly, the gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Sorry.
    Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Roth, General Brown, I want to, first, thank you 
again for your visit at Robins Air Force Base and your 
commitment to Robins Air Force Base, the home of ABMS. And I 
know that the President's budget just called for the drawdown 
of four JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 
aircraft]. That is something that I am supportive of, based on 
the advancements in ABMS and the Air Force's commitment to the 
men and women at Robins and the Georgia Air National Guard.
    Could you briefly discuss some of the advancements of the 
ABMS program? And the Department has called for, in the fiscal 
year 2022 budget request, $204 million in research and 
development for the ABMS program. Could you speak to that 
issue, please, sir?
    General Brown. So, the investment on ABMS, really, aspects 
of it bring about parts of the digital infrastructure to be 
able to connect and move information for ABMS. So, that is one 
part.
    The other part that is specific to the capability with the 
JSTARS is the Ground Moving Target Indicator [GMTI], and that 
is an aspect we are working at space-based capability, working 
very closely with the Space Force on bringing that capability 
together to be able to help provide additional ISR capability 
from other means from what we do day to day traditionally. And 
so, it is also one key aspect of it is building out the digital 
infrastructure, so we can actually move the information that 
comes from our various platforms, and to include our ISR.
    Mr. Scott. And so, General Raymond, do you feel, are you 
comfortable that, as they pull down the JSTARS, that the GMTI 
capability will be there from space, so that our combatant 
commanders have that capability?
    General Raymond. Yes, sir, I am. That program, two things 
in that program. First, it has recently come over to the Space 
Force. Secondly, the very first thing that we did was reduce 
the classification of it, so we can talk about it, so we can 
integrate it better with commercial industry and integrate it 
better with our intelligence partners. Our goal is to build a 
system and design a system that takes advantage of both of 
those partners, and I am comfortable, where I sit today, that 
we will be able to do that and deliver on time for the JSTARS 
replacement.
    Mr. Scott. I am absolutely convinced that it has to happen 
and it has to work. Our enemies have systems that their weapons 
are significantly faster than they were when our current 
systems were developed and they are more powerful than they 
were, and they are also smaller. That makes them harder to pick 
up, and it means we have got to pick them up further away, if 
we are going to intercept them before they do damage to 
Americans at home or our interests abroad.
    And so, I don't have any further questions, other than, 
Secretary Roth, I appreciate your service and your time at 
Robins Air Force Base. I enjoyed that with you.
    And, gentlemen, I appreciate your service.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remainder of 
my time.
    Mr. Rogers [presiding]. Mr. Norcross is recognized.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    I appreciate you all being here today.
    General Brown, much is being said about the four-plus-one, 
and one of the key components is the F-35. Yet, in the unfunded 
priority budget, you did not list any additional F-35As this 
year, which is a noted exception going past the last few years. 
Why not? Yet, you included in the unfunded list the power 
modules and additional parts. Would you explain why that 
decision was made?
    General Brown. Sure, Representative Norcross.
    What I look at, and one of the things we have talked about 
with members of this committee and others, is the sustainment 
on the F-35.
    Mr. Norcross. Uh-hum.
    General Brown. And the other aspect of this is, with the F-
35 we have today, it is not necessarily the F-35 we want to 
have that goes into the future that will have Tech Refresh 3 
and Block 4 against an advancing--particularly, advancing 
Chinese threat. And so, I am balancing between additional F-
35s, driving down our average age of our fleet with F-15EXs, 
but also focus on sustainment. And so, it is a balance there 
between the F-35s that we already have in the budget, which, 
even with the unfunded priority list [UPL], the majority of the 
fighters that we are going to buy are going to be F-35s. But I 
wanted to put some focus on sustainment as well, because we 
have talked about that quite often. That is the rationale 
behind the F-15EXs on the budget, on the UPL, not F-35s, but F-
35 sustainment.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Continuing on the four-plus-one, and we are looking at 
NGAD, which there is a considerable amount of money going 
towards that. And in the past, the Air Force has said time and 
time again they want to get away from that single-role fighter. 
To the degree you can in this environment, can you tell us, are 
you looking at NGAD as a single- or multi-role platform?
    General Brown. I would like to have it be multi-role. But 
the primary aspect for NGAD is air superiority, and with air 
superiority, it is an increased weapons load; it is increased 
range, particularly when you look at operating in the Indo-
Pacific and against the threat we expect to see in the Indo-
Pacific. So, I look to the future, but what I really look at 
for all of our fighters is to have multi-role capability to be 
able to go from a high-end conflict all the way down to 
homeland defense, and that drives a combination capability. 
But, really, NGAD is really focused more so on a highly 
contested environment, to have the weapons load both air-to-air 
primarily, but some air-to-ground capability to ensure, one, 
that it can survive, but also provide options for our component 
commanders and for the joint force.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Just to shift back to the KC-46, and much has been said 
over the course of several years on the contracting problem, 
but, on the KC-46 and the contract with Boeing now, the 
mistakes that are being made are on the dime of Boeing versus 
on us, as most other contracts, is that correct?
    General Brown. That is correct, particularly for the remote 
visual system. The Air Force has some responsibility for the 
stiff boom.
    Mr. Norcross. And the one we agreed to, the remote visual 
system, is now, quite frankly, as everybody has talked about, 
is unmatched in the world in terms of its advanced stage of 
what it can do, correct?
    General Brown. That is correct, and we have done some 
outstanding work with not only our engineers, Air Force 
engineers, but also Boeing engineers and others that have 
provided us some advice on how best to move forward.
    Mr. Norcross. It was not pleasant getting here, and we have 
now the newest and best system in the world. And I don't think 
anybody will talk about making up the time, but, to retrofit a 
KC-46 with a new visual system versus going out and trying to 
get a brand-new fighter, the time doesn't come close, does it?
    General Brown. It doesn't.
    Mr. Norcross. Okay. So, here we are, we ran the race. We 
are right at the finish line. And somehow, to look at this 
again seems to me to be insane. And certainly, I have great 
respect for the folks on the other side of the aisle on this 
one, but I didn't hear about putting this out for a new 
contract in the last 4 years, and I am hearing it now. We are 
so close to the end that I think this would be a grave mistake 
to do this. Beyond the contract, that is something new. 
Especially if we held this high of a standard for all the other 
platforms just in here today, we would have nothing out on the 
road.
    And with that, Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi [presiding]. Mr. Norcross, thank you.
    Mr. Kelly, I believe you are up.
    Excuse me, Mr. Kelly. Ms. Stefanik, Mr. DesJarlais, are 
they on the screen?
    Okay. Mr. Kelly, you are up.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for your service and for being here.
    I am not a bean counter, but I do know how to count beans. 
And as a member of the Budget Committee also, I am deeply 
concerned in what, in my view, is deep cuts to our DOD budget 
this year. And we rely on your leadership and your advice to 
the administration to inform them of what our required needs 
are to be ready to fight tonight and, also, fight the fights of 
the future. I don't want to go back to planes falling out of 
the air, airmen dying, to ships crashing into each other, and 
to those things.
    So, I just ask that you guys, if you need something, please 
stand up and ask. We cannot take these haircuts and 2 years 
from now pay for that in readiness, which means service members 
dying. And that is our obligation, to protect the men and women 
who serve in our uniforms at all costs, regardless of party or 
affiliation.
    That being said, as you are aware, Columbus Air Force Base 
in my district trains a great many prospective Air Force pilots 
each year. The 48 T-1A aircraft at Columbus Air Force Base 
provide prospective pilots with real-world flying experience. 
While the T-1 has a service life to 2050, and $67.2 million has 
been spent on upgrades, we have heard the Air Force was 
considering retiring this fleet in 2023. I have been told this 
decision resided with the Secretary of the Air Force and today 
the final decision has not been made. However, upon reviewing 
the Air Force's fiscal year 2022 budget where funds are 
provided for more upgrades to the T-1A, it also states that 
retirements will begin in 2023. Can you please explain where 
the Air Force is exactly on the T-1A retirement decision?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, let me defer to General Brown because I am 
actually not up to speed on this.
    General Brown. So, we have actually had conversations back 
and forth about the T-1, where we need to go as far as whether 
we retire or not. And this is part of our discussion on some of 
the initiatives we have associated with the pilot training mix 
and others. And so, I would tell you, Mr. Kelly, that we have 
not made a final decision one way or another, and that is part 
of the analysis that is still ongoing.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, General Brown. And it is my 
understanding that the Air Force believes new simulation 
technology will require less actual cockpit time in the future, 
but most of this technology has yet to be implemented. Do you 
believe it is wise to retire a training aircraft with over 25 
years of service life left prior to confirming the simulation 
technology will be as good as real-world flying? And again, 
this comes to airmen's, our pilots' lives.
    General Brown. And that is part of the ongoing analysis and 
kind of balancing out between the capability and the technology 
we have to do today's simulation, at the same time balancing it 
off against the cost of modernization for the T-1 and some of 
the other aspects. But I am 100 percent with you that we want 
to make sure our pilots across our force are well-trained and 
we don't put them at risk.
    Mr. Kelly. And I would appreciate it if the Air Force would 
provide me, this committee, their analysis and finding as it 
pertains to the retirement of the T-1. I am concerned with the 
speed at which we are moving on this.
    And I go back just a little further. General Brown, right 
now, we have a real issue retaining pilots in the Air Force. 
And I am not a pilot, but I do know that most men and women who 
join the Air Force, they join to fly. And if we are putting 
them in simulators instead of aircraft, what that means is they 
are going to go fly an aircraft for a commercial airline, which 
we are already having a hard time competing with. So, I would 
just ask that you guys do that.
    General Raymond, in short, I feel like we have left you out 
today, and I think you are one of the most important--well, I 
was a real proponent for creating you guys. What needs do you 
have to make sure that our Space Force gives us the great 
competitive advantage against our near-peer adversaries? What 
can we do in Congress budgetwise to help you with that, General 
Raymond?
    General Raymond. I appreciate your support. I have 
appreciated it for years. Thank you.
    As I mentioned, we are trying to balance four priorities. 
We have critical capabilities that fuel our American way of war 
and our American way of life that are not easily defendable. We 
have to make that shift. And so, as we come in with the 
analysis that shows how we plan to do that, we are going to 
need your support because it is critical to us. We have a 
design that is purpose-built for a domain that we don't operate 
in today, and we have got to make a shift and we have got to do 
it quick.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
    And my final point, I am an Army guy and I do not think we 
need to divest in our Army platform, although I do think the 
Air Force needs more right now and, also, the Navy.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    I am going to lay out the gavel order. Members are coming 
and going for multiple reasons. On the Democratic side, Mr. 
Gallego, Mr. Moulton, you are up. And then, on the Republican 
side, we have Mr. DesJarlais, who has returned, followed by Mr. 
Gallagher.
    Mr. Gallego.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I refer and yield to my 
good friend from Hawaii, who is going to let me stay at his 
place a couple of times, for a question.
    Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Gallego.
    And thank you so much for coming today to testify.
    I am going to piggyback off of Mr. Kelly's question, as a 
proud graduate of Columbus Air Force Base, to General Brown in 
terms of the pilot shortage that you discuss in your testimony 
and the inability to properly address that. You talk about 
production and retention, and I want to focus on the production 
piece.
    What has the Air Force done, or is looking at, to address 
that pilot shortage? We know for a fact the commercial airlines 
are heavily recruiting our military pilots. There is a pilot 
shortage in the commercial U.S. domestic airline fleet, and 
they are going to continue to pull Air National Guard and 
Reserves and Active Duty pilots from our forces. Are we looking 
at other ways to raise the age for UPT [undergraduate pilot 
training] candidates to increase more applicants to the United 
States Air Force Academy, to recruit more from our ROTC 
[Reserve Officers' Training Corps] campuses throughout the 
country? What are we doing to address that pilot shortage, so 
we have pilots to fly these aircraft in the future?
    General Brown. Well, there are several initiatives that we 
have ongoing that are tied to introducing young people to 
aviation much earlier in high school, junior high school, 
through junior ROTC, Civil Air Patrol, and summer programs, to 
create that interest.
    Once we have got their attention, part of that is also the 
techniques we use in different initiatives, different from the 
way I went to pilot training. And I recall when I went to pilot 
training, if you were doing well and you were going too fast, 
you sat down.
    But, by being more individually focused and using some of 
our virtual reality and other techniques to increase our 
throughput, but at the same time looking to ensure we have the 
right level of quality, and that is the thing I am proud of, 
the quality of the young people that we are getting into our 
Air Force.
    On the retention side, it is not only the flying aspect, 
but it is how we take care of our airmen and their families. 
Because, often, it is not just the member who loves flying, 
but, also, particularly, they have a family, to make sure their 
spouse and their children have those resources. So, it is a 
combination of things that we have to do as an Air Force, not 
only produce, but also to retain that talent, not only in the 
Air Force, but also in the total force.
    Mr. Kahele. Are we seeing at the UPT bases across the 
country, because of the pilot shortage, that we are not flying 
or we are not teaching enough students? We are not flying 
enough airplanes to sustain the four, five UPT bases that we 
have? That is the appropriate level that we have right now for 
training?
    General Brown. What I would tell you is that, as I kind of 
described, in fiscal year 2019, in the numbers we had in fiscal 
year 2020, particularly during the height of COVID, we were 
pretty much equal, and COVID actually had a slowdown a bit. And 
as we come into fiscal year 2021 and continue, we are starting 
to see our numbers increase.
    I think we are on a good path, based on not only just the 
production initiative we have today, but the additional 
initiatives we have on Pilot Training Next, UPT 2.5. Also, with 
our civilian sim instructor locality pay, it allows more of our 
service members to actually get in the cockpit and fly a bit 
more. While we have more sim instructors, we are not having 
them doing the sim. So, we have several initiatives ongoing to 
help increase our throughput to get to the 1,500 a year, which 
is our goal.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Great.
    The last question is for the Space Force. General Raymond, 
the Maui Space Situational Awareness Lab over on Maui, a 
critical facility, and they are looking at expanding the tech 
park there, building a new facility that will support test 
integration, prototyping for electrical optical sensors, and 
remote control of those telescopes on Haleakala. Can you share 
the status of the Maui Space Situational Awareness Lab?
    General Raymond. Well, first of all, that is a very 
important lab and a very important capability. One of the great 
things, when we stood up the Space Force, we also have an 
operational squadron on top of that mountain.
    Mr. Kahele. Yes.
    General Raymond. And they didn't talk to each other. And 
now that we have put everybody under the Space Force, we have 
consolidated and we are going to consolidate them in one unit. 
So, we will be able to develop the technology and hand it over 
to operators, and be able to generate capability much, much 
quicker.
    That facility that you are talking about is going through a 
design review by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think they just 
completed last November a 35 percent design review. There's an 
environmental assessment going on as we speak that is supposed 
to finalize this November, and then, we will have to secure 
funding for it. It is currently unfunded.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thank you so much.
    And I yield back. Mahalo.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    Mr. DesJarlais.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Roth, in your posture statement, you indicate 
that the Air Force is investing heavily in hypersonic weapon 
systems, and I would like to focus on the testing and 
evaluation of these systems and the infrastructure that 
supports this testing. In order to field these weapon systems, 
we need to test them and ensure that they actually work.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record the 
Department of Air Force's 2021 assessment of the Air Force Test 
Center.
    Mr. Garamendi. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Dr. DesJarlais. Mr. Roth, in this report you indicate that 
the current testing capability and capacity available is wholly 
inadequate to accomplish National Defense Strategy required 
hypersonic weapon testing to meet rapid acquisition timelines. 
What are we doing to address this testing shortfall?
    Mr. Roth. I will have to get back to you with a little more 
details. But we work with our OSD partners as best we can to 
try to keep up with the test and evaluation infrastructure. To 
be honest, it is my experience we always lag by some amount of 
money.
    So, we need to get after it. In order to be able to test 
the hypersonics, we need the capabilities to exercise them to 
their maximum extent possible. So, we will look into that and I 
will get you a more fulsome answer for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 101.]
    Dr. DesJarlais. Well, as you may know, my district is home 
to the Arnold Engineering Development Complex, where most of 
the testing takes place. I have seen the poor condition of 
these facilities firsthand. And as I understand it, if some of 
these facilities like 16S, 16T, or Tunnel 9 were to go offline 
due to mechanical failure, we would see many of our most 
important emerging weapon systems delayed, including the B-21, 
NGI [Next Generation Interceptor], GBSD, and our hypersonic 
systems. Are you personally concerned about the condition of 
our aging and rundown testing infrastructure?
    Mr. Roth. The short answer is yes.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Can you just put a fine point on how 
important it is that we modernize these facilities in the 
context of meeting the goals laid out in the National Defense 
Strategy?
    Mr. Roth. Again, I mean, if we are going to go to high-tech 
capabilities, we are going to go to fifth-generation, sixth-
generation aircraft, hypersonics and the like, we need to be 
able to test them.
    Dr. DesJarlais. And, yes, I share your concern, obviously, 
and the folks at Arnold have been sounding the alarms on this 
issue for years now and are making best of an awful situation, 
where they are understaffed and underresourced. I think they 
are being failed.
    A lot of people pay lip service to importance of fielding 
hypersonic weapon systems as our top priority, and if that is 
truly the case, then we need to invest in our testing 
infrastructure to resolve this bottleneck and fortify our 
critical testing facilities. I believe the Department of 
Defense needs to be doing more and we on this committee need to 
be doing more as well. I hope that we can continue this dialog 
and that you can provide this committee with a path forward to 
address these issues.
    I will also be submitting some questions for the record on 
FSRM [facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization] 
funding at Arnold and look forward to your responses on that.
    And for anyone who hasn't visited there, it is a gem. There 
is really nothing like it in the United States, maybe a similar 
facility in Europe, but it is almost a one-of-a-kind in this 
country. And some of the architecture and facilities have been 
working the same for 50-60 years. It is impressive to see how 
almost archaic some of it looks in terms of the machinery and 
how the wind tunnels work, but I think it is really essential 
that we get these upgraded, because, again, everybody talks 
hypersonic, hypersonic, but it all starts on the ground. If it 
doesn't work on the ground, it isn't going to work in the air.
    So, thanks for your attention to this matter, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Roth. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    The gavel order on the Democratic side is Moulton, 
Carbajal, Brown; on the Republican side, Gallagher, Bacon, 
Cheney.
    We now turn to Mr. Moulton. He is not here. Mr. Carbajal, 
you are here.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Acting Secretary Roth and General Raymond, this committee 
has engaged with the Department many times regarding the 
development of a Space National Guard and Reserve Component. 
Hundreds of guardsmen in California operate space missions for 
the Air Force and the Army. In my district at Vandenberg Space 
Force Base, there are two critical Cal [California] Guard 
squadrons with space missions. From my understanding, Air Force 
and Space Force leadership are in agreement on the path forward 
on establishing a Space National Guard, but yet, no proposal 
has been submitted to Congress yet. When do you intend to 
submit the report required in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA and 
send over the necessary legislative changes for the fiscal year 
2022 NDAA?
    Mr. Roth. I will start the answer, and General Raymond can 
fill in some blanks as well. We are still working it with our 
leadership and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 
ultimately, with the Office of Management and Budget as well.
    So, it has been an active topic. We concur with you. We are 
working it as best we can, and it is just a matter of trying to 
get people's time focused on it. And as soon as we get some 
clearance, if we get the clearance from the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, we would be forwarding it.
    I don't know if, General Raymond, you want to----
    General Raymond. We have been operating with the Guard for 
25 years. It provides critical capability, both people-wise and 
equipment-wise. We can't do our job without them today and we 
can't do our job in the future without them.
    So, what the law said when we stood up the Space Force was, 
might you do it a better way that could even increase our 
ability to use those capabilities? We have done the report. It 
is complete. It is all through coordination. It is waiting for 
a final briefing. Once approved, it will get submitted to OMB 
[Office of Management and Budget] to get submitted to Congress. 
I think we are very close to getting that submitted.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    General Raymond, I appreciate your leadership in developing 
the ``range of the future'' plan to invest in our launch 
capabilities. Can you provide additional insight into how the 
fiscal year 2022 Space Force budget is supporting the ``range 
of the future'' concept? What aspects of your plan will be the 
most difficult to accomplish?
    General Raymond. The range of the future is vital to us to 
increase the transaction rates and get more things launched 
into space. We are launching almost on a weekly basis, not 
quite that, but the launch rates that we are seeing across our 
Nation are high.
    We have got to reduce the bureaucracy of the range. We have 
to flatten the range. We have to make it more digital, and we 
have got that funded and we have got the architecture agreed 
to. And you are seeing that in throughput through the ranges 
that is pretty remarkable. We are leading the world in launch, 
and it is vital to us as we move forward.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I appreciated your and Secretary 
Roth's insight that you provided us up on our visit to Cape 
Canaveral a few weeks ago. So, thank you very much for that.
    General Raymond, to conclude, one of the major focuses of 
the Space Force was ensuring that space systems can be 
developed and acquired at the speed of innovation. What are 
your perspectives on how to fix the space systems' unique 
acquisition challenges?
    General Raymond. Yes, we are working that really hard. We 
have to go faster. We have to go faster, and that has been our 
focus. With the help of this committee, we stood up a Space 
Rapid Capabilities Office. They are just 2 years old, and they 
are already delivering at speed.
    In fact, the Space and Missile System Center has been re-
architected. I gave them a challenge less than a year ago to 
build a space domain awareness capability and develop it in 
tactical timelines and be responsive in its launch. In less 
than a year, they have built the satellite. We have put it on a 
shelf. We gave them a 21-day call-up, and they just launched it 
successfully yesterday.
    We have to drive unity of effort across the Department. We 
have to reduce duplication. We have to reduce cost, and we have 
to push authority down to the lower level to be able to move at 
speed.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, General.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallagher is recognized.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    General Brown, do you share the assessment recently 
expressed by Admiral Davidson about a potential PRC [People's 
Republic of China] action against Taiwan within the next 6 
years?
    General Brown. I don't know if I would characterize it the 
same way Admiral Davidson would. But I do believe that we are 
at risk in the next 6 years, into the next decade, you know, 
that PRC may have the capability. One of my goals, as the Air 
Force Chief and as one of the Joint Chiefs, is to ensure we 
have the capability to deter any type of action like that in 
the next 6 years, and really for the long term as well.
    Mr. Gallagher. Deterrence I think is the keyword there. So, 
if you were to make the case in simple terms that this budget 
advances us down the field in the direction of a deterrence-by-
denial posture, not by-punishment posture, in the Indo-Pacific, 
what would you highlight as far as what we are doing in order 
to deter by denial on a 5-year timeframe, not a two-decade 
timeframe?
    General Brown. One of the areas that particularly the PRC 
looks at is how they use information, and for us, how we use 
information as well. And this is the importance of an advanced 
Federal management system to be able to move data, to drive 
decision-making, so we can stay one step ahead of our 
adversary. It is not normally what we do from a Department of 
Defense aspect, but it is what we do as a nation to understand 
the environment, the dynamics, and how we are able to use our 
military capability to sow a bit of doubt into our adversaries. 
So, the day they decide to do something, it is not going to be 
that day, based on the capabilities we present and the 
information we understand, and how we move and react, and 
really more to be proactive in our approach.
    Mr. Gallagher. In terms of, I mean, aircraft and sort of 
physical kinetic things, I would be curious to--expand upon 
that a little bit.
    General Brown. Sure. Well, really, on the kinetic things, 
for our weapons aspect, instead of investing in the preferred 
weapons that we have been using for the past 5, 10, 15 years, 
it is shifting that investment into different weapons 
capability, hypersonics, JASSM [Joint Air to Surface Standoff 
Missile], LRASM [Long Range Anti-Ship Missile], LRSO [Long 
Range Stand Off Weapon] on the nuclear side; moving forward and 
putting more RDT&E into those type of capabilities versus the 
capabilities that we use today that will not be as effective in 
the future.
    Mr. Gallagher. I think LRASM is critical. Just quickly on 
that, when do you anticipate the B-52 will be LRASM-capable?
    General Brown. I don't have those specifics here in front 
of me, but I will get those back to you.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, how has the end of continuous bomber 
presence in Guam impacted Air Force bomber presence in the 
Indo-Pacific theater more broadly? Has it stayed flat? Has it 
gone up? Has it gone down?
    General Brown. It has provided options. And I will tell 
you, I was the INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] air 
component commander when that decision was made. And we now 
have more flexibility with our bomber task force and our CONUS-
to-CONUS missions. And so, what we end up doing is about three 
times a quarter we will do a bomber task force for anywhere 
from 1 to 3 weeks at different locations across the Indo-
Pacific as well as three to four CONUS-to-CONUS missions 
internal to INDOPACOM. That also provides flexibility for the 
other combatant commands.
    It also provides an opportunity to go to locations we don't 
traditionally go to. For example, we had a bomber in India just 
this year, the first time we have got a bomber in India since 
World War II. It is aspects like that that provide us a bit 
more flexibility as an Air Force. It also helps to increase our 
readiness as an Air Force as well.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, has bomber presence increased in other 
combatant commands now that the assets are no longer tied to 
Guam?
    General Brown. It gives us more flexibility to be able to--
the way I would describe it is we have more flexibility to not 
have all of our capability in just one location. Our 
adversaries have to be thinking about the aspects that we can 
move our capability anytime anywhere very quickly. And that is 
one aspect that I am very proud of that the United States Air 
Force provides.
    Mr. Gallagher. Are there any basing and infrastructure 
needs in INDOPACOM that are going unaddressed in this year's 
budget?
    General Brown. Well, from a MILCON [military construction] 
perspective, there are some things that we--I would have to get 
you some more details. But, just based on the look at how we 
invest in infrastructure for weapons storage, for airfield 
improvements as well, these are key areas that we want to 
continue to work on to provide us options to be able to operate 
in the Indo-Pacific.
    Mr. Gallagher. I would love to follow up with you on that 
and a couple of other questions. I remain preoccupied with what 
I am now calling the ``Davidson window,'' and how we can plan 
on that narrower time horizon, on that shorter time horizon, 
rather than a two-decade time horizon. And so, I look forward 
to working with you on that.
    General Brown. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Brown in recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hosting 
this important briefing. I wanted to thank Secretary Roth, 
General Raymond, and General Brown for being here today. 
There's been a lot of conversation around strategy and 
structure and platforms and programs, I want to focus my 
questions on the people, our airmen and guardians.
    Secretary Roth, the fiscal year 2021 NDAA included many 
provisions that promote greater diversity, equity, and 
inclusion in the Department, in the services, and those 
provisions enjoyed broad bipartisan support. So, I just wanted 
to ask you the status of some of those provisions. One was that 
we directed each military service to ensure that its promotion 
boards represent the diversity of its force. So, can you share 
with us how the Air Force has implemented that requirement, and 
if it has not, what is the plan to do so?
    Mr. Roth. Well, we have, in fact, taken the guidance from 
both the authorization act and we actually had initiatives that 
were ongoing before that to address exactly the kinds of 
concerns that you are alluding to. So, first and foremost, let 
me begin by, we took a diversity-inclusion task force and have 
institutionalized it. Part of what the authorization act called 
for was a senior advisor. And so, we now have an Office of 
Diversity [and] Inclusion, and the head of that office is a 
direct report to me, to the Secretary, as well.
    We have also increased the training for everybody who is 
involved in the process, everything from selection panels to 
promotion panels, and the like, to ensure that folks are taking 
a broader view in terms of how they address both promotions and 
performance reviews, and this type of thing.
    We have a Barrier Analysis Working Group that looks at the 
kinds of things that might be barriers and any anomalies that 
might be holding us back.
    And what we are doing is taking a very data-driven approach 
to these kinds of things. We are doing climate surveys. We have 
something called DEOCS, the Defense Equal Opportunity Climate 
Survey, and other like kinds of things, to give us some 
information on exactly how we are doing and where the kinds of 
issues and problems might be.
    So, we are taking a hard look at climate. We are taking a 
hard look at promotions, as you allude to. We are taking a hard 
look at how we manage the force across the board.
    Actually, in preparing for the hearing, there was the list 
of all NDAA requirements, and for each one of those, we have an 
initiative ongoing to implement them.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I appreciate that, and I also do want to 
commend the Air Force. I have not looked at the Space Force on 
this issue, although since it is at the service level, the Air 
Force is the service that covers both the Air Force and the 
Space Force.
    I commend you for establishing that office and appointing 
the senior advisor.
    The Air Force Inspector General found in its independent 
racial disparity review that black airmen are 72 percent more 
likely to receive Article 15 non-judicial punishment and are 57 
percent more likely to be referred to court martial. And 
moreover, it found that young black airmen are twice as likely 
to be involuntarily discharged. It is not the inviting 
environment, I think, that reflects our values and what we 
should expect of the Air Force and Space Force, and I have said 
the same thing to the Army, Navy, and the Marines. What is the 
Air Force doing to address some of these racially disparate 
treatments that we are seeing under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of 
Military Justice] and administrative procedures?
    Mr. Roth. Well, it is a point well-taken. We are familiar 
with the data and the information that you outlined. We 
actually have a command justice climate tool that we are using 
to get after that, again, as part of our overall effort to have 
a data-driven approach to this. So, it probably should have 
been one of the areas I highlighted when I went through my 
quick summary, but we are also taking a hard look at our 
judicial and legal processes as well and trying to incorporate 
to see where we need to change our approach to those.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I appreciate that. I am actually glad you 
didn't include it in the quick summary because, given what we 
are seeing under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 
administrative procedures, I mean, black and brown airmen are 
not being treated the way that they ought to be. So, I do 
commend the Air Force for taking a look and certainly want to 
see the movement in the metrics, in the numbers, to support 
that you are committed to making some change.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bacon is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank Mr. Roth for being here, and it is 
great to see General Brown and General Raymond, who I served 
with in multiple assignments in various capacities. And you 
guys are doing a great job.
    I want to make a statement about passthrough funding, which 
the Air Force is straddled with, and then, a couple of 
questions.
    First, on the passthrough funding, both services here have 
vital missions. You have two to three legs of the nuclear 
triad, strategic warning, air and space mobility, ISR, and most 
importantly, the ability to hold any target on earth at risk 
within hours or minutes. And this is why you exist.
    The reason why this committee exists is to ensure that the 
limited dollars the Nation invests in national defense are put 
to the best possible use. This necessarily involves tough 
decisions, relies on clear and transparent budget information 
on where this money is going.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to note for my colleagues 
that the fiscal year 2022 request states that the top-line 
request for the Department of Air Force is $212 billion. What 
DOD's budget does not reveal is that $39 billion of that, of 
the Air Force top line, 18 percent, in fact, is not actually 
controlled by the Department of the Air Force, which means it 
neither implements nor advances the force design and 
operational readiness needs of our Air and Space Forces. So, 
when you subtract that non-blue amount from the Air Force top 
line, the actual top line is closer to $173 billion.
    So, I submit that this is a Cold War era passthrough 
budgeting practice, and I think it distorts the public's 
understanding of our defense investments in air, land, sea, and 
space. I would guess that most members of the committee aren't 
even aware of this budgeting practice. I just think it is 
wrong. Now, more than at any time in our history, every defense 
dollar must deliver maximum deterrent value, and for this 
reason, we need to have absolute clarity and transparency.
    So, last year, this committee and our colleagues in the 
Senate both raised this passthrough budget processing as a 
concern, and we tasked the Department of Defense to find a 
better way. So the Department of Defense still owes the 
committee an answer on how to clean this up, and we are still 
waiting to hear how they plan to do it.
    So, with that, my first question here is for General Brown. 
The budget request seeks to retire the E-8 Joint STARS along 
with some of the RQ-4s. Can you tell us how the Air Force plans 
to ensure ISR requirements are met while retiring a significant 
portion of the ISR fleet?
    General Brown. I appreciate the question. And I would 
really characterize it as a small portion of the ISR fleet as 
we move forward, JSTARS and the RQ-4. What we require for the 
future, not only for what we see today, but also require for 
the future, is an ISR capability that is connected, persistent, 
and survivable. Right now, I have something that is very 
persistent, less connected, and less survivable. And so, for us 
as an Air Force it is to be able to transition to that greater 
capability we require in the future.
    An important aspect of that is a dialog I have with the 
combatant commanders, and I have talked to every single one of 
the combatant commanders, before they testified, about where 
the Air Force is headed and how we will actually do our best to 
help mitigate an incredible demand signal for ISR from the 
combatant commands and the capabilities the United States Air 
Force provides, in concert really with the Space Force as well, 
because the Department does the lion's share of the ISR for the 
joint----
    Mr. Bacon. Right. Going to the MQ-9 and a related question, 
you are going to stop procurement on the MQ-9. With such a 
large number of MQ-9s retiring each year due to reaching their 
maximum flight hour limits, how does the Air Force plan to keep 
this high-demand fleet viable until they can bridge to a new 
capability?
    General Brown. So, one aspect with the MQ-9 is it is, 
again, a very popular platform, particularly in the uncontested 
environment. Based on the previous budget cycles, we will still 
have MQ-9s coming into our inventory into fiscal year 2025, 
fiscal year 2024. So, we are not doing so much retirement. We 
are really going to stop some level of procurement.
    The other aspect is our transition to a future capability 
as well, at the same time modernizing the remaining of the MQ-9 
fleet with a multi-domain operation capability that will have 
the MQ-9s well into the next decade, really to about 2035, or 
so.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
    I want to segue to electronic warfare for a moment, but I 
only have about 40 seconds left. I appreciate General Brown's 
comments that the Air Force has been asleep at the wheel for 
about three or four decades in this area. For both the air and 
the space side, do you plan on submitting an electromagnetic 
spectrum operations strategy or implementation plan?
    General Brown. Really, under the Department of the Air 
Force, we actually have a strategy that was published in April, 
and our implementation plan for both services will be published 
here in the fall.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you. I think it is important we catch back 
up with where the Chinese are at.
    And I will just close with a comment, since we don't have 
time for a question. I know how important Block 4 on the F-35 
is. I hope you keep pressure on the JPO [Joint Program Office] 
and the other committees to get this fielded on time, and how 
much we need it.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Houlahan is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am assuming that I 
can be heard.
    And thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today.
    I serve on the Military Personnel Subcommittee, where we 
have been closely examining the allegations surrounding 
substandard housing conditions in the privatized housing, 
including infestations of rodents and exposure to mold, and the 
impact that that consequence has to morale and readiness. So, 
this is really personal to me because I was a military brat 
myself. I moved constantly as a child and frequently lived in 
military housing.
    So, my question for Secretary Roth is, in your budget 
material there are 12,000 units that are assessed to be in good 
or fair condition, according to the Facility Condition Index. 
And I would like to know what fair living conditions consist of 
on a military installation. Are these housing units for the 
enlisted or for officers, do you know? And have you done an 
evaluation of who is experiencing more maintenance and more 
poor housing conditions? So, how are you addressing this sort 
of discrepancy?
    Mr. Roth. Well, based on the findings and the discussions 
we have had in the last couple of years, what we have done is 
increased our focus on the quality of the housing that we have. 
And so, in each base now, we, essentially, have a housing, you 
know, a resident advocate or a housing advocate who reports to 
the base commander in terms of the issues that would come up 
with the members who live on base, and these kinds of things.
    So, we are working on that. We have tried to increase our 
focus on it. And working with the contractors, we have 
implemented the Housing Bill of Rights. Out of the 18, I think, 
elements, we have got 14 out of the 18 that are in effect, and 
we are still working on negotiating with the contractors on the 
last 3 or 4.
    So, it has become a priority. The Air Force Materiel 
Command, we are working with the major commands and the bases, 
and have put renewed focus on that. And the short answer to 
your question is we plan to get after it as best we can.
    Ms. Houlahan. And, sir, there are more than 3,500 units 
that are considered to be poor or failing in their assessment 
of their condition. And so, my question is, do you know, are 
there tenants who are asked to live in those poor or failing 
conditions, or have they been moved? And if they have been 
moved, where have they been relocated to?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, I would have to get back to you on exactly 
how many moved and all. I am not familiar with how many have 
moved. So, we owe you that and we will get back to you with 
more----
    Ms. Houlahan. If it is okay, sir, I would love for you to 
get back to us on that. And I will ask my next question, and 
maybe we could have that information provided for the record 
for the last one.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 101.]
    Ms. Houlahan. My next question, sir, is also for you, and 
it has to do with STEM [science, technology, engineering, and 
math] talent. Recruitment and retention of people is, of 
course, one of your priorities, and finding ways to encourage 
talent to remain in the Air Force is a high priority. During my 
time in Congress, I have been advocating for investment in STEM 
education and programming for children and young adults in my 
community to make sure that we are meeting the demands of the 
future workforce.
    Secretary Roth, as the needs of the Air Force and Space 
Force adapt to demand to new technical skills for recruits and 
airmen and guardians, how does the budget reflect meeting the 
needs for STEM recruitment from our high schools and colleges? 
Have you been looking, as an example, into the ROTC applicants 
from minority-serving institutions to address the lack of 
diversity within STEM fields?
    Mr. Roth. The short answer is yes. And in both services, 
both Air and Space Force, we value the STEM. We want a digital-
savvy workforce in both areas. So, as an example, in the fiscal 
year 2022 budget, we have $175 million for additional advanced 
degree programs to try to encourage STEM graduates who might 
have an interest in the Air Force. We have what we call a 
Premier College Intern Program as well, where we also are 
trying to frame a population that will serve us well. We have 
intern programs like PALACE Acquire and COPPER CAP as well that 
cross 20 career fields.
    So, we are taking a focus on it. At the end of the day, we 
want a digital-savvy workforce, both civilian and military. And 
so, it is, in fact, a focus for us.
    Ms. Houlahan. And that brings us to last year's NDAA, where 
we were able, my office was able to get in the Armed Forces 
Digital Advantage Act, which was included and established a 
policy to recruit, retain, and promote tech talent. Can you 
share what steps the Air Force and the Space Force have taken 
since to develop policy on tech talent management that allows 
us to recruit the right people for our workforce within the 
Department?
    Mr. Roth. Again, in general, I will have to give you more 
details. But, in general, it has been an emphasis. It is 
something that we value going forward. And so, we are taking a 
hard look at all alternatives and all options we would have 
along those lines.
    Ms. Houlahan. I look forward to getting that in more detail 
from you for the record. And I appreciate it.
    And I yield back. Thank you.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 101.]
    Mrs. Luria [presiding]. Thank you.
    Ms. Cheney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much.
    Thank you to our witnesses.
    First, I just wanted to clarify something I believe Mr. 
Garamendi was concerned about or discussing, and that was the 
timing of the pit production for the GBSD warheads. Dr. Vernon 
has actually briefed the committee that the first pits for 
these warheads are going to come out of Los Alamos. So, the 
delays at Savannah River should, in fact, have no impact on the 
production of warheads for the GBSD.
    Further on the GBSD, I think this is probably one of the 
most bipartisan systems that we have in the United States Air 
Force today, approved by President Obama at the time when I 
think, Secretary Roth, you were in the comptroller's office. It 
was, then, fully funded by President Trump. Now President Biden 
has requested $2.6 billion for this program in fiscal year 
2022. So, it is a crucial program. Nice to see such bipartisan 
support for it and for the funding, which I think will be 
important for us to continue.
    As we look at the alternative of some of the life extension 
programs, when General Dawkins testified before the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee last week, he had a figure of $38 billion; 
that basically, doing an additional life extension program on 
the Minuteman III would cost the taxpayers $38 billion 
additional dollars beyond the GBSD cost and, actually, produce 
a much less capable system. So, I would like to ask both 
Secretary Roth and General Brown if you have had a chance to 
look at those figures and if you could comment on the extent to 
which we are facing, in fact, the ability at much less cost to 
the taxpayers, if we move forward on the development of the 
GBSD.
    Mr. Roth. Well, going all the way back to when the analysis 
of alternatives was done back in 2014, every time we have 
looked at the numbers and done the analysis coming forward, the 
conclusion we have drawn is trying to do any kind of service 
life extension program for the Minuteman III will be more 
costly, will result in a missile that is not as capable, and 
with a missile that would be more expensive to maintain.
    To date, the GBSD has hit all its significant milestones. 
It is using the most modern digital engineering processes and 
procedures in order to go forward. It will have first flight, 
if the program continues on its current trajectory, it will 
have first flight around fiscal year 2024, and we will hit 
initial operating capability in fiscal year 2029. It will be a 
more capable, a more dependable, a safer, and more secure 
missile.
    So, our inclination is to continue with the GBSD program. 
If we have to do a SLEP [service life extension program] for 
the Minuteman III, we have to go back to square one. The 
industrial base doesn't support that missile yet. It will 
involve an enormous amount of redesign. And our sense is you 
will get a less capable missile likely later than you would the 
GBSD.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
    General Brown, do you concur with those views?
    General Brown. I do. I do. Secretary Roth hit all the key 
points. I have nothing else to add.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
    Can you advise, if we were to find ourselves in the 
position where we had to go back and look at a SLEP, what do 
you see on the horizon that would be the most likely factor to 
cause us to have to do that? Would it be Congress refusing to 
appropriate necessary funds at this point?
    Mr. Roth. I don't know what the circumstances would be, 
but, again, we think what that result--our responsibility--we 
own two-thirds of the nuclear triad--our responsibility as a 
force provider, and as to organize, train, and equip, is to 
provide a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. And 
that is the path we are on. If others want to adjust that, then 
we will have to have that discussion going forward. But our 
sense is GBSD in this particular area is the best way forward.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much.
    And I would just add, I think it is critically important 
for us in Congress to make sure that we are fulfilling our 
responsibilities and obligations, not to set us back, and make 
sure that we continue to provide the funding necessary to move 
forward in this timely fashion.
    And I thank very much all the witnesses, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    And, General Brown, I wanted to continue on our previous 
conversation. I can understand why you would not want to just 
come out and say that we need a smaller Army. But if we look at 
the role of Congress and the Constitution, it is to raise and 
support armies, and we currently have a very large All-
Volunteer Army which is a standing army. And so, in the current 
situation we are in, and the constraints on the budget, with 
the current split within the departments, it seems as though we 
can only work around the edges as far as force structure is 
concerned.
    But I was referencing earlier the air-sea battle, and 
basically, a plan for that. But no one had any objections to an 
air-land battle, which we have used over the course of time in 
preparing for the Cold War and the ground conflicts that we 
have had over the last several decades.
    It seems that that construct is just blind to the current 
threat and the current environment we have today. And I would 
say that I continue to feel that both the Air Force and the 
Navy cannot be funded for the force structure they need and the 
mission using that construct.
    And so, I wanted to go back a little bit to the things you 
mentioned before. You said that we do not have a continuous 
bomber presence in the Pacific. Notably, we, obviously, have 
ships present continuously in the Pacific. And I know that you 
were the PACAF [Pacific Air Forces] commander before coming to 
your current role.
    I was wondering if you could comment a little bit on how we 
got to not having that presence in the AOR [area of 
responsibility].
    General Brown. There were a combination of things that 
drove that, and part of it was the readiness impacts we were 
having on the bomber requirements, not only in the Indo-
Pacific, but also, particularly, in the United States Central 
Command. In thinking about our bombers, it is not the 
conventional capability we have, but it is also their nuclear 
responsibility as well. And it was a balance between those that 
drove the discussion on not having too much bomber presence.
    Mrs. Luria. And so, this year, further reducing the bomber 
fleet is going to further exacerbate that, I would gather?
    General Brown. Not necessarily. And part of it, as we 
looked at the B-1 fleet, in particular, there is an aspect of 
having a number of bombers that have a mission-capable rate 
that is much lower or having a smaller fleet of bombers, where 
we put our energy and effort in our manpower against those to 
make sure they are at a higher mission-capable rate.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay.
    General Brown. And we have seen improvements based on the 
approaches we have taken.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you, and I would love to gather 
more information in a different forum about that.
    So, some things that I think of, when we think about the 
Pacific, and we think about what strategy do we need if there 
is a conflict in the Pacific, some things that are game-
changing are a standoff anti-ship cruise missile, like the 
LRASM, and the ability for mine-laying from a distance, both 
capabilities that we touched on earlier. So, it seems as though 
those were not things that you highlighted in this year's 
budget when I asked about them earlier. You did mention LRASM. 
But, you know, those are game-changers in the Pacific. And we 
say China is the focus of this budget and the efforts of the 
service.
    So, I just wanted to close out by saying that, you know, 
not having a bomber presence there, not really leaning in on 
these capabilities that will be game-changing in the Pacific, I 
think that our adversaries, potential adversaries, need to know 
that they are continuously targeted; that we have the resources 
there and we have actual not only platforms, but weapons to do 
that and put them at risk. I don't find that present in this 
budget submission. It is not just that we can be there, that we 
can send a bomber from CONUS and will be there soon, but they 
need to know that there is a persistent threat and a persistent 
presence. Can you comment on the ability of this budget to meet 
that?
    General Brown. There is a combination of things that are in 
the budget that will provide us the capability beyond just 
LRASM, and Quickstrike mining is focused on maritime. I am also 
focused on the ability to provide advanced weapons like JASSM 
and JASSM-ER [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended 
Range]. ARRW [Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon], which is our 
hypersonic munition, and the Air Force is, I would say, leading 
the way on hypersonic development. The other aspect is the B--
--
    Mrs. Luria. Development? It is not a fielded weapon?
    General Brown. It is not fielded yet. But we are leading 
the way. And I will tell you, and when you look in competition, 
our adversaries are actually doing hypersonic capability at a 
faster rate than we are, which is why we have got to pick up 
the pace in that.
    The other is our B-21, not only from a nuclear aspect, but 
also from a conventional aspect. So, it is a combination of 
those capabilities that provide us, not just in the maritime, 
but, as you talked about the air-sea battle, the combination of 
the capabilities between the Air Force and the Navy to be able 
to hold targets at risk, both in the maritime environment and 
in other areas as well.
    Mrs. Luria. So, just to clarify, these are not capabilities 
that we currently have on hand or will have at full operational 
capability within the next 5 to 6 years?
    General Brown. For ARRW, I suspect here--I would have to 
get you the exact, but, based on the testimony, I do see that 
within the next 5 to 6 years we will have hypersonic 
capability.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired, and I 
yield back.
    And I will call on Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and General Brown, 
everyone, for coming today.
    General Brown, I certainly appreciate your expertise as the 
commander of Air Force Pacific, and understanding the geography 
and the requirements there is critical. I think it is also 
important that we continue to recognize, this committee 
continues to recognize, that we have a need for close air 
support for our special operations community that will remain 
in 60 to 70 countries on any given day, that are there right 
now as we speak. So, I appreciate your continuing the work of 
your predecessor in General Goldfein and supporting the Armed 
Overwatch Program and supporting Special Operations Command's 
procurement of that program; the need for a platform that is 
light, cheap, particularly as we are having a budget 
conversation; rugged, and able to be colocated with those 
special operators. And I think, credibly, it is useful to point 
how much it helps you continue that shift of your fourth- and 
fifth-gen fleet to where it rightly belongs, in great power 
competition, by having this platform continue for special 
operators.
    I also want our colleagues to be aware that we just had a 
third-party study. Thank you for your staff's support of the 
RAND study that showed the A-10 to be 1,000 percent more costly 
than an Armed Overwatch Program, the MQ-9 to be 200 percent 
more costly. I just want to confirm for the record that you 
still support SOCOM's procurement, which is in the President's 
budget, of the Armed Overwatch Program.
    General Brown. I do. As a matter of fact, I met with 
General Clarke, the commander of the United States Special 
Operations Command, just last week where we had a conversation 
on Overwatch and where I also talked to him my commitment to 
continue to support his development of----
    Mr. Waltz. That is great. We still seem to be running into 
some doubts in Congress, but we now have two Air Force Chiefs, 
and the Special Operations Command commander named it as his 
number one priority, and a third-party independent validation 
of that program. So, hopefully, we can overcome that resistance 
and get those special operators the armed overwatch that they 
need.
    Switching to ISR, has the Air Force, or have you, discussed 
your ISR modernization plan with the combatant commanders? And 
what was their feedback? What effect do you think your 
proposals in divesting ISR capability will have on the 
geographic combatant commanders?
    General Brown. I have. As a matter of fact, I have taken 
the opportunity to speak to each of the combatant commanders, 
particularly those that are probably the most affected or have 
the most interest in the IRS capabilities provided by the 
United States Air Force. What I have articulated to them is 
exactly what I have articulated to this committee, is we have 
to make a transition to the future. And I understand that they 
have requirements, but I will tell you their requirements well 
outstrip the capacity of the United States Air Force and the 
joint force as well. And so, what I have talked to them about 
is how we together make a transition from where we are today to 
make sure their successors, the combatant commanders that will 
be here 5, 10, 15 years from now, have the capability that they 
will require.
    Mr. Waltz. I would just encourage you to keep a close eye 
on it. We are the next terrorist attack, and I think, with the 
withdrawal from Afghanistan, that could increasingly be likely 
from that spotlight and those demands shifting right back in 
that direction. Right now, we are preparing for, and hopefully 
deterring, a future conflict, but that conflict we are still 
in. I don't think Afghanistan is done with us, even though we 
are pretending to be done with it.
    And just in the interest of time, General Raymond, I just 
want to talk to you very quickly about Tactically Responsive 
Launch had a successful launch. I think it is incredibly 
important that we have backup capabilities to Cape Canaveral, 
to Vandenberg. I love Cape Canaveral; it is on the edge of my 
district, but between hurricanes or some type of conflict, if 
we lose that platform, we need alternatives.
    My question, though, is it doesn't seem to be supported in 
the budget. So, you are affirming that it is a need, but I am 
looking at where the request is, and would certainly support 
you in that request, but where is the disconnect?
    General Raymond. It is very important to us. We have got 
money and contract mechanisms with eight different small launch 
providers. We used--we utilized one of those just a couple of 
days ago for that responsive launch. We have money to modernize 
our ranges, both at Vandenberg and at the Cape, the range of 
the future. That is funded; that architecture is funded. We are 
working on policies with the FAA [Federal Aviation 
Administration] to reduce duplication of bureaucracy, which we 
have done. And so, there is a whole litmus test or a whole 
laundry list of things that we are doing. They didn't require 
big budget items. It was just making it happen.
    Mr. Waltz. Madam Chair, if I could just----
    General Raymond, if you could give me a more fulsome 
answer----
    General Raymond. I will.
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. For the record of when we are going 
to get--you know, the importance of it, but, then, when you 
plan to push for funding.
    General Raymond. Yes, sir.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 102.]
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. I yield, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    And I now recognize Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Let me start by just thanking my colleague and Future of 
Defense Task Force member, Representative Waltz, for his 
comments on making sure we are making smart investments in the 
future. And when the study comes out and says that one platform 
costs 1,000 times more than another, it certainly should raise 
some eyebrows, but it should also provoke some different 
decisions.
    I think one of the best things, most important things, that 
members of this committee--indeed, Members of Congress--can do 
to support our national security and the future of our defense 
is to be willing to make tough sacrifices when it comes to the 
equities that we have in our parochial interests in our 
districts. I will tell you that the largest employer in the 
largest and toughest city I represent makes the new engines for 
the A-10, but I am not afraid to sit here and say that we need 
to get rid of Cold War era aircraft to make room for new ones. 
Now just last week, we saw a Senator attack the Department's 
request to retire 42 A-10s.
    General Brown, tell me what can you do with this money? 
What will you do with the dollars that you can save if you 
retire these old aircraft?
    General Brown. I appreciate the question. And as you 
described, what we will be able, then, is be able to put that 
money into future capability and really drive down all sorts of 
standing costs. As was just mentioned, when it costs 1,000 or 
200 percent more to operate, we are able to take that money and 
that savings and put it into modernization; we put it into 
sustainment, and will be able to put into manpower, to be able 
to operate the new capability.
    Mr. Moulton. And do the alternative systems that can 
replace the A-10 have the same capabilities?
    General Brown. By and large, they do. And I'll tell you 
from my experience--not only as the INDOPACOM commander, but I 
was also the air component commander for the second year of the 
Defeat ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] campaign--when a 
JDAM [Joint Direct Attack Munition] comes off an airplane, it 
doesn't matter whether it is an A-10, a B-1, or a B-52; it is 
still going to have the same impact. And it is those things 
that we are able to do a bit differently and use all of our 
capability, and to be able to be multi-roled, which is 
important to me, not only as an Air Force officer and an air 
component commander, but I also think for the joint force as 
well.
    Mr. Moulton. What is the risk of not retiring old legacy 
systems to be willing to invest in new capabilities?
    General Brown. I put it in really four categories, which I 
have kind of already highlighted. It would be in modernization, 
manpower, maintenance, and operational risk.
    We need to be able to modernize to make sure we have the 
capabilities against the future threats that we already foresee 
that are coming our way, particularly with the People's 
Republic of China.
    From a manpower standpoint, many of those airmen that are 
operating and maintaining the equipment we have today are the 
same airmen that we are going to need to put on that modernized 
equipment. And we have got to make a transition because they 
don't get trained overnight to be able to bring on that 
capability.
    From a maintenance and sustainment piece, the longer we 
hold onto older aircraft--and what we have seen is our aircraft 
break more often; they take longer to fix, and it takes more 
money to maintain them--that is also costing us.
    And then, last, but not least, is operationally. It impacts 
our readiness. It impacts and puts airmen and other joint 
teammates and our allies and partners at risk when we have 
substandard equipment, or substandard to the threat, their 
capability. And then, most importantly, it puts some of our 
national security objectives at risk as well.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, yesterday, we heard from numerous 
colleagues of mine on this committee how shameful it is that 
our Navy fleet is so much older than the Chinese fleet. Well, 
here we have an opportunity to modernize our aircraft, and I 
think we should take it.
    General Brown, hearing this from the Navy and the Marine 
Corps as well, General Berger called for a hearing on 
modernization, where we can discuss the risks and benefits of 
freeing up resources from less relevant systems for future 
modernization. Do you agree that such a hearing would be 
useful, and if it is scheduled, would you agree to participate?
    General Brown. I welcome the opportunity and I would be 
very happy to fully participate in that.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you.
    Someone is not muted, but I shall continue.
    In your joint statement, you highlighted suicide prevention 
as one of your top priorities for the airmen and guardians 
within your service. I am personally very passionate about 
mental health/suicide prevention in the military, and later 
today, I am formally introducing the Brandon Act, which would 
create a mechanism for service members to seek help about 
suicidal ideation outside of their chain of command. I am under 
no delusion that the Brandon Act will solve all the military's 
problems regarding suicide, but it is a step in the right 
direction and has a signoff from organizations like TAPS 
[Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors], American Foundation 
for Suicide Prevention, and others. We have received pushback 
from DOD about the Brandon Act, but no alternative suggestions 
have been put forward.
    Will you give your support to measures like the Brandon Act 
that provide a release valve in the worst-case scenarios?
    General Brown. I will.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, General Brown.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Johnson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Roth, it was great having you at Barksdale 
recently to see firsthand the great work our airmen are doing 
in northwest Louisiana. And as you are aware, the work done on 
base is critically important to maintaining our national 
security, especially as we continue our ongoing nuclear 
modernization efforts.
    As you know, one issue I am particularly interested in is 
the ongoing struggle to construct the new entrance gate and the 
access road at Barksdale. The State and local governments have 
invested considerable amounts to construct the interchange that 
will allow traffic to flow to the new gate from the 
interstates. The point is that the State and local governments 
have held strong to their end of the bargain and committed 
millions of dollars to the project, based on assurances that 
the Air Force will see the project through. To be frank, the 
Air Force has fumbled the ball on this critical project.
    First, the project was severely underbid, and then there 
was an unwillingness to reprogram funds to solve that 
shortfall. So, I certainly appreciate that the new gate was 
listed on the Air Force's unfunded priority list for this 
fiscal year; I am grateful for that. And I am going to work 
with all my colleagues to make sure we get this squared away 
once and for all.
    But my question is, Mr. Roth, will the Air Force commit to 
seeing this project through and to reaffirming to stakeholders 
that they can trust, when the Air Force says it is going to do 
something, that that promise will actually be kept?
    Mr. Roth. Yes. I mean, we are committed to working with our 
partners here to make sure that the project happens.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you for that.
    And on a different note, I was very pleased to see the line 
item in the fiscal year 2022 budget request to construct our 
Weapons Generation Facility at Barksdale. That has been a big 
focus of mine and many in the Louisiana delegation for some 
time now. Can you or General Brown comment on the strategic 
value that a WGF at Barksdale will bring to our country and the 
versatility that it will provide to the Air Force in ensuring 
that we have a strong strategic deterrent?
    General Brown. Sure. The Weapons Generation Facility will 
actually make it much easier for our airmen to be responsive in 
how we actually generate combat power, particularly from our 
bomber bases and from our nuclear bases that support ICBM 
[intercontinental ballistic missile] fields. And so, not only 
for Barksdale, but for the other locations where we actually 
build out Weapons Generation Facilities and modernize our 
capability to match up with not only the technology and 
platforms we are providing, but also to make sure it actually 
works well to support us against whatever threats might come 
our way.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you for that, General.
    On the strategic importance of the aircraft itself, in the 
past year we have seen B-52s from Barksdale and elsewhere 
deployed all over the world, from Europe and the Middle East 
over to the Indo-Pacific. And according to the Air Force, the 
current B-52 engines will become unsustainable by 2030. 
Secretary Roth, what is the Air Force doing to ensure the B-
52s' engines are replaced before that looming deadline?
    Mr. Roth. We have an ongoing acquisition program to replace 
the engines, and not only that, but we have actually put that 
program on the new, modern, accelerated acquisition kind of a 
process. We are using some of the authorities that we have 
gotten over the last couple of years. And so, our estimate is, 
using some of the so-called mid-tier acquisition authorities, 
that we will be able to shave about 3 years off the acquisition 
lead time in order to make that happen.
    Mr. Johnson. We are very grateful for that prioritization. 
And as you and I were walking beneath those big birds, the B-
52s, not long ago, I remarked about the engineering marvel. 
That that will be a 100-year aircraft it is projected, that is 
really amazing.
    General Brown, in the limited time I have left, with the 
limited availability of the B-1 and the B-2 bombers right now--
and the B-21 is still in development--what would be the impact 
of a significant delay to the B-52 re-engining effort from an 
operational perspective?
    General Brown. It will actually decrease our operational 
availability. And that is why going down the path of the 
modernization in the engine as well, as you described, nearing 
100 years old, it is important that we make the right efforts 
to continue the modernization, so we have that operational 
availability and the flexibility to provide air power anytime 
anywhere in support of our combatant commanders.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I am out of time. I will yield back.
    But I just thank you all for your service very much, and 
thanks for your time today.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    Mr. Horsford, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Horsford, appears frozen. Do you want to test your 
audio, Mr. Horsford?
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me okay?
    Mrs. Luria. Yes. Mr. Horsford, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much.
    And thank you to our witnesses for testifying. General 
Brown, thank you for being here today; General Roth, as well.
    I wanted to start, first, regarding the MQ-9 Reaper. I was 
disappointed to see that, for a second year in a row, the Air 
Force is trying to end procurement of the MQ-9 in the fiscal 
year 2022 Presidential budget request. As I am sure you know, 
the MQ-9 plays a critical role in my district. Creech Air Force 
Base is the central hub for global intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance operations, as well as hunter-killer 
operations. The airmen of the 432nd Wing play an irreplaceable 
role as the eyes and ears of our deployed commanders, 
protecting our troops and interests 24/7 365 days.
    Last year, despite the Air Force's attempt to, first 
attempt, to end production, MQ-9 combat lines were the number 
one unfunded priority for the U.S. Central Command. So, it is 
with good reason that in the last NDAA Congress prevented the 
Department from ending MQ-9 production, and instead procured an 
additional 16 aircraft. This procurement was a positive step 
towards meeting the needs of the joint force, but the demand 
for MQ-9s by combatant commanders still far outweighs what the 
Air Force can currently resource. Many of our combatant 
commands have very little persistent surveillance capability 
and are leasing contractor-owned, contractor-operated MQ-9A 
combat lines to mitigate their ISR collection gap.
    So, I am concerned that shutdown of the MQ-9A production 
line or a reduction of the MQ-9 combat lines, with no fully 
funded followup capability at scale, leaves the Nation's 
warfighters to make do with an already insufficient number of 
MQ-9As and poses a risk to the combatant command's ability to 
conduct operations.
    So, General Brown, is there currently a program of record 
to replace the MQ-9?
    General Brown. There are several programs of record that 
actually, as we look at our ISR portfolio, that will not only--
I wouldn't say ``replace'' the MQ-9 because the MQ-9 will 
actually be in the force into the middle of the next decade, 
but it is the force mix of capability that is required that 
includes the MQ-9, but other platforms. What likely we will be 
able to do is come back to you in a classified briefing to 
provide you some details on those other programs.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. And again, I understand the 
constraints the Air Force is grappling with in this year's 
budget. I further understand and support the bias the services 
must have towards modernizing to win in the future operating 
environment. And while I support any efforts the service may be 
making towards the next-generation capability, we cannot 
overlook the incredible value the MQ-9 platform provides to 
commanders today. The MQ-9 is the most cost-effective platform 
the Air Force owns. It flies 11 percent of the total Air Force 
flying hours at only 2.6 percent of the Air Force's total 
flying hour cost. So, no other aircraft provides this much 
capability at this cost point--none.
    So, this leads me to my second question, General Brown. 
Would continued procurement of the MQ-9 at levels consistent 
with the fiscal year 2021 NDAA place potential development of 
next-generation unmanned capabilities at risk?
    General Brown. I appreciate the question, but I would say 
it would. And this is where, as the Air Force Chief of Staff, 
and as I look to the future, it is how we balance between our 
current capabilities to support today's requirements with the 
MQ-9 that will be here until the middle of the next decade, but 
also having capabilities so that we can actually still be able 
to operate into the future. It provides ISR capability that is 
not only persistent like the MQ-9, but it is connected, and 
also survivable in what I expect potentially to be a highly 
contested environment in the future.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, General Brown. And I look forward 
to following up with you and working closely with the Air Force 
to protect this vital capability.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Horsford.
    Mr. Carl, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member 
Rogers.
    Gentlemen, I would like to talk about the KC-46. Although I 
am a freshman to Congress here, I am not a freshman in the KC-
46 program. I was actually part of the team that put together 
the package with Airbus to bring it into Mobile, Alabama, which 
we do have it there now, Airbus USA. So I am very familiar. We 
won the contract; we lost the contract; we won the contract; we 
lost the contract.
    So, here we sit 10 years later, we are 7 years behind 
delivery on this project so far. Now we are being told it is 
going to 2024 before it is ever delivered--2024 before it is 
ever delivered. That is going to put it, roughly, another--it 
is going to put it 10 years behind, roughly, not to mention all 
the upcharges on the spare parts.
    My question is to you, General Brown. Our fleet, our 
fighters that are in Europe, do I understand it correctly that 
we are refueling those in behind an Airbus tanker in Europe 
right now?
    General Brown. Actually, our fighters and aircraft all 
across the world operate with their allies and partners. The 
bulk of our air refueling is done by----
    Mr. Carl. But we do have an Airbus that can refuel it?
    General Brown. We do.
    Mr. Carl. Okay.
    General Brown. But we also have a number of other 
capabilities, mostly the United States Air Force using the KC-
135 in Europe.
    Mr. Carl. Okay, the KC-135. But we are paying right now for 
a KC-46 being delivered, and it has got practically no use for 
what it was actually being built for at this moment.
    So, my next question is, Mr. Roth, knowing that we have got 
an aircraft that can be built in America, that could have been 
already delivered because we are up to about three a month 
coming out of Mobile right now--not this particular plane, but, 
basically, the same scale--why are we not bringing this back up 
for a bid? We are 4 years down the road today, or 3 years down 
the road today, according to Boeing's numbers, which could 
easily change to another 3 years.
    Why are we not looking at splitting this contract up? Where 
is our sense of loyalty here? Are we more loyal to--and I don't 
mean to put you on the spot, talk down to you this way, but the 
taxpayers are paying for something we are not receiving. So, I 
show no loyalty to what Boeing is doing to us here. So, my 
question is, why are we not rebidding this and looking at it 
again?
    Mr. Roth. Again, as we discussed this morning, our sense 
from both an operational and from a business management 
perspective right now is to try to make the current contract 
work as best we can. I take your point in terms of the history 
of the contract, but we think we would be best served. We are 
concerned that, if we try to go into a new contractual vehicle, 
that that would put additional delays into the program that we 
simply don't think would be efficacious for us. We are in a 
mode of accepting the KC-46s. We are trying to rightsize the 
tanker fleet by retiring older tankers while we bring the KC-46 
in. I will take your point. We will look at it. But, right now, 
our business sense is that we need to work with all our 
stakeholders to make the KC-46 program work as best we can.
    Mr. Carl. In all due respect, sir, I have been in business 
for my entire life. If I had a contract with somebody and I was 
4 years behind delivering or 10 years behind, I think they 
would have a right to even ask for a discount. I brought that 
up at one point, which everyone laughed at me on the discount 
idea. But we are dealing with--yes, that is okay. I have had 
several laugh at me about that.
    But, please, let's take a look at this. It is not just 
building the aircraft in Mobile. It is not just building the 
aircraft with a company that is in my district. It is about 
building an aircraft. I am worried about our Air Force and our 
refueling possibilities of our aging aircraft. It is a huge 
issue that I think we really need to push to the front of 
profits of anybody--anybody.
    And I respect you all's job. I respect you being here today 
and I appreciate your service to this country.
    And, General Raymond, I am sorry we don't hit you with 
tough questions today. You get a free ride.
    Okay. Well, thank you, and I return my time back. Thank 
you.
    Mrs. Luria. And thank you, Mr. Carl.
    Mr. Franklin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    A number of my previous questions have been asked. So, I 
have got one that may be a little unfair for you, but I want to 
ask it anyway, just because it is something that I am curious 
about as we get all these posture hearings.
    But a lot of talk in both written and oral testimony about 
the threat of China. We all know that. That is not just what we 
are hearing here today. It has come from all the other services 
as well. But I notice in the written testimony, and as we have 
seen in all the other services, the talk of climate change. I 
am curious, Secretary Roth, is there money allocated within 
this current year budget for climate change programs or 
anything that the Department of the Air Force or the Space 
Command have any purview over?
    Mr. Roth. There is money in our budget. For example, we 
budgeted $68 million to, essentially, improve our installation 
resilience, taking a look, for example, at power sources and 
water sources, and see if there is some targeted investments we 
can make to improve our resilience in that area. We also have, 
as part of that $68 million, we will look at where our 
cybersecurity vulnerabilities are on bases, and we also look to 
see where we can make some improvements in our emergency 
management procedures, and when something does happen, what are 
some improved procedures and processes that we can put in 
place. So, that is the only money I am aware of that is 
explicitly targeted for climate change installation resilience.
    I would also say, in terms of our operational requirements, 
operational resilience is very important to us as well, and 
particularly, aircraft engines. In the total DOD enterprise, 
we, the Air Force, use about two-thirds of the fuel that is 
spent by the entire DOD enterprise, largely driven, obviously, 
by our airplanes. And so, to the extent that we can invest in 
new technologies as we re-engine, for example, the B-52, or as 
we look to the next-generation aircraft, if we can reduce the 
fuel consumption by some significant percentage, that would be 
an enormous readiness improvement because it would reduce our 
logistics footprint, as we try to do agile basing and moving 
people around as well. So, we also have some targeted 
investments that predate some of this to look in terms of, can 
we reduce our fuel usage and reduce our logistics footprint as 
well?
    Mr. Franklin. All right. Thank you.
    It is just a concern to me that our Commander in Chief says 
that the number one threat to the United States national 
security is climate change, and yet, I am not hearing that 
coming from the services. I am just glad to know that, even 
though the top-line budget isn't what most of the services 
would like, that you are not specifically feeling the haircut 
on that with climate change initiatives. But thank you.
    And I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Franklin.
    Mr. Green has rejoined us. Mr. Green, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Green. Thank you very much. I thank the chairman and, 
of course, ranking member.
    And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
    The United States Air Force is clearly the best air force 
in the world, and I think it is a combination of Congress 
making sure that you have the resources that you need and great 
predecessors and your work. To the generals who are here for us 
today, General Brown, your work, your predecessors' work in 
leading the institution of the United States Air Force to 
greatness--I have deployed many times as an Army physician and 
infantry officer with the support of the Air Force. And I must 
tell you, when you talk about cutting A-10s, we Army guys get 
really scared about that, but I understand.
    I also want to thank you. I have listened in and out today, 
because I have had to go back and forth between HASC [House 
Armed Services Committee] and Foreign Affairs, to the comments 
about China and the pacing threat, and I really appreciate the 
recognition of that.
    My first question is really about their increased activity 
in Taiwanese airspace, you know, the invasions of Taiwan's 
airspace. We built our military to deter first, and then, when 
they can't deter, then fight and win the wars. Do you feel as 
if this increase in Taiwan shows that perhaps our deterrent 
effect with China has deteriorated or isn't where we need it to 
be?
    General Brown. What I would tell you is there is probably a 
combination of the two, in the fact that, as you see, the 
People's Liberation Army Air Force continue to increase its 
capability and its operational tempo, which I saw as the PACAF 
commander in watching how they were, actually, in some cases 
based on world events or regional events, will increase their 
tempo to put pressure on our partners in the region. We see 
that with Taiwan. We saw that recently with Malaysia. And it is 
a technique that has been used by the Chinese to put pressure 
on us.
    At the same time, though, I think the ability of the United 
States Air Force with our joint partners, particularly being 
able to operate in international areas to fly, sail, and 
operate whenever international law allows, is an important 
aspect to discredit the activity by the Chinese.
    Dr. Green. Yes, the question is deterrence, of course, and 
we want to make sure that that mission of deterrence is--that 
you guys are excelling at that. So, I just want to make sure 
you are properly resourced to do that, so that these kinds of 
escalations don't occur, because that is where the danger is.
    A quick question, and I know the point has been made 
earlier, but, you know, if a cut in inflation-adjusted dollars, 
you know, if you have a spending increase and it is less than 
inflation, you have a real dollar decrease. And it looks like, 
according to our analysis, you are going to wind up with, at 
DOD at least, a $4 billion cut. I know that President Biden is 
not a fiscal conservative. They are increasing the non-DOD non-
discretionary spending by 16 percent, significantly above 
inflation. Yes, I have a real--you know, going back to that 
question of deterrence, going back to this pacing threat, I 
mean, are these cuts going to cause you an inability to do that 
deterrence mission, and that, if deterrence fails?
    General Brown. I will tell you it makes it more 
challenging. And the aspect of not having adequate funding or 
having an Air Force the size that is required to execute what 
has been asked of us, does create additional challenges. And 
this is why it is important for us to really do the right 
analysis, wargaming, to lay out the best capability for the 
best force mix for the United States Air Force in support of 
our joint teammates and working, also, with the rest of the 
other services, to ensure we have the capabilities to be able 
to deter, as you describe.
    Dr. Green. If I could get to that sensitive topic of the A-
10s, and I really just would love to hear assurance that, as we 
downsize that force to make it more cost-effective from a 
maintenance standpoint, we are still able--that close-air 
support mission that we rely so much on the Air Force for and 
the Army, I want to know that it is on your radar screen and 
what your plans are to make sure that that mission is still 
excelled.
    General Brown. It is definitely still on our radar screen. 
This is why the A-10s that we will have remaining--and they are 
really the bulk of the A-10s that we will have remaining 
because we are only reducing a small percentage--will still be 
modernized. And that mission set for close air support is not 
only with the A-10, but it is other capability that the United 
States Air Force provides to do close air support as well. So, 
it is definitely on our radar.
    Dr. Green. Understand.
    Thank you. Chairman, I yield.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Green.
    Mr. Jackson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
Rogers, for holding the hearing today.
    I also want to thank Secretary Roth, General Brown, and 
General Raymond for being here today. Thank you, sir. During my 
brief tenure in Congress, I have met many people, more people 
than I can count, from DOD. However, the Department of the Air 
Force, including all three of you, have been phenomenal in 
working with my team. And I want to tell you, thank you.
    General Brown, you were the very first DOD senior leader to 
reach out to me and introduce yourself, once I was elected, and 
I really appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Your leadership has 
set an example for the rest of the Air Force, as has the team 
at Sheppard Air Force Base. They directly welcomed me with open 
arms from the base, from base leadership all the way down to 
the young airmen that I got to speak to when I was there just a 
few weeks after being sworn in. So, thank you, sir, for that, 
and the leadership there.
    General Brown, I greatly appreciate your offer to come 
visit Sheppard Air Force Base with me, I think to see the NATO 
[North Atlantic Treaty Organization] jet pilot training program 
on the base later this year. I look forward to seeing that 
happen. My staff is going to work with your staff, and 
hopefully, we can find a time and get that scheduled. Thank 
you, sir.
    My first question, the current child development center 
[CDC] at Sheppard Air Force Base was constructed in 1973 as a 
military detainment facility initially. Earlier this year, 
Secretary Roth sent me a letter stating that Sheppard CDC was 
going to be the number one priority for CDC MILCON [military 
construction], and the Air Force. I have the letter here. Madam 
Chair, I ask unanimous consent that this letter received from 
Secretary Roth be entered into the record.
    Mrs. Luria. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 97.]
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Roth. I greatly appreciate your 
engagement. Thank you, sir.
    I also appreciate the follow-through, as I was glad to see 
full funding for the Sheppard CDC military construction project 
in this year's budget request.
    Mr. Roth, I just wanted to confirm that this is still a top 
CDC MILCON project for the Air Force.
    Mr. Roth. Yes, sir, the fact that it is in the budget I 
think answers your question.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    My second question, I want to shift to the CV-22 nacelle 
improvement modifications. This work will increase overall 
aircraft readiness and availability. It will reduce platform 
operating lifecycle costs and mitigate the impacts to the 
aircraft performance and survivability. These all sound like 
critical improvements to me. So, we need to bring as much of 
this work forward as we can.
    Mr. Roth, could you explain to the committee exactly what 
the CV-22 nacelle improvement program hopes to accomplish, and 
does the Air Force support accelerating the CV-22 nacelle 
improvement program?
    Mr. Roth. Yes, to the best of my understanding. I had to 
learn a little bit about this, but, yes, for this hearing, but 
it is, in fact, a critical area for the CV-22, providing the 
unique ability to fly vertically and horizontally. So, the 
improvement effort, which is occurring at Bell's Amarillo 
Assembly Center, will improve our readiness and it will reduce 
our repair time associated with the nacelle. So, we structured 
a contract to accommodate and accelerate its purchase, and if 
additional funding becomes available, we will accelerate it 
perhaps even further.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, sir. The workforce at Bell in 
Amarillo stands ready to complete that work.
    The last thing I would like to talk about real quickly is 
the Advanced Pilot Training Program and the new T-7A Red Hawk, 
which will be replacing the aging T-38 fleet. Some of these T-
38s have been flown in my district over 50 years, and we have 
seen too many of these aircraft with serious safety issues. 
When I was reviewing the budget request for this year, I 
noticed that funding for the Advanced Pilot Training Program 
was decreased relative to what last year's Future Years Defense 
Program had laid out.
    General Brown, is this program that has seen a cut because 
of the proposed overall budget decrease that is not in line 
with the National Defense Strategy? And can you tell us what 
has changed regarding the new request or requirement, and what 
are the potential consequences of this decrease in funding?
    General Brown. Well, the decrease in funding, particularly 
on the T-7, was based on milestone C and some technical issues 
that had that slide a bit to the right. Our focus and 
commitment to the T-7 has not waned. We just want to make sure 
the money aligns with where the program is.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, sir, well, I appreciate that. And I will 
do my part on the committee here to try to make sure that we 
meet our commitment there.
    Thank you all for your responses. I am in favor of finding 
ways to save money where we can, but investments in our Air 
Force and our people are going to be critical to ensuring we 
are able to compete and win on the global stage. I look forward 
to working with each of you and my colleagues here on the 
committee to address the pacing threats and the accelerating 
threat that we face, and to provide our young men and women the 
training and the resources they need to accomplish their 
mission.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
    And I will now recognize our last member to ask questions. 
Mr. Moore, thank you for your patience. And our witnesses as 
well, thank you for staying to answer all of the members' 
questions. Mr. Moore, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am last on the list, 
but number one in our hearts, I think, right?
    [Laughter.]
    I am going to echo what Representative Jackson said. In my 
6 months, the three of you stand out as being extremely 
available and willing to be collaborative, as we solve 
problems, as we work to celebrate wins, and interact. I view 
our role as that from Congress with the Department of Defense. 
And you three exemplify that. So, thank you for that time that 
you have spent with our team.
    I will be very plain here. The budget is inadequate. That 
has been discussed. One thing that I was excited to see was 
that the GBSD program is funded, fully funded, through fiscal 
year 2022. As I have dug into this issue, I also keep it very 
simple, in that nuclear deterrence has saved lives on this 
globe; it has reduced conflict; it is a part, and should be a 
part, of our strategy going forward. And if that is the case, 
we must invest in it. It is very simple and very clear to me. I 
get that there is a lot of complexity with it, and we are 
willing to dig into those details, again, in that collaborative 
way, but the data are clear and we have seen too much success 
to let that go by the wayside. So, it is an area that we are 
focused on. I will ask a couple of questions on that to 
Secretary Roth.
    Can you just share with us anything, in particular, as we 
wrap up today's hearing? What is being done to ensure that that 
stays on track?
    Mr. Roth. Well, again, you and I had the opportunity to 
visit the program offices on both the government side and on 
the contractor's side. And what I walked away very impressed 
with is on both sides they are using the most modern 
techniques, the most modern digital engineering, the digital 
trinity in terms of using open systems architecture, agile 
software, using the digital engineering, and the like. So, so 
far that has been working out extraordinarily well, and both 
sides claim that they are committed to going forward. So, 
they've hit every significant milestone to date, and that is a 
good sign, early in the program to be sure, but they are 
hitting every milestone so far.
    And to your point, we take very seriously our piece of the 
nuclear triad. We own two-thirds of the nuclear triad. This is 
the ground portion of that. And so, it is in all of our 
interest.
    We have lost margin in terms of delaying this as long as we 
have delayed it. So, we need to get on with it. If there is any 
significant delay in the program, it increases risks 
dramatically, and that is not what we want to do.
    Mr. Moore. Okay.
    Mr. Roth. So, it is incumbent now on the program managers 
to keep the program on track, and I am very confident that we 
have excellent leadership on both sides.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. And that was the next question: are 
there any additional consequences by delaying it--some members 
have suggested doing that--to allow for less pressure on the 
Air Force budget? What would you see as any particular 
consequences in delaying it?
    Mr. Roth. Well, again, in a sense, you are where you are. 
We have delayed making a decision on the Minuteman III and its 
follow-on for a decade or more. And so, we have lost margin, 
period. And so, if we want a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear 
deterrent that is an ICBM, GBSD is it.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. Thank you.
    And, General Brown, every time I visit the Ogden Air 
Logistics Complex, the depot work that is being done in my 
district, I learn something new. There is a lot of discussion, 
also, around the F-35, but I find it worth highlighting that 
the F-35 has the best mission-capable rate of fighters in the 
Air Force, and that has improved from 61 percent to 76 percent 
between fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020, an important 
thing to note.
    And my question, in a more broad sense, is I am proud of 
the resiliency and the patriotism displayed through the 
pandemic, and the fact that depots suffered little to no delay 
in aircraft maintenance and contributed to the success, 
building off of the great work from our air logistics 
complexes. Can you provide an update on the Air Force organic 
industrial base plan and what the Air Force is doing to invest 
and improve in our depot facilities?
    General Brown. Sure. It is part of the organic industrial 
base masterplan. It is how we take a look at how we reduce 
cost. And so, it is really a 20-year look to not only look at 
how we keep up with what the capacities are required today, 
catch up where we are behind and really leap forward.
    Over the course of the past four budget cycles, we have put 
about $2 billion into our three depots around the Air Force. 
But the key part is now, how do we look to the future and kind 
of lead up? And some of this is actually how we restructure 
some of our depots, how we do robotic aspects of our depots, to 
include like, for example, laser paint removal for some of our 
fighters, and it is using the technology to help work that 
process. At the same time, we have got an outstanding workforce 
and they have done great work throughout the pandemic as well 
to keep us on track.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. Thank you.
    And my time is up, but I would just like to also comment, 
General Raymond, no one would care more about their guardians 
and that workforce than you, and I see that exemplified. We 
would love another chance to dig into some of the issues and 
the developments that you would like to see there. So, sorry we 
ran out of time.
    General Raymond. No worries. Thank you.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you, Mr. Moore.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses for your thoughtful 
testimony and taking the time to present the budget to the 
committee.
    Just a few closing words as we wrap up. I just wanted to 
say that I agree with Mr. Moore and his comments. I think that 
the nuclear deterrent remains the cornerstone of our national 
defense and appreciate the Air Force's role in maintaining that 
critical deterrent for our Nation.
    And secondly, just pivoting back to the comments that 
Admiral Davidson made to the Senate earlier this year, I think 
you heard many members reflect on the fact that we think there 
is a sense of urgency and immediacy to making sure that we can 
counter any threats in the Pacific today.
    So, I will close there and the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

?

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



 
                            A P P E N D I X

                             June 16, 2021

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

      

?

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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             June 16, 2021

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

      
      
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.001
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.002
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.003
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.004
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.005
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.006
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.007
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.008
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.009
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.010
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.011
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.012
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.013
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.014
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.015
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.016
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.017
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.018
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.019
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.020
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.021
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.022
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.023
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.024
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.025
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.026
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.027
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.028
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.029
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.030
    

.eps?

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


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             June 16, 2021

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

      

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7821.031
    

.eps?

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             June 16, 2021

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

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN

    Mr. Roth. The Department of the Air Force has programmed $42 
million for environmental studies and surveys at potential sites for 
modern, 6th-generation Over-The-Horizon Radars (OTHR) in Fiscal Year 
2021 (FY21) and Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22). These environmental and site 
surveys will further define the requirements and future for the Alaska 
NWS radar sites. The Department of Defense (DOD) also recently 
contracted for a feasibility study of communications architecture 
improvements for these NWS radar sites, to include terrestrial 
linkages. Currently, the site surveys are on-going.   [See page 16.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. DesJARLAIS
    Mr. Roth. Due to cost and the desire to prevent Service duplication 
of efforts, the Department's OSD/Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) 
is the lead for all hypersonic test infrastructure investment. Using 
its hypersonic investment roadmap, OSD/TRMC is funding in FY22 a new 
high temperature aeroshell materials test facility at Arnold 
Engineering Development Complex (AEDC). This facility will address the 
test capacity issue as cited in the 2021 AF Assessment of the Air Force 
Flight Test Center.   [See page 33.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
    Mr. Roth. No families are living in poor or failing Department of 
the Air Force housing units. Any units that are unfit for occupancy for 
various reasons (pending demolition, pending renovation, pending 
remediation, being used as model units, being used as storage 
facilities) are offline and families are not assigned to these units.   
[See page 42.]
    Mr. Roth. We appreciate your support in helping us remain 
competitive in recruiting and retaining tech talent. The recent 
expanded direct hiring authorities in the FY21 NDAA have been very 
helpful in improving our efforts. The DAF is investing in robust talent 
management and dynamic modern, scalable training to attract, develop, 
motivate, and retain qualified personnel to build a modern, innovative, 
and agile cyber warfare workforce. Of note is the former SECAF's 
Premier College Intern Program. This initiative focuses on hiring and 
recruitment of summer interns with possible follow on employment and 
supplemental training into a DAF formal developmental program. The DAF 
hires 500 PCIP positions each fiscal year in science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), Cyber, Acquisition, Intelligence, 
and other mission critical specialties. Additionally, the DAF has 
established a Talent Acquisition Division to fill mission critical, 
hard to fill positions. This division is successfully filling a large 
variety of critical positions via virtual recruiting fairs. A recent 
virtual event for the Air Force Life Cycle Center resulted in filling 
all 77 vacancies targeted for hire. The Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense, Acquisition and Sustainment with support from the Defense 
Digital Services recently submitted to Congress the ``Fiscal Year 2020 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 230 (Policy on the 
Talent Management of Digital Expertise and Software Professionals) 
Strategy & Implementation Plan''. The DAF is currently waiting on 
further policy guidance from DCPAS. A kick-off of the Section 230 
Digital Talent Management Forum is planned in late July and members 
from across DOD including the services have been invited. The United 
States Space Force (USSF) is leveraging existing personnel hiring 
authorities to tap directly into the digital labor workforce for 
technical talent that can be strategically infused into our force 
structure. To maximize our ability to attract digital talent USSF will 
work to offer compensation and/or incentives tied to a person's 
experience and/or technical competency, for both the military and 
civilian workforce.   [See page 42.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    General Raymond. Regarding Tactically Responsive Launch, the US 
launch industry is the envy of the world and the Department of Defense 
is in step with our industry. The US Space Force has a dedicated office 
for enhanced coordination with emerging launch providers, and we are 
actively pairing research and development satellite requirements with 
cutting edge domestic launch technology--some of which may utilize 
responsive launch opportunities. The USSF currently has eight small 
launch providers on contract through our existing contracts (Small 
Rocket Program-Orbital and Orbital Services Program-4), and the plan is 
to on-ramp new qualified vendors every year to continue to leverage 
industry innovation. This procurement line (PE RSPL00--PSF--P-18) has 
historically budgeted for launch services every other year and the USSF 
intends to increase this cadence to annual launch services. Regarding 
ranges, the Department of Defense continues to evaluate the space 
architectures and their supporting capabilities to meet warfighting 
requirements. A 2019 RAND study, Assessing U.S. Space Launch Locations 
to Support the National Security Space Launch Program, found there are 
sufficient capacities at the Eastern and Western Ranges, as measured by 
the annual launch rates supported by the ranges, to meet current and 
forecasted demand by National Security Space, civil, and commercial 
customers. RAND also found risks from natural hazards are manageable, 
and a limited proliferation of spaceports is unlikely to enhance 
resilience to manmade threats. Their recommendation, which we support, 
is to ensure adequate funding for Eastern and Western Ranges (see PE 
1203182SF--RDT&E, SF--R-41 and Budget Line SPRNGE--Procurement, SF--P-
21) and to leverage the capabilities of commercial and state-owned 
spaceports for DOD and NRO missions where launch requirements match the 
Spaceports' capabilities.   [See page 47.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
    General Brown. In FY22 the Air Force plans to procure 525 JASSM 
(Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), which includes 280x AGM-158B, 
210x AGM-158B2, and 35x AGM-158D. While I cannot talk to numbers of 
bombers in the Western Pacific and their load-outs in an unclassified 
setting, I would like to offer you a classified briefing as a follow 
up. We can cover USAF capabilities supporting USINDOPACOM in further 
detail. NAVSEA would be the most appropriate source to answer questions 
on quickstrike mines, and that conversation may require higher 
classification levels.   [See page 20.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
    Mr. Roth. The Department of the Air Force is aware that Redstone 
Arsenal is on the EPA's National Priorities List as a Superfund site. 
Initial analysis indicates that the Superfund site does not impact the 
site chosen as the preferred location for the U.S. Space Command 
Headquarters (USSPACECOM HQ). The Department is currently in the 
process of conducting an analysis in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the final decision for the 
USSPACECOM HQ will be informed by the NEPA-compliant analysis and 
documentation.   [See page 22.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
    Mr. Roth. Yes. Boeing proposed the Honeywell Navigational Light 
(HNL) for the KC-46 Japan Spares contract at a unit price more than 
1500% above the previous unit price. Boeing's specific price 
information is proprietary information protected from release. The Air 
Force could not make a fair and reasonable price determination on 
approximately 12% of Boeing's total proposed contract price due to the 
lack of information from Boeing to support cost or price analysis 
related to commercial spares. However, Boeing's total proposed price 
did not exceed the Letter of Offer and Acceptance amount agreed to by 
Japan for this requirement. After nearly 18 months of requests for 
information to support negotiations, all Government actions failed to 
elicit the requested information from Boeing. Therefore, Major General 
Cameron Holt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting within the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics) and the Air Force Head of the Contracting 
Activity determined, in accordance with 10 U.S.C Section 
2306a(d)(2)(A), that award of the contract was in the best interest of 
the Government given the unsuccessful efforts made to secure adequate 
pricing information, the Government of Japan's need for the spares, and 
the increased costs and harm to the United States Government if the 
award was not made. The KC-46 program is planning to procure spare 
parts through competitive contract.   [See page 25.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
    General Brown. There is no impact to GBSD fielding based on the 
current W87-1 development and fielding plan. The W87-0, currently 
deployed on Minuteman III, will be the initial warhead deployed on 
GBSD. The W87-1, which the Department of Energy's National Nuclear 
Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) is scheduled to deliver its first 
production unit warhead in 2030, will be the second warhead deployed on 
GBSD. Program management for GBSD and W87-1 is tightly coupled to 
ensure these two systems meet their own individual program requirements 
as well as U.S. national security goals and objectives. A key element 
supporting warhead development is the DOE/NNSA pit production strategy. 
Production of new pits to support the W87-1 will come from Los Alamos 
National Laboratory. The first W87-1 pit will be produced in 2023, 
seven years ahead of the W87-1 first production unit date. NNSA is on 
track to achieve a 30 plutonium pit per year production capacity at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory by 2026.   [See page 27.]
     
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             June 16, 2021

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

    Mr. Turner. Research and development of offensive and defensive 
hypersonic weapons systems has skyrocketed over the last several years, 
with the service aiming at delivery to the warfighter in early 2020s. 
Ongoing development of these systems is critical if we are going to 
maintain parity with China and Russia. Recently, there has been 
increasing interest in reusable hypersonic flight as the next step of 
development. These are traditional, though very fast, aircraft with 
both military and commercial applications. Can you describe the current 
direction of reusable high Mach and hypersonic flight development and 
some of the lines of effort you plan to pursue over the next few years? 
At current resourcing levels, when might we see first flight of a 
reusable hypersonic flight system? How might an increase in budget 
accelerate this timeline? And are there any particular lines of effort 
where additional resources would be most impactful?
    Mr. Roth. Reusable high-Mach systems are in early development for 
commercial transportation by several aerospace companies. The 
Department of Defense and NASA are conducting long-term science and 
technology activities that are complementary with the industrial 
developments. Reusable high-Mach systems have the potential to provide 
the military with flexible on-demand strike, surveillance, and 
targeting in highly contested environments, feeding the joint force 
with critically needed information and promptly accessing targets in 
defended areas and responsive space launch to rapidly reconstitute 
critical space-based assets.
    The Department of the Air Force (DAF) is working with the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and NASA to 
develop a national strategy for High Mach and Hypersonic Aircraft. The 
strategy will leverage previous and ongoing investments in expendable 
hypersonic weapons to develop the future technologies required for 
reusable hypersonic flight. The DAF also plans to pursue technology 
development in aerodynamics, propulsion, structures and power 
generation that enable future expendable and reusable hypersonic multi-
mission platforms. For example, DAF is collaborating with DARPA and 
NASA to develop turbine-based combined-cycle propulsion technologies 
for hypersonic aircraft. The Department of Defense does not currently 
have a program to field reusable hypersonic aircraft. Reusable 
hypersonic aircraft could one day enable military ISR/strike, 
commercial point-to-point transportation, and dual-use responsive space 
launch. The Department of the Air Force is working with DOD and NASA 
partners to develop a national strategy to determine the cost, 
schedule, programs, and test and evaluation infrastructure to develop 
and field a reusable hypersonic aircraft. Additional resources are 
required for advanced technology development to mature technologies for 
propulsion; materials and structures; advanced fuels, thermal 
management, and power generation; and mission systems for ISR and 
strike payloads. Additional prototyping resources would permit system 
development, manufacturing, and flight tests. Additional test and 
evaluation resources would modify existing test and evaluation 
facilities or build new facilities to conduct large-scale aerodynamic, 
propulsion and structures ground testing.
    Mr. Turner. What is the state of our hypersonic testing 
infrastructure? What additional investments are needed to ensure that 
we can accommodate the testing needed across the spectrum--from 
expendable weapons systems to reusable hypersonic aircraft? Many of the 
technologies developed for expendable hypersonic weapons, like 
materials and hypersonic test facilities, have crossover applicability 
to reusable hypersonic flight. Others, like propulsion, require unique 
development activities. In the near-term, what steps are being taken to 
transfer expendable weapons program gains into reusable high Mach 
flight programs? And what can this committee do to better support 
continued research and testing progress on technologies unique to 
reusable high Mach flight? Hypersonic Space Launch--Service leaders 
have been discussing responsive space access for many years, looking to 
rapidly reconstitute critical space based assets degraded by an 
adversary in a conflict. Yet the primary challenge remains--we have a 
limited number of rockets to launch from a limited number of sites. 
Recently there has been increasing conversation in the public and 
private sector about the utility of reusable hypersonic aircraft to act 
as the first stage of a launch to low earth orbit. Can you discuss the 
potential of reusable hypersonic aircraft based space launch and steps 
you are taking to ensure research efforts are appropriately funded and 
policy and regulatory issues are being addressed?
    Mr. Roth. As reflected in the March 2021 Air Force's Assessment of 
the Air Force Test Center, the hypersonic test capabilities are at max 
capacity as well as in need of investment to meet emerging DOD 
requirements. The most notable test capacity shortfall is the aeroshell 
material testing area. The current hypersonic thermal test facility was 
originally designed for limited capacity use. As the DOD's investment 
lead for hypersonic test capabilities, OSD/Test Resource Management 
Center (TRMC) will fund in FY22 a new aeroshell material test facility 
at Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC). The AF has provided 
additional funding for facility sustainment, repair and modernization 
for hypersonic test facilities at AEDC starting in FY22. The most 
critical areas of hypersonic test infrastructure in need of 
modernization or development are aeroshell material test capacity, 
improved flight test capabilities, air breathing propulsion ground test 
capability, hypersonic ground testing via the high speed test track, 
end game lethality testing, seeker and sensor test capabilities when 
exposed to hypersonic flow, and weather effects on hypersonic weapons 
while flying through snow/rain/ice at hypersonic speeds. The OSD Test 
Resource Management Center is the Department's hypersonic test 
infrastructure investment lead and will be able to provide more 
detailed responses on the aforementioned test capabilities needs. The 
Department of the Air Force (DAF) is working with our DOD and NASA 
partners to develop a national strategy for high Mach and hypersonic 
aircraft. The strategy will leverage today's investments in expendable 
weapons design, aerodynamics, gas turbine propulsion, scramjet 
propulsion, endothermic fuels, high temperature materials, and high 
temperature structures required for reusable hypersonic flight. DAF 
also collaborates with DARPA and NASA in developing hypersonic 
combined-cycle propulsion technologies for hypersonic flight that are 
benefiting from past technology advancements in expendable, supersonic 
turbine engines and hydrocarbon-fueled scramjets. The Committee can 
enable continued research and testing progress on technologies unique 
to reusable high Mach flight by supporting the President's Budget for 
science and technology in key areas such as hypersonic propulsion; high 
temperature materials and structures; advanced fuels, thermal 
management, and power generation; and high speed mission systems. 
Hypersonic aircraft can serve as the first stage of a two-stage-to-
orbit launch system to rapidly reconstitute critical space-based assets 
by delivering up to 20,000 pounds of payload to low earth orbit.
    The benefits of aircraft-based space launch systems include more 
flexible basing, fail-safe launch abort capability, and improved 
airspace integration. The Department of the Air Force is presently 
working with OUSD(R&E) and NASA to develop a national strategy to 
determine the cost, schedule, and test infrastructure to develop 
Hypersonic Aircraft that provides aircraft-based, responsive space 
launch capability by 2040. The Department of the Air Force currently 
does not have a program for an aircraft-based responsive space launch 
system, but will continue to assess the need and alternatives for 
responsive space launch and will consider additional resources for 
reusable hypersonic aircraft technology and system development in 
future program reviews as appropriate.
    Mr. Turner. Research and development of offensive and defensive 
hypersonic weapons systems has skyrocketed over the last several years, 
with the service aiming at delivery to the warfighter in early 2020s. 
Ongoing development of these systems is critical if we are going to 
maintain parity with China and Russia. Recently, there has been 
increasing interest in reusable hypersonic flight as the next step of 
development. These are traditional, though very fast, aircraft with 
both military and commercial applications. Can you describe the current 
direction of reusable high Mach and hypersonic flight development and 
some of the lines of effort you plan to pursue over the next few years? 
At current resourcing levels, when might we see first flight of a 
reusable hypersonic flight system? How might an increase in budget 
accelerate this timeline? And are there any particular lines of effort 
where additional resources would be most impactful?
    General Brown. Reusable high-Mach systems are in early development 
for commercial transportation by several aerospace companies. The 
Department of Defense and NASA are conducting long-term science and 
technology activities that are complementary with the industrial 
developments. Reusable high-Mach systems have the potential to provide 
the military with flexible on-demand strike, surveillance, and 
targeting in highly contested environments, feeding the joint force 
with critically needed information and promptly accessing targets in 
defended areas and responsive space launch to rapidly reconstitute 
critical space-based assets.
    The Department of the Air Force (DAF) is working with the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and NASA to 
develop a national strategy for High Mach and Hypersonic Aircraft. The 
strategy will leverage previous and ongoing investments in expendable 
hypersonic weapons to develop the future technologies required for 
reusable hypersonic flight. The DAF also plans to pursue technology 
development in aerodynamics, propulsion, structures and power 
generation that enable future expendable and reusable hypersonic multi-
mission platforms. For example, DAF is collaborating with DARPA and 
NASA to develop turbine-based combined-cycle propulsion technologies 
for hypersonic aircraft. The Department of Defense does not currently 
have a program to field a reusable hypersonic aircraft. Reusable 
hypersonic aircraft could one day enable military ISR/strike, 
commercial point-to-point transportation, and dual-use responsive space 
launch. The DAF is working with DOD and NASA partners to develop a 
national strategy to determine the cost, schedule, programs, and test 
and evaluation infrastructure to develop and field a reusable 
hypersonic aircraft. Additional resources are required for advanced 
technology development to mature technologies for propulsion; materials 
and structures; advanced fuels, thermal management, and power 
generation; and mission systems for ISR and strike payloads. Additional 
prototyping resources would permit system development, manufacturing, 
and flight tests. Additional test and evaluation resources would modify 
existing test and evaluation facilities or build new facilities to 
conduct large-scale aerodynamic, propulsion and structures ground 
testing.
    Mr. Turner. What is the state of our hypersonic testing 
infrastructure? What additional investments are needed to ensure that 
we can accommodate the testing needed across the spectrum--from 
expendable weapons systems to reusable hypersonic aircraft? Many of the 
technologies developed for expendable hypersonic weapons, like 
materials and hypersonic test facilities, have crossover applicability 
to reusable hypersonic flight. Others, like propulsion, require unique 
development activities. In the near-term, what steps are being taken to 
transfer expendable weapons program gains into reusable high Mach 
flight programs? And what can this committee do to better support 
continued research and testing progress on technologies unique to 
reusable high Mach flight? Hypersonic Space Launch--Service leaders 
have been discussing responsive space access for many years, looking to 
rapidly reconstitute critical space based assets degraded by an 
adversary in a conflict. Yet the primary challenge remains--we have a 
limited number of rockets to launch from a limited number of sites. 
Recently there has been increasing conversation in the public and 
private sector about the utility of reusable hypersonic aircraft to act 
as the first stage of a launch to low earth orbit. Can you discuss the 
potential of reusable hypersonic aircraft based space launch and steps 
you are taking to ensure research efforts are appropriately funded and 
policy and regulatory issues are being addressed?
    General Brown. As reflected in the March 2021 Air Force's 
Assessment of the Air Force Test Center, the hypersonic test 
capabilities are at max capacity as well as in need of investment to 
meet emerging DOD requirements. The most notable test capacity 
shortfall is the aeroshell material testing area. The current 
hypersonic thermal test facility was originally designed for limited 
capacity use. As the DOD's investment lead for hypersonic test 
capabilities, OSD/Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) will fund in 
FY22 a new aeroshell material test facility at Arnold Engineering 
Development Complex (AEDC). The AF has provided additional funding for 
facility sustainment, repair and modernization for hypersonic test 
facilities at AEDC starting in FY22. The most critical areas of 
hypersonic test infrastructure in need of modernization or development 
are aeroshell material test capacity, improved flight test 
capabilities, air breathing propulsion ground test capability, 
hypersonic ground testing via the high speed test track, end game 
lethality testing, seeker and sensor test capabilities when exposed to 
hypersonic flow, and weather effects on hypersonic weapons while flying 
through snow/rain/ice at hypersonic speeds. The OSD Test Resource 
Management Center is the Department's hypersonic test infrastructure 
investment lead and will be able to provide more detailed responses on 
the aforementioned test capabilities needs. The Department of the Air 
Force (DAF) is working with our DOD and NASA partners to develop a 
national strategy for high Mach and hypersonic aircraft. The strategy 
will leverage today's investments in expendable weapons design, 
aerodynamics, gas turbine propulsion, scramjet propulsion, endothermic 
fuels, high temperature materials, and high temperature structures 
required for reusable hypersonic flight. DAF also collaborates with 
DARPA and NASA in developing hypersonic combined-cycle propulsion 
technologies for hypersonic flight that are benefiting from past 
technology advancements in expendable, supersonic turbine engines and 
hydrocarbon-fueled scramjets. The Committee can enable continued 
research and testing progress on technologies unique to reusable high 
Mach flight by supporting the President's Budget for science and 
technology in key areas such as hypersonic propulsion; high temperature 
materials and structures; advanced fuels, thermal management, and power 
generation; and high speed mission systems. Hypersonic aircraft can 
serve as the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit launch system to 
rapidly reconstitute critical space-based assets by delivering up to 
20,000 pounds of payload to low earth orbit.
    The benefits of aircraft-based space launch systems include more 
flexible basing, fail-safe launch abort capability, and improved 
airspace integration. The DAF is presently working with OUSD(R&E) and 
NASA to develop a national strategy to determine the cost, schedule, 
and test infrastructure to develop Hypersonic Aircraft that provides 
aircraft-based, responsive space launch capability by 2040. The 
Department of the Air Force currently does not have a requirement for 
an aircraft-based responsive space launch system, but will continue to 
assess the need and alternatives for responsive space launch and will 
consider additional resources for reusable hypersonic aircraft 
technology and system development in future program reviews as 
appropriate.
    Mr. Turner. Research and development of offensive and defensive 
hypersonic weapons systems has skyrocketed over the last several years, 
with the service aiming at delivery to the warfighter in early 2020s. 
Ongoing development of these systems is critical if we are going to 
maintain parity with China and Russia. Recently, there has been 
increasing interest in reusable hypersonic flight as the next step of 
development. These are traditional, though very fast, aircraft with 
both military and commercial applications. Can you describe the current 
direction of reusable high Mach and hypersonic flight development and 
some of the lines of effort you plan to pursue over the next few years? 
At current resourcing levels, when might we see first flight of a 
reusable hypersonic flight system? How might an increase in budget 
accelerate this timeline? And are there any particular lines of effort 
where additional resources would be most impactful?
    General  Raymond. While the Department of Defense does not 
currently have a requirement for reusable hypersonic aircraft, the 
Department of the Air Force is doing early work with our DOD and NASA 
partners to determine the projects, programs, and test and evaluation 
infrastructure needed to develop and field a reusable hypersonic 
aircraft. The resultant strategy will leverage today's investments in 
expendable weapons design, aerodynamics, gas turbine propulsion, 
scramjet propulsion, endothermic fuels, high temperature materials, and 
high temperature structures required for reusable hypersonic flight. 
Additionally, organizations such as AFWERX are pursuing advancements in 
supersonic or hypersonic aircraft through the SBIR/STTR program. 
Further, AFWERX and partner organizations are investigating teaming 
with industry on supersonic or hypersonic transport technologies with 
the resurgence in commercial interest, investment, and development. The 
Department of Defense does not currently have a program to field a 
reusable hypersonic aircraft. With our planning work just beginning, it 
is too soon to reasonably predict a first flight date or how additional 
funding might accelerate that date. Additional resources would be 
impactful for advanced technology development to mature technologies 
for propulsion; materials and structures; advanced fuels, thermal 
management, and power generation; and mission systems for ISR and 
strike payloads. Additional prototyping resources would permit system 
development, manufacturing, and flight tests. Additional test and 
evaluation resources would modify existing test and evaluation 
facilities or build new facilities to conduct large-scale aerodynamic, 
propulsion, and structures ground testing.
    Mr. Turner. What is the state of our hypersonic testing 
infrastructure? What additional investments are needed to ensure that 
we can accommodate the testing needed across the spectrum--from 
expendable weapons systems to reusable hypersonic aircraft? Many of the 
technologies developed for expendable hypersonic weapons, like 
materials and hypersonic test facilities, have crossover applicability 
to reusable hypersonic flight. Others, like propulsion, require unique 
development activities. In the near-term, what steps are being taken to 
transfer expendable weapons program gains into reusable high Mach 
flight programs? And what can this committee do to better support 
continued research and testing progress on technologies unique to 
reusable high Mach flight? Hypersonic Space Launch--Service leaders 
have been discussing responsive space access for many years, looking to 
rapidly reconstitute critical space based assets degraded by an 
adversary in a conflict. Yet the primary challenge remains--we have a 
limited number of rockets to launch from a limited number of sites. 
Recently there has been increasing conversation in the public and 
private sector about the utility of reusable hypersonic aircraft to act 
as the first stage of a launch to low earth orbit. Can you discuss the 
potential of reusable hypersonic aircraft based space launch and steps 
you are taking to ensure research efforts are appropriately funded and 
policy and regulatory issues are being addressed?
    General  Raymond. As reflected in the March 2021 Air Force's 
Assessment of the Air Force Test Center, the hypersonic test 
capabilities are at max capacity as well as in need of investment to 
meet emerging DOD requirements. The most notable test capacity 
shortfall is the aeroshell material testing area. The current 
hypersonic thermal test facility was originally designed for limited 
capacity use. As the DOD's investment lead for hypersonic test 
capabilities, OSD/Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) will fund in 
FY22 a new aeroshell material test facility at Arnold Engineering 
Development Complex (AEDC). The AF has provided additional funding for 
facility sustainment, repair and modernization for hypersonic test 
facilities at AEDC starting in FY22. The Department of the Air Force 
can adequately test existing hypersonic prototypes, to include the Air 
Force AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). Future 
testing needs are being addressed through the Test Resource Management 
Center's (TRMC's) strategic planning process. The TRMC process, in 
coordination with the Services, allows the Department of Defense to 
anticipate the increased demand for testing hypersonic systems and 
prioritized $768 million (Fiscal Year 2021 President's Budget) to 
address the most important hypersonic test infrastructure capability 
and capacity needs. The Department of Defense is considering an 
additional investment of $548 million to support the acceleration of 
expendable hypersonic weapon systems. Investments under consideration 
include increased capability and capacity at important ground test 
facilities, airborne test instrumentation platforms to improve flight 
test data collection, and additional long-range flight test corridors 
to augment the existing Trans-Pacific corridor. The Department of the 
Air Force (DAF) is working with our DOD and NASA partners to develop a 
national strategy for high Mach and hypersonic aircraft. The strategy 
will leverage today's investments in expendable weapons design, 
aerodynamics, gas turbine propulsion, scramjet propulsion, endothermic 
fuels, high temperature materials, and high temperature structures 
required for reusable hypersonic flight. DAF also collaborates with 
DARPA and NASA in developing hypersonic combined-cycle propulsion 
technologies for hypersonic flight that are benefiting from past 
technology advancements in expendable, supersonic turbine engines and 
hydrocarbon-fueled scramjets. The Committee can enable continued 
research and testing progress on technologies unique to reusable high 
Mach flight by supporting the President's Budget for science and 
technology in key areas such as hypersonic propulsion; high temperature 
materials and structures; advanced fuels, thermal management, and power 
generation; and high speed mission systems. The Department of the Air 
Force is working with our DOD and NASA partners to develop a strategy 
for high Mach and hypersonic aircraft that will provide technologies 
for aircraft-based, responsive space launch by 2040. The primary 
challenge to rapidly reconstituting critical space-based assets 
degraded by an adversary remains the nation's limited number of rockets 
to launch from a limited number of sites. A hypersonic aircraft can 
serve as the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit launch system to 
deliver up to 20,000 pounds of payload to low earth orbit. The benefits 
of aircraft-based space launch include more flexible basing, fail-safe 
launch abort capability, and improved airspace integration.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
    Mr. Lamborn. China and Russia have publicly announced that they've 
entered into a MoU on establishing a lunar International Research 
Station.
    Although this was publicized as a scientific effort, some perceive 
this as a thin veil for military corporation on the moon. What is the 
Space Force doing to look ahead at potential military needs and 
capabilities beyond our traditional orbits and near the lunar region?
    General  Raymond. The United States Space Force's (USSF) mission is 
organizing, training, and equipping the forces needed to support the 
combatant commands and ensure unfettered access to, and use of, space 
by the United States and its allies and partners. We are in discussions 
with NASA, NRO and industry to determine the necessary communication, 
Position Navigation and Timing, Space Domain Awareness, and logistics 
required to support routine cis-lunar operations. We also continue to 
uphold and support existing international treaties that encourage the 
peaceful use of space for all nations. Further, we will continue to 
collaborate with allies and partners to develop, uphold, and encourage 
other nations to uphold commonly accepted standards of responsible 
behavior in space, to improve safety and transparency for all space 
activities.
    Mr. Lamborn. In the Space Force's Unfunded Priority List, you 
submitted a set of requests for an additional $431M to get after 
`Developing a Warfighting Punch'.
    If Congress does not fund this set of requirements, how will it 
impact the service's ability to stay ahead of China and Russia's 
advancements in Space?
    General  Raymond. The 21st century space domain is, and will be a 
more complex and dynamic environment than anything we've experienced 
before. As China and Russia attempt to gain an advantage in space, we 
need to invest in order to maintain our national advantage in space.
      We need to model and simulate the enemy's scheme of 
maneuver and emulate the possible effects those systems may have 
against our force.
      The Space Force needs an advanced technology 
infrastructure that allows live and virtual training spanning vast 
geographic distances that serve as a catalyst allowing our innovative 
space professionals to develop cutting-edge tactics and validate 
tactical procedures.
      We also recognize we have a need to test and refine our 
warfighting practices. A major space range expansion is needed to 
transition the Space Test and Training Range from its Space Electronic 
Warfare roots into a National Space Test and Training Range that 
incorporates testing and training of advanced threat simulation 
environments and delivers all-domain integration training for all 
warfighters.
      Additionally, the Space Force is investing in our human 
capital by providing expanded educational opportunities for our 
Guardians at all ranks to sharpen their technical acumen and also 
broaden their strategic and operational apertures making them 
invaluable assets throughout the Joint force. The combination of 
advanced technical training, exercising, and education with our Joint 
partners under realistic conditions preserves freedom of action, 
intensifies joint lethality, and enhances our decision advantage during 
a conflict.
    Failure to provide the funds necessary to transform our force would 
result in a 20th century force fighting a 21st century battle. We will 
be ill-prepared to operate with the speed, agility, and ability to 
integrate with the broader Joint force--all areas our enemies will 
exploit by operating inside our decision space and outpacing our 
ability to seize the initiative in a future fight. I have only skimmed 
the surface of the exact nature of the specific technological 
investments we seek and I am happy to come back and discuss those 
efforts in a classified forum.
    Mr. Lamborn. In your opening statement, you mentioned that the 
Space Force is driving ``unity of effort'' across the department in 
capability development. Can you tell us a little about how you're doing 
that and how it's going, especially as it pertains to the force design 
work the SWAC is doing?
    General  Raymond. The Space Force is driving unity of effort across 
the department in capability force design by performing integrated 
analysis, integrating DOD space requirements, streamlining governance, 
and consolidating across the space acquisitions enterprise for agility. 
The Space Warfighting Analysis Center (SWAC) plays a foundational role 
in leading analysis, modeling, wargaming, and experimentation across 
the DOD to generate new concepts and force design options for the 
Department. SWAC's coordination across the national security space 
enterprise is key to achieving governmental unity of effort in building 
a more resilient architecture. The JROC recently identified the Space 
Force as the lead integrator for space requirements across the DOD. The 
Space Force has established a Program Integration Council to facilitate 
cooperation and deconfliction between National Security Space 
enterprise stakeholders and ensure planning, alignment, execution, 
delivery, and optimization of capabilities that inform the Space 
Acquisition Executive and Council. In the summer of 2021, the Space 
Force will establish the Space Systems Command to align the former 
Space and Missile Systems Center, Space Rapid Capabilities Office, and 
Space Development Agency (as of FY23), combining traditional 
acquisition with disruptive approaches and non-traditional vendors.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
    Ms. Speier. Please provide details about the Department's 
initiatives to counter extremism in the force and how these initiatives 
are supported by the FY22 budget request.
    Mr. Roth. The Department of the Air Force is taking a comprehensive 
approach to addressing extremist behavior and ideology within the 
force. We utilized the SecDef directed ``stand-down'' day to create a 
dialogue with our members, not only making them aware of the threat 
posed by extremist behavior and ideology, but also reinforcing our 
values and principles as a military service. Subsequently, we 
incorporated feedback from our personnel in developing future 
initiatives. We are also conducting a thorough review in conjunction 
with OSD and the other Services across multiple lines of effort to 
include fostering greater transparency and accountability through 
military justice and personnel policy, expanding screening capabilities 
to better vet potential recruits for previous participation in 
extremist activities, countering potential insider threats, and 
education and training for the force as a whole. Further, we are 
implementing focused training for our separating and retiring members 
during our Transition Assistance Program to assist these members in 
guarding against recruitment efforts by extremist organizations upon 
their departure from the military. Thus far, all initiatives have been 
executed within existing budget authority, as further initiatives are 
developed and scoped, cost assessments will need to be factored into 
the equation.
    Ms. Speier. Despite having more than 70 Department of the Air Force 
Child Development Centers (CDCs) listed as being in ``poor'' or 
``failing'' condition as of June 2020, the Air Force's FY22 budget 
request only included one CDC Military Construction project, while 
another 4 were on the unfunded priorities list.
    1. Given that the Air Force has, by far, the largest number of CDCs 
in poor or worse condition, why has the Air Force not requested more 
CDC MILCON projects in the budget and unfunded priorities list?
    2. What is the Department's, plan, including a time horizon, to 
improve all Child Development Centers to at least ``fair'' condition?
    Mr. Roth. The Air Force updated its assessment of Child Development 
Centers in the ``FY21 Adequate Childcare for Military Families 
Report.'' This updated report used a far more accurate, commercially 
accepted tool called BUILDERTM, which accounts for the 
actual condition of facility components (e.g., plumbing; heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning; electrical; roofing; fire protection 
systems) versus an imprecise aggregate dollar value of deferred 
maintenance as contained in the FY20 report. The FY21 report 
categorized 74 CDCs as ``Green'' [Good condition with routine 
maintenance or minor repair], 144 CDCs as ``Amber'' [Acceptable 
condition, requiring small system repair or replacement] and one CDC as 
``Red'' [Poor condition, requiring major rehabilitation]. The single 
``Red'' facility at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst will be repaired 
in FY22 at $3.9M. As mentioned, the FY22 Budget Request does include 
our most pressing CDC MILCON project at Sheppard AFB, TX. While several 
installations nominated CDCs for the Air Force's MILCON program, 
projects were prioritized against numerous other critical mission and 
quality of life requirements and did not rise above the cut line for 
funding in this year. First and foremost, all facilities being used by 
our children are safe for their use--installations are empowered to 
handle any immediate life-threatening, safety, or health-related 
repairs. The DAF utilizes the Childcare Capacity Working Group to 
identify priority projects for advocacy and inclusion in future MILCON 
or Facility, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) 
programs to address issues with conditions and capacity of our child 
care facilities. Currently the Department has 15 Child Development 
Center (CDC) MILCON projects in planning with five (totaling $126M) 
that will be ready to award in Fiscal Year 2022. Of the five FY22 
projects, one (1) was included with the FY22 Presidents Budget and four 
(4) are included in the FY22 Unfunded Priority List (UPL). 
Additionally, the Department has 22 CDC FSRM projects at $93M ready to 
execute in Fiscal Year 2022. The Air Force updated its assessment of 
Child Development Centers in the ``FY21 Adequate Childcare for Military 
Families Report.'' This updated report used a far more accurate, 
commercially accepted tool called BUILDERTM, which accounts 
for the actual condition of facility components (e.g., plumbing; 
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; electrical; roofing; fire 
protection systems) versus an imprecise aggregate dollar value of 
deferred maintenance as contained in the FY20 report. The FY21 report 
categorized 74 CDCs as ``Green'' [Good condition with routine 
maintenance or minor repair], 144 CDCs as ``Amber'' [Acceptable 
condition, requiring small system repair or replacement] and one CDC as 
``Red'' [Poor condition, requiring major rehabilitation]. The single 
``Red'' facility at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst will be repaired 
in FY22 at $3.7M. This action will bring all CDCs to at least an 
``Amber'' condition. We are committed to never expose children or CDC 
workers to unsafe facilities.
    Ms. Speier. How much of the Air Force's requested $7.7 million 
increase to fight ``corrosives'' including sexual assault will be 
directed to new initiatives, and what are the new initiatives?
    Mr. Roth. The DAF requested approximately $7.7M to address areas of 
greatest concern with sexual assault. We plan to use this funding to 
modernize prevention education and skill building for Airmen, 
Guardians, and DAF leaders at all levels. We intend to focus on 
community-level prevention strategies unique to servicemembers' 
environments using virtual platforms. This funding will allow us to 
expand our Sexual Communication and Consent program, an innovative, 
evidence-informed sexual assault prevention training that includes both 
universal and tailored content to servicemembers outside of accessions 
training. The DAF will also direct funds to strengthen the evaluation 
methods of the effectiveness of our various sexual assault prevention 
and victim assistance programs. We intend to identify and enhance 
effective programs while eliminating programs with limited utility. 
Finally, the DAF will use funds to improve access to advocacy services 
and reduce lingering stigma around seeking help. We intend to boost 
resiliency by building a ``No Wrong Door'' environment where all 
helping agencies will work cohesively together to assist and direct 
care for all Airmen and Guardians. The Air Force is actively pursuing 
implementation of many of the recommendations of the Independent Review 
Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, including those related 
to improved victim care and assistance.
    Ms. Speier. How much of the Air Force's requested $7.7 million 
increase to fight ``corrosives'' including sexual assault will be 
directed to new initiatives, and what are the new initiatives?
    General Brown. The Department of the Air Force (DAF) requested 
approximately $7.7M to address areas of greatest concern with sexual 
assault. We plan to use this funding to modernize prevention education 
and skill building for Airmen, Guardians, and DAF leaders at all 
levels. We intend to focus on community-level prevention strategies 
unique to servicemembers' environments using virtual platforms. This 
funding will allow us to expand our Sexual Communication and Consent 
program, an innovative, evidence-informed sexual assault prevention 
training that includes both universal and tailored content to 
servicemembers outside of accessions training. The DAF will also direct 
funds to strengthen the evaluation methods of the effectiveness of our 
various sexual assault prevention and victim assistance programs. We 
intend to identify and enhance effective programs while eliminating 
programs with limited utility. Finally, the DAF will use funds to 
improve access to advocacy services and reduce lingering stigma around 
seeking help. We intend to boost resiliency by building a ``No Wrong 
Door'' environment where all helping agencies will work cohesively 
together to assist and direct care for all Airmen and Guardians. The 
Air Force is actively pursuing implementation of many of the 
recommendations of the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault 
in the Military, including those related to improved victim care and 
assistance.
    Ms. Speier. When will the Air Force release the results of the 
second racial disparity report that was announced in February?
    Will the report be released in sufficient time to inform the use of 
the $68 million increase for diversity programs requested in the FY22 
budget?
    General Brown. The second disparity review focused on race, ethnic, 
and gender disparities was released on September 9th and the results 
are in the process of being shared. The report is available to inform 
the FY22 budget.
    Ms. Speier. The Air Force is requesting to cut 77,000 flight hours 
in the FY22 budget. How will this impact the experience and readiness 
of pilots, and what is the Air Force doing to mitigate this risk?
    General Brown. The Air Force has been forced to make difficult 
tradeoffs in its FY22 budget request. These tradeoffs include the 
necessity of taking measured risk in readiness to fight tonight as we 
modernize the force to ensure preparedness for any future conflict with 
our pacing threats. The reduction in flying hours in the FY22 budget 
will impact our ability to train our pilots and there will be a 
consequential impact to near-term readiness. One mitigation mechanism 
we will pursue is the enhancement of both the live and synthetic flight 
training environments through heavy investment in training 
infrastructure. These improvements won't happen overnight but do 
require FY22 investment and beyond to realize relevant capabilities and 
offset recognized risk. The Air Force requires your assistance to 
retire legacy aircraft that will no longer be relevant in a highly 
contested future conflict. The increasing cost to maintain these 
aircraft drains resources which not only impacts the sustainment of the 
remaining fleet, but also significantly curtails our investment in the 
development of a more capable future force.
    Ms. Speier. Have there been any formal reviews by the Space Force 
studying the use of the personnel flexibilities, such as direct officer 
accession authorities, provided by Congress? What is the status of 
these efforts?
    General Raymond. The Space Force appreciates the personnel 
flexibilities afforded by Congress, such as direct accession authority 
and it is the Space Force's intent to maximize the use of those 
existing authorities. We have reviewed the existing authorities and are 
working with personnel experts across DOD to draft policy that 
capitalizes on niche talent integral to building the Space Force and 
maintaining superiority in Space. We conducted a review of our existing 
civilian personnel hiring authorities and established a plan to 
maximize their use. These flexible authorities help develop, retain and 
reward our civilian workforce while enabling a more streamlined and 
simplified civilian personnel system. This system will be agile enough 
to build and sustain a Space Force that can successfully maintain 
America's advantage in space.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
    Mr. Kelly. The Air Force can choose to replace the MFDs with a 
modern, in production alternative which brings additional capabilities 
to bear such as the large area display currently in the Air Force 
inventory on the KC-46. Or, the Air Force can choose to pursue a custom 
form fit function replacement that would only address reliability 
concerns without providing additional capabilities or offer 
developmental synergies with other in-inventory displays. Given that 
the MFDs have been out of production for decades and there is no off 
the shelf direct replacement available, it seems that both of these 
paths would require fairly similar development efforts while only the 
large area display would bring new capabilities for the warfighter. Has 
the Air Force modelled the impact to readiness (mission capable rates) 
that MFD obsolescence and MFD stockpile shortages will have over the 
next 10 years? If so please share that data with the committee.
    General Brown. The Air Force has not conducted studies, analyses or 
assessments (to include modeling) on MFDs.
    Mr. Kelly. When does the Air Force intend to begin a replacement 
program for the Multifunction Displays and when would the USAF fleet be 
fully retrofitted?
    When does the Air Force intend to request funding from Congress to 
begin this program? Is this included in the future years defense 
program (FYDP)?
    General Brown. The FY22 PB did not request funding for the 
replacement Multifunction Displays (MFD). Any MFD funding requests will 
have to be addressed in future budget submissions.
    Mr. Kelly. Given that the Air Force intends to keep the C-17 in 
service into the 2070s, I believe that it is absolutely critical to 
take a long term, full lifecycle cost view of modernization efforts for 
this aircraft. o Does the Air Force intend to consider the lifecycle 
cost when deciding which MFD replacement path to pursue?
    General Brown. The C-17 program office will consider lifecycle 
costs when evaluating courses of action to address MFD obsolescence.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
    Ms. Houlahan. The Air Force has sought an increase in recruitment 
funding which will support the Air Force in improving the tools they 
use to effectively recruit, train and equip Airmen and attain accession 
goals and diversity targets. Looking at your January 2021 numbers 
though I am still dismayed at the current recruitment levels which 
remain remarkably low for underrepresented minorities and women. Can 
you please provide an update on your recent efforts to recruit and 
retain a diverse force?
    General Brown. The Department of the Air Force continues to align 
our recruiting efforts to synergize and maximize diversity recruiting 
effectiveness. The increased resources will be used as we continue to 
develop and publish a data-informed outreach and recruiting campaign 
plan and integrate our total force resources. Our efforts will lead to 
an increase in under-represented students in the ``Qualified Candidate 
Pool'' vice just increasing the diversity of the ``Applicant Pool.''
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MORELLE
    Mr. Morelle. Secretary Roth, how does this budget request seek to 
provide greater economic stability and predictability for the defense 
industrial base and its suppliers? Are there further steps the Air 
Force can take to tailor its strategy to maintain this network of 
critical infrastructure?
    Mr. Roth. The Department of the Air Force relies on a dynamic, 
multi-layered, and complex global industrial base to reliably acquire 
and support weapon systems. Our budget provides ability to keep 
production lines running, and enables us to enter into long-term 
contracts, ensuring stability and predictability for our industrial 
base. We are mindful of the importance to sustain and grow competition 
in our industrial base in partnership with the Cybersecurity & 
Infrastructure Security Agency under the Defense Industrial Base 
Sector. Through digital design and engineering approaches, there is a 
chance to broaden the vendor base, and provide new industry entrants an 
opportunity to deliver innovation and war winning capability. As you 
may know, the AFWERX challenge aims to accelerate inventive solutions 
from individuals, startups, small business, large enterprises, 
academia, and research labs in the most collaborative way. We look 
forward to staying in sync with the Committee as we adapt to access 
this larger, innovation base.
    Mr. Morelle. General Raymond, how does this budget request seek to 
provide greater economic stability and predictability for the defense 
industrial base and its suppliers? Are there further steps the Space 
Force can take to tailor its strategy to maintain this network of 
critical infrastructure?
    General Raymond. Outpacing our adversaries requires a new level of 
partnership between Congress, the industrial base, and the DOD to 
preserve the strategic advantages our space capabilities afford while 
still maintaining accountability and transparency to the American 
public, and this budget request is a step in that direction. The 
Department has taken steps to build the launch industrial base, 
providing stability in National Security Space Launch procurement over 
the next five years, and is increasingly working with smaller and non-
traditional companies through the use of Other Transaction Authorities, 
such as the Space Enterprise Consortium (SpEC). SpEC is designed to 
address the challenges associated with the increasing collaboration 
with non-traditional suppliers--growing the defense industrial base and 
achieving award timelines 40 percent faster than traditional 
contracting methods.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MOORE
    Mr. Moore. Since the efficacy of attritable aircraft depends on the 
ability to produce them in affordably in high volumes, minimizing cost 
for these systems is critical to creating a viable program of record. 
How critical is it that we develop low-cost propulsion solutions 
optimized for attritable vehicles? And can you describe the impact to 
risk of operations 5th gen fighters in a future theater, such as the 
Pacific, if we failed to field attritable sytsems due to affordability 
issues?
    Mr. Roth. Propulsion is a key cost driver for attritable aircraft. 
The Department of the Air Force is working on limited-life engine 
technologies, prioritizing cost optimization over performance. Overall, 
the Department of the Air Force is pursuing digital designs, low-cost 
manufacturing techniques, and modular open system architectures to 
ensure these aircraft are produced at a price point that enables 
sufficient mass to deter, and if necessary, defeat peer adversaries. 
The Air Force is pursuing programs such as the manned-unmanned teaming 
of attritable systems with fighter aircraft to provide an operational 
benefit to the warfighter at a lower cost. While we do not have 
specific analysis that compares risk to 5th Gen Fighter Operations 
operating with or without attritable systems, our wargaming and 
analysis indicates that attritable aircraft can be a force multiplier 
in some of the most difficult scenarios we anticipate the Joint Force 
may confront in a future operating environment that is highly 
contested.
    Mr. Moore. How does the Air Force plan to mitigate F-35 cost and 
aircraft availability challenges if it continues down the path of 
procuring less F-35As per year than originally planned for Full Rate 
Production?
    Mr. Roth. F-35 operating costs (as currently projected) and long-
term sustainment costs still require continued focus to maximize 
affordability. Any approved Air Force reductions in annual F-35A 
procurement rates are designed specifically to utilize offsets from 
within the program to address cost, aircraft availability, and other 
challenges to realize the fighter force design that the Air Force 
requires.
    Mr. Moore. Composites, especially carbon-fiber, have demonstrated 
the capability of creating lighter, stronger and more cost-effective 
solutions to USAF materials and manufacturing programs. Are there 
research opportunities within AFRL Aerospace Vehicle Technologies to 
create new warfare and sustainability solutions using advanced 
materials? Are there constraints in funding opportunities?
    Mr. Roth. AFRL is actively engaged in advanced materials discovery, 
development, manufacturing, and sustainability technologies, including 
composites, for air and space systems. AFRL efforts include 
demonstration of advanced manufacturing techniques, such as braided 
structures for aircraft fuselages, to reduce cost and improve 
performance. The Department of the Air Force resources a robust 
materials and manufacturing program, which is augmented by additional 
congressional funding.
    Mr. Moore. Are there composites entities that could execute a 
composites research program which works with USAF and brings together 
the industrial base, advanced manufacturers, universities and 
government entities?
    Mr. Roth. The Department of the Air Force actively engages 
universities, commercial and defense industry, manufacturers, and other 
government entities to further composite research and technology.
    Mr. Moore. Since the efficacy of attritable aircraft depends on the 
ability to produce them in affordably in high volumes, minimizing cost 
for these systems is critical to creating a viable program of record. 
How critical is it that we develop low-cost propulsion solutions 
optimized for attritable vehicles? And can you describe the impact to 
risk of operations 5th gen fighters in a future theater, such as the 
Pacific, if we failed to field attritable sytsems due to affordability 
issues?
    General Brown. Propulsion is a key cost driver for attritable 
aircraft. The Department of the Air Force is working on limited-life 
engine technologies, prioritizing cost optimization over performance. 
Overall, the Department of the Air Force is pursuing digital designs, 
low-cost manufacturing techniques, and modular open system 
architectures to ensure these aircraft are produced at a price point 
that enables sufficient mass to deter, and if necessary, defeat peer 
adversaries.
    Mr. Moore. How does the Air Force plan to mitigate F-35 cost and 
aircraft availability challenges if it continues down the path of 
procuring less F-35As per year than originally planned for Full Rate 
Production?
    General Brown. F-35 operating costs (as currently projected) and 
long-term sustainment costs still require continued focus to maximize 
affordability. Any approved Air Force reductions in annual F-35A 
procurement rates are designed specifically to utilize offsets from 
within the program to address cost, aircraft availability, and other 
challenges to realize the fighter force design that the Air Force 
requires.
    Mr. Moore. The Air Force has been procuring F-35s at a rate nearing 
Full Rate Production for the past several years. Recently publicized 
data showed F-35 as having the best ``Mission Capable'' rate out of all 
Air Force fighter fleets in 2020. Despite these significant 
achievements, the Air Force's FY22 budget proposes reducing F-35 annual 
procurement below last year's appropriated level, while purchasing 
additional 4th generation fighters that have not been produced at rates 
for the Air Force in roughly 20-plus years. As the Air Force tries to 
mitigate a fighter shortfall, how does this revised acquisition plan 
not add additional risk? How does the Air Force plan to mitigate this 
risk?
    General Brown. The AF is committed to the F-35, particularly the 
Block 4 version and beyond. This version of the F-35 will be the 
cornerstone of our fighter fleet for decades, and we are anxious to get 
the Block 4 into the fight. At the same time, the AF must also pursue a 
mix of fighter capabilities (F-35, NGAD, F-15EX, and F-16) with 
affordability, sustainability and availability in mind, in order to 
support the joint force to fight and win across the range of military 
operations.
    Mr. Moore. Composites, especially carbon-fiber, have demonstrated 
the capability of creating lighter, stronger and more cost-effective 
solutions to USAF materials and manufacturing programs. Are there 
research opportunities within AFRL Aerospace Vehicle Technologies to 
create new warfare and sustainability solutions using advanced 
materials? Are there constraints in funding opportunities?
    General Brown. AFRL is actively engaged in advanced materials 
discovery, development, manufacturing, and sustainability technologies, 
including composites, for air and space systems. AFRL efforts include 
demonstration of advanced manufacturing techniques, such as braided 
structures for aircraft fuselages, to reduce cost and improve 
performance. The Department of the Air Force resources a robust 
materials and manufacturing program, which is augmented by additional 
congressional funding.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
    Mr. Fallon. 1. General Brown, do you believe there is systemic 
racism in the United States Air Force? (a) General Brown in your 
opinion, is the United States Air Force a meritocracy?
    2. Please provide the number of Article 15s, court martials and 
disciplinary separations for the last fiscal year that data is 
available?
    a. What was the reason for each Article 15, court martial or 
disciplinary separation? b. What was the race of each individual in 
question? c. What was the disciplinary history, if any, of the 
individual(s) in question? d. How many Airmen/Guardians were separated, 
in the last fiscal year data is available, due to extremist activity?
    3. What is the racial makeup of the United States Air Force 
(enlisted/officer/total) for the most recent fiscal year?
    General Brown. No. However, there are individual acts of racism and 
disparities in military discipline processes, personnel development, 
and career opportunity that were highlighted in our Racial Disparity 
Review conducted by the Air Force Inspector General and released in 
December 2020. 123,000 Airmen and Guardians responded to the survey and 
provided an additional 27,000 pages of free text responses. Later this 
summer, the Inspector General will release a second review looking at 
the experiences of women and other minorities in the Air Force. I 
understand over 100,000 Airmen responded to this survey as well. The 
number of responses by Airmen and Guardians on both surveys is 
remarkable, but also instructive and indicates we still have work to 
do. The Air Force is committed to creating and maintaining an 
environment where all of our Airmen and Guardians can reach their full 
potential. Key steps in doing so are the two Reviews that took the hard 
look at ourselves and hearing the voices of our Airmen and Guardians 
followed by taking action. With this in mind, we've put in place 
several initiatives to ensure our Airmen and fellow Guardians have a 
continued voice to highlight behaviors and barriers that run counter to 
the diverse and inclusive organization we are charged to uphold. These 
include, but are not limited to, the establishment of a Diversity & 
Inclusion Office, Barrier Analysis at multiple levels, reviewing of our 
talent management processes, and ongoing senior leader discussions 
focused solely on progress in this realm.
    I believe the Air Force promotes members based on talent, effort, 
achievement, and potential. All of our Airmen, no matter their 
background, want to have an opportunity to demonstrate their talent, 
effort, achievement, and potential so they can be considered for 
advancement in their respective careers. As we found in our Air Force 
Inspector General led review, we have some disparities in personnel 
development and career opportunity that require improvement. We are 
continually evaluating processes that affect the development and career 
opportunities for our Airmen, including our Recruiting/Outreach, 
Accessions, Retention, Force Development/Promotions, and Organizational 
Climate.
    In fiscal year 2020, Air Force commanders imposed nonjudicial 
punishment in 4,278 cases. In fiscal year 2020, the Air Force separated 
1,929 Airmen for a ``misconduct'' basis (e.g., drug abuse, sexual 
assault, minor disciplinary infractions, commission of a serious 
offense, civilian conviction, etc.). Each court-martial and Article 15 
stems from an alleged violation of one or more punitive articles of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Each involuntary separation can stem 
from a number of different bases detailed in DAF instructions, to 
include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, 
discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities, or 
commission of a serious civilian or military criminal offense. 
Commanders have a duty to ensure good order and discipline and justice 
within their units. As the Air Force implements the recommendations of 
the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military and 
the potential changes to the military justice system as required by 
this year's NDAA, the Commander's duty for accountability in their 
units is unchanged. The ultimate disposition of an allegation of 
misconduct will continue to be based on a number of factors, to include 
the seriousness of the alleged offense or offenses, the accused's 
criminal history or lack thereof, the wishes of the victim, and the 
probable consequences to the accused of a court-martial conviction, 
among others considerations.
    For Fiscal Year 2020, of the 351 airmen court-martialed, 204 
identify as White, 88 identify as Black or African-American, 10 
identify as Asian, 8 identify as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 
and 6 identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native. The 35 remaining 
Airmen either declined to identify their race or listed as unknown. Of 
the total, 165 Airmen identified their race as ``Other'' in addition to 
one of the races already mentioned. For Fiscal Year 2020, of the 4,278 
Airmen who received nonjudicial punishment, 2,564 identify as White, 
1,245 identify as Black, 117 identify as Asian, 56 identify as Native 
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 51 identify as American Indian or 
Alaskan Native. The 193 remaining Airmen either declined to identify 
their race or listed their race as unknown. Of the total, 227 Airmen 
identified as two or more races. Commanders, with the counsel and 
advice of servicing Staff Judge Advocates, make decisions regarding 
appropriate discipline based on a number of considerations, to include 
prior disciplinary history of the member in question, and the need for 
progressive discipline of past offenders. Some forms of discipline, 
such as nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and court-
martial convictions, are maintained permanently in a member's personnel 
record. Other lesser forms of discipline, such as administrative 
reprimands or counseling, may be filed only temporarily in a member's 
personnel record, or, depending on the nature of the discipline, not 
included in the member's personnel record. Thus, the Air Force does not 
maintain comprehensive disciplinary histories for each member apart 
from records of court-martial, nonjudicial punishment and 
administrative separation.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HORSFORD
    Mr. Horsford. I would like to better understand the Air Force's 
sustainment and modernization plans for the A-10. Some of the A-10's 
stationed at Nellis Air Force Base, in my district, are in need to new 
wings. In FY21, the Air Force requested and Congress fully authorized 
and appropriated $100M for the purchase of an additional 24 wing sets. 
I understand the Air Force has so far only purchased 2 wing sets with 
this funding and may be seeking a reprogramming for the balance. When 
does the Air Force need to place additional wing set replacement orders 
so that they can be bundled with the 2 wing sets purchased in December 
2020 and thus achieve a lower cost to the taxpayer? Please also provide 
a proposed basing structure for fleets of 239 and 218 aircraft.
    General Brown. As of today, two wing sets have been purchased with 
the $100M appropriated in FY21. An additional four wing sets will be 
purchased in August 2021. These four wing sets will be used as spares. 
With these purchases, the Air Force will have enough wings sets to re-
wing to the FY23 force structure Total Aircraft Inventory (TAI) of 218. 
The remaining FY21 funds will cover wing install costs which begin in 
3QFY22. At this time, the Air Force does not intend to reprogram money 
out of this program. There are no other wing set purchases planned 
beyond the four spares being procured in August 2021. If bundling of 
additional wing purchases were to become a necessity, it would have to 
be done in August of this year in order to potentially see a lower 
cost. As proposed in the FY22 PB, the A-10 fleet will be reduced to 239 
in FY22 and to 218 by FY23. The following outlines the planned basing 
structure, assuming the Air Force's request is approved.
    FY22--239 Total A-10s: Moody, GA (52); Davis-Monthan, AZ (49); 
Osan, ROK (26); Tucson, AZ (2); Whiteman, MO (26); Fort Wayne, IN (21); 
Gowen Field, ID (21); Selfridge, MI (21); Warfield, MD (21).
    FY23--218 Total A-10s: Moody, GA (52); Davis-Monthan, AZ (49); 
Osan, ROK (26); Tucson, AZ (2); Whiteman, MO (26); Gowen Field, ID 
(21); Selfridge, MI (21); Warfield, MD (21).
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL
    Ms. Sherrill. Currently about 86% of pilots are white males and 
6.5% are women. Has the Air Force done any studies on whether there is 
a culture or bias problem undermining pilot retention, and if so, what 
are the results of these studies?
    Mr. Roth. The Air Force has not commissioned any studies 
specifically addressing bias and culture factors in pilot retention 
decisions. However, pilot retention, to include potential culture or 
bias problems impacting under-represented groups, is a focus area for 
the Air Force. The Air Force has leveraged a body of work that includes 
studies, advanced data analytics, and surveys to better understand all 
the factors impacting the Quality of Life and Quality of Service for 
our pilots. The most recent studies (e.g., RAND 2018) have focused on 
Understanding Demographic Differences in Pilot Training Attrition. This 
study coupled with additional advanced analysis has resulted in re-
assessing the Pilot Candidate Selection Model (PCSM). While it is 
difficult to isolate specific factors impacting retention, the Air 
Force is committed to improving retention and has implemented a number 
of initiatives. Many of these initiatives stem from the Women's 
Initiative Team, including addressing pilot height restrictions, 
uniform limitations, and restrictions on flying during pregnancy that 
had the potential to impact career progression.
    Ms. Sherrill. Currently about 86% of pilots are white males and 
6.5% are women, compared to 20% of the larger Air Force. This prompts 
the question--if demographics of the pilot cadre matched that of the 
broader USAF, do you believe there would still be a pilot shortage? 
Given the history of aircraft design that favored male pilots, what is 
the USAF doing to ensure that current and future investments in new 
aircraft are designed from the ground and airframe up to include women 
pilots from the outset?
    General Brown. We assess the current shortfalls would exist 
regardless of demographics. Current pilot manning levels are driven by 
historic rates of underproduction of new pilots and low retention of 
our current pilots. Underproduction is driven by unrealized divestiture 
of weapon systems and low retention rates. These two factors taken 
together determine our overall personnel health. We continue to have 
strong interest from the nation's youth across demographics in becoming 
an Air Force pilot. While it is a priority to increase awareness and 
interest in aviation across all communities, doing so would not 
necessarily address the current shortfalls. The USAF implemented design 
guidance for pilot and air crew stations in 2020 that now requires 
acquisition programs to use the body measurements and proportions of 
the central 95% of male and female U.S. recruiting population as a 
design basis. The USAF will conduct new studies on the U.S. recruiting 
population beginning in late 2021 to refine this initial guidance and 
incorporate the findings in new USAF instructions.
    Ms. Sherrill. During an 8 June hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Seapower and Projection Forces, Lt. Gen. Hinote emphasized the need for 
novel logistical aircraft with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) 
capabilities. Do you similarly foresee a need to include VTOL 
capabilities in fighter or bomber aircraft, particularly in light of 
needing to disperse forces in a possible future conflict with China? If 
so, how does this change your F-35 acquisition calculus?
    General Brown. The Air Force will continue to evaluate the need for 
VTOL capabilities as we develop the future force for peer competition 
and conflict. The Agile Combat Employment concept of generating combat 
power from multiple and dispersed locations may lead to requirements 
for short-field and VTOL capabilities, but this analysis is on-going. 
We will assess any impacts to other procurement priorities, including 
the F-35, once that analysis is complete.

                                  [all]