[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.]