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


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-95]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES HEARING

                                   ON

                      AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES

                   AVIATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES

       RELATED TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                              MAY 19, 2022

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    



                            ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 48-448         WASHINGTON : 2023  


             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                  JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine, Vice Chair   MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            JIM BANKS, Indiana
SARA JACOBS, California              JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas                 JERRY L. CARL, Alabama

                Kelly Goggin, Professional Staff Member
               David Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
                          Naajidah Khan, Clerk
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.................     1

                               WITNESSES

Hunter, Andrew P., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
  (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics); and Lt Gen David S. 
  Nahom, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff (Plans and Programs), 
  Headquarters U.S. Air Force....................................     2

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Courtney, Hon. Joe...........................................    25
    Hunter, Andrew P., joint with Lt Gen David S. Nahom..........    30
    Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, 
      Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
      Forces.....................................................    28

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Golden...................................................    51
                  AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES AVIATION

                PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES RELATED TO THE

              FISCAL YEAR 2023 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
            Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
                            Washington, DC, Thursday, May 19, 2022.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:00 a.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Courtney 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
CONNECTICUT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Courtney. The committee shall come to order. First, 
some administrative and technical notes for virtual 
participants, which I guess is somewhat of a moot point right 
now. Well, basically, we all know what the game plan is, which 
is you've got to stay on camera and, you know, mute when you're 
not talking. And if you've got a problem, email or text the 
clerks and they'll take care of it. And I'll enter the Fedex 
statement for the record.
    Anyway, good morning to our witnesses. I want to begin by 
thanking you for the early start this morning. When we--we are 
about to go on a 2-week break, and when we come back we're 
going to be, you know, really on the precipice of markup, so we 
really wanted to try and get this hearing in and give members a 
chance to spend some time uninterrupted by floor votes. And 
that's why we kind of imposed on you to join us early this 
morning. We did it yesterday with the Navy, and, again, I think 
everyone felt it was a good process. So, again, thank you for 
being here today.
    And in the interest of, you know, moving right in, I'm 
going to enter my opening statement and remarks for the record. 
And I'm going to yield to Mr. Wittman, ranking member, for any 
comments he wants to make. And then, again, we'll take opening 
statements and begin questions. So, again, look forward to your 
input today.
    And I now will yield to the ranking member, Rob Wittman 
from Virginia.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the 
Appendix on page 25.]
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am 
going to enter my remarks for the record so that we can get 
underway and hear from our witnesses.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the 
Appendix on page 28.]
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. And I don't know 
which one of you gentlemen--Mr. Hunter, it's good to see you 
back in your old bailiwick. And, again, the floor is yours for 
your opening statement, and you will be followed by General 
Nahom.

 STATEMENT OF ANDREW P. HUNTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR 
  FORCE (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS); AND LT GEN 
    DAVID S. NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF (PLANS AND 
             PROGRAMS), HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE

    Mr. Hunter. Thank you. Well, you have appropriately 
challenged us to say that the Navy succeeded in doing this 
yesterday. And at least in General Nahom's case, I think we 
will be up to the challenge of meeting their standard and 
hopefully exceeding it.
    But, Chairman Courtney and Ranking Member Wittman and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for having General Nahom 
and myself here to provide testimony on the Air Force's fiscal 
year 2023 budget request for projection forces aviation 
programs and capabilities.
    In recent years, the Air Force's combat advantage over our 
potential peer adversaries has been under pressure. As a 
nation, we have simply fallen behind the rate of technological 
advancement demonstrated by global competitors, and we are 
working with great vigor to continue to maintain and extend our 
lead in the areas where we have and then to close the gap in 
areas where we don't.
    With the completion of the 2022 National Defense Strategy, 
the strategic direction given to the United States Air Force is 
clear: We must modernize our projection forces and capabilities 
to overcome the pacing challenges posed by the People's 
Republic of China and deter the threats of other strategic 
competitors. These challenges drove us to focus on seven 
operational imperatives, which are reflected in our budget 
request, and continue to drive decision-making now and going 
forward.
    The Air Force is faced with a number of tough decisions to 
strike balance between short-term and future risks, but this 
budget request is a result of a thoughtful and deliberative 
process that responds to the rapidly evolving threat our airmen 
and guardians have been called upon to deter and defeat within 
our resources. Therefore, our FY23 [fiscal year 2023] budget 
request aims to accelerate the development of a more modern and 
operationally relevant fighting force, delivering capabilities 
to the warfighter at the pace with which the current strategic 
environment demands by balancing along several axes: current 
capacity versus modernized capabilities, standoff versus stand-
in capabilities, and mass approaches versus high-end solutions.
    As you will see in our 2023 budget submission, nuclear 
modernization has been ranked the Air Force's number one 
priority. GBSD [Ground Based Strategic Deterrent], LRSO [Long 
Range Standoff Weapon], and B-21 are key to the Air Force plan. 
Aerial refueling plays a critical role in our ability to 
deliver a decisive advantage in peer warfighting, and the 
capacity our fleet offers makes this projection possible for 
both the joint force and for our allies.
    In order to successfully project power and sustain this 
advantage, it is critical that we deliberately modernize our 
tanker fleet through continuous recapitalization of the KC-
135s, procurement of the KC-46. Keeping KC-10 divestment 
actions on track will not only free up ramp space to allow for 
the delivery of KC-46, but it will also free up the airmen we 
need to build the KC-46 into the capability the taxpayer has 
paid for.
    Our investments in our airlift capabilities have paid 
tremendous dividends in recent years. Our airlift fleet is the 
envy of air forces around the world, and this year's budget 
continues to invest in the C-5, C-17, and C-130 fleets.
    Let me speak a little bit about my own approach coming in 
now as the Air Force acquisition executive. Since my arrival to 
the Air Force earlier this month, I have begun work with a SAF/
AQ [Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)] team to 
assess our current programs, such as the KC-46, and evaluate 
ongoing efforts to adapt acquisition policies and processes to 
meet the pacing challenge. In the early stages, this is 
involving a number of initial focus areas including delivering 
operational capabilities to the warfighter and meeting current 
and future needs, something that is also a huge focus for the 
Secretary; modernizing our nuclear enterprise to ensure safe 
and reliable, credible nuclear deterrent; sustaining our 
complex and aging Air Force fleet, such as the A-10, which we 
are re-winging, and new capabilities that we plan to field; 
fielding innovative new capabilities, especially acquiring 
software and software-intensive systems; advancing capabilities 
for digital acquisition, including through digital engineering; 
strengthening and securing our supply chains; and supporting 
and developing the acquisition workforce.
    Throughout the coming weeks, my team will be engaging with 
our Department leadership, the PEOs [program executive 
officers] who work for me, and with industry to establish clear 
priorities for the acquisition enterprise so that we can drive 
towards a common goal. Once set, I welcome the opportunity to 
share those priorities with this subcommittee and answer any 
questions you may have.
    I look forward to working with this subcommittee to ensure 
the Department of the Air Force maintains sufficient military 
advantage to secure our vital national interest and support our 
allies and partners in fiscal year 2023 and beyond. And 
Lieutenant General Nahom and I stand ready to address your 
questions.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Hunter and General 
Nahom can be found in the Appendix on page 30.]
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And, 
again, congratulations on your new position. Again, I know a 
lot of members that are here today are going to have questions 
on the tanker recapitalization program, so I am going to let 
them have that opportunity to, you know, have a dialogue with 
you this morning on that point.
    One program, which, again, this subcommittee has been 
involved in over the last number of years is the Air Force One 
replacement program, recapitalization program, the VC-25B. And 
there's been setbacks, as you know, already in the last few 
years, and now multiple reports are emerging that the schedule 
is going to slip an additional 17 months and possibly longer.
    Again, if you could sort of just tell us and update us 
regarding the status of this because we really are kind of way 
off the initial plan in terms of replacing that platform.
    Mr. Hunter. You are correct, sir. We are anticipating at 
this point a delay to the previously approved program schedule 
on the order of 24 to 36 months, so 2 to 3 years, which is 
obviously quite a significant delay. And so we are working 
through how to do that. A lot of it was with, there was a 
subcontractor, I know you're aware, that was not able to get 
the job done in terms of the interior of the aircraft and some 
of the modifications there, and that significantly pushed the 
schedule back, the work that wasn't able to be accomplished on 
the effort required to bring in someone else to do that work.
    So we are looking at a 2- to 3-year delay in the schedule 
to deliver the IOC [initial operational capability] aircraft to 
the Air Force, and that means that we will have to sustain the 
existing aircraft for longer. And we are posturing to do that 
and going to be looking in our FY24 budget build process and as 
we execute in FY23 to put in place the resources necessary to 
cover the gap.
    Mr. Courtney. So, I mean, the subcontractor problems, you 
know, has been around for a while. And, I mean, has the Air 
Force just not--or has Boeing not been able to find a 
substitute, or are they going to be taking the work, you know, 
within their own industrial base? Do we have any idea what the 
plan is?
    Mr. Hunter. I think it is a mix of the two things you 
discussed, Boeing doing some additional work itself but also 
bringing on other subcontractors to help with the effort. And I 
think some of this is, as you say, this problem has been known 
for some time. It takes a while for the full schedule 
implications to be understood, so there is a little bit of a 
delay in recognizing the schedule shift after the, as you say, 
the critical problem which occurred some time ago. But I 
believe they now have the plans in place to execute to this new 
updated schedule.
    Mr. Courtney. And do we have kind of a guesstimate about 
what the cost implications are for the delay and, you know, the 
rearranging of the work?
    Mr. Hunter. I would like to get back to you for the record 
on what the exact estimate is, but we believe we can probably 
take care of it in terms of resources that we have within the 
program, although, as I said, there may be some, you may seem 
some changes in the upcoming 2024 budget request compared to 
what we had previously programmed for the VC-25A.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Courtney. Right. Well, we'd appreciate that update. And 
now I'll yield to the ranking member, Mr. Wittman.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to 
thank our witnesses for joining us today.
    Lieutenant General Nahom, do you believe that the Air 
Force, their force structure is optimally aligned to deal with 
the tyranny of distance in the INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific 
Command]? And tell me where you believe our long-range strike 
capabilities are in what they exist today in long-range 
enablers, and are those properly reflected in the budget 
request?
    General Nahom. Sir, thank you for the question. I am 
probably a little biased, but first I'll say I think the Air 
Force is probably the most equipped for the tyranny of 
distance, the way we operate with our long-range equipment, the 
bombers, the tankers, and the like.
    I think our budget really does reflect that INDOPACOM shift 
and focus. And if you look at where we are invested in things 
that do apply to the long-range fight and that tyranny of 
distance, whether it is B-21, KC-46; certainly when you start 
looking at our Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems 
with the Pacific in mind, as well as many of our long-range 
weapons under development, both hypersonic, and you also, you 
can see that we have maximized existing weapons that give us 
some of that long-range strike, like the JASSM-ER [Joint Air-
to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range].
    I think we are focused on the Pacific. The Secretary's 
operational imperatives focus us on the Pacific and making sure 
that we can not only meet the warfight demand but get there 
over long distances. And that also includes basing when you 
talk about agile combat employment in places we are going to 
need to operate in an environment that is much different from 
Europe or the Middle East or other places we have been focused 
on in the past.
    Mr. Wittman. Mr. Hunter, I want to go to a statement that 
was given to us by Secretary Kendall. He recently said, ``I 
love competition. I'm all for it. It's the best tool I have to 
reduce cost.''
    Do you support Secretary Kendall's belief in the value of 
competition?
    Mr. Hunter. I do.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay. If long-range strike capabilities, which 
I believe are essential to INDOPACOM, are really at the 
forefront of what we need to do as a force, do you believe in 
the inherent value of competition? And if that's the case, as 
you've stated that you do, then why would the Air Force be 
walking away from competition on KC-Y?
    Mr. Hunter. Well, sir, we haven't made a decision about 
what we would be doing with KC-Y at this point. We are still 
awaiting input from the requirements community on what exactly 
is the requirement for the KC-Y aircraft family and also 
understanding a business case analysis, so gathering all the 
information and data about what the cost of various options 
would be. And then a decision will be made, and I guess I am 
lucky enough to be the one who gets to try to bring those facts 
together and come to either a decision that we would work with 
the Secretary on.
    So the decision has not been made, and we are going to 
gather and evaluate all that feedback. I do think that this 
requirements piece is really critical, and I think competition 
works well when it is driving innovation, and obviously also 
can work well to control costs. But to my mind, competition is 
most helpful to us when we are looking to acquire something 
where that innovation and where we don't know as much about 
cost and using the competitive pressure to incentivize industry 
to deliver on cost-effective approaches is really helpful.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, I hope, as you go through and gather 
this information on requirements and the needs in the next-
generation tanker aircraft, it seems like to me that the place 
that would bring you is right to Secretary Kendall's statement 
about competition. I think there are very few instances where 
competition would not be of value to the Nation and to the Air 
Force, so I hope that that's reflected in your decision.
    Mr. Hunter. It will be, sir. And the one other thing I 
would note is we also, to your point about the criticality of 
our projection forces to the fight in INDOPACOM, is we want to 
make sure we continue to deliver capability to the warfighter 
without interruption.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. And, Mr. Hunter, 
congratulations and good to have you here. I just want to 
follow up on what my colleague was talking about, the KC-Y and 
the requirements. And quite a bit of what we are discussing 
focuses around what that is going to look like and, quite 
frankly, beyond that, particularly given how the INDOPACOM 
arena has changed in many ways. What we are going to need to 
perform there is always a challenge, and this is no different.
    But as we are looking forward on the KC-Y, those 
requirements, competition, there's no doubt about that, but it 
is also about when we can deliver that next-generation--forgive 
me--that next-generation requirement. So how do you blend those 
together? You have to deliver a requirement, and we know there 
is a date out there by 2027 what we have to have in that 
competition.
    And in particular, let's talk about the tanker here. Give 
me your view on that, and are we going to be able to put this 
out for competition in that short amount of time that we have 
to deliver?
    Mr. Hunter. On the balance, I think you have characterized 
that well. So when it comes to our near-term requirement and 
our longer term requirements, there could be some difference 
between those and the timeframe associated with those. As you 
know, the plan has been--it was for KC-X and then KC-Y and then 
a KC-Z. And I think we are looking at the timelines of all of 
those to understand what is the right mix now because that plan 
was formulated probably a decade ago and the environment has 
evolved subsequently since then.
    So I think what we are seeing is the need for something 
like KC-Z is growing more urgent over time, and that is 
definitely part of our calculus and part of our mix is we want 
to posture to deliver the warfighter the capability they need 
in the 2020s timeframe, which we are doing by fielding KC-X and 
examining our alternatives for when the KC-X line that is 
currently under contract would reach the number of aircraft 
that are currently under contract, and then when do we want to 
deliver the capability that is going to allow us to address 
emerging threats in the INDOPACOM, and just putting all of that 
in the mix and trying to formulate the right answer.
    Mr. Norcross. We all want value for what we are going to 
buy, but we have a timing issue. And when this program started, 
which is much longer than any of us had expected, the world 
looked very different there on how we were going to get there.
    But thank you for your feedback.
    Lieutenant General Nahom, great to have you here. I know 
the clock is ticking for you personally. I can't tell you how 
much we appreciate what you have done, not only for this 
committee but for our country.
    Talk to me about the KC-46 and its deployment in Europe. 
How did we do there?
    General Nahom. Sir, I would say, first of all, it performed 
very well. And the KC-46 now, we are up to 85 percent of our 
aircraft we can refuel with it now, which is a huge increase 
from last year. When we were here last year at this time, we 
were really only certified refueling drogue aircraft, the Navy 
aircraft. Now 85 percent of the fleet, most of the fleet that 
we cannot refuel is more based on the boom stiffness issue with 
some of the underpowered airplanes, A-10s, C-130s, and the 
like.
    The crews that fly it are very excited about that airplane 
and not only the capability, what they see now, but what this 
airplane can grow in to be. The crews that refuel, I have 
talked to many crews that have been refueling off the airplane, 
too, and they are very impressed with the performance of that 
airplane.
    It has some issues that we are working through right now. 
We have workarounds on those. We do need to continue our work 
with Boeing to get those fixed, but the way it is performing 
now, has been performing very well and we are looking forward 
to getting the full capability in the very near future of that 
airplane.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Just to Secretary Hunter, before I 
finish up on the KC-46, is it safe to say in this environment, 
and it is an open source here, it has the ability to perform in 
its configuration to do things that we might ask it to do under 
the new requirements? Boy, that's a nice deep question that we 
can't talk about here. It's prepared for that next generation 
of equipment.
    Mr. Hunter. It is capable of refueling our most advanced 
aircraft that are currently in the force today. When our newer 
aircraft arrive, we will qualify them to refuel with the KC-46 
as soon as we possibly can through flight tests, and I don't 
have significant concerns, frankly, that that will be 
successful based on the performance that it's had with the 
current fleet.
    And I think, you know, 85 percent of the air tasking 
requirements that we have seen for air refueling today, the KC-
46 is authorized to engage and carry those out. And as the 
general said, they have been successful.
    Mr. Norcross. Okay. We will wrap up there.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Carl.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You shouldn't have kept 
us up so late last night; I'd be a little more sparky.
    Good morning, gentlemen.
    General, I have got a quick question here before I go to my 
other questions. You were proud of the 85 percent that we are 
at on this bomber. Sir, would you buy a car that worked 85 
percent of the time?
    General Nahom. Sir, I think, as you look at the KC-46, we 
are making incredible progress with the airplane.
    Mr. Carl. But the question is is would you buy a car that 
worked 85 percent of the time?
    General Nahom. Sir, I would, if the car didn't work all the 
time, I would certainly work with the manufacturer to get it to 
work----
    Mr. Carl. That is not a good answer; we both know that. And 
we have got an aircraft that is working 85 percent of the time. 
Am I correct to say that it cannot refuel our long-range 
bombers?
    General Nahom. Right now, sir, and without getting into the 
specifics here, it can refuel the majority of the aircraft that 
we need it to refuel right now and----
    Mr. Carl. But how about our long-range bombers?
    Mr. Hunter. Sir, it is able to refuel the long-range 
bombers, and we can get back to you on the record----
    Mr. Carl. You said yes?
    Mr. Hunter [continuing]. For exactly what aircraft are 
currently still in work to be refueled.
    Mr. Carl. Okay. So the answer is no, then. What's the 
answer, yes or no?
    Mr. Hunter. My understanding is that it does refuel long-
range bombers.
    Mr. Carl. Well, the information I have got says it does 
not, but we will move on.
    Mr. Hunter, as you can tell, I am extremely concerned about 
the government's waste of money, especially in this project. We 
have got an aircraft that is working 85 percent of the time, 
and we're proud that we've brought it from, I think, 71 or 72 
percent to 85. And we are putting all of our eggs in one basket 
dealing with one manufacturer. You have got this VC-25B, I 
believe, the Air Force One. Now they are falling behind on 
that. This KC-46 is years behind, and yet we still feel 
comfortable putting more business in their lap.
    I think we are extremely, extremely in a dangerous position 
in this country when we put all of our fixed wings into one 
company's lap, and I am really getting curious why, because it 
is not because of their delivery time. If it's all based on 
cost, guess what? If it costs more on the other end and if it 
takes longer to get it, trust me, saving a few dollars is not 
the way to go.
    Now, you've got an aircraft here that does not and cannot 
compete with the Airbus--Lockheed plane that is going to come 
up for bid, and I challenge you, I challenge you not to rebid 
it because if it comes out and it's not being rebid, you are 
going to see this room go ballistic because there is no reason 
why we shouldn't.
    I'll leave that there. I'm sorry.
    The KC-46, let's go back to it. Considering the aircraft is 
now backtracked and the panoramic camera fix and the services 
will be paid for, the sensors, by the taxpayers will bear the 
burden of the cost of that upgrade and that fix. Why should we, 
the taxpayers, pay for something that is supposed to have 
worked when it was delivered?
    Mr. Hunter. So, sir, just briefly on the 85 percent, that 
was 85 percent of the tasking orders can be performed by the 
KC-46. If those tasking orders can't be done by the KC-46, they 
will be assigned to other aircraft. The KC-46 would still 
function and be able to do the aircraft that it is able to 
refuel.
    Mr. Carl. We've got a limited amount of time----
    Mr. Hunter. I didn't mean to mislead you on that.
    Mr. Carl. Why should the taxpayers pay for this?
    Mr. Hunter. On the panoramic camera issue, so we 
identified, after what's called the PDR, the preliminary design 
review, that the warfighter was not satisfied with the 
performance of the panoramic cameras in the back. And so we 
negotiated with Boeing to do an upgrade to that system.
    What Boeing agreed to do was to do all of the software work 
and all the development work to deliver those new cameras and 
to plumb the infrastructure for those cameras to install----
    Mr. Carl. But I understand the cameras that are there now 
will not work at dark and will not work in weather; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Hunter. That is not my understanding of what the 
deficiency is. I think it's more of acuity, a sharpness of the 
image, and how that meets their expectations.
    Mr. Carl. So they can't see what they're looking at. Either 
way, it's a product that's not working for us.
    Mr. Hunter. So the Air Force agreed that it would take on 
the cost of installing actual cameras, which as of yet, we have 
not decided whether we will actually install those additional 
cameras----
    Mr. Carl. So the taxpayers are paying to upgrade something 
that was supposed to work originally. That makes a lot of 
sense. I have been in business for years; trust me, that makes 
no sense in my mind. Zero. I am sorry, and I don't mean to be 
picking on you here, but let's move on real quick.
    Give us a layout of the timeline that the decision will be 
made on whether to bid out this KC-Y tanker or not.
    Mr. Courtney. We are going to have to just hold that answer 
for the second round because there will be given the early 
start here.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Carl. The Chair now recognizes 
Ms. Garcia of Texas.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both 
witnesses for being here this morning. This is my first crack 
at the wheel in this committee, and I don't have a lot of 
questions today because I really do need to visit with you all 
to get kind of a briefing and background before I can sink my 
teeth into some of this.
    But I just wanted to say that I am proud that my family is 
an Air Force family. You know, growing up poor in South Texas, 
there was few options for many of my brothers. They either 
continue to work on the farms the rest of their lives or they 
join the military, and my three oldest brothers all decided to 
join the Air Force. So I have visited many bases throughout the 
country, and I have always enjoyed my stay there.
    You know, for me, in Houston, the only thing close to us is 
Ellington Field, which is not used as much as it used to and we 
lost the fighter jets that used to be there some years ago 
going through the BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] process 
and some other things. And I recall, well, I think it was when 
I was city controller at the time of the City of Houston, going 
to some of those meetings. So I have sort of a back view of 
some of the things that go on with the Air Force but certainly 
not enough today to ask you some hard questions. But I would 
remind you all that I have been the city controller for the 
City of Houston, so numbers and financial statements do not 
scare me.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. And we look forward to 
your participation and really appreciate the story you shared 
with us this morning.
    Our next member is Mr. Gallagher from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's talk a little 
bit about maritime strike. My understanding is the Air Force is 
investing in LRASM [Long Range Anti-Ship Missile] on B-1s; is 
that correct?
    General Nahom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gallagher. Is there any plan for a similar maritime 
strike capability to be fielded on B-21, B-2, or B-52?
    General Nahom. Sir, maritime strike is a focus, especially 
when you look at a China warfight, and we are looking at 
maritime strike on many platforms. And I certainly can get to a 
classified session, and we can expand on this conversation.
    Mr. Gallagher. Is there anything in an unclassified setting 
you could say about the most promising employment of maritime 
strike, particularly within the sort of stand-in force or 
standoff force concept you mentioned earlier?
    General Nahom. Sir, I would have to be very careful about 
that conversation in an unclassified session, but I tell you it 
is something that we and our joint partners need to do well in 
any conflict in the South China Sea.
    Mr. Gallagher. When we talk about not just the South China 
Sea but more broadly throughout INDOPACOM, agile combat 
employment, or are we calling it ACE or A-C-E or what's the----
    General Nahom. ACE, A-C-E, agile combat employment, sir.
    Mr. Gallagher. The new rule is that every new acronym must 
also result in the subtraction of two acronyms. So I am going 
to submit that as an NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] 
amendment. But ACE is a relatively uncomplicated one, so I'll 
allow that.
    Okay. Just maybe in layman's terms, non-acronym layman's 
terms, describe what the ACE vision is and, if we went to war 
with China over Taiwan tomorrow, is ACE logistically 
supportable as presently conceived and funded?
    General Nahom. Sir, and we are funding in new ACE concepts 
moving forward. We actually do ACE in many places, and you look 
at what we're doing, what we have done in Europe in exercises 
and what we're doing in the Pacific in exercises, we are 
actually doing a lot of ACE concepts right now; the idea of not 
being in one concentrated area. You know, not building up that 
iron mountain in one location, and giving multiple dilemmas to 
an adversary.
    It is--I'll tell you, when you said the word logistics, 
that is the challenge. And I have done this in the Pacific in 
my time there in the F-15 and F-22 with organizations, and that 
is the thing we spend the most time talking about is we are 
going to go out to a certain location, how do we get spare 
parts, how do we get fuel, how do we get munitions? These 
things are overcomeable, but we are going to have to work at 
them and it does take some investment, and I think you will see 
that reflected in our budgets.
    Mr. Gallagher. Do we have the requisite basing agreements 
that make ACE possible in the Indo-Pacific? Is that one of the 
logistical constraints or no?
    General Nahom. You know, I tell you, and that is a 
challenge with certain areas in the Pacific. It's a little 
different in Europe when we have something that bounds us, NATO 
[North Atlantic Treaty Organization] and other agreements. In 
the Pacific, there is a lot of places that it is possible right 
now because there are some islands and places that we have 
access to. There is also other countries that we rarely work 
with, our very close allies, the Japanese, the Australians, and 
others. But certainly you are going to have to expand that out 
to other partners and allies, and that is work that is being 
done.
    Mr. Gallagher. Well, there is a lot of U.S. territory that 
has not been garrisoned or hardened. Furthermore, the compact 
states seem desperate for further cooperation with us, but we 
seem to be missing a massive opportunity to seize.
    So I don't know. I would welcome a further classified 
discussion on the first topic I asked about. And is there an 
authoritative sort of document that lays out the ACE vision 
with specific reference to the Indo-Pacific?
    General Nahom. Sir, let me take that one for the record. I 
don't know what I can get you for that.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Gallagher. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm 
interested in understanding it more.
    Quickly, Mr. Hunter, there was a concerning Wall Street 
Journal story the other week that found that China is using 
state-sponsored methods to target companies that received SBIRs 
[Small Business Innovative Research] funding. I don't know if 
you saw this. If not, I guess there won't be an answer to this. 
But if so, could you perhaps comment on how the Air Force 
protects SBIR research from Chinese espionage and sort of any 
other thoughts you had in reaction to that story?
    Mr. Hunter. Sir, I am familiar with that article. And as 
you say, it is concerning; and, of course, it fits a pattern, a 
long-term pattern of efforts by China to obtain intellectual 
property and technology from the United States. It's been going 
on and that will continue.
    The Air Force has developed sort of vetting processes for 
our SBIR awards in order to make sure that we are comfortable 
with the possibility of those efforts being pursued against 
companies in which we would be making investments. We think the 
processes that the Air Force is using are some of the most 
effective that are currently in use in the Federal Government, 
and so--but we are looking to see what we can do to make them 
even better and also work with the interagency and with our DOD 
[U.S. Department of Defense] partners to extend those.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Jacobs, who is joining us remotely.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Nahom, I want to start with you. First, I want to 
congratulate you and the 22nd Air Refueling Wing for the 
historic flight that lasted over 24 hours. With that said, 
refueling requirements have been a growing concern with myself 
and other members of Congress, as I think you've heard a lot in 
this hearing, with the retirement of the KC-10 and the delay in 
the production of the KC-46.
    So what is the Air Force currently doing to mature the 
refueling system? Specifically, when will the remote vision 
systems [RVS] and aerial refueling boom fixes be expected to be 
approved and installed? And the KC-46 tankers will have to be 
pulled from flight operations in order to retrofit the new 
remote video systems and boom. What's the Air Force doing to 
mitigate flight operations and missions across the globe when 
the aircraft boom is getting fixed?
    Mr. Hunter. Ma'am, we anticipate that the RVS 2.0 upgrade 
that will resolve most of the issues that we have with the 
refueling system will be ready to be installed, to start being 
installed, we'll complete this development in 2024 and we will 
then expeditiously move out to install those fixes right away. 
But, of course, it will take some time to get them installed 
across the entire fleet.
    Most of that work will probably be accomplished when 
aircraft are going into depot, and we'll of course immediately 
install the new equipment on the aircraft that are starting to 
come off the line at that point that are being delivered, that 
we'll be accepting once that design is complete.
    So it will happen at a steady pace. We will work to 
minimize any possible disruption to operations as those fixes 
are being installed.
    Ms. Jacobs. Okay. Thank you. And I know, again to you 
General Nahom, the bomber roadmap has changed a few times in 
the last few years. What is the latest bomber retirement plan 
and proposed total number of bombers?
    General Nahom. Thank you for the question, ma'am. And I 
tell you, the bomber roadmap has been pretty steady for the 
last, at least the last 2 years. We are really achieving to get 
to a two-bomber fleet with the B-21 and a modified B-52.
    The exact numbers of B-21, you know, we've said minimum 
100, objective to 145. We do need to get to a bomber fleet size 
that can adequately accomplish the missions that we need it to 
accomplish, so we have been pretty steady in those numbers, as 
well.
    The B-1, you know, we will keep the B-1 around long enough 
until the B-21 can shake hands with that because we need the--
in the interim, we need the long-range strike capability. And 
the B-2, we'll keep that around long enough until the B-21 can 
shake hands with that, as well, because we need that ability to 
penetrate into enemy air defense systems.
    So we are excited right now with the B-21. The development 
is going very well on the B-21. I can't get into too many 
details in an unclassified line on that, but we are excited 
about the B-21 coming online. Like all legacy systems that we 
are divesting, the B-1 and the B-2 are no different. I do 
always have concern, as systems age like that, in making sure 
that we can keep those systems effective until the B-21 can 
take over their service.
    Ms. Jacobs. Okay. Thank you. We will look forward to 
hearing more details in a classified setting and continuing to 
follow that progress.
    Switching a little bit, a recent Hudson report argued that 
the additional investments in Indo-Pacific airfields, bulk fuel 
storage and distribution should be the top priority of any plan 
to increase investments, airfield capacity. Changes to the 
tanker portfolio would only have a marginal effect due to the 
currently limited number of airfields with sufficient runway 
lane, ramp space, and fuel stores that are able to effectively 
support tanker operations. Furthermore, the airfields the U.S. 
does have access to are almost all concentrated at major 
military or civil airfields. I know my colleague, Mr. 
Gallagher, talked about this a little bit.
    So do you agree with this pessimistic assessment by Hudson?
    Mr. Hunter. So I would just say on that that we are focused 
very much on how to expand the range of options in the Indo-
Pacific, as the general referred to earlier, as part of the 
operational imperatives that I also referenced in my opening 
statement. There is a huge benefit to expanding the range of 
airfields and locations from which we can operate.
    I do think, from an air refueling perspective, as the 
general earlier indicated, our situation there, we think we can 
accomplish our mission with where we are. But from a tactical 
perspective, there is a lot of benefit from expanding the range 
of airfields.
    General Nahom. Yes, ma'am. I was just going to say I'm not 
pessimistic about it. There's challenge here, but it's 
actually, it's pretty exciting what we are doing in the Pacific 
right now and we have a lot of work to do. But I'm certainly 
not pessimistic because we see a road to get there.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Ms. Jacobs. And the Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Kelly, who is joining us remotely.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant General 
Nahom, thank you for a job exceptionally well done. We 
appreciate your service to this Nation, and we appreciate all 
the time that you have been on this committee.
    Unlike me, the others have many concerns about future 
readiness versus the ability to fight tonight. That's a sliding 
scale of risk. I feel like in the STRAT [strategic] air, the 
bombers, refuelers, and cargo planes that we use, I think you 
guys have done that better, maybe sometimes with some 
prompting, but than all of our services across DOD are doing 
that so I appreciate the fact that you guys understand the need 
to be able to fight today and to balance that against the risk 
of making sure that we can fight the future fights. So thank 
you both for doing that, I think, better than we have done 
across DOD.
    Lieutenant General Nahom and Mr. Hunter, Mississippi is 
proudly the home of the nine C-17 Globemaster III aircraft of 
the 172nd Air Wing in Jackson, Mississippi. As you are aware, 
the C-17 is the backbone of our Nation's strategic airlift 
capability and its unique capabilities and exceptional 
readiness continue to be called upon around the world, most 
recently in support of the conflict in Ukraine and, prior to 
that, during the evacuation of Afghanistan. It is imperative 
for the warfighter and the National Defense Strategy that we 
continue to invest to maintain and improve the capabilities of 
the C-17.
    To that end, I have become aware that the aircraft is in 
urgent need of a flight deck update. The 1980s era cockpit 
display and the computer avionics have become obsolete and 
require updates. Failing to do so expeditiously could result in 
non-mission capable aircraft. I understand the Air Force would 
prefer to update the flight deck with the latest technology 
inclusive to open systems architecture with more robust cyber 
protections and overall reduced parts count. I am very 
supportive of the Air Force path because I believe it will 
improve operational capability, aircraft readiness, and allow 
for more efficient future growth.
    Can you confirm that the Air Force is actively working 
plans to modernize the C-17 flight deck in the near term? 
That's for either.
    Mr. Hunter. Sir, I would like to get with you on the 
details of our modernization approach for the C-17. You are 
correct that we do have funding program to modernize C-17s 
specifically for increasing the beyond-line-of-sight capability 
for the aircraft and meeting the mandates that we have from the 
FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and for the comms 
[communications] requirements to make sure that it's up to date 
with the systems that we have out there. And I would like to 
get with you on the full details of our RDT&E [research, 
development, test, and evaluation] plan for the aircraft for 
the record.
    General, did you have anything to add?
    General Nahom. No, sir. And I tell you, the C-17 is just a 
workhorse and we know it. And what they did in Afghanistan was 
truly remarkable. We are committed to it.
    I'll tell you one thing we are watching very closely is how 
much we fly that airplane. Because we have been flying it so 
heavy over the years, we have got to be careful that we 
actually watch that because, at some point, we are going to 
have to replace it if we keep flying at this level, and we want 
to make sure that we are programmed to do that well. So that's 
probably one of the things we'll watch closely in the coming 
years, as well.
    Mr. Kelly. Mr. Hunter, I would appreciate a followup and 
would love to get detail. We can do that either in a class or 
non-class environment. I'm pretty easy to get in touch with.
    And, Lieutenant General Nahom, I think the first time I met 
you was probably 4 or 5 years ago when I was going through a 
CAC [Combined Arms Center] and there was a lot going on. I 
think you were a brigadier general at the time. And I just want 
to say at all times during my career in Congress where I have 
bumped into you either in an operational environment or 
testifying here before this committee, I just want to reiterate 
that you have done an exceptional job and we thank you for 
that.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    General Nahom. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. You forgot to mention 
he was born and raised in Connecticut in your comments there.
    Anyway, so I think we have completed the first round. I 
know some members want to use the time that we have left for an 
additional round of questions.
    Again, one item, which--the B-21 has been mentioned and, of 
course, you can't talk too much detail, but Secretary Kendall, 
when he was over here, we did have a good exchange regarding 
just the overall contracting process that was used with B-21, 
which was a little different than other platforms over the 
years. And, honestly, I think it is so important to sort of 
foot-stomp that success in terms of just the way software was 
handled in terms of proprietary ownership and also, you know, 
looking out at the sustainment tail.
    And I don't know if you wanted to sort of comment on that, 
or maybe, General Nahom, you've been involved with it, as well. 
But, you know, I don't want to jinx the program, but it does 
seem like we're really showing some pretty good success in 
terms of the execution, which originates, at the end of the 
day, with the agreement that the government struck with 
Northrop.
    Mr. Hunter. Yes, I agree it's an innovative contracting 
approach. And one of the parts about it that I appreciate quite 
a bit now, as we are, you know, this program has matured and 
we're reaching the part where we often run into or we start to 
discover some of the engineering challenges that were notional 
when we started the program and they become real as you get 
into the parts of the program that we are currently at.
    And so the contract structure, what I appreciated about it 
is the active management approach that was designed in so that, 
as we identify risks, as we go through our engineering 
analysis, we can use funding to go mitigate those risks, get 
ahead of the problem and reduce risk early, rather than sort of 
watching it occur. And I think some of the challenges we've 
talked about with some other aircraft development efforts, 
particularly those that are fixed-price development, is in some 
cases you can see the problem but you have very limited means 
to do anything about it. And with the B-21, I think we have got 
some good approaches there that have allowed us to get out 
ahead of that. And that very much, I think, has been to the 
benefit.
    There is still some risk because there are fixed-price 
aspects to the program that--I will say, that has been a great 
incentive for Northrop to focus on cost, which they have been 
doing. But, you know, there is some risk there that we will see 
challenges going forward. But, overall, I think it is a really 
good model, the contracting strategy for the B-21 program.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, like I said, I hope we're not 
spiking the ball in the end zone too soon here, but I do think 
it's a really noteworthy story that, you know, Congress, the 
executive branch, and contractor should really watch and pay 
attention to.
    Did you want to say anything, General Nahom, about it or--
--
    General Nahom. No, sir, nothing to add to that.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Okay. I will now yield to Mr. 
Wittman.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant 
General Nahom, I wanted to get into a little more about the 
bomber roadmap that you talked about about divesting in the B-1 
and B-2 and putting our eggs in the basket of B-21 and B-52. 
Obviously, B-21 being penetrating strike platform, incredibly 
capable, and then B-52 being the long-range standoff platform.
    As we do that, I know that the program that looks to re-
engine the B-52 is going to be critical as we move to that two-
aircraft platform model. The challenge is, when we're doing the 
re-engining program now, we've seen a 50 percent increase in 
the cost of that particular program, and that's of concern both 
in what it means on the impact on the budget but also what it 
means to fully complete that transition and have those aircraft 
that are available for more years of service. The amazing thing 
to me is that aircraft has been flying for a number of years. 
As you know, the newest tail number on many of those aircraft 
is 60, which means that's the year that it was built, 1960. And 
the aircraft that are out there today, the pilots that will fly 
them before they finish their service to the United States in 
the inventory haven't been born yet. So that aircraft is going 
to be around for a while, so the re-engining program is really 
big, as it is part of the bomber roadmap.
    Give me an idea about these cost increases. Are you doing 
things to control the cost increases? What can we expect in the 
future, both in time, schedule, and cost for the B-52 re-
engining program?
    General Nahom. And sir, I'm going to let Mr. Hunter comment 
on this.
    Mr. Hunter. Sir, as you know, we have been doing a Middle 
Tier of Acquisition program to develop a re-engining approach, 
prototype a re-engining, a design for the B-52. And I would 
want to emphasize that a lot of that engineering work is 
actually inside the airplane and on the support struts to which 
the engines attach versus the engine itself because the engine 
itself is largely a commercial engine that already exists, so 
with a modest number of modifications. So it's really about re-
engineering this 1960s aircraft to perform all the way through 
end of its life, and we have to do it. You know, we won't get 
there with the current engine.
    So we have been doing that prototyping program. We are 
approaching the completion of that work, at which point we'll 
have an effective, we believe, design that would allow us to 
actually go into an acquisition program to do the work of re-
engining. So we have a Milestone B coming up to make that 
decision to proceed into the actual production of aircraft that 
are re-engined aircraft. And at that point, we will understand, 
we will have in our hands the real full cost of what it is 
going to take to do it, and we will set the original baseline 
for the follow-on program, the re-engining program, at that 
point.
    As you have pointed out, we currently believe that there is 
cost growth from our design work that we did originally through 
the Middle Tier of Acquisition program to what we anticipate 
we'll be looking at when we get to Milestone B. And then we'll 
have to assess does it still make sense to move forward with 
that program? However, as I said, we will need a new engine for 
the B-52 to get it out to its full lifetime.
    Mr. Wittman. Are you putting in place cost controls to 
prevent any further cost growth?
    Mr. Hunter. We will be looking at the acquisition strategy 
to make sure that we have an effective means to control cost on 
B-52 re-engining program. And as the kind of prior discussion 
with Chairman Courtney indicated, I think there is some good 
lessons learned from some of our other recent major programs, 
of tools that we want to look at for that acquisition strategy.
    Mr. Wittman. I hope, as you look at that, that you not only 
look at the re-engining cost but also the lifecycle cost. I 
think those things are incredibly important, too, so I'd love 
to hear back from you as you develop those cost controls and 
how you do that over the life cycle of the engine.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to follow up 
once again Mr. Wittman talking about the B-52 program, the cost 
controls. The engine has been selected, correct?
    Mr. Hunter. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. So as you are doing the structural again, 
it's a little bit older, right? Old doesn't mean bad because, 
if it was, none of us would be here. But when we look at the 
structural, you know what it takes to upgrade it for the new 
engine and the torque for a lifetime. But as you open up the 
different planes, are you including a cost factor for surprises 
that you might not be able to see, or do you have a pretty good 
handle on what each of the aircraft, I guess, condition is 
structurally?
    Mr. Hunter. Yes. As we go through that with the contractor 
to come up with a cost for the program, the government will 
independently analyze that and we will absolutely try to factor 
in room for surprises given the age of the aircraft and the 
complexity of what we're asking to be done there. And it's, you 
know, the overall contractor for the program is Boeing, 
different contractor for the engine that we are buying, but we 
are working with both. So we will have the best engineering 
knowledge that we can find, including the government 
engineering knowledge on this aircraft, which is extensive, as 
we put together those estimates.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. One of the most remarkable planes 
ever designed. And I don't want to get into it. I don't have a 
Boeing, I don't have Airbus in my district. I don't have a 
base. But the availability rate of the KC-46 is the highest of 
any refueling plane in our--for availability. It does fly 85 
percent of the missions. So we get that. We understand that we 
like competition. This was a fixed-price contract. Boeing has 
taken it on the chin. If we held the standard that some folks 
are talking about on this to some of our other platforms, our 
ships, they would never make it out of the dry dock.
    Let's just bring down the tone. Let's talk about what we 
need as a country to make sure they get refueled, that we're 
competitive, getting the best price for America. And I thank 
all of us. I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues. We 
talk about this all the time. But the most important thing is 
what we deliver for those warfighters when they need it.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Carl.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hunter, were you 
originally involved in the original contract on this KC-46 back 
9, 10 years ago in any way?
    Mr. Hunter. No, sir.
    Mr. Carl. Okay, all right. Well, good. Thank you. Quick 
question. What do these four aircraft have in common: a KE-46A, 
XL I think that's UUV--I might be wrong on that one--a TF, and 
a VC-25b? What do those four have in common?
    Mr. Hunter. Well, I recognize two of those are Boeing 
aircraft. I am going to guess the other two are Boeing 
products, as well.
    Mr. Carl. Good guess. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. 
They're overpromised, underdelivered, over cost. It all falls 
in the same category. And I'm sorry for my simple mentality 
here sometime, but, you know, I almost feel like, you know, I 
feel like I'm going to the refrigerator and I'm pulling out a 
jug of milk and I pour a glassful of it and it's all clabbered, 
and I drink it and it's nasty, and I put it back in the 
refrigerator and I wait a month and go back and try it again, 
thinking it's going to be better. That's the way I feel on this 
KC-46 project. I feel like we just keep waiting for it to get 
better, and it keeps getting worse.
    General, can this KC-46 today, can it refuel a B-2 bomber?
    General Nahom. Sir, I had to check my notes. On the bomber 
fleet, it can refuel B-52. It is not certified for B-1 or B-2 
yet.
    Mr. Carl. Okay. So our long-range capabilities are limited 
by this aircraft?
    Mr. Hunter. I was going to revisit that, sir, because he is 
correct. It has not been certified. What I was referring to is 
we aren't unaware of any technical issue today that would 
prevent that certification from happening when the test flight 
schedule allows for it.
    Mr. Carl. Okay. How long do you think that's going to take?
    Mr. Hunter. It should be fairly soon.
    General Nahom. Yes, the testing is happening----
    Mr. Carl. Well, again, it is like that clabbered milk in 
the refrigerator. We keep passing it on and keep going back to 
and think it's going to get better.
    And I'm sorry I'm taking my frustrations out on you. I know 
it's not you. But I think our bidding contract--and I 
understand overruns, I truly do. And we want to keep every 
shipyard, we want to keep every plane manufacturer. I am not 
anti anybody. We want to keep them in business, we want to keep 
them healthy. But when we put all our eggs in one basket, it 
seems like, and things start deteriorating and we want to keep 
putting them back in that same basket, those apples are going 
to come out rotten sooner or later. So we have to be careful.
    In our bid process, when we're talking about the lives of 
our airmen here and now, we are going to buy the cheapest 
product to put them in and that's what it's based on; but, yet, 
from a taxpayer standpoint, at the end of the project we have 
paid a lot more than it originally started, that wasn't a good 
contract. So maybe the problem is the contract in between.
    Mr. Hunter. Sir, I will say, on this case, the government 
has paid what we anticipated originally, but there has been 
cost overruns and the contractor has borne most of those cost 
overruns.
    Mr. Carl. Well, again, when I bid something, I expect a 
product that works 100 percent of the time. And I'm not going 
to go back into that. I think that will be tacky, and I'm a lot 
of things, I think, but not tacky.
    Who is laughing down there about me not being tacky? Okay, 
all right. That's my buddy. I love it.
    Can you give me that timeframe again where you think this 
contract is going to play out?
    Mr. Hunter. This will be the timeframe on the KC-Y 
decision----
    Mr. Carl. Yes.
    Mr. Hunter [continuing]. Sir, that we were referencing 
earlier? Yes. So we anticipate that the business case analysis 
and the requirements approval that we need from our 
requirements community will come in the fall.
    Mr. Carl. Fall of this year?
    Mr. Hunter. Of this year. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carl. Okay. Thank you. And I return my time. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, from the tacky one down here on the end.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Carl. We don't think you're 
tacky at all. Anyway, does any members, Ms. Garcia--Rob, you're 
okay? Okay, good.
    So, again, I think we have had a good discussion and given 
us a lot of good things to chew over as we get closer to the 
mark. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for joining us this 
early and particularly, General Nahom, this sounds like this 
may be your last waltz in front of the Seapower and Projection 
Forces Subcommittee, but we definitely, I just want to join the 
other colleagues in really thanking you for, you know, always 
being accessible and available and explaining things in plain 
English and, again, for your amazing service and wish you all 
the best in whatever is the next chapter.
    And, again, thank you again, Mr. Hunter, for joining us.
    And with that, I declare this hearing closed.
    [Whereupon, at 8:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                              May 19, 2022

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 19, 2022

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

      

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
    
    
      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                              May 19, 2022

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GOLDEN

    Mr. Golden. A continuing concern of this committee has been the 
need to balance training and maintenance resourcing across the Air 
Force components. Mindful of the need to make sure the Air National 
Guard's critical refueling mission requirements are properly resourced, 
last year's NDAA included a provision--Sect. 137--Inventory 
Requirements and Limitations Relating to Certain Air Refueling Tanker 
Aircraft--that prohibited the Air Force from reducing the number of KC-
135 aircraft designated as primary mission aircraft inventory--or 
PMAI--within the Reserve Components of the Air Force so that they could 
not be transferred into a Backup Aircraft Inventory, or BAI status. Can 
you please describe the difference between PMAI and BAI status in terms 
of resourcing? How does the Air Force view resourcing the KC-135 
aircraft in the Reserve Components in FY2023?
    General Nahom. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Golden. The Department of the Air Force's 2020 Arctic Strategy 
describes the region as ``increasingly vital for U.S. national security 
interest'' that ``hosts critical launch points for global power 
projection.'' Can you please describe the importance of Air Mobility 
Command's refueling mission in the Arctic? How does the ability to 
provide air refueling support in this region impact our national force 
projection capabilities? Additionally, how does air refueling support 
in the Arctic contribute to the homeland defense? Can you describe what 
kind of recapitalization support may be required for air refueling 
missions within proximity to the Arctic region?
    General Nahom. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]