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


                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-80]

                                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
                               __________

                         FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                   ON

      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                             APRIL 27, 2022


                                     
                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                
                
                                 __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
48-584                       WASHINGTON : 2023   
              


                                     
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                    ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

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

                     Brian Garrett, Staff Director
                Maria Vastola, Professional Staff Member
                 Ryan Tully, Professional Staff Member
                      Natalie de Benedetti, Clerk


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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

                               WITNESSES

Brown, Gen Charles Q., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force......     6
Kendall, Hon. Frank, III, Secretary of the Air Force.............     4
Raymond, Gen John W., USSF, Chief of Space Operations, U.S. Space 
  Force..........................................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Kendall, Hon. Frank, III, joint with General John W. Raymond 
      and General Charles Q. Brown...............................    67

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Bullet Background Paper on Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 
      Military Construction Program..............................    93

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mrs. Bice....................................................    97
    Ms. Escobar..................................................    98
    Mr. Fallon...................................................    98
    Mr. Gaetz....................................................    97
    Mr. Gallego..................................................    97
    Mr. Horsford.................................................    97
    Mr. Waltz....................................................    97

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Brown....................................................   128
    Mr. Horsford.................................................   114
    Dr. Jackson..................................................   113
    Ms. Jacobs...................................................   111
    Mr. Keating..................................................   127
    Mr. Kelly....................................................   104
    Mr. Morelle..................................................   109
    Mr. Scott....................................................   120
    Ms. Speier...................................................   102
    Mr. Turner...................................................   101
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   107
    Mr. Wilson...................................................   129
      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                         Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.

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

    The Chairman. I will go ahead and call the committee to 
order.
    Thank you all for being here this morning.
    We have a full committee hearing on the Department of the 
Air Force fiscal year 2023 budget request, part of our ongoing 
posture hearings, as we take a look at the President's budget 
and prepare for how we want to handle it, for the process for 
the rest of this year.
    We are joined by the Honorable Frank Kendall, who is the 
Secretary of the United States Air Force; General Charles 
Brown, Chief of Staff, the United States Air Force; and General 
John Raymond, who is the Chief of Space Operations for the 
United States Space Force. Thank you, gentlemen, all for being 
here.
    This is a very interesting time, as we try to figure out 
how to meet our national security needs at the moment, and at 
the same time prepare for a rapidly changing future. And I 
think that is the main theme of this hearing. Both within the 
Space Force and within the Air Force, you have a fairly 
complicated set of plans to figure out what platforms you are 
going to need to meet the missions that you are being asked to 
do.
    On the Air Force side, we are juggling a variety of 
different systems to try to figure out how to get to the 
appropriate number of air wings; what to do with the F-35, as 
we continue to await the delivery of the Block 4, the 
capability that we really want; while at the same time dealing 
with legacy aircraft systems like the A-10 and the F-22.
    So, General Brown and Secretary Kendall, we are most 
interested to hear sort of what is the vision of how that plays 
out. I know those plans have changed quite a bit from year to 
year, as the situation has evolved, cost has evolved, and as we 
have learned more about what we are going to need going 
forward. It would be good to get sort of a quick summary of 
where you are at now today and your confidence level, both in 
what the plan is and our ability to implement it in terms of 
funding and, also, in terms of building those capabilities.
    And I think the thing that has changed the most, which is a 
continuing theme for this committee, is how survivability in 
weapon systems has really changed. And we are certainly seeing 
that in the fight in Ukraine. Missiles and drones and 
information systems have changed everything. Platforms are not 
as survivable as they used to be, and we need to figure out how 
they can operate within hostile environments, and how we can 
build better platforms that can operate within those hostile 
environments.
    If a swarm of relatively low-cost drones can deliver a 
better punch and is more survivable in an environment than an 
incredibly expensive airplane, how does that change our plans 
going forward in terms of what we need? Because I think, as we 
look at the fight in Ukraine again right now, the number one 
biggest thing that we all wish we had more of is missiles, and 
number two is drones. And so, how does that factor into our 
plans?
    And then, of course, long-range fires that are a huge part 
of survivability as well, of being able to hit the enemy from a 
greater distance than they could hit you matters enormously. 
How does that fit into those plans going forward?
    There are some similar challenges within the Space Force. I 
mean, certainly, the information systems, space is absolutely 
key to that--the ability to gather the information we need and 
distribute it to the people who need it, when they need it, and 
to make sure we can protect it. That is increasingly important 
on the battlefield these days, and also, more and more 
challenging to make sure that those systems are survivable, as 
we need to upgrade that. So, very curious to see how all of the 
systems are being upgraded to make sure that they meet those 
requirements.
    Then, of course, the other huge thing in space is we are 
planning on launching a lot of satellites in the next 20 years. 
Part of how we want to develop that survivable infrastructure, 
that survivable information system infrastructure, is to have 
more redundancy. Instead of relying on a few exquisite 
platforms, have more spread out that are more survivable and 
more redundant. But to get there, that is a lot of work in 
terms of building satellites, launching them, maintaining them. 
I am curious to see how that fits within the budget.
    And we do have to figure out how to fit within the budget. 
I know there will be a lot of discussion today about whether or 
not you have enough money. Does anybody, other than Elon Musk, 
that is, ever really have enough money? You know, I am 
interested in that, certainly.
    Inflation, supply chain, these issues are complicating 
everything that I just said and everything that you are trying 
to do. We are curious to know how you are looking at handling 
those issues. But, also, whatever you have got, you have got to 
spend it well. And it has just been my experience throughout 
life that you can give somebody 10 times as much money, but if 
the person with one-tenth the money spends it better, they are 
going to win. So, how do you make sure that you are spending 
the money in an efficient and effective way to deliver what you 
are trying to get?
    And so, I am curious about all of those issues.
    With that, I will yield to Mr. Rogers for his opening 
statement.
    Thank you.

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

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank the witnesses for their service to our 
country and for their preparation and attendance today.
    I do remain extremely concerned about President Biden's 
budget proposal. The budget request does not keep pace with the 
threats we are facing from China or Russia, and it does not 
keep pace with the historic levels of inflation we are 
currently experiencing.
    Inflation is eating into the buying power of the Department 
and impacting the livelihoods of our service members and their 
families, and it is not going down anytime soon. We are going 
to be dealing with this problem well into fiscal year 2023 and 
beyond. But the budget request doesn't account for it. General 
Milley testified to that fact last month. This means nearly 
every dollar of increase this budget has, is eaten up by 
inflation. Very little, if anything, will be left over to 
modernize or grow capacity. That forces our service chiefs to 
make unnecessary choices about which requirements to fund and 
which to defer.
    The $5.2 billion unfunded priorities submitted by General 
Brown and General Raymond are a testament to that fact. 
Priorities such as F-35s, hypersonic weapons, missile warning 
and tracking, and the critical weapons and facilities 
sustainment all went underfunded in this budget. These are 
exactly the priorities we should be funding.
    The budget continues the Air Force's strategy to divest 
capabilities that aren't survivable in a fight against China 
and use the savings to invest in advanced technologies capable 
of prevailing in that conflict. While I support that approach, 
we should ask tough questions about how much risk we are 
absorbing and for how long.
    Many of the divestments in this year's budget would 
undermine the service's ability to continue to meet critical 
requirements until the next decade. That is because 
replacements are still early in the development process, while 
delivery timelines continue to move to the right.
    To make matters worse, the budget cuts the buy for many of 
the capabilities we need to bridge the gap. It means the 
administration is gambling that China, Russia, or some other 
adversary won't force us into conflict before 2030. Given the 
atrocities we are witnessing in Ukraine, that is a dangerous 
bet. Divest to invest is important, but it can't leave our 
combatant commanders trying to fill near-term requirements with 
an empty toolbox.
    Finally, I am glad to see the increased investments 
proposed by the Space Force. We must continue to push forward 
with distributed architecture in space in a smart way that 
provides capabilities to the warfighters now, while 
accelerating future systems.
    I also want to highlight General Raymond's request to make 
it easier to move [Space Force] guardians between Active and 
Reserve status is a great move. This is exactly the type of 
innovative approach to warfighting that we envisioned when we 
created the Space Force.
    I know there are several issues to work through on this 
proposal, but I look forward to seeing it happen.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Kendall, you are recognized for your opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK KENDALL III, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking 
Member Rogers, members of the committee.
    I am honored to have General Brown and General Raymond join 
me in representing the nearly 700,000 airmen and guardians that 
defend our Nation. We are all thankful for your consistent 
support over the years.
    Speaking in 1940, General Douglas MacArthur said the 
following: ``The history of failure in war can almost be summed 
up in two words: `too late.' Too late in comprehending the 
deadly purpose of a potential enemy. Too late in realizing the 
mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in uniting 
all possible forces for resistance, and too late in standing 
with one's friends.''
    I believe MacArthur made this comment after France fell to 
Nazi aggression, but before the attack on Pearl Harbor drew the 
United States into a war in Asia--a time that in some ways may 
be analogous to today.
    What my colleagues and I are trying to do, and what we need 
your help with, is to ensure that American Air and Space Forces 
are never too late in meeting our pacing challenge, which is 
China. We are also concerned about the now obvious and acute 
threat of Russian aggression.
    Many of you have heard the China threat briefing that we 
presented. It lays out China's efforts to develop and field 
forces that could defeat our ability to project power in the 
Western Pacific. Today, we will say more about how the 
Department of the Air Force is responding to that threat 
through our fiscal year 2023 budget and through future budgets.
    Our budget submission provides a balance between the 
capabilities we need today and investments in transformation 
required to address emerging threats. With the requested 
budget, the Air and Space Forces will be able to support our 
combatant commanders in the continuing campaigns that 
demonstrate our resolve and support and encourage our allies 
and partners around the world.
    Simultaneously, our fiscal year 2023 budget represents a 
significant early step in the transformation of the Air and 
Space Forces to the capabilities needed to provide enduring 
advantage. An important feature of our budget request is a 
substantial increase in research and development funding. This 
investment is a down payment on production and sustainment 
investments and hard choices that are to come.
    We are comfortable with the balance struck in this budget 
submission, but we also want to ensure the committee 
understands that hard choices do lie ahead at any budget level. 
In this request, we are asking for divestiture of equipment 
that is beyond its service life, too expensive to sustain, or 
not effective against the pacing challenge. These divestitures 
are necessary to provide the resources required to transform 
the Department of the Air Force to support integrated 
deterrence. We appreciate the committee's support for the 
divestitures we requested last year, and we ask for your 
support his year and in the future. Change is hard, but losing 
is unacceptable, and we cannot afford to be too late.
    The work we have ongoing in the Department of the Air Force 
to define the necessary transformation is focused on seven 
operational imperatives, each of which is associated with some 
aspect of our ability to project power. As of today, there 
should be no doubt that great power acts of aggression do 
occur, and equally no doubt of how devastating they can be for 
the victims of that aggression.
    First, if the Space Force is to fulfill its mission of both 
enabling and protecting the joint force, we must pivot to 
transformational space architectures and systems. In fiscal 
year 2023, we are asking for funding to begin the 
transformation to resilient missile warning and tracking and 
resilient communications networks.
    Second, we must integrate and efficiently employ Air and 
Space Forces as part of a highly lethal joint force through an 
Advanced Battle Management System, or ABMS. This budget 
continues funding for early increments of ABMS and the ongoing 
work that will define additional investments that the 
Department needs to cost-effectively modernize our command, 
control, communications, and battle management networks.
    Third, to defeat aggression, we must have the ability to 
hold large numbers of air and surface targets at risk in a 
time-compressed scenario. This budget funds the E-7 Wedgetail 
as an interim AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System] 
replacement, while supporting work to define the transformation 
to a resilient combination of air and space intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.
    Fourth, our control of the air is being challenged, and we 
must proceed to an affordable Next Generation Air Dominance 
family of systems. The budget increases funding for the NGAD 
family of systems, to include a sixth-generation crewed 
platform and uncrewed, unmanned combat aircraft.
    Fifth, we must have resilient forward-basing for our 
tactical forces. This budget continues funding for Agile Combat 
Employment in both the Indo-Pacific and European regions, while 
we define the most cost-effective mix of hardening, active 
defense, deception, and dispersion activities.
    Sixth, we must ensure the long-term viability and cost-
effectiveness of our global strike capability. This budget 
begins the transition of the B-21 from development to 
production, and it continues the work to define a more 
extensive global strike family of systems that also includes 
uncrewed combat aircraft.
    Finally, the Department of the Air Force must be fully 
ready to transition to a wartime posture against a peer 
competitor. In particular, we must strengthen our cybersecurity 
and our resilience against attacks on the information systems 
and facilities that we depend upon to go to war.
    Members of this committee, I look forward to your support 
as we work to ensure that America's Air and Space Forces are 
never too late. ``One Team, One Fight.''
    We welcome your questions.
    [The joint prepared statement of Secretary Kendall, General 
Brown, and General Raymond can be found in the Appendix on page 
67.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    General Brown.

 STATEMENT OF GEN CHARLES Q. BROWN, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. 
                           AIR FORCE

    General Brown. Good morning, Chairman Smith and Ranking 
Member Rogers, and distinguished members of this committee. It 
is an honor to appear before you and represent the 689,000 
total force airmen serving today. Thank you for your continued 
support to our airmen and their families.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here today with 
Secretary Kendall and General Raymond to testify on the fiscal 
year 2023 budget submission--a budget that continues to 
accelerate the Air Force's rate of change to address the 
national security challenges articulated in the National 
Defense Strategy; a budget that continues to build on successes 
of fiscal year 2022.
    The world looks to the United States Air Force as a leading 
example. Our airmen make air power look easy; it is anything 
but. A world-class Air Force requires world-class airmen that 
are organized, trained, and equipped to remain the world's most 
respected Air Force.
    But if we do not continue to transform, this may no longer 
be the case. We must continue to communicate and collaborative 
with this committee and key stakeholders, so we can accelerate 
change.
    Last year's budget communicated the Air Force the Nation 
needs for 2030 and beyond. Our message has not changed for 
fiscal year 2023 and won't change in future budget submissions.
    We must modernize to counter strategic competitors. The 
People's Republic of China remains our pacing challenge, and 
Russia remains an acute threat. So, we must balance between the 
demands of today and the requirements of tomorrow. Failure to 
do so puts our ability to execute the National Defense Strategy 
at risk. It puts soldiers, sailors, Marines, guardians, airmen, 
along with our allies and partners, at risk. It puts our 
ability to place air power anytime anywhere at risk.
    The only way our Air Force and Nation will be successful 
balancing risk between today and tomorrow is if we collaborate. 
In fact, collaboration is the critical word in accelerate 
change or lose.
    We are beginning to see success of our collaboration 
efforts transitioning to the future. This year's budget brought 
substantial increases to research and development, focused on 
placing meaningful military capability into the hands of our 
airmen--investments in systems and concepts that allow our Air 
Force to penetrate and dominate in any scenario.
    Just as important in our investment efforts, we have been 
successful beginning to divest systems that are increasingly 
irrelevant against today's and tomorrow's threats. We didn't do 
this alone. The support of Congress is much appreciated.
    Accelerating change is the impetus behind the Department of 
the Air Force's operational imperatives. It means moving with a 
sense of urgency and doing so in the right direction. This 
year's National Defense Strategy provides us the needed 
direction. And when you combine the operational imperatives and 
the National Defense Strategy, you see this year's budget is in 
alignment with our Nation's needs and demands of our Air Force.
    The Air Force we are building is critical to integrated 
deterrence, campaigning, and building enduring advantages. 
Because the nuclear deterrence is the backstop of any 
deterrence, this year's budget ensures our nuclear portfolios 
are fully funded.
    Current events are emblematic of how our Air Force is 
campaigning. We deployed Air Force assets within days; shared 
vital information and increased interoperability with our 
allies and partners.
    Finally, the Air Force is investing in enduring advantages 
that allow us to defend the homeland, project air power 
globally, and operate as a joint, allied, and partner force.
    More than anyone, I want tomorrow's airmen to be ready to 
respond when our Nation calls. This includes investing in 
programs that allow all of our airmen and their families to 
reach their full potential.
    As the United States Air Force celebrates its 75th 
anniversary this year, we committed to remaining the world-
class Air Force America can be proud of.
    Current events demonstrate the world is growing more 
complex and uncertain. But I am certain we will need air power 
anytime anywhere. I am certain this year's budget is another 
step towards the transformation of our Air Force, and I am 
certain there is still work to be done. Therefore, we must 
continue to communicate and collaborate, so we can accelerate 
change.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    General Raymond.

    STATEMENT OF GEN JOHN W. RAYMOND, USSF, CHIEF OF SPACE 
                  OPERATIONS, U.S. SPACE FORCE

    General Raymond. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and 
distinguished members of this committee, it is an honor to 
appear before you today with Secretary Kendall and General 
Brown, and I am truly privileged to be part of this leadership 
team.
    On behalf of almost 14,000 guardians stationed around the 
world, let me begin by thanking you for your continued 
leadership and strong support of our guardians and their 
families.
    As we testify before you today, we find ourselves at a 
strategic inflection point where we are faced with an acute 
threat from Russia and a pacing challenge from China. The 
Russian invasion of Ukraine has showcased the importance of 
space to all instruments of power. Information derived from 
space, including commercial imagery, has been instrumental in 
dominating the information environment, communicating with 
forces, detecting missile threats, and sharing of information 
among allies and partners.
    It is clear that the character of war has changed, and 
space is foundational to that change. However, Russia's recent 
direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test in November is just 
the latest evidence of efforts to deny our Nation the 
advantages that space provides.
    Just as concerning, our pacing challenge, China, is 
integrating space into their military operations to detect, 
track, target, and strike the joint force, putting our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians on the 
ground, in the air, and on the sea at high risk. We cannot 
allow potential adversaries to gain an unchallenged ability to 
conduct space-enabled attacks. Our joint forces will remain at 
risk until we can complete the transformation to a resilient 
architecture and protect the joint force from space-enabled 
attacks. This is critical to supporting all aspects of the 
National Defense Strategy--integrated deterrence, campaigning, 
and building an enduring advantage.
    To remain the world's leader in space, this President's 
budget request prioritizes space and invests $24.5 billion to 
ensure our assured access and freedom to maneuver in the 
domain. The largest share is research, development, testing, 
and evaluation funding, almost $16 billion to modernize our 
forces, a portion of which will begin the pivot to a more 
resilient and mission-capable missile warning and missile 
tracking force design. Notably, this includes funding for the 
Space Development Agency, which is included in the Space Force 
for the first time this year.
    In contrast to legacy approaches, this architecture will be 
built to survive and degrade gracefully under attack, help 
manage escalation, and be rapidly reconstituted. This 
transformation will allow us to capitalize more fully on two of 
our national advantages: our commercial industry and our allies 
and partners.
    To increase readiness, we are funding operational test and 
training infrastructure. This ensures that we can get the right 
capability on orbit in the hands of operators trained and 
operating in a contested domain. Robust test and training 
capabilities are also critical to fielding our next generation 
of modernized systems.
    Other key investments include increased funding for weapon 
system sustainment, a more resilient Global Positioning System, 
and next-generation satellite communications.
    And finally, and most importantly, we invest in our 
guardians and our families. Over the past 2 years, we have 
overhauled how we recruit, assess, train, develop, promote, 
employ, and take care of our guardians. Resilient space power 
isn't just about satellites; it is also about guardians and 
their families.
    This is one of the reasons why we are seeking the 
integration of the Active Duty and Reserve forces into a single 
hybrid component structure. This Space Component is central to 
our human capital plan and will allow us to best align our 
full-time and part-time members. This is our number one 
legislative proposal, and we look forward to working very 
closely with this committee and Congress writ large to 
implement this bold and transformational approach.
    As Secretary Kendall said in his opening comments, ``Change 
is hard, and losing is unacceptable.'' The transformation we 
are beginning now is essential to protecting the joint force 
and the security of space.
    Thank you again for your leadership and support for our 
Space Force. It is an honor to appear before you, and I look 
forward to your questions. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall and General Brown, when it comes to the 
Air Force and you are trying to figure out the mix between the 
F-35, the F-15EX, and then, legacy programs, the A-10, F-22, as 
you are looking--I mean, we are very focused on the competitive 
fight. You know, how do you survive in an environment going up 
against what China and Russia can throw at us in terms of the 
air defenses and the difficulty of surviving in that 
environment? And then you run into platforms like the A-10, 
which is incredibly effective in a permissive environment. And 
maybe we will find a permissive environment or two along the 
way. Certainly, that was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    When you are looking at those plans, to me, that is one of 
the most confusing aspects. So, how do you balance that? You 
can look at a fight and say, if it is a permissive environment, 
this is what I want; if it is not, this is what I want. How do 
you balance that, and how has that informed your plans for what 
air platforms you want? This applies to tankers and bombers as 
well. How are you balancing that and figuring out what your 
plan is for the next decade and beyond?
    Secretary Kendall. That is great question. It is an 
important question.
    General Brown will have some comments about this also. He 
has talked about the fighter mix in the past.
    We do need a mix of capabilities because we are supporting 
combatant commanders from around the world for a variety of 
missions, and there is constant demand for air assets 
everywhere that there are American forces and American 
interests.
    Because of that, we maintain a mix, which traditionally was 
kind of a high-low mix--more expensive aircraft that are more 
capable for the more higher requirements; and then, a lower-
cost part of the force that allowed us to give us more quantity 
and more capabilities overall. That balance traditionally has 
served us fairly well.
    What I observe as Secretary is that what we have currently 
in the pipeline, and that will populate our future force, tends 
to be all high-cost, higher-end capabilities. When you look at 
NGAD, the newest system under development, it is quite 
expensive. If you look at F-22, it was a fairly expensive 
aircraft. That is the one that NGAD is replacing. F-35 was 
intended to be at one time kind of the low end of a high-low 
mix, but it is an $80-million-a-copy aircraft; it's fairly 
expensive. So, then the rest of the force is filled out with 
legacy aircraft we have already acquired to a large extent.
    So, when I look at all of that--and F-15EX is now in the 
mix, too, which has unique reasons why it is in the mix that 
make good sense, but it is fairly expensive also, partly 
because of the quantities we are buying, but it is just a more 
expensive airplane.
    So, basically, we need a more affordable mix for the 
future. And the question is, how do we get there? And that is 
one of the reasons I am introducing the idea of uncrewed combat 
aircraft that are much less expensive and can be attritable, 
not necessarily expendable. They are not munitions, but they 
can be used up at a higher rate and help populate our force 
structure. Now that is a ways away; that is quite a few ways 
out. So, in the meantime, we have got to maintain the mix that 
General Brown has talked about, which is a combination of the 
F-35, the F-15EX, the F-22, and the F-16.
    So, we are going to be evolving towards a new set of 
capabilities in the future, but I am very much driven by both 
affordability requirements and mission requirements, as we try 
to build that capability.
    And I will let General Brown talk about the mix from an 
operational perspective.
    General Brown. Chairman, we get to this approach based on 
analysis, wargaming, experience, and in conversations with our 
combatant commanders as well.
    As Secretary Kendall described, it is a mix of capability 
that we need to be able to have multi-role capability because 
you don't know if you are going to be in a permissive or non-
permissive, and I would expect more non-permissive environments 
in the future. So, we have got to have that capability.
    The A-10 is a great platform for any non-permissive 
environment. I don't see very many non-permissive environments 
that we are going to roll into here in the future. And this is 
why we are focused on--you know, the F-35 is a cornerstone of 
our fleet, and continue to get it upgraded to get to TR3 and 
Block 4 so it provides with the capability against a very 
advancing threat from the PRC.
    The F-15EX, which actually is an E model, more of a weapons 
truck that can carry some high-end weapons, some of the weapons 
we are developing, like hypersonic missiles that can fit on a 
fighter.
    We will also upgrade the F-22. As it transitions and 
eventually becomes the NGAD, will replace the F-22. And then, 
the F-16, which will be our low end. And we still have a number 
of the post-Block or newer Block F-16s that we will keep for a 
period of time.
    So, that is the mix of capability that we will have for a 
fighter. And we do the same thing, not only in the aircraft, 
but it has also got to be the mix of munitions to go with it, 
and the other support, aspects of the missions that go with 
that fighter mix.
    The Chairman. That is a very important point, and I think I 
have been a little misleading in my question, mentioning China 
and Russia, but the truth is what is developing. And as you 
said, there aren't going to be too many non-permissive 
environments because you don't have to be a China or a Russia 
these days, as we are witnessing again in Ukraine. You know, a 
small country, a relatively small military can still have air 
defense systems that will defeat even the most high-end 
aircraft.
    So, we are going to have to be prepared to operate in far 
less permissive environments than we have over the course of 
the last couple of decades. And that requires a huge mindset 
shift in terms of what we are going to build.
    Just a quick question for General Raymond on the satellite 
architecture. We have really had a massive evolution from 20 
years ago, when we had United Launch Alliance, that we could 
only afford to have one provider because there wasn't enough to 
go around to create competition. Sorry, that didn't make a lot 
of sense. You didn't have enough stuff that you were going to 
buy. So, one company was all that could be there. And now, it 
has just proliferated. You know, all manner of different 
companies are developing both the ability to build satellites 
and to launch them.
    So, how do you see, you know, once we get through the phase 
two purchases, where do we go in order to make sure we create 
that competition, but also it is not spread so thin that 
companies don't see a possibility of really making it work 
economically when they are selling those launch capabilities? 
How do you balance that in the next couple of decades?
    General Raymond. Yes, that is a really good question. We 
are at really a transformation point in space.
    We go back to three tenets on our launch strategy. It has 
been to have assured access to space, and that gets to your 
point about not spreading them too thin. We want to make sure 
that we have got the capability, but we have got the right 
capability to put things in orbit.
    The second part of our strategy was to promote competition. 
And so, I think there are opportunities here with a manifest 
that is becoming more significant in numbers, that there is 
room for increased competition.
    The third area was to get off the RD-180 engine. And we 
have bought all the RD-180 engines that we need. In fact, it is 
less than what Congress allowed us to do, and I am very 
comfortable we are in a good position on that front.
    I think one of the big changes that we have seen, though, 
in these smaller constellations that are launched, in the past, 
historically, a rocket would put one satellite up or two 
satellites up. What we are seeing now is a rocket putting 80 
satellites up, if you will, at a time.
    And so, all of that goes into account, as we look forward 
to what a phase 3 would look like.
    The Chairman. And just put a quick plug in for competition 
because I very much believe in that. I think we have a huge 
opportunity in space, that there are so many companies; 
certainly, the big ones that we have heard about, you know, 
SpaceX, Blue Origin, others, but, then, gosh, probably a dozen 
others that are smaller. And if we can encourage that 
competition, I think we can get a better product for a better 
price. So, I want to make sure we do that.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Raymond, you and I and General Hyten have talked 
for years about how overclassified our space systems are. He is 
gone now, but you are still there. I know you have been working 
at trying to get some of this declassified. How is that going?
    General Raymond. He is gone; I am still here, and so is our 
problem. We are working it and we have made some progress. We 
have restructured how we--what I've learned over the years is 
not only were we overly classified, we were overly classified 
in kind of a non-normal way. So, we have tried to normalize 
that.
    We have reduced classification on some programs. For 
example, our GMTI [ground moving target indicator] program from 
space, which was a higher classification, we reduced it, so we 
could work with our partners in industry better.
    There is a task that came out of the National Defense 
Authorization Act this past year that was tasked to the 
Secretary of Defense to do a review of all security 
classification of all space programs. Assistant Secretary John 
Plumb, Dr. Plumb, is working that, and we are integrated with 
him.
    There is more work to do, but we have got the right focus 
on it, and I am convinced that we are going to make some 
progress.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, it is important. The fact is, the 
American public still doesn't really know what Space Force is 
about, and it is about satellites, as you know. And it is just 
incredibly overclassified. We have got to get this information 
out, not just for the public, but for our adversaries. I think 
they need to know what we can do in a more open way.
    And this is for you and General Brown: in fiscal year 2022, 
we increased your budget by 6 percent, and as you know, 
inflation was over 8 percent. How are you all dealing with 
that? Give us some examples about what it means to you to have 
inflation that is greater than the increase in your budget.
    General Brown. Ranking Member Rogers, as we built the 
budget, and not really having a good, full understanding of 
where the inflation numbers were going to be--what we will have 
to do, as we go back into our budget, is look at more detail 
and figure out the areas that we are going to need to plus-up 
in certain areas or make some choices internal to the Air 
Force, and then at the same time work inside the Department of 
how we articulate what the impact is from an inflation 
standpoint on the key areas, because inflation impacts 
different parts of the force in different ways. And so, it will 
be some ongoing analysis that we will have to do.
    General Raymond. I agree. I will tell you, though, as I 
said in my opening statement, the Department prioritized space 
in this budget pretty significantly. We have a pretty 
significant increase to be able to do the critical work that we 
are doing. It is going to have to be a balance, and we are 
going to have to work with Congress throughout the year to make 
sure that we can do it right.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I make that point because, you know, the 
same thing is happening this year. As you have all seen, the 
SECDEF [U.S. Secretary of Defense] and the Chairman testified 
before this committee, acknowledging that the 2.2 percent that 
is cooked into this budget proposal is not adequate and they 
are going to have to revisit that, which means you are going to 
have to revisit that as this year progresses and we try to 
fashion what the top line is going to be. So, I do hope you 
will be giving some thought to what you need to make sure that 
you can meet your requirements to deal with current threats, as 
well as the modernization that we expect from you all.
    Secretary Kendall, just a minute ago, you were talking 
about how pricey the F-22 and the F-35 are. The last F-22 we 
bought cost $131 million. The F-15EX, $90 million per copy. F-
35, between $90 and $100 million. What can we do to get those 
costs down? I mean, this is incredible numbers. You said $80 
million a copy for F-35. It would be nice if it was $80 
million. What can we do to get this down?
    Secretary Kendall. Ranking Member, as you know, I spend a 
lot of time working the acquisition side of the defense 
business. And a great deal of that effort was spent on trying 
to get costs down. We drove the cost of the F-35 down 
substantially, as it was in development and transitioning into 
production. We need to continue to do that.
    Sustainment offers an opportunity for additional cost 
reductions. And it is important to keep in mind that that is at 
least half the cost of our weapons systems, is in sustainment 
side.
    But the key to keeping costs under control starts with 
requirements. What are you buying? You know, if you put a lot 
of capability and sophistication into an aircraft, it is going 
to be more expensive, and that is exactly what we did with the 
F-35.
    Mr. Rogers. So, it has been a moving target, requirements 
have been?
    Secretary Kendall. Requirements have evolved, as the threat 
has changed. But requirements need to be something that you 
trade off against cost early in a program, and then 
continuously, as you go forward. It requires tight cooperation 
between developers and operators to ensure that we don't just 
set a rigid set of requirements initially, and then, you know, 
spend until we get there. That is not the right way to do it.
    And I mentioned the operational imperatives earlier. Each 
of those operational imperatives is led by a combination of an 
acquisition person or a technical person and an operator. And 
it is because we have to have that dialog between those two 
communities to get to what is reasonable and affordable as part 
of the mix, that also meets operators' needs, but isn't gold-
plated.
    I think we are getting, at the end of the day, a very 
capable aircraft in F-35. I think we are going to get an 
aircraft that meets mission needs, the unique mission needs of 
the F-15EX. I am watching the Next Generation Air Dominance 
platform, which I put in motion when I was Under Secretary for 
Acquisition, very carefully to see if we could keep the cost of 
that down. As the F-22 replacement, it is going to be a very 
capable aircraft. It is going to be the one that gives us air 
superiority in the future.
    But, again, as I mentioned earlier, I am introducing a mix 
of uncrewed capabilities as well, which should be much less 
expensive than the NGAD platform itself.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Langevin is recognized for 5 minutes, and he is on----
    Mr. Langevin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
okay?
    The Chairman. Yes, we have got you loud and clear. Go 
ahead, Jim.
    Mr. Langevin. Very good. Okay. Thank you very much, 
Chairman.
    And I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony 
today.
    Secretary Kendall and General Brown, let me start with you.
    We talked this morning about how much we have invested in, 
and were dependent on, our overhead architecture [inaudible] 
advanced technological capabilities. But with that comes real 
vulnerabilities. And one of the things I am really concerned 
about is that the Air Force's Link 16 crypto modernization 
effort is behind. It's impacting readiness and safety. I am not 
happy about this delay. What is the current status of the 
effort and when will it be complete? And what are the barriers 
to a faster timeline and what can be done to accelerate it?
    Secretary Kendall. That is a good question. I am not sure 
how much I can say in an open session about it.
    We have been addressing the crypto mod requirements for a 
Link 16 and became aware of it a few months ago and took steps 
immediately to put the resources on it that were necessary to 
get us where we need to be.
    As we have gone through the last 20 years of being focused 
on counterterrorism/counterinsurgency campaigns, where there 
wasn't a sophisticated threat to our data links, that has been 
neglected, quite frankly. So, we had to put resources against 
it.
    The lead time is, basically, we are replacing radios. So, 
we have to buy the radios. So, there is some lead time 
associated with that. But it is a problem we are well aware of.
    That isn't the only concern we have with Link 16. We have 
some others that go beyond that that I don't want to talk about 
and can't talk about in an open forum. And we really need to 
get to a next generation of capabilities as well. So, that work 
is getting started also.
    Mr. Langevin. I am concerned that this has been--the can 
has been kicked down the road a lot, and I hope that that is 
the end of that and we are going to actually get this done.
    Secretary, let me switch to this: it is my hope that in the 
near future the Department will continue to capitalize on 
additive manufacturing and be able to, for example, 3D-print 
spare parts for our platforms. This, clearly, would save time, 
money; increase readiness; extend the usefulness of platforms 
for years. So, how is the Air Force thinking about things like 
3D printing?
    Secretary Kendall. There is quite a bit of effort going 
into that. It is a remarkable technology. I was involved in the 
establishment of the Additive Manufacturing Innovation 
Institute under the Obama administration. And in those days, we 
had a very small number of materials--this was several years 
ago--plastics, initially, but we have moved to a variety of 
metals now. We have moved to some very complicated and 
sophisticated geometries. So, there is huge potential there.
    Tinker Air Force Base has done a lot of work piloting on 
this for maintenance, particularly for building parts for some 
of our older aircraft, which have been kept so long that things 
that people thought would never wear out are now wearing out 
and have to be replaced. So, we are using additive 
manufacturing for that.
    It has a lot of potential from a whole bunch of different 
attributes. And so, we are continuing that technology and we 
are looking for ways to address some of the problems that we 
have with airworthiness certification, for example, the parts 
that are built that way.
    Mr. Langevin. All right. Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall. So, it is one we are very bullish about 
and doing quite a bit to take advantage of.
    Mr. Langevin. Good. There should be no such thing as 
obsolete parts anymore. We shouldn't have to cannibalize, say, 
one aircraft to keep others running, if we can harness the 
power of 3D printing.
    General Raymond, our military depends on many critical 
services that were built before we were concerned with things 
like cyber threats. So, the capabilities our satellites provide 
us with are extremely important; we all know that. And the 
attack surface with the cyber breaches against them is 
enormous.
    How is the Air Force preparing for these threats and 
creating a culture that integrates cyber from the ground up 
proactively in our future plans and acquisitions? And how would 
you integrate the JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and Control] 
concept into your plans and acquisitions?
    General Raymond. Yes, thank you for the question.
    Space capabilities are basically a computer in space that 
has a link to the ground. And so, it has, as you mentioned in 
your question, cyber vulnerability. And one of the things that 
we have done when we established the Space Force, is to enhance 
our cyber posture. We brought cyber operators in from the Air 
Force and from other services to be part of our service. We 
have built an O6-level command that is focused on cyber. We 
have put detachments at every one of our other operational 
units. We have put cyber operators embedded on the ops floor, 
sitting side-by-side with our space operators to better 
understand the cyber terrain.
    So, although I will never be comfortable that we have got 
this solved, I am comfortable that we have got the right focus 
on it, and we come to work every day making sure that we can 
protect and defend our space capabilities from a full range of 
threats--from cyber, on the one hand, to kinetic destruction on 
the other.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Langevin.
    The chair now recognizes--I believe Mr. Wilson is not 
here--so, I would recognize Mr. Lamborn.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This morning, there is a story in the Colorado Springs 
Gazette regarding a report by the Government Accountability 
Office [GAO] on the previous basing decision for U.S. Space 
Command. I requested this report last year, and this request 
was granted because of my ranking member position on the 
Readiness Subcommittee of this committee. And as was reported 
in this news article, and as I strongly suspected would be the 
case, the GAO's investigation of the Space Command basing 
process, quote, ``identified significant shortfalls in its 
transparency and credibility.'' Unquote.
    So, I am deeply concerned that the urgency to achieve full 
operational capability for our space warfighters as quickly as 
possible was not adequately addressed in the siting decision 
because of a flawed process.
    General Raymond, I know that Space Force posture does not 
directly impact the basing decision for Space Command. However, 
I have some questions for you I hope will shed some light on 
the magnitude of the challenges that we are facing in space. 
And I know you share my concerns regarding the rapid expansion 
of these threats.
    Challenges we face in space have accelerated greatly in the 
last 2 or 3 years. How significantly do you anticipate the 
threat will grow in the next 2 to 3 years?
    General Raymond. There is a significant threat that exists 
today, as I mentioned in the answer to the last question, and 
it is a spectrum of threats--everything from reversible jamming 
to kinetic destruction. And all of our intelligence suggests 
that that is not going to slow down.
    Mr. Lamborn. Space defense hinges on having accurate and 
relevant data. Every day, guardians in my district work side-
by-side with the Commander of Space Command on this essential 
task at the National Space Defense Center. The NSDC is where 
the Department of Defense and intelligence community experts 
train for and monitor threats to our space infrastructure.
    Would you agree that maximizing the commander's access to 
timely information through physical colocation of essential 
functions is an advantage in maintaining space superiority?
    General Raymond. We have the ability to command and control 
from various places. U.S. Space Command actually has two 
command centers: one in Vandenberg, California, and one in--
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and one in Colorado 
Springs. And so, there are ways to do this without being 
physically colocated. Obviously, being colocated helps that you 
can go visit more routinely, but you can do it in multiple 
ways.
    Mr. Lamborn. But is reduced decision time that comes from 
working side-by-side and the lessening of security threats is 
something you would prefer, as opposed to not having?
    General Raymond. I guess I would ask--that is a question 
for General Dickinson from his U.S. Space Command hat. In the 
operational commander, in the Space Force role, I organize, 
train, and equip and provide him capabilities. That would be 
better addressed to him.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, we certainly will.
    Given the rapidly changing character of space as a 
warfighting domain, would your military advice generally be to 
accelerate our ability to defend space by any means that we 
have at our disposal?
    General Raymond. I think it is important that the Nation is 
prepared to conduct operations in space and to protect and 
defend those for the good of our Nation, for the good of our 
joint coalition forces, and for the good of the world.
    Mr. Lamborn. To me, reaching full operational capacity for 
Space Command as quickly as possible should be our highest 
priority as a country. The threats are too serious, and the 
threats are not going to wait. We have no other choice.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    The temporary chair now recognizes himself for a few 
questions.
    Secretary Kendall, one program that does seem like it is 
not too late is the B-21 program, which, again, we can't get 
into much details here. But I did want to ask you about a 
question that you and I discussed a couple of weeks ago, which 
is that, on the sustainment side, the contract that was used 
for the B-21, which you were involved with in your prior 
service in Washington, took a different approach in terms of 
how the software ownership and proprietary rights were going to 
be set up. And maybe you could just talk about that in terms of 
the impact that it is going to have--hopefully, a positive 
impact--in terms of the sustainment cost for that program in 
the future.
    Secretary Kendall. Sure. There are two points I would make 
in that regard. One is that, with the digitized world that we 
lived in, designs now are all entirely digital. And I have 
given guidance to our acquisition people that we should be 
taking delivery of our designs going forward for all of our 
programs.
    There was an era in which there was a philosophy about 
letting the prime contractor basically take life-to-death 
responsibility for a program. That was not effective. It 
basically put people in sole-source position forever. It didn't 
work out well for the government.
    B-21, which Dr. LaPlante who is now the Under Secretary for 
Acquisition and Sustainment, who was then the Air Force 
acquisition executive, and I, when I was Under Secretary for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, we put in place a plan 
to transition software maintenance to the government. The Air 
Force has had some very good experience with doing this with 
some other programs, and it is a job that allows the government 
to maintain control of the technical baseline, if you will, to 
own the product fully, as it goes forward, and to take control 
of how it matures from a software perspective. So, we have had 
good experience with that, and that is the approach I think we 
are taking on the B-21.
    Mr. Courtney. Yes, it may seem like a pretty sort of arcane 
point, but we have had numerous hearings with GAO's weighing 
in, in terms of how the software was handled for F-35. And it 
really has been, I think, a big, according to the GAO, factor 
in terms of driving up the cost of sustainment.
    So, again, it is one of those programs which it is part of 
the recapitalization of the triad, as well as having a 
conventional mission. So, time is of the essence. And it looks 
like, again, it is not going to be too late. So, hopefully, we 
will all keep working together in terms of making sure of that.
    Mr. Lamborn talked about the decision in terms of the Space 
Force headquarters. There was another decision that was made in 
the last year or so regarding the C-130J basing decisions, 
which some of us recall, actually, a decision was made before 
which preceded appropriation for that facility. And that 
certainly left some of us a bad taste in our mouth in terms of 
just how that was managed. We are now back in--there was no GAO 
report but I think, honestly, the facts sort of speak for 
themselves.
    We are now back in a new round of C-130J basing. And I just 
would simply ask you, and maybe General Brown, just to assure 
us that there will be full, open communication and transparency 
during this upcoming selection process. Because, again, I think 
that is critical to, I think, the confidence of this committee, 
and the Congress in general.
    Secretary Kendall. Yes, I want to assure you that our 
strategic basing process, or whatever process we use to make 
basing decisions--sometimes we do it through the budget 
process, basically--will be clear, open, transparent, and 
apolitical. If there is one thing I have learned in my 
experience in this position so far, it is the extreme concern 
that people like yourself have for basing decisions.
    And I want to be able to present all of our basing 
decisions in a way which you can fully understand them and 
understand what the basis was for them. You may not agree with 
it, but you will understand that it was set up to be in the 
interest of the Nation and in the best interest of the 
Department of the Air Force, and that was what was behind any 
decision that we made.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. I appreciate that.
    General, I don't know if you want to weigh in.
    General Brown. Well, it ends up being the Secretary's 
decision. But what I focus on is ensuring that, when we look at 
it from a mission perspective, we are able to, one, do the 
mission, but at the same time it supports the mission, but also 
if there are airmen and families that come into those 
communities as well. But we will be very open and transparent 
with you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
    Mr. Wittman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
    Secretary Kendall, I want to begin with you.
    Last year, you said, ``If it doesn't threaten China, why 
are we doing it?'' I couldn't agree more. We had that 
conversation the other day. You also said, in your words, that 
you are focused on the shortest path possible to a better 
generation of actual fielded capability.
    Last year, General Brown, you acknowledged, again in your 
words, by saying, ``China continues to move its modernization 
timelines left at a rate of change that is outpacing the United 
States.''
    This year's budget submission from the Air Force over the 
next 5 years retires 646 aircraft and builds 246 aircraft. That 
is a deficit of 400 aircraft. And I understand NGAD and 
modernization, and all of the things that we want our aircraft 
to do, unmanned platforms. But 400 [aircraft] is one heck of a 
big vulnerability, capacity and capability gap that, in light 
of your words about the things that scare China, or the things 
that we need to move our efforts to the left because we are 
being outpaced by China, just doesn't seem to add up. Can you 
give me your perspective on what operational risk you think 
that we will be facing in the next 5 years, as we spin down 646 
aircraft and build back 246?
    General Brown. I appreciate the question.
    There is operational risk, and this is something, when I 
talk about balancing risk over time, there is a balance between 
the operational risk we will see today, as we make that 
transition, versus the risk we will have in the future if we 
don't start to modernize. And this is a conversation that I 
have internal to the Air Force. It is a conversation I have 
with our combatant commanders, and naturally, with this 
committee and others.
    We do have to make some tough choices. I also look at not 
just the numbers, but I look at the overall capability and 
capacity--not just the airplanes, but what goes with the 
airplanes, as I mentioned earlier, whether it be the weapons, 
our trained airmen, the support systems that go with. And so, 
it is a complete package.
    But I agree there is some risk there, but I would rather 
take a little bit of risk now than a lot of risk later in a 
future conflict.
    Mr. Wittman. Let me ask this to both Secretary Kendall and 
General Brown. What investments do you support that would 
accelerate these modernization timelines; that would--however 
you term it--buy back some of that risk or reduce that risk 
over time?
    Secretary Kendall. I was thinking as you spoke earlier, 
Congressman, about China and their relative performance 
compared to ours. I have looked at the data on this. Their 
engineers are not faster than our engineers. Their lead time to 
field any given capability is comparable to our own.
    But what they have done that we have not probably done 
enough of is start a lot of new things, and then take them 
through to fielding. And when I look at the scale and the 
breadth of what they are doing to modernize, they seem to be 
very open to integrating new technologies and integrating them 
and using them in creative ways. We have got to be more 
forthcoming about that sort of thing.
    But that requires some cultural changes, if you will; 
acceptance of uncrewed combat aircraft, for example. We have to 
actually do what we talk about in programs like JADC2 and ABMS 
and get to real capability.
    When I look at what we have done, particularly, over the 
last few years, we have done programs that were designed to go 
fast, but they weren't necessarily going in the right 
direction, and then, didn't necessarily get to the place you 
want to get to. It is the hare and the tortoise problem.
    Going quickly to do a demonstration doesn't get you very 
far down the road to a real fielded, production-ready 
capability. So, I have asked our acquisition people to look at 
all those programs and make sure they are structured to--and my 
guidance is--to get meaningful military capability, not just 
one or two of something, but meaningful military capability as 
quickly as possible.
    At the end of the day, that is going to be about resources. 
Production is much more expensive than R&D [research and 
development], and sustainment is comparable to production. So, 
at the end of the day, we are going to need the support of this 
committee and others to move some of those programs forward and 
get them into production.
    We will accept some risk. We can accept quite a bit of risk 
in early experimental phases, where failure is acceptable, and 
we want to try things. But once we commit to a real product, we 
want to manage that risk so that we do get the product. And it 
includes tradeoffs between requirements sometimes and cost and 
other things, and risk. It requires prudent investment to draw 
down risk, to drive it down as efficiently and quickly as 
possible.
    And General Brown was talking about risk over time. I am 
very aware of the increasing threats that we are going to be 
facing, looking out at what their programs are and what they 
are going to be fielding. And as much as we might have concerns 
today, they are going to be much worse in the future if we 
don't make the right investments.
    Mr. Wittman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, gentlemen, thank you for your service and thank for 
appearing here today.
    General Raymond, among the support groups you have 
available to you are National Guard units. There has been a 
discussion about how those National Guard units might be 
integrated into the Space Force. Would you please discuss how, 
if--how this might be done or if you intend to do it?
    General Raymond. Yes, sir. We have operated--first of all, 
let me just say we have operated with, when we were in the Air 
Force, part of the Air Force, we operated with the Air National 
Guard for 25 years. There are eight States that have Guard 
capabilities, space capabilities, and one territory in Guam. 
That represents 836-or-so professionals that do the space 
mission.
    When the law was passed to establish the Space Force, 
Congress directed that we do a study on how best to integrate. 
If you have a service that has 14,000 people, there might be a 
way to do this more effectively. We did that study. And as a 
result of that study, we came up with the one component with 
the Reserve and Active being put together.
    And then, on the Guard, there are several ways you can do 
it. And so, you could keep the Guard in the Air National Guard 
and have the Air National Guard continue to provide support. 
Option two is you could take the Space National--or the men and 
women out of the Air National Guard and stand up a separate 
Space National Guard. Or you can take those capabilities out of 
the Guard totally and put them in an S1 component. So, there 
are multiple ways. The law--this NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act] directed us to do some more study on the 
best way to do that.
    Mr. Garamendi. Then you are fully aware that at least the 
California Air National Guard would like to have the space unit 
of that National Guard unit become a space--directly into the 
Space Force?
    General Raymond. Yes, sir, I am aware. They provide great 
capability. As I mentioned, eight different States have this 
capability, and they provide us great----
    Mr. Garamendi. My understanding is they are not the only 
National Guard unit around the Nation.
    General Raymond. That is correct.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. Thank you.
    We are aware of this. We are going to follow it, obviously.
    General Brown, not my favorite subject, but one that you 
and I have spent some time on. The GBSD [Ground Based Strategic 
Deterrent], you are not hiding the ball by changing the name, 
are you?
    General Brown. Not at all.
    Mr. Garamendi. I didn't think so, but I want to be clear 
about it.
    Presently, the Minuteman III is expected to continue to 
perform until the late 2030s, is that correct?
    General Brown. We will have aspects of the Minuteman III 
that will continue to perform because, as we bring on Sentinel 
or GBSD, we have got to make sure we still have the nuclear 
capability that is part of our integrated deterrence. So, it is 
a transition. It is not a flip of a switch to get from one to 
the other. So, we are going to have to continue to maintain 
Minuteman III capability to make that transition.
    Mr. Garamendi. So, the answer is the Minuteman III can be 
and will be maintained until the late 2030s?
    General Brown. Aspects of the Minuteman III will be 
maintained through the 2030s. You will not have the full 
capability required to support what we have as a requirement 
right now.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, that gets into a lot of detail, some 
of which is classified, and we will continue to pursue it.
    Have you figured out what it will cost on the military 
construction side to replace the Minuteman III systems?
    General Brown. We have done the analysis on that, and I 
don't have the number, the exact number, for you, but I can get 
that for the record.
    Mr. Garamendi. There is no number, is there?
    General Brown. No, there is.
    Mr. Garamendi. You really don't know what it is going to 
cost on the military construction side to replace all of the 
facilities necessary for the Sentinel/GBSD.
    General Brown. There is a number, and I know we have been 
working with your staff. And I will get back with you to give 
you more detailing and also more for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 93.]
    Mr. Garamendi. It is presently not in the budget that has 
been presented to us, is that correct?
    General Brown. I would have to double-check on that.
    Mr. Garamendi. Okay. Fifty seconds.
    The chairman raised an exceedingly important point in his 
opening comments, and that is the world seems to have changed 
rapidly in the last 3 months. And the most sophisticated 
airplanes and facilities of the Russian military seem to be 
incapable of overcoming some rather less sophisticated systems. 
I want to have a full discussion this year about what the 
chairman raised about maybe big, very expensive, very 
sophisticated systems may not be the future. We don't have time 
to go into it, but that issue needs to be fully discussed, as 
we complete this NDAA.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank each of you for being here. I was, again, so 
happy to point out how grateful I am for my dad's service with 
the 14th Air Force in India and China. And so, I have just 
grown up--and I grew up in the Holy City of Charleston, South 
Carolina, in the shadow of the Charleston Air Force Base. And 
so, I have a nephew in the Air Force, too. So, hey, very proud 
of you-all's service.
    Secretary Kendall, you have clearly articulated the urgent 
need to transform and modernize the U.S. Air Force. I support 
the Air Force's plan to modernize its fighter fleet; where 
smart and necessary, divest aircraft to maximize our ability to 
field the most ready and lethal force possible.
    I am concerned, though, that the Air Force is taking the 
path of least resistance when it comes to fighter roadmap. I 
understand the Air Force basing plan simply places the F-35 at 
F-15C locations, instead of those locations best suited to 
build and preserve F-35 combat readiness.
    What is your position that current and future F-35 basing 
decisions will include both a short- and longer term readiness 
criteria, and that you will expand the candidate list beyond 
the installations with retiring aircraft?
    And second, will you ensure that you will direct your staff 
to seek out and evaluate creative basing solutions that provide 
for cost-effective, innovative basing solutions?
    Secretary Kendall. Now, Congressman, I haven't had a chance 
to look at F-35 basing decisions yet in my tenure, but I will 
promise you to do so. Mission performance is going to be a very 
fundamental concern. I don't think we should be overly 
constrained as we look at, at that, that metric.
    We need to support combatant commanders in all the theaters 
where we need to worry about high-end threats. But, also, we 
need to have forces that can flex and go support where they are 
needed when they are called upon.
    And I know we are deploying F-35s and basing F-35s forward, 
both in Europe and in the Pacific. Alaska is one of the bases 
that we selected which can provide support in either direction 
fairly efficiently.
    So those, those things I know are taken into account. But I 
haven't had a chance to review them personally. And I am open 
to creative ideas about this. I am always open, I hope, to 
creative ideas to improve our performance or our capabilities.
    I will let General Brown comment. I am sure he has more on 
that.
    General Brown. I appreciate the question.
    One of the areas is we are really looking at more broadly 
across our not only our fighter fleet but many of our other 
fleets, stepping back and taking a more strategic look at what 
is the right basing based on the current environment, or what 
we project the environment to be vis-a-vis the threat here in 
the future. And that will actually drive us into, as the 
Secretary described, being a little bit more creative than the 
way we have done things historically going forward for basing 
for fighters and other, other capabilities as well.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, both of you, for that.
    And, again, Mr. Secretary, I am grateful to work with 
Congressman Jim Clyburn who physically represents the McEntire 
Joint National Guard Base and which is so advantageous for 
long-term F-35 readiness.
    It is a U.S. Air Force owned and operated autonomous 
Federal installation that maintains an F-35 compatible 
infrastructure, provides exceptional clear airspace, and 
welcome to the community, too. They like the sound of freedom. 
Has appropriated funding for F-35 compatible simulator 
facility, possesses organic ranges, hosts the best training 
environment on the east coast, with the most clear, again, 
without interfering with local communities, and retains 
unlimited space for growth, and enjoys limited encroachment 
concerns.
    My question, will you work with Congressman Jim Clyburn and 
myself in a bipartisan effort to evaluate a F-35 basing plan 
for McEntire Joint National Guard Base which not only affords 
the infrastructure for F-35 to thrive for decades, but also 
yields a modernized F-16 Block 52s for capture and use by the 
active Air Force institutional requirements as well as 
recapitalization of the fighter wing inside the Air National 
Guard?
    Secretary Kendall. Yes, Congressman. I am happy to work 
with you on that.
    Mr. Wilson. And I hope you visit beautiful Eastover, South 
Carolina, where Senator Clyburn is so lucky to represent such a 
wonderful community. And just, again, the joint base does 
great.
    And then, finally, a question. In regard to upgrading F-
35s, what is the consideration of installations across the Air 
National Guard for future F-35 basing, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Kendall. We will be upgrading F-35s from the ones 
we bought in earlier configurations. I haven't had an 
opportunity to look at a plan for exactly how we are going to 
do that or what units would be affected.
    Mission requirements would, I think, be the driving concern 
in that, however. But I will take a look at that as part of the 
overall F-35 scheme for future fielding.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Norcross is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. And welcome, gentlemen.
    Obviously, some things have changed, as they do each and 
every year. But when it comes to the tactical air it has 
changed at a more rapid pace, certainly, from what we are 
handed out today.
    So, we heard earlier that back in 2010, 2012, the last F-22 
was $130 million roughly. That is about 155 million today 
dollars versus the F-35 as we see it today, around $80 million, 
or the next block which could be $90 to $95 million, and the EX 
and the prices.
    We are all concerned about the price that we buy these 
aircraft at. But we also know that two-thirds of the cost, 
almost 70 percent, is in the sustainment.
    So, I think having a discussion of how much we are buying 
it versus how much it is costing us needs to be discussed 
together because those are real dollars that are literally 
making us make decisions today on aircraft that were produced 
years ago, and putting us in a very difficult position, NGAD 
being one of those, and the development costs for that sixth 
generation.
    Secretary, you talked about the F-22 being replaced by 
NGAD. When we look at some of the original projections of when 
that would be available, we are sliding to the right, further, 
later.
    In addition to coming in later, and there potentially is 
that gap that could take place, (A) have you looked at closing 
that risk, that gap?
    And at what price do you expect a copy to come in of the 
NGAD? The price per copy, how much for that?
    And then we can talk about sustainment of it later on.
    Secretary Kendall. This is a number that is going to get 
your attention. But we are talking about prices that are 
multiple hundreds of millions of dollars for NGAD on the usual 
basis.
    Mr. Norcross. That is with the pilot; correct?
    Secretary Kendall. Yes.
    Mr. Norcross. The copy.
    Secretary Kendall. That is a piloted, manned aircraft. It 
is going to be an expensive airplane. F-22 was an expensive 
airplane. It was one of my aircraft in one of my earlier 
positions. But it is also an incredibly effective aircraft. It 
has been dominant in the air for decades now.
    And we expect NGAD to be the same. But NGAD is going to 
have to be accompanied by things that are not as expensive to 
give it overall mission capability, which is the reason we are 
going down the uncrewed combat aircraft route.
    You mentioned cost control. That starts in development. It 
starts with the design. Combination of the requirements, but 
also for sustainment in particular, ensuring that you can do 
upgrades and do maintenance very efficiently. So, it is worth 
the time and the effort in the earlier phases of a program like 
NGAD to get those things right because you are going to pay for 
what you did much later in sustainment with much bigger 
dollars.
    And from what I have seen of the NGAD program so far, that 
approach has been taken. We have taken a very good approach to 
having modular designs and interfaces the government controls 
so they can upgrade the program over time, keep it current 
technically so it can stay in the force for a long time and 
stay as advanced as possible, but also to introduce competition 
to get cost down through competition as you go forward.
    So, despite the fact that it is going to be an expensive 
aircraft, there are a lot of things being done in that design 
today to keep the costs under control as much as possible.
    Mr. Norcross. And this is a discussion, Chairman Garamendi 
in Readiness, he keeps telling me I'm throwing a cheap plane 
that costs him more to sustain it.
    But let's talk about the accompanying NGAD more affordable. 
What are you looking at price per copy for some more of those 
expendable, is probably not the right word, but----
    Secretary Kendall. We don't have a final price per copy 
yet. We don't have a hard estimate, I think, yet that we could 
point to. You know, crude estimates are in the order of 
magnitude that I talked about.
    Mr. Norcross. All right. So, we talked about the cost.
    How about the timeframe, which is sliding to the right?
    Secretary Kendall. I am sorry?
    Mr. Norcross. The timeframe, it is coming in much--or 
predicted to come in much later than we originally had 
expected.
    Secretary Kendall. I am not aware----
    Mr. Norcross. When you start talking about the F-22 holding 
out that long, there appears to be----
    Secretary Kendall. We are looking at fielding capability in 
the early thirties right now. So, I, I can get you a schedule 
we have. It is a classified program, so I am not sure how many 
details----
    Mr. Norcross. I understand.
    Secretary Kendall [continuing]. We're even making public. 
But, you know, it's in the early stages of development. But 
it's far enough along in terms of concept.
    It is actually built, the NGAD platform is built on a 
technology demonstration program that I started when I was 
Under Secretary for Acquisition. It is called the Aerospace 
Innovation Initiative. And it was to build X-planes that 
demonstrated key technologies for the next generation of 
tactical air warfare.
    And that program has been pretty successful. We have built 
some prototypes that have matured the key technologies. But now 
we have to go to the design we are going to use for production, 
which is not going to be----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Secretary and Generals, thank you for being here.
    I do want to make sure that as we work towards that final 
number, and we are looking at the list of unfunded priorities, 
that we are keeping in mind the civilian workforce and the 
uniform workforce and what inflation has done to them. And they 
are the most important asset that we have in the military.
    And as someone who represents Robins Air Force Base and 
Moody Air Force Base, I want to just make sure that that 
workforce is taken into account with what inflation has done to 
them.
    With that said, General Brown, your predecessor General 
Goldfein and I had a lot of discussions about JSTARS [Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System] and ABMS [Advanced 
Battle Management System]. I will pick on the Army since they 
are not here. I did, I did see their request this week for a 
manned aircraft for ground-moving target indicator that looked 
very similar to what the JSTARS recap [recapitalization] looked 
like.
    I know the Air Force is committed to ABMS. And I appreciate 
your commitment to that and Robins Air Force Base. Is there any 
discussion with the Army potentially about transferring the 
GMTI mission that currently exists to them since they are now 
requesting a manned GMTI platform?
    General Brown. We have not had that conversation. We talked 
to them about--at least my intel [inaudible] talked to them 
about the platform and letting them know that the Space Forces 
are going to really help us with ground moving target 
indication based on some of the capabilities they are pursuing.
    And that is, that is the approach we are taking 
[inaudible]. We do have the Global Hawk Block 40 that can do 
some of that as well. So, I think there are ways we can solve 
this from a joint perspective using the Space Force 
capabilities.
    I question why, why we are going down the path of pursuing 
something that we're trying to move away from, and if you go 
back to we are not going to be in permissive environments where 
we can actually operate like we have in the past.
    Mr. Scott. So, you understand my concerns with the 
difference of messaging today versus a few years ago with 
actually a manned ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance] [system] that is not survivable versus China 
and Russia.
    Any concerns about as the JSTARS drawdown becomes, becomes 
faster, the loss of ISR for our combatant commanders? Or are 
you convinced that we can fill the capability gap with JSTARS 
coming down?
    General Brown. I believe we can, we can fill the gap. But I 
also, as I said earlier, there will be some risk here. But I 
also think about how we can do our ISR today. It is not always 
from an airborne platform. With the amount of information 
that's available, amount of capability we have in space, 
whether it is provided by the military, provided by the 
intelligence community, or things we are able to provide--look 
at commercially, there are so many different ways to get the 
information on ISR.
    And we are in some cases infatuated with some of the 
airborne platforms. But we have capacity and capability, and we 
have proven that time and time again of how we will be able to 
get the information to our combatant commanders. Doesn't 
necessarily always come from an airborne platform.
    Mr. Scott. General Raymond, I do have a question I want you 
to answer, too.
    But it was announced earlier this week that we would no 
longer, the United States would no longer test ground-based 
systems to destroy satellites.
    Do you believe that the Chinese and the Russians would 
agree to no longer do that? Or is this going to be an area 
where the United States is going to simply stand alone, and our 
adversaries are going to continue to test the ability to use 
ground-based missiles to destroy satellites?
    Secretary Kendall. We are hoping that the initiative that 
we have taken, the administration has taken, will encourage 
others to join us. We are not giving anything up because we 
weren't going to do that kind of a test anyway. We can get the 
testing that we need done without a destructive, debris-
creating test.
    We just saw Russia recently do such a test. China has done 
them in the past. And we want to put as much pressure on them 
to not do that kind of test as possible. And this is part of 
the effort to do that.
    General Raymond. If you look at the numbers of objects that 
we were talking about earlier, the number of objects that are 
going to be launched into space, we have got to keep the space 
domain free of debris. It is going to become increasingly, 
increasingly congested.
    And as the Secretary said, this, this was about destructive 
tests. There's other means of doing those tests. We would not 
do an irresponsible behavior like China or Russia has done in 
the past.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, gentlemen.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Moulton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, thank 
you very much for being here.
    General Brown, in a 2021 op-ed with General Berger coming 
out of the Marine Corps you explained that a fundamental change 
is needed to occur to address the 2018 National Defense 
Strategy funding priorities was the definition of readiness.
    How do you define ``readiness''? And how does this budget 
address the changes to that definition?
    General Brown. I look at readiness as not just based on 
ability, the capability or the amount of resources, but it is 
the aspect of our ability to have airmen who are trained to 
meet the demands to use that equipment in the scenarios that we 
expect from, that we expect to see in the future.
    In this particular budget the areas we put into readiness 
and into our readiness accounts are our flying-hour program, 
for our weapons system sustainment, but it is also [inaudible] 
to our operational test and training infrastructure and to our 
ranges. And two of the key ranges that we are focused on is the 
Nellis Test and Training Range, and the Joint Pacific Alaska 
Range up in, up at Alaska JPARC [Joint Pacific Alaskan Range 
Complex].
    Those are a couple of key areas. But the other aspect that 
I will also tell you that is maybe not so much in the budget 
but it is really our processes of how we do this and balance 
this. There is ongoing conversation within the Air Force, but I 
will also say with the Marine Corps and the joint force how we 
do this a bit better.
    Matter of fact, conversations this last week of each of the 
services define readiness a little bit differently. We need to 
get closer to the same page, and not only just look at 
availability, but the capability and the trimlines associated 
with readiness as we make decisions for force management in the 
future.
    Mr. Moulton. If you have a bunch of aircraft that are ready 
to go, that can be flown tomorrow, but they are combat 
ineffective against the adversaries that we are going to face, 
then that doesn't count as readiness. I think that is the key 
point.
    As this discussion goes on with the other services, please 
let us know if there is anything we can do to accelerate it. 
Because I think this is a place where we clearly need to make a 
change to deal with the fast-evolving threat.
    Have you been able to make any of these changes with your 
subordinate command in terms of just how they report readiness 
up to you?
    General Brown. I have been able to. And part of this is us, 
you know, being disciplined about the approaches we take. And, 
you know, our airmen want to serve. And therein lies part of 
the challenge; when things happen, they want to, they want to 
lean forward. But we have to balance that over time. And this 
is why we went to our Air Force Force Gen [Generation] model to 
lay out in--really it's a four-bin model to ensure that we can 
commit, be ready to commit, prepare, and then reset after we 
have been committed from a force standpoint.
    And that is a process we are going through internal to the 
Air Force to help reshape ourselves and ensure that we report 
readiness much better, but we don't burn all our readiness up 
front and then leave a hole when there is a crisis that comes 
in the future.
    Mr. Moulton. General Raymond, can you comment on this as 
well for the Space Force?
    General Raymond. I would be happy to.
    Historically, we have had the luxury of measuring our 
readiness in space against a peaceful, benign domain without a 
threat. And so, that is not the domain that we find ourself in 
today. So, we have really done a restructure of how we do 
readiness as well.
    Part of that is the reporting to me to make sure that we 
are looking at it in a lens through a contested domain.
    The other thing that is different, we are largely employed 
in place. Most of our readiness models bias the deployed 
capabilities that deploy in the theater. And so, we have had to 
reconstruct our readiness models to best capture readiness from 
an employed-in-place 24/7 type force.
    Mr. Moulton. Mr. Secretary, we have obviously been very 
focused on Ukraine lately. Can you give us two examples of 
lessons that we have learned from the conflict in Ukraine and 
how they are reflected in your budget?
    Secretary Kendall. We watched the buildup as it was 
occurring. And were aware that there was a pretty significant 
probability that Russia would invade Ukraine.
    There are some considerations perhaps from that in our 
budget. Generally speaking, the type of threat we are seeing 
there is not a surprise to us. And China being the pacing 
challenge from a technical point of view and an operational 
point of view, that was what really motivated us more than 
anything else.
    We are all watching Ukraine right now. And it is a bit 
early to draw a lot of judgments from it. I will leave the 
political, other judgments to others. But from the point of 
view of military operations, you know, I think the Chiefs could 
talk on this, too, the failure of Russia to achieve air 
superiority early and to control the air decisively I think has 
been a major impediment to their attempt in the invasion.
    The other thing on the other side of the equation is that 
the effectiveness of the air defenses, particularly weapons 
like Stinger and SA-10, and anti-armor munitions for that as 
well; some of those weapons were very important in keeping the 
Russians out of the air and extracting losses from them.
    Part of that is because of the tactics that the Ukrainians 
used. They were very--they used what they had well, and they 
were able to keep those systems alive despite the threat and 
use them effectively.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time----
    Secretary Kendall. And we can learn a lot from that.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Has expired.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Dr. DesJarlais is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall, the unfunded priorities list that you 
submitted to Congress included $197 million for hypersonic 
testing. And I would like to get a better idea of where that 
money is going.
    So, first, how do you assess the current hypersonic test 
capability within the Air Force Test Center?
    And second, what impact will the requested funding have in 
shoring up the existing gaps in that capability?
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Congressman.
    Just to be clear, I did not submit an unfunded requirements 
list. Chiefs Brown and Chief Raymond did.
    Dr. DesJarlais. All right.
    Secretary Kendall. We did put money mostly through the 
Secretary of Defense's office, the Under Secretary for Research 
and Engineering, into advancing our hypersonic test 
capabilities. And I will let General Brown talk about the 
explicit impact of the addition that he would increase.
    But I believe it would simply accelerate what we were 
already planning to do to get us more capability sooner.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. General Brown.
    General Brown. Sure. You know, part of the reason why we 
wanted to put this not only in unfunded priority list, but as 
we looked through our budget all the services are pursuing 
hypersonic capability. Our hypersonic test facilities are not 
where they need to be, not only in capability but also in 
capacity.
    And what I wanted to do with this unfunded priority was 
actually put more focus, we already put some investment into it 
but we continue to put more investment into those facilities. 
And we work very closely with OSD [Office of the Secretary of 
Defense] because they have most of the oversight for this. But 
we have to work together with the other services to ensure we 
can do the testing and ensure we can provide that capability 
here in the future.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. I am curious to know whether you 
would like to see Congress consider increasing thresholds for 
minor construction authorities like the lab revitalization 
development program in light of the inflation that we are 
seeing impacting this money?
    General Brown. I would say that would give us a bit more 
flexibility for minor construction. I think this is something 
we probably need to review periodically as costs increase, 
whether it is inflation or just general costs, and how we 
define that. We do that in other areas as well. I think it 
would be worth considering.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Back to you, Secretary Kendall.
    In recent months you have made some interesting comments on 
your vision for hypersonic weapons and the purpose they should 
play in the U.S. arsenal. Last month at a panel for the 
Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies you questioned, or you 
had the question of whether you can do the job with 
conventional missiles at less cost just as effectively. And 
then went on to say that hypersonics are a way of penetrating 
defenses but they are not the only way.
    And I just wanted you to elaborate a little bit on those 
thoughts.
    Secretary Kendall. There are a combination of things we can 
do which includes stealth, you know, decoy penetration aids of 
various types, jamming
    So, there are other things we can do to penetrate defenses. 
Hypersonics do have a role, and we do need hypersonics. I don't 
think that they are a panacea, and they are not always the most 
cost-effective solution. They are important capabilities that 
we do want to get into the inventory.
    Dr. DesJarlais. And we have all been kind of concerned at 
some of the ARRW's [Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon's] 
failures over the past year. And we have poured significant 
investment into those in the fiscal year 2022 budget. Can you 
provide us with an update on the Air Force plans and goals to 
develop the field of hypersonic weapons?
    And then in the fiscal year 2023 budget request it looks 
like we may be shifting focus away from the ARRW towards the 
hypersonic attack cruise missiles; and would you say that is 
fair?
    Secretary Kendall. We have funded the research and 
development on ARRW. We haven't funded the production yet. And 
the reason for that is primarily that they have had a number of 
test failures. We want to see some success before we commit 
production money.
    We are interested in both of those concepts. And I think I 
could get--I would have to get into some classified information 
to talk about the exact applications of both.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay.
    General Raymond, as the conflict in Ukraine drags on, we 
continue to see China and Russia inch closer together 
diplomatically and militarily. And this extends into the space 
domain as well. As we see Sino-Russian ties produce agreements 
for cooperation on lunar missions and proposed joint 
international lunar research station, how are you assessing the 
threat environment in the space domain currently?
    And are you concerned by these closer ties between Russia 
and China?
    General Raymond. Space is clearly a warfighting domain, as 
I mentioned. There is a significant threat today, and that 
threat is growing, everything from reversible jamming to 
kinetic destruction.
    It is concerning to see Russia and China work together in 
areas that would not be in our best interest. But I will tell 
you, we have the best partnerships and allies in the world. And 
it is one of our great strengths. We have worked really hard 
over the last past couple years to really strengthen these.
    Not only--it used to be that our international partnerships 
were one-way kind of data sharing arrangements. Now we are 
operating together, training together, developing norms of 
behavior together, funding capabilities together. So, I would 
put the strength of our partnerships well ahead of anything 
that China might do.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gallego is represented for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    General Raymond, thank you for your testimony. I was 
pleased to see in your written testimony you address how the 
Space Force can help confront challenges in the gray zone. As 
you know well, Russia and China are saturating the globe with 
state-backed propaganda. And we don't have to look further than 
Russia's blatant lies about its invasion of and the ongoing war 
in Ukraine to see this trend.
    Within the broader context of gray zone activities, how do 
you think Space Force can strengthen and amplify joint force 
initiatives to confront this challenge?
    General Raymond. I think we have seen in the conflict, the 
Russian-Ukraine conflict where space----
    Mr. Gallego. I am sorry, General. Can you just wait one 
second? I can't hear.
    Okay, proceed.
    General Raymond. I think you, you have seen very clearly in 
the Russian-Ukraine conflict where space, including commercial 
space, has provided a great advantage to Ukraine, especially in 
the gray zone. Commercial space has allowed us to share 
information much more broadly. It has allowed us to see the AOR 
[area of responsibility] in much greater, in much greater 
clarity. And so, I think space has been really instrumental in 
helping shape this, this gray zone competition, especially 
leading up to the conflict.
    Mr. Gallego. Mr. Kendall, or Secretary Kendall, the Solomon 
Islands recently signed a security agreement with China which 
would allow Beijing to deploy troops to the Solomons and could 
even result in the first Chinese military base in the Pacific. 
This altering the status quo requires the United States to 
further strain our regional alliances and partnerships.
    What is your perspective on expanding the Five Eyes 
intelligence partnership to close allies in the region such as 
Japan or South Korea? Japan's ISR network, for example, has 
robust capabilities, including the RQ-4s, E-2s and P-1s, all of 
which would be critical additions to the theater situational 
awareness in any Taiwan scenario. Is the Air Force considering 
anything along those lines or contributing to any discussions 
on potential expansion of Five Eyes?
    Secretary Kendall. That would not be something the Air 
Force would do on its own. That would be something that would 
be done at least at the DOD [Department of Defense] level, I'd 
think.
    We do work very closely with Japan and South Korea. This 
has come, the idea of Japan becoming part of the Five Eyes, or 
Korea becoming potentially part of this has come up before. But 
that is not something the Air Force is working directly.
    Mr. Gallego. And so there is no discussion at all from what 
you know of from the other services speaking to the DOD about 
the possibility of something like that?
    Secretary Kendall. I am not aware of that. I am aware of 
conversations about increasing cooperation with our close 
partners, but not specifically expanding the Five Eyes 
construct.
    I can take that for the record and get you, get you an 
answer.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 97.]
    Mr. Gallego. General Brown, thank you again for your 
testimony. And I appreciate your warning of accelerate change 
or lose, and your vision for a more flexible and capable force. 
In your written testimony, it has been a hard decision the 
service must make in coordination with Congress on how to 
modernize the force and develop and field new capabilities, 
while selectively divesting older platforms.
    Regarding the A-10, for example, the Air Force itself is 
planning to divest 21 A-10s from the Indiana Air National Guard 
in fiscal year 2023.
    What is the modernization plan for the remaining A-10s? 
Will the airframes that have been selected for re-winging be 
added to that maintenance schedule?
    General Brown. The plan for the long range is we have 
bought the ATTACK [Advanced-Wing Continuation Kit] kits. And 
the ATTACK kits will re-wing the remaining A-10s. If I have the 
numbers correct, it is about 218 that we will actually have set 
to re-wing.
    But the 21 that are going to retire will not be re-winged. 
And those will get transitioned out. And that Guard unit will 
actually transition to F-16s.
    Mr. Gallego. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall, in the simplest terms possible, could 
you describe what Agile Combat Employment is and how it might 
be implemented in a Taiwan scenario specifically?
    Secretary Kendall. The idea behind Agile Combat 
Employment--and I should let Chief Brown talk about this, too, 
because I think he is one of the founding fathers of it--is 
that we compound the targeting problem for our adversaries by 
using more than the bases that we normally operate from.
    There is a hub and spoke concept, if you will, where 
alternative locations are used to conduct operations. So, an 
adversary would have to target all of those potential locations 
in order to effectively target our force.
    The Air Force has been training people and it has been 
doing exercises to demonstrate some of that capability. And the 
Chief can talk about that a bit more perhaps.
    What we are doing on the operational imperatives is trying 
to look at the full mix of investments we would need to make 
that truly a cost-effective approach. There are limited numbers 
of bases that we can conceivably use because of the size of 
runways, infrastructure that we need. And so, they are 
targetable. We would need to deny targeting capability. But 
even without it, those fixed sites can still be attacked.
    So, you need to look at a mix of defenses, and hardening, 
and other measures that we would want to invest in to make sure 
that was a robust capability, and really preserved our ability 
to put missions in the air.
    You know, the tactical air assets that we have deployed 
forward aren't of much value if they can't get in the air 
because their runways are taken out, basically, or they can be 
potentially destroyed themselves on the ground, as well as the 
infrastructure that supports them.
    So, we have got to protect against that.
    Mr. Gallagher. In a Taiwan scenario, to fully realize the 
vision of Agile Combat Employment, would that require new 
basing agreements, specifically in the Philippines and in 
Japan?
    Secretary Kendall. It would require a combination of 
factors. One would be host countries or alternate sites that 
were under our possession, you know, that were prepared to 
accept the aircraft and use them.
    We have been practicing Agile Combat Employment in Europe 
right now as part of the preparations we have made over there. 
So, the concept is sound. It is the right idea. It is the right 
thing to do. But we have to think through all the things that 
are required to make it a reality in a wartime situation. And 
we haven't done all that work yet. There is more to be done 
there.
    Mr. Gallagher. Putting on my MILPERS [Military Personnel 
Subcommittee] hat, I took the Air Force PFT [Physical Fitness 
Test] yesterday, it was fun, at Bolling. And you had two airmen 
that were conscripted into doing it with me, so they deserve an 
``attaboy'' for doing that.
    So, my understanding is if you get a first class score you 
only have to take it once a year, but if you don't meet the 
height and weight standards you have to do it twice a year. Is 
that correct?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman, I want to compliment you on 
your performance on that test.
    Mr. Gallagher. Oh.
    Secretary Kendall. I heard about it. It was pretty 
impressive.
    Mr. Gallagher. Well, I got old man points [inaudible].
    Secretary Kendall. I will let the Chief talk about the----
    General Brown. It is not the height and the weight, it is 
the score. And if your score is, if I recall, is below 75 then 
you do it twice a year versus once a year. So, if you get a 
high score you have proven that you are staying pretty fit, and 
we don't make you do it twice a year.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, there was a story this week, I don't 
think it is a new policy per se, but if you are an airman 
undergoing transgender reassignment surgery, you don't have to 
take it for the year while the surgery is happening. Is that 
correct?
    General Brown. That is correct.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, then after you transition, let's say you 
are a biological male and you undergo gender reassignment 
surgery to become a female, do you then, are you then held to 
the female standards in the test versus the male standards?
    General Brown. The way we do that is based on what you--
what the member identifies as for their gender is what drives 
what test, and other support we provide to those particular 
members.
    Mr. Gallagher. Okay. So, if you [inaudible], if you 
identify as a female or underwent surgery to become a female, 
you would then go from having to run to get a max score of 9 
minutes and 12 seconds for 1.5 miles to 10 minutes and 23 
seconds for 1.5 miles. Correct?
    General Brown. Not having the charts in front of me, I know 
they are different. That is probably correct.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, that is a difference of a minute and 11 
seconds, depending on what gender you identify for the run.
    For pushups the change is from 67 pushups in 1 minute to 47 
pushups in 1 minute. This is for the youngest ages, 25 and 
younger. I am 38, so I got, I got a more generous scale 
yesterday.
    That is a difference of 20 pushups, right, going from male 
to female for the strength portion?
    General Brown. Without the charts in front of me, it is 
probably close.
    Mr. Gallagher. And then sit-up goes from 58 to 54. So, that 
is small, that is four.
    And then my understanding is you now have the option for 
all, for every domain, well, the run you have an option, the 
strength portion you have an option of sit-up, plank, and then 
something else that confused me yesterday.
    General Brown. We are in the process of implementing those 
changes to provide additional options for our members based on, 
you know, how they, how they exercise.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, is the idea to retain the optionality or 
to coalesce around one for each domain?
    General Brown. Optionality. Well, optionality based on each 
domain, whether it is aerobic or whether it is strength.
    The Chairman. I apologize. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Ms. Escobar is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank our panelists for their service and for their leadership 
and for being with us today.
    I have the incredible honor and privilege of representing 
El Paso, Texas, which is home to Fort Bliss, America's second 
largest military installation, and largest joint mobilization 
force generation installation in the Army. I would like to take 
this opportunity, though, to coming on the heels of Mr. 
Gallagher's comments or questions rather, I want to thank you 
all for your recent announcement to expand basic human rights 
protections to service members and their families.
    I have to tell you, this is especially important in States 
like mine, States that have moved to ban gender-affirming care 
for minors, restrict teaching about sexual orientation in 
public--and gender identity in public schools, and prohibit 
trans athletes from playing on girls' sports teams.
    I have spoken with many, many families who feel targeted 
and who have to shift their worry about other things to worry 
about care for their kids. And so, your leadership and your 
response to these really, these really targeted, discriminatory 
laws against families in States like mine I think, I hope, it 
will influence other branches of service to provide similar 
protections.
    My question to any one of our panelists who would like to 
answer this is, you know, as I mentioned, you know, I have 
heard from constituents, we need our service members focused on 
their mission, not on their kids' health care or limits to 
accessing that care. Families should be supported in all ways 
possible to ensure readiness of our service members.
    And I understand that through the Exceptional Family Member 
Program service members are allowed to be reassigned to 
different States with safer environments for their families. 
And so, that makes me wonder if you have seen personnel 
impacted or take advantage of that?
    And, also, how the service will account for or think about 
basing deployment decisions based on this type of quality of 
life question, especially around discrimination in States like 
Texas, Florida, and other States?
    And, really, for anyone who would like to answer that for 
me.
    Secretary Kendall. Thanks for the question.
    What we have been doing, and what I think you are alluding 
to, is making sure that our service airmen and guardians are 
aware of some of the services that they can, they can use 
because of some of the recent changes in State law.
    The other services have very similar programs. They have 
legal assistance, and they have the Exceptional Family Member 
Program as well.
    We don't take any position on, on these laws one way or the 
other, except we recognize the fact that they do affect our 
people. The Exceptional Family Member Program in particular 
helps people who have unique medical conditions that may not be 
treatable in a certain location. Usually, it is because of lack 
of care because somebody has a condition where the environment, 
in the case of asthma, would affect them, or because there 
simply isn't any care in the region where they would be 
assigned that is appropriate for their specialized condition.
    Transgender medical condition or gender dysphoria is one 
that could be affected for some of our people. I am not aware 
of any cases where this has happened yet, but I expect it will 
at some point. This is not a--this is a condition that often 
occurs among adolescents and our dependents will probably be 
affected by it at some point. So, we have made them aware that 
the EFMP [Exceptional Family Member Program] program in 
particular was available to them if that, if they were impacted 
that way.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Kendall.
    I am going to move on very quickly to my next question, 
shifting gears because I have only got about a minute left.
    General Raymond, as the Space Force has continued to grow, 
I have been really encouraged by its efforts to reach out to 
universities for research and prepare the next generation of 
potential guardians. One of those initiatives is at the 
University Partnership Program, which included the university 
in my district, the University of Texas at El Paso. Can you 
give me a quick update on the initiative and what lies ahead?
    I have got 30 seconds, so you may have to respond in 
writing.
    General Raymond. I will be happy to respond in writing.
    But it is an initiative that we are proud of. It builds 
partnerships with universities in twofold: one, to help develop 
and attract talent; and two, to help do some critical research 
for our critical space needs. We are very pleased to have UTEP 
as part of that. We have 11 different universities as part of 
it. And we are seeing benefits of that already.
    And I will be happy to respond in more detail in writing. 
Thank you.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 98.]
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, General Raymond.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Gaetz is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Secretary Kendall, are you saying that if a 
service member has a transsexual family member or a family 
member who might one day want to become a transsexual person, 
that the Air Force might not send that service member to a 
State like Florida or a State like Texas based on our laws?
    Secretary Kendall. What we do, and we have been doing this 
for a very long time, is whenever anybody comes up for 
assignment they go through a questionnaire about their family 
and their medical needs, and special education, things like 
that. And based on that questionnaire we examine whether in the 
region they might be assigned to there might be some issue with 
providing them with what they need. And then if that is the 
case, we don't assign them there. We find something else, 
someplace else for them to go.
    There are about 35,000 service men that are under that 
program right now, and about 55,000 people that are affected by 
it. So, it has a lot of broad applicability.
    Mr. Gaetz. But usually we would think about this 
Exceptional Family Member Program like if the service member 
had a child with a specific heart disease----
    Secretary Kendall. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. And they could only get treatment 
at Johns Hopkins, you might not send them to a place where they 
wouldn't be able to access that treatment.
    What I think is new is that you are now applying that to 
transsexuals and people who might want to be transsexuals.
    So, again, I want to ask the question very directly. Is it 
the position of the Air Force that if someone has a transsexual 
family member and they don't want to go to a State like Florida 
or Texas, that you will accommodate their request to not go to 
Florida or Texas based on the gender issues of a family member?
    Secretary Kendall. If a service member is under treatment 
for a recognized medical condition, such as gender dysphoria, 
and they cannot get that treatment in the State to which they 
might be assigned, then they could be assigned to another 
State.
    Mr. Gaetz. And it is not just----
    Secretary Kendall. But it has to be an actual medical----
    Mr. Gaetz. And it is not just that they are under 
treatment. Captain [inaudible] Downsworth told the Washington 
Post, family members receiving gender-affirming treatment or 
likely to receive such treatment.
    So, isn't it true, did Captain Downsworth misstate that? 
Does someone have to be receiving treatment?
    Secretary Kendall. I would have to check the exact wording 
of how the program is set up. There has to be a identified 
actual need for medical treatment, not just the potential for 
one. It has to be more than that. That is my understanding.
    I will get back to you on the record for that.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 97.]
    Mr. Gaetz. And a family member choosing to change their 
gender would qualify, is what you are saying?
    Secretary Kendall. I am sorry?
    Mr. Gaetz. So, a family member choosing to change their 
gender would quali--would alter the options you have for where 
you could put that service member?
    Secretary Kendall. I think more would be required. There 
would have to be a medical need to be met. Just that decision 
by itself probably wouldn't be enough. But I don't know.
    We haven't had an actual----
    Mr. Gaetz. I am concerned that----
    Secretary Kendall. We haven't had an actual case of this 
come up yet.
    Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. It is going beyond medical needs 
[inaudible] some of the statements of some of the folks who 
work for you.
    I am now quoting from Under Secretary Gina Ortiz who said, 
``We are closely tracking State laws and legislation to ensure 
we are prepared to mitigate effects to our airmen, guardsmen, 
and families.'' And, again, this is dealing with the 
transsexual issue with the Exceptional Family Member Program.
    So, which State laws and local laws are you particularly 
concerned about?
    Secretary Kendall. We are, we have people in our major 
installations who track local conditions, including State laws, 
all the time.
    Mr. Gaetz. Which ones?
    Secretary Kendall. That is what they do.
    All of them. If there is a change in divorce laws just 
occurred in one of the States, it could affect our members. So, 
our people have to be aware of that so they can provide 
counseling to people if they need it.
    So, there is no change in----
    Mr. Gaetz. I am going to move on, Mr. Secretary. I have 
another topic to cover. And while that seems deeply frivolous, 
this is quite serious.
    I want to go to hypersonics.
    In what areas is the United States outpacing China in 
hypersonics? Maybe let me----
    Secretary Kendall. I think we are outpacing China in air-
breathing hypersonics.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay.
    Secretary Kendall. Cruise missile type applications.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, those are, cruise missiles, are cruise 
missiles hypersonic?
    Secretary Kendall. A specific type of hypersonic, with a 
scram jet engine. It gets to, it gets above Mach 5.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, let me ask this question.
    Secretary Kendall. Normal cruise missiles do not.
    Mr. Gaetz. General VanHerck said, China is significantly 
outpacing us with their capabilities.
    Was General VanHerck wrong?
    Secretary Kendall. No. China has moved to deploy hypersonic 
weapons more aggressively than the United States has--
definitely.
    Mr. Gaetz. And so, when General VanHerck says China is 
aggressively pursuing hypersonic capability tenfold to what we 
have done, is that a ratio that is incorrect or correct?
    Secretary Kendall. I don't know how he would make that 
measurement. They have fielded more capability than we have. 
And they have fairly aggressive development programs in a 
number of areas. I wouldn't put a number on it.
    Mr. Gaetz. More aggressive than ours. So, they are 
developing----
    Secretary Kendall. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. Faster than us. I mean, General 
Brown just said that we are not where we need to be on 
hypersonic testing, which I think is a helpful admission 
because we should actually work together to solve that.
    But what you are saying is they are testing and developing 
more, they are fielding more, and they are more capable, right? 
That is the essence of this thing?
    Secretary Kendall. They have invested more, and they are 
more capable.
    But you have to be very careful about these comparisons.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you. That is just, like, exactly the 
opposite of what Secretary Lloyd Austin said, and particularly 
noteworthy.
    I am afraid I am out of time.
    The Chairman. Mr. Horsford is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will get back to 
the hearing at hand, which is on the budget.
    Secretary Kendall, contract adversary air [ADAIR] has 
proven itself to be a cost-effective training enabler for the 
Air Force Weapons School and during major exercises like Red 
Flag. In May 2021, the commander of Air Combat Command, General 
Mark Kelly, wrote, and I quote, ``Currently there is a high 
opportunity cost to self-generated ADAIR, which is the norm for 
fifth-gen squadrons. A pilot flying Red Air is using precious 
flight hours on the most expensive aircraft, and yet not 
realizing any significant training or readiness value.''
    So, your department told us repeatedly, told me, this 
committee, and industry, that there would be a consistent 
future need for these services. However, it has been clear for 
years that the Air Force was looking to improve the capability 
of these contract aircraft to better reflect the high-end 
fight.
    In response to this clear demand signal, this year industry 
went to two allied European air forces and acquired two dozen 
F-16s, the same aircraft flown by the current organic 
aggressors at Nellis Air Force Base. Last month, I was pleased 
to learn that the Air Force had also decided to permanently 
base nine F-35s at Nellis as part of the 65th Aggressor 
Squadron at a future unspecified date.
    In response to a question about this basing decision, the 
Air Force informed Congress on April 8th that changes to the 
organic aggressor fleet would not cause a decrease in the 
number of contracted adversary air pilots, and that there were 
no projected train--changes for any contract adversary air 
company.
    However, I was surprised to recently learn that at this 
point the Air Force had already notified the Nellis adversary 
air contractor that their contract would not be renewed, and 
that they would have to vacate Nellis by June 4th.
    The Air Force then told my staff on April 20th, 12 days 
after informing Congress that no changes to adversary air were 
planned, that they did not intend to recompete the Nellis 
contract, and that they would transition entirely to organic 
adversary air beginning on June 4th.
    Yesterday, in our meeting, General Brown, you highlighted 
the importance of future virtual constructive training at 
Nellis. And while I fully support efforts to field these 
capabilities, I have been told that we are still years away 
from the infrastructure and the software required to take full 
advantage of these systems.
    So, I think you can understand my skepticism regarding 
simulators when problems with the F-35 virtual environment have 
delayed a full-rate production decision for the program by over 
a decade. And I am confused how the Air Force plans to replace 
the 44,000 flying hours, representing 63 percent of adversary 
air requirements, that the contractor currently flies at Nellis 
without the existing organic F-16 fleet, especially when no 
date has been given for the arrival of F-35s or additional 
aircraft.
    So, I think it is important to note that the organic 
aggressors at Nellis have two missions: to both fly as 
aggressors and to support the test and evaluation unit.
    What happens when test and evaluation requirements compete 
with training? So, I am deeply concerned that the apparent lack 
of cohesive adversary air plan will not only continue to lead 
to uncertainty for my constituents, but also hurt the readiness 
of our pilots while they wait until an uncertain date for this 
future virtual environment to be fielded, or for F-35s to be 
delivered.
    So, Secretary Kendall, with no additional aircraft on the 
ramp and a full capability simulation environment still years 
away, how does the Air Force intend to bridge the capability 
gap for adversary air at Nellis? What is the specific strategy 
for adversary air across Air Combat Command?
    Secretary Kendall. Let me start by saying that we do need 
adversary air. It is an important part of our training regimen.
    The problem we have right now is that we need fifth-
generation adversary air. And the current capability we have 
under contract doesn't provide that. It is the reason the F-35s 
are being brought in.
    That gap exists today, and it can't be healed by extending 
the contract that is in place. So, that is the problem we are 
trying to solve. We also are working----
    Mr. Horsford. So that is the only need that we have?
    Secretary Kendall. I am sorry, Congressman?
    Mr. Horsford. Is that the only need that we have is to 
prepare for fifth-generation? Don't we have other threats that 
we also have to continue to prepare for?
    Secretary Kendall. It is not----
    The Chairman. The rest of this conversation will have to be 
on the record.
    Secretary Kendall. General Brown----
    The Chairman. I am sorry. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Mr. Secretary, I apologize. So, if the question goes on that 
long, runs out of time, so you have to submit it for the 
record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 97.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Bacon is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And appreciate all 
three of you being here today. And thank you for your 
leadership.
    A couple statements before I get to a question.
    First, I would just like to address the President's budget. 
It calls for 4.5 percent increase or 4 percent increase in 
spending for the military, and a 12 percent increase for 
domestic spending non-military. A pretty good disparity there.
    We know inflation is at 8.5 percent, though. So, 
effectively, the President's budget is calling for about a 4.5 
percent cut to the military. I don't think that is appropriate 
in a time of Ukraine and a rising China. So, I hope that this 
committee and Congress increases that spending to at least even 
with inflation, hopefully more than inflation, to deal with 
these rising threats.
    But because of this budget we are seeing that, like the Air 
Force has to grapple with the nuclear recapitalization whether 
it's the B-21s, the ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic 
missiles]. But because of the 4.5 percent cut to the spending, 
you are having to reduce your F-35 buy and we end up with less 
aircraft this year than when we started.
    Same thing with the Navy, less ships by the time we are 
done.
    I just think our country is not being served with this kind 
of reduction in spending.
    Then tied to that is the Air Force budget. I don't think 
appropriate that the DOD doesn't account for the pass-through 
money that the Air Force gets. They are showing a $234 billion 
budget, roughly a third, a third third amongst the services. 
But, yet, we know $40 billion that is supposedly the Air Force 
never enters the hands of the Air Force. It is pass-through to 
other agencies that have nothing to do with the Air Force.
    Seventeen percent of the budget from the OSD that shows it 
is going to the Air Force never goes to the Air Force. And it 
makes it hard for Congress, I believe, to deal with this 
appropriately when we are trying to figure out what is the 
appropriate budget for the Air Force when you are doing B-21s, 
new ICBMs, the F-35, and so forth.
    So, I think--I know the Air Force is counting this right. 
They are showing a $194 billion budget. And I appreciate your 
transparency. I think we need that here, too.
    My first question deals with the electronic warfare part of 
the budget with the Air Force. I am grateful the Air Force is 
showing four EC-37s on the unfunded list. I think if we don't 
fund these this year, we will have 2 years without a production 
line. And I worry about losing that expertise.
    So, we are going to try hard to get at least some of those, 
if not all of them, funded through the unfunded list.
    My question would be to the Chief, what more can we be 
doing in Congress for the electronic warfare program? Are we 
adequately giving you what you need?
    General Brown. Well, I think it is one of these areas we 
have to continue to work on. And I think you have heard me say 
in public before, electronic warfare is an aspect that we have 
not been as focused on partly because of the threats we were up 
against over the course of the past 20 to 30 years.
    The world has changed, and we have got to put, not only 
internal to the Air Force, but as we work our budgets, to put 
more emphasis on electronic warfare and the capability, whether 
it is done by cyber, how we use AI [artificial intelligence]-
machine learning aspects of this, and the platforms that we 
operate as well. They will all play a factor in this, not only 
for us on the offensive, but to also be prepared to operate in 
that type of environment as well with our platforms and our 
people.
    Mr. Bacon. I think your statements have been very helpful 
on the electronic warfare program that we needed to turn around 
and get pointed the right way.
    A lot of folks assume the EC-37 is not a near-peer capable 
aircraft, but it is. Without going into classified material, it 
has some of the latest technology, and I am excited about what 
it will bring.
    To our Space Chief, how does our investment in space 
capabilities compare with China's? I mean, is it comparable, or 
they're putting more in, or we're putting more in?
    General Raymond. Sir, it is really hard to tell what China 
is putting in because they are not transparent in their budgets 
and there is a blurry line between what is government and what 
is commercial. So, I couldn't tell you.
    What I can tell you, in this budget the Department has 
invested pretty significantly in space to make sure that we 
have got the capabilities.
    Mr. Bacon. It is a pretty good increase in space funding. 
And, hopefully, it meets the needs.
    My last question is back to General Brown.
    We hear reports of airmen, NCOs [non-commissioned 
officers], having to go on SNAP program [Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program], needing nutrition help. Should we not look 
at revising the enlisted pay, especially at the junior ranks? 
Should we be focusing on this? I guess this is also a question 
for General Raymond. Should we, should Congress be looking at 
this more about increasing enlisted pay?
    General Brown. I think across the board we--I mean, this is 
something we [inaudible] continue to take a look at based on 
the environment. You started out with a conversation on 
inflation. As we look at our pay and benefits, it is not just 
the pay, but it is also the benefits that support our family 
members.
    And that, that is an aspect when you think about our, our 
airmen, it is not just the pay, but it is the other things that 
happen in support of them, their families, the communities they 
live in. And so, looking at pay and benefits together I think 
would be, would be appropriate.
    Mr. Bacon. It seems egregious that we have young enlisted 
folks on Stamp and other nutrition programs. That is 
unacceptable.
    But thank you with that. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Luria is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
    And I want to start with you, Secretary Kendall. I have 
been, you know, reading into the details of the Air Force 
defense budget request. And did you task the service to 
consider canceling the F-15EX in this budget?
    Secretary Kendall. I am sorry, I didn't get the question.
    Mrs. Luria. Did you task the Air Force to consider 
canceling the F-15EX during this budget?
    Secretary Kendall. As we went through the budget build 
process, we looked at a lot of options. And I really don't want 
to go into the details of what any of those were. We ended up 
where we ended up after a long process.
    The numbers we started out initially at were very different 
than the numbers we ended up at for a variety of reasons. So, I 
really can't go into our internal processes very well on what 
we did in that.
    Mrs. Luria. Just to summarize. So, instead of canceling the 
program, which was a recommendation you wanted to look into, 
you are actually doubling the buy from last year. Can you 
explain that?
    Secretary Kendall. We are accelerating the buy to buy it 
out. We are actually--we are actually reducing the total 
quantity substantially. I think it was a hundred and--C.Q., 
help me with this--144 and we went down to 80 as the total buy. 
But we are trying to buy that out as quickly as possible.
    We made some other adjustments in order to do that. It is a 
more efficient way to buy the capability.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. I mean, I would be interested more in, 
you know, that decision-making process, you know, from our side 
to understand it.
    But there is an article that I read, it was published on 
April 19th in Breaking Defense. I am not sure if you have seen 
this, but it has the cost comparison between the F-15EX and the 
F-35A.
    The article compares the flyaway cost of the two different 
aircraft. And it says that the flyaway cost for the F-15EX is 
39 percent higher than the flyaway cost for the F-35A. And that 
the cost to operate the F-15EX is 10 percent higher than the F-
35.
    Do you agree with that assessment as outlined in this 
article?
    Secretary Kendall. We haven't had a chance to analyze that. 
The cost of those two aircraft are roughly comparable. Part of 
the problem is we are buying a 15EX in----
    Mrs. Luria. You haven't analyzed it? Thirty-nine percent 
seems like a pretty big delta to me.
    Secretary Kendall. Yeah, we are buying the F-15EX for the 
unique capabilities that it provides. You know, as General 
Brown mentioned earlier, this is a weapons truck basically. It 
carries more munitions than the F-35 can.
    So, for certain, certain missions, like cruise missile 
defense of the United States, or defensive counterair missions, 
it is a superior platform, despite the lack of some of the full 
fifth-generation capabilities. It does have a number of fifth-
generation components on it to give it more capability than a 
baseline F-15 would have.
    Mrs. Luria. And for comparison sake--and if, General Brown, 
you wanted to jump in on this as well--which airframe is more 
lethal as far as a China-Taiwan scenario is concerned? Which 
would be more useful for that scenario?
    General Brown. You know, I don't look at just one 
particular platform. It is the mix of platforms and the aspect 
of the stealth of the F-35 and its capability. But I'd also 
take a look at the F-15EX and its ability--it is going to be 
the first aircraft to carry HACM, a hypersonic air-launched 
cruise missile that can be carried on a fighter.
    So, it is a combination of capabilities where you can 
penetrate but also do stand-off capabilities. So, the two of 
them complement each other in addition to the other 
capabilities that we have on the fighter, in our fighter fleet.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Banks is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Brown, in 2018, then-Air Force Secretary Heather 
Wilson announced the ``Air Force We Need'' proposal. That 
proposal stated that the Air Force needs to grow from 312 
operational squadrons to 386 operational squadrons by 2030. 
This also included growing the number of fighter squadrons in 
the total force from 55 today to 62 fighter squadrons in the 
future.
    In light of the latest 2022 National Defense Strategy, does 
the Air Force still need 62 fighter squadrons in order to 
compete and deter against the threat that China poses today?
    General Brown. The way I have been thinking about this is 
the equivalent capability of 62 fighter squadrons. And what I 
think about is when you look at the operational imperatives and 
the aspect of fighter squadrons the way we do today with manned 
aircraft versus what the Secretary and we are working through 
on the operational imperatives, the combination of crewed and 
uncrewed platforms.
    We are doing it with the--on NGAD. We are looking at it 
with B-21. But I think it has applicability across our force. 
And part of the conversation we are talking about today is what 
does a future fighter squadron look like? How many manned 
platforms versus unmanned platforms you will have. And with the 
number of unmanned platforms it will make it much easier for us 
to expand that fighter capability. And it is not just the 
capability but the capacity as well.
    Mr. Banks. Can you talk about how you would posture those 
fighter squadrons between the Air Force Active and Reserve 
Components?
    General Brown. One of the areas that we are looking at is 
we are doing a bit of a global posture review. And one of the 
things I have got to take a look at is to ensure that we have 
both the right overseas and CONUS [continental United States] 
mix so we can have the rotational out of the United States for 
our airmen and families, at the same time, the right mix 
between the Active and Reserve Component.
    And that is ongoing work we are doing right now. And I have 
got all three components--Active, Guard, and Reserve--in the 
conversation to ensure that we get the right mix; put a marker 
out in front of us, and then make sure we are moving in that 
direction.
    Mr. Banks. Secretary Kendall, could you more specifically 
describe the Air Force's plan for the A-10 fleet?
    Secretary Kendall. I am sorry, Congressman, I couldn't 
hear.
    Mr. Banks. I am over here, Secretary.
    Can you more specifically describe for us the plan for the 
A-10 fleet?
    Secretary Kendall. Well, the plan for the fiscal year 2023 
budget is to take 21 A-10s out in Indiana and replace them with 
F-16. In future years, we are looking at divesting over time 
the A-10 fleet. That has been something we have been trying to 
do for some time.
    Mr. Banks. Can you put a timeline on the when you would 
divest of the entire fleet versus the changes that you want to 
make in this budget?
    Secretary Kendall. If we were free to do so, we would 
divest the entire fleet by the end of the next 5-year plan.
    Mr. Banks. But that is not what this--not specifically what 
would happen with this year's budget fiscal year 2023?
    Secretary Kendall. This year divest 21 in Indiana and 
replace them with F-16. It is a very specific and, I think, 
modest request at this point.
    Mr. Banks. How long have you wanted to make this change?
    Secretary Kendall. I think that one has been, that specific 
one has been in the works for some time. We were not allowed in 
the last year to retire the A-10s that we wanted to retire. We 
were not successful in that endeavor. But they are not what we 
need for the force for the future. And we would still like to 
make that move as soon as we can.
    Mr. Banks. Can you talk about, Secretary Kendall, what 
aircraft replaces the capabilities of the A-10, if we do divest 
[inaudible]?
    Secretary Kendall. The fighter mix that General Brown has 
talked about. It is not a one-for-one swap-out of one aircraft 
for another, it is about the fighter mix that we are trying to 
get to over time.
    Mr. Banks. And then for the A-10s that will not be divested 
of in fiscal year 2023, are you looking at wing modernization 
programs or any other plans that we should be aware of?
    Secretary Kendall. I think we are completing some modest 
modernization plans that have been in place for a while, sir.
    General Brown. Very modest. Things that we have already 
invested in. You know, with the sunset role, we [inaudible] 
don't try to put a lot of capability. But we have to make sure 
we balance that risk as we go forward so we don't have a big 
gap in capability.
    Mr. Banks. General, can you, as well, describe or defend 
the plan, at least just for fiscal year 2023, to make this 
change and then the divesting of the entire fleet down the 
road? Explain why it's important.
    General Brown. It's because of the threat. The A-10's a 
great airplane in a permissive environment. I don't expect will 
be in very many permissive environments in the future. And I've 
got to have a mix of capability that can do a bit of all 
things. The A-10 cannot do that, particularly in a high-threat 
environment, and that's why we're making that shift.
    Mr. Banks. Can you more specifically talk about the second- 
or third-order effect of moving forward with this plan? What 
does it allow you to do?
    General Brown. What it allows me to do is there's a 
manpower piece associated with this because you have airmen 
that are actually, you know, operating and maintaining A-10s 
that we'd actually put into F-35s and F-15EXs and, eventually, 
NGAD. Those airmen, you know, a 15-year maintainer doesn't come 
off the bench if you build those, and we had to make that 
transition. So that's an important aspect of this----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Kahele 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Secretary Kendall, General Brown, and 
General Raymond, for being here today and for your leadership 
of our United States Air Force.
    Secretary Kendall, you approved the legislative proposal 
that was sent to Congress this month to combine Active Duty and 
Reserve Components into a U.S. Space Force with full-time and 
part-time members, effectively canceling any plans for an Air 
National Guard Component of the Space Force. Is that correct?
    Secretary Kendall. I believe that is correct.
    Mr. Kahele. Mr. Secretary, this is particularly concerning 
to me. Dismantling Air National Guard space units would 
immediately degrade operational readiness that will take about 
7 years to regrow and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars. In fact, in Hawaii, this decision would displace 
approximately 50 airmen currently assigned to the Hawaii space 
unit and a total planned force structure of 88 members of the 
293rd Space Control Squadron located at the Pacific Missile 
Range facility on Kauai.
    How much would it cost the Department of Defense and the 
Space Force to establish this new Active Duty capability as 
outlined in this legislative proposal?
    Secretary Kendall. The proposal does not do away with any 
existing force structure. It changes the way we manage the 
Reserve and the Active Component of the Space Force.
    The guardsmen, the Air Guard people, who are supporting the 
Space Force now will continue to do so. They are very valuable 
assets, and we do not want to lose them. They're critical to 
the space mission. What we're discussing is how they're labeled 
and what kind of an organizational construct they fit into.
    The concern the administration has is that the overhead 
cost of creating a new independent Space Guard as an entity 
would be significant, and that's the reason that the 
administration has opposed the creation of a Space Guard writ 
large.
    There are a number of ways I think we can solve this 
problem. But, at the end of the day, what we need is to keep 
those people in uniform and to keep them doing what they are 
doing, whether they're called Air Guard or Space Guard or 
something else. That's the end state we want, and we're happy 
to work with the Congress as we try to find a way forward to 
make that happen.
    I'd like to give General Raymond a chance----
    Mr. Kahele. Well, I believe a Space National Guard would 
provide a seamless surge capacity for the Space Force while 
capturing the training and talent of Active Duty Space Force 
personnel who move to the private sector and want to continue 
their service in a National Guard.
    So, General Raymond, using your best military advice, do 
you think we should or should not have a Space National Guard?
    General Raymond. We've been operating with the Guard for 25 
years. They provide critical capability and provide great 
personnel. As our Secretary said, there's multiple ways you can 
do this. You can have a separate Space National Guard, you can 
utilize the Air National Guard to continue doing what we're 
doing today, or you can take those capabilities out of the 
Guard and put them into this Active Duty/Reserve combined.
    There's multiple ways you can do it, but the key is, as the 
Secretary said, is the guards men and women that are in the 
space business and the capabilities they operate we rely on 
today and we're going to rely on them in the future.
    Mr. Kahele. You know, Congress has made--excuse me, not 
Congress. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] has made incorrect 
assumptions regarding the size and scope of a Space National 
Guard, and its cost estimates would yielded a cost estimate of 
$100 million in annual operation and support costs and a one-
time construction cost of $20 million. It's why Congressman 
Crow and I sent a letter to CBO asking them to re-score the 
cost of establishing a Space National Guard because the cost 
should be minimal. Those same personnel that, General Raymond, 
you just talked about will continue to execute their missions 
within the Space National Guard at the same duty station, so no 
new construction is needed.
    From a cost perspective, why should we go forward with this 
policy when we already have the talent within the Air National 
Guard to train, deploy, and provide critical space capability 
for the Space Force using existing infrastructure? General 
Raymond.
    General Raymond. Today, there's 839 guardsmen in the Air 
National Guard that support the Space Force; 839 in 8 States 
and 1 territory. Again, they provide critical capability for 
us. And, again, there's multiple ways you can do this, and 
there's different costs associated with each one of those ways. 
But there's multiple ways you can do it. The critical piece of 
this, though, is that we rely on them today and we're going to 
have to rely on them in the future.
    Mr. Kahele. Secretary Kendall, Congress has requested 
multiple reports on the value and feasibility of establishing a 
Space National Guard. Any idea why the Congress hasn't received 
these reports submitted to the Congress on the value and 
feasibility of establishing a Space National Guard?
    Secretary Kendall. The short answer is I don't know. We 
should be able to provide you with information. I'm not sure 
why that hasn't happened. I know you know what the 
administration's position is, obviously, on this, and its a, 
you know, fairly firm position; but it is based on concerns 
about overhead and cost. And, again, we'd be happy to have a 
dialogue with you and try to find a solution that was mutually 
acceptable that would get us what we all want, which is to keep 
these people in uniform and serving their country.
    Mr. Kahele. Thank you for your answers. Mahalo, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back the remaining balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, my 
district is Barksdale Air Force Base, and I had a great meeting 
a couple of weeks ago with Acting Assistant Secretary Oshiba 
there at the Pentagon to discuss our new entrance road and gate 
complex that's been in the works for some time at Barksdale.
    Just last week, my office was informed that the Air Force 
plans to award the contract for that project by the end of next 
month, May. Can you confirm that timeline for the contract 
award?
    Secretary Kendall. That's my understanding also.
    Mr. Johnson. Very good. Shifting gears quickly to the F-35 
program, it's my understanding that over 10 years ago the 
Department and Congress determined that a second engine for the 
F-35 was costly and unnecessary, but this year's budget, of 
course, requests nearly $300 million to recreate a second 
engine program at the expense of F-35 quantities, funds to 
modernize the current engine and NGAP [Next Generation Adaptive 
Propulsion] propulsion.
    So what changes are driving that push for this second F-35 
engine?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman, it's not a second F-35 
engine. It's a completely new and much improved F-35 engine 
potentially. It's a technology that was in very early stages of 
development when I first saw it in 2010 that has matured fairly 
well. Offers [inaudible] opportunity for on the order of 20, 25 
percent cost savings for mission range improvement. So, it's a 
substantial improvement and would be a replacement for the 
current engine, not a second one.
    There's a over $6 billion, I think, development cost 
associated with getting that engine completely developed and 
into production. So, we're looking at that. We're funding the 
development this year, the next increment; but it's going to 
have to compete in our budget for those resources going 
forward. But it would be a substantial improvement over the 
current capability.
    Mr. Johnson. And what would be the timeline to develop and 
test and integrate and field that?
    Secretary Kendall. We're a few years away from having a 
fully developed engine. There are substantial development 
program [inaudible].
    Mr. Johnson. I guess the question we have is wouldn't it 
make more sense to focus investment on the Next Generation Air 
Dominance program, rather than drastically modify a fighter 
program that's already plagued by delays?
    Secretary Kendall. Well, the AETP [Adaptive Engine 
Technology Program] engine would offer increased power, which 
we're going to need as we continue to modernize the F-35. The 
F-35 is going to be the cornerstone of our fleet. We're going 
to have a very large inventory of F-35s, so the fuel savings 
that we could accomplish through that engine would be a 
significant payoff.
    So, again, it's a cost-benefit analysis. There's some good 
operational reasons to do it. There are also some good reasons 
from a point of view of climate change to do it, and just from 
operational efficiency, energy efficiency, to do it. But, 
again, it's going to have to compete with other things in our 
budget going forward.
    Mr. Johnson. So in addition to the lower F-35 procurement, 
this year's budget proposes ending the F-15EX procurement at 80 
aircraft. There's been some discussion about that today.
    As a result, it seems likely that some units around the 
country and overseas that operate under the older F-15C and D 
models are just not going to get replacement aircraft. Is that 
an accurate assessment; and, if so, what's the plan for all 
those airmen?
    Secretary Kendall. We were talking about the fighter mix 
earlier, and we're also talking about other missions that are 
coming into existence, cyber missions, for example, information 
warfare missions. So, it's not correct to think about this as a 
one-for-one replacement that it has to happen.
    The older F-15Cs are going to have to come out of the 
inventory at some point. We need to think about it much more 
broadly than just fighters for fighters; it's a bigger equation 
than that.
    Mr. Johnson. But the commitment is or, I guess, the focus 
would be not to have idle airmen, right? They will have 
something to do, right?
    Secretary Kendall. That's our intention, yes.
    Mr. Johnson. Got it. Okay. I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all 
the witnesses for being here today.
    A brief question to start to General Raymond in light of 
the upcoming NDAA so and I others can better prepare, I wanted 
to ask what is the status of the range of the future report 
required in section 1610 of fiscal year 2022 NDAA? I believe 
this is due at the end of this month. I just wanted to ask you.
    General Raymond. I've reviewed it, and I think we'll meet 
our timelines. It's been drafted.
    Mr. Carbajal. Do you have any sense when it might come out?
    General Raymond. It will meet the timelines.
    Mr. Carbajal. It will? Great. Thank you so much.
    I think my colleague, Representative Kahele, has already 
touched on the establishing or standing up of a separate Space 
National Guard Component. I just want to associate myself with 
his comments, Secretary, so you're aware of my personal 
sentiments, as well.
    Secretary Kendall, last week, I had the privilege of 
welcoming Vice President Harris and General Raymond to my 
district for their visit to Vandenberg Space Force Base. Vice 
President Harris announced during her visit that the United 
States commits not to conduct destructive direct-ascent anti-
satellite, ASAT, missile testing and that the United States 
seeks to establish this as a new international norm for 
responsible behavior in space. The Vice President also called 
on other nations to make similar commitments and to work 
together to establishing this as a norm.
    With this announcement and commitment, what are our next 
steps to make this an internationally adhered norm and how are 
we engaging China and Russia on this issue?
    Secretary Kendall. That would not be a responsibility of 
the Department of the Air Force, although we'd support it. It 
would be a State Department-led, I would assume, initiative 
with Defense in support again. I'm not aware of that we can get 
for the record perhaps any existing plans. The National Space 
Council is very interested in this, too, that the Vice 
President chairs.
    So, I think there will be an effort to move this forward 
and try to get other nations to sign up, but I'm not intimately 
aware of what the exact plans are.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Continuing on, Secretary Kendall, 
in February, the Army published its climate strategy outlining 
how the service intends to mitigate and adapt to climate 
change. Is the Air Force working on a similar strategy; and, if 
so, when can we expect to see it published?
    Secretary Kendall. We have been working on a similar 
strategy, and there are elements of it which we are executing 
now. We're monitoring the Arctic carefully. We're working with 
our partners in that region. We're concerned about deterrents 
in that area, and we're concerned about our capabilities in 
that area.
    The initial draft of that strategy, I looked it and I 
wasn't satisfied with it, quite frankly. And so, we're trying 
to do something which is more forceful and more action-oriented 
than the original draft was. I can't give you a date at this 
point in time, but I hope to have something published in the 
near future.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And, General Raymond, I just want 
to thank you for always being so responsive and attentive to 
the issues, concerns, needs, and challenges at Vandenberg Space 
Force Base. Thank you very much.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Green is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for 
holding a hearing. Of course, thanks to our witnesses, thanks 
for your life of service to the country.
    The DOD and the Department of the Air Force are rightfully 
pivoting to the global war on terror--from the global war on 
terror to the current threat posed by Russia and China. 
However, I have some significant concerns about the 
vulnerabilities for divesting platforms, I'm sure you've heard 
it already today, that provide significant combat capability 
before the sustainable replacement is ready and fielded. And as 
I told General Milley during our recent defense-wide budget 
hearing, I'm specifically concerned about the loss of JSTARS 
and AWACS. The Biden administration seems to be removing 
critical instruments from our toolkit. The plan is to stop 
funding these critical capabilities now and simply hope for new 
and more lethal and cost-effective replacements to roll out 
seamlessly.
    This budget diverts already scarce defense dollars into 
searching for replacement systems, leaving an extensive 
capabilities gap, while land war rages in Europe. The 
divestiture of these critical systems is occurring, I think, 
far too rapidly, and it's time for Congress to adequately fund 
the transition from legacy systems to their replacements.
    And I think there's also a mechanism out there. I've met 
with Representative Wittman who sits a little further up on the 
dais than I, and he advised me about a formerly created and 
still-authorized naval strategic deterrence fund. It could be a 
mechanism where we can put extra dollars there to cover the 
legacy systems and our ramp-up of new systems so that the DOD 
budget top line can work for those members of both the 
administration and the Congress who want to see that the main 
budget stays flat line, much like we did the OCO [overseas 
contingency operations] over the years of the war on terror. 
Does that make sense? Am I making sense on that, how we would 
use those funds?
    We've already talked about inflation and things like that; 
I won't go into that. What I really want to ask today is if we 
put a working group together and got some Democrats on board 
with this, would you guys be interested in working with that 
group for how we might be able to use this naval strategic 
deterrence fund that, again, has already been authorized by 
Congress, to address the potential of the legacy systems coming 
out too soon? Would you all be interested in putting people to 
help us with this working group?
    Secretary Kendall. I think what you're referring to is a 
fund that, essentially, separately funded the strategic 
deterrence, so that it didn't have the effect that it has on 
our budget. In our case, we have fully funded in our budget 
request and will continue to do so the strategic deterrent. I 
think that's a position the administration has taken. We 
don't----
    Dr. Green. Well, there's apparently a fund separate from 
DOD's budget. This is a fund that's separate of DOD budget, 
very much similar to the OCO. You'll recall we kind of abused 
that a little bit and stuck some stuff in the OCO in order to 
keep the budget flat line, the DOD budget flat line, and that 
helps people on both sides, you know, particularly other parts 
of the country where being able to say we didn't, you know, 
necessarily raise DOD's budget.
    There's the potential that we could keep legacy systems 
around a little longer, fund it through this. Your top-line 
budget stays the same; and, yet, those systems stick around a 
little longer until the other systems are fully funded. And I'm 
just wondering if you all are interested in that dialogue and 
if you could loan us somebody with some ideas on that.
    Secretary Kendall. I'm going to have to decline for now, 
and the reason is that these ideas basically create a different 
way to count the money, but it's still the money and we still 
have to spend what we have to spend on national security. You 
know, it's a fact of history that we made a big investment in 
the strategic deterrent decades ago, and then we lived off of 
that capital for a long time and now we're having to 
recapitalize----
    Dr. Green. Sure. So I understand that comment, but what I 
want to be able to make sure and what you all will be held very 
much accountable to is the capability of our force. And as 
those legacy systems come down, that capabilities gap can't be 
there. And that's what I'm asking for you to work with members 
of both sides of the aisle to kind of think through what we can 
do in terms of making sure that those legacy systems are around 
long enough until the new stuff replacing that capability gets 
in the field.
    Secretary Kendall. We're open to new ideas always, but I 
think our budget request does accommodate a reasonable balance 
of current and future capabilities and fund the strategic 
deterrent. So I think we're asking for the money we need to do 
what we think is necessary.
    Dr. Green. You're asking for everything you need? There's 
nothing else you would need?
    Secretary Kendall. We have a balanced and, I think, a 
reasonable request that will implement the national defense----
    Dr. Green. Okay. Fair enough. We're going to continue to 
dialogue about it here, but we may have questions then in 
future testimony about it. Thank you both and thanks for your 
service to our great country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Ms. McClain is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 
for being here; I appreciate it.
    I'm proud to note that Selfridge Air National Guard Base in 
my district is home to 21 A-10s aircraft on the 127th Fighter 
Wing. These uniquely capable aircraft have proven themselves 
time after time in every major conflict in the U.S. has engaged 
in since the first Gulf War, saving countless lives while 
delivering battlefield-altering close air support. In part due 
to their high utilization, A-10 aircraft have not had their 
wings replaced previously and are rapidly beginning to time-out 
on their original wings. We've talked about that.
    Wing replacement for this aircraft is essential. Indeed, 
about half of the aircraft on Selfridge right now requires new 
wings. I'm highly concerned that the President's FY23 [fiscal 
year 2023] budget request does not provide the funding for 
additional wing sets, as notes that the Air Force has procured 
enough wings for only a fleet of 218.
    So, it looks like in the budget, FY22's budget was for 280 
wing replacements, and then this year's budget--say that three 
times fast--then in this year's budget, it talks about 
replacing 260. There's enough for 260; yet it's only going to 
replace 218.
    So, I guess what is the true A-10 divestment target for 
2023? Is it 260, or is it 218?
    General Brown. It's 260. In previous budget, we funded 218 
of the wing kits already, and we're on a path to fund more. 
It's a balance between where we are today and where we're 
headed. But 218 is what we had in last year's budget for the 
wing kits, and then we're going down from 281 to 260 in this 
budget.
    Mrs. McClain. But we're only, of those 260 that we want to 
maintain--I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right 
because the math isn't working in my brain. We want to keep 260 
active, right?
    General Brown. In this fiscal year.
    Mrs. McClain. In this fiscal year.
    General Brown. In FY23. Excuse me.
    Mrs. McClain. Correct. Yet, we only have money to keep 218 
active. Am I reading that right?
    General Brown. We funded 218 wing kits that will be put on 
218 A-10.
    Mrs. McClain. But we have--do we only have 218 that need 
replaced?
    General Brown. It depends on how many A-10s we keep over 
the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. I mean, this is a 
balance, coming down from 281 to a lower number. What we don't 
want to do is buy more wing kits than we're going to need if 
we're going to start retiring A-10s.
    Mrs. McClain. So, we really only have 218 A-10s that are 
available to fly, or is it 260?
    Secretary Kendall. We'll have 260 because they will, 
they'll fly with their existing wings. They won't have the 
wings replaced.
    Mrs. McClain. Okay. So, the difference is okay? They don't 
need the wing----
    Secretary Kendall. Yes, they still have life left on them.
    Mrs. McClain. They still have life left on them. Okay. My 
final question is what does the Air Force plan to do with the 
retired aircraft when it gets retired?
    General Brown. Typically, what we do with the aircraft is 
we take them out to our boneyard at Davis-Monthan and we store 
them there, and we can use them for parts or, in some cases, 
we'll bring them back into the fleet for certain airplanes, 
so--potentially.
    Mrs. McClain. Do we ever foresee selling them to recoup 
some, maybe to our allies? Is that an option as well----
    General Brown. In some cases, we do that based on the 
airplane and based on the request of our allies and partners.
    Mrs. McClain. Okay, very good. Thank you, gentlemen. I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Carl is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Kendall, thank 
you for stopping by yesterday and chit-chatting with me. I 
appreciate your time. I know how valuable it truly is, so thank 
you.
    But I do want to talk about the possibility of the KC-Y 
[refueling tanker] not being brought up in a competitive 
situation coming up. You and I had this conversation. I 
promised you I wouldn't throw you under the bus, and I won't, 
but it is really a sore point.
    I'd like to point out a couple of things before I get you 
to do that. You know, competition, we both agreed, is a good 
thing. It truly is. But when you get a competition and someone 
wins a low bid, I think they should deliver that product at 
that price on that timeframe. And on this plane, it is not 
there. We are behind schedule. I think now, according to my 
notes, we're told that these planes will be 100 percent ready 
by 2024. And I'm not holding you to that; I'm just reading my 
notes here. So, 2024, but right now we're flying with a plane 
that can only refuel 78 percent of our fleet. Yet, we are 
refueling them behind the LMXT [tanker] and the Europeans and 
the Europe countries at 100 percent.
    Now, I'm arguing the point, obviously, that we should open 
up the bid for the LMXT so they can be bid against this KC-Y 
aircraft. And I can't understand why the Air Force, I mean, the 
Air Force has already started the propaganda, they've started 
throwing the little stories out, letting us know that they're 
not going to bid it out, they're not going to bid it out. But I 
go back to my same old country roots. Would you really buy a 
car knowing you could only drive it 78 percent of the time?
    Secretary Kendall. Thanks, Congressman. And I enjoyed the 
conversation also. Thank you for that yesterday.
    General Brown may want to help me with this, but the 
current situation is that the KC-46 can service about 85 
percent of the types of aircraft that it has to service. The 
only things that we don't have that I'm aware of are the A-10 
and I think C-130s. There may be others, as well. But the vast 
majority of our tankers, fighters, and bombers it can provide 
fuel to. And we've moved far from where we were a year ago or 
so when we could only do the F-18, so we're getting to where we 
need to be on the KC-46.
    That said, if competition is the right thing to do, and I 
love competition. I'm all for it. It's the best tool we have to 
reduce cost. But we actually have to have a demand for the 
other aircraft that's being offered in this case, a requirement 
for it. And the Air Mobility Command is working on its 
requirements for the aircraft that would follow the current, 
you know, contracted buy, basically, of KC-46. And I'm trying 
to be as transparent and honest about this as I can be. It is 
not as certain as it was a year ago, let's say, that we were 
going to do a competition. And I don't want people to have a 
misimpression about that. We have not made a final decision 
yet.
    I've had Lockheed in and talked to them; I'm aware of their 
design. I'm going to be asking a lot of questions before we 
make a final decision about this. So, it's not done yet, but 
I'm just letting people know that the probability of it being a 
competition is diminished from what it was a year ago.
    Mr. Carl. Well, it disturbs me when you see an aircraft 
company, quote-unquote, win at lowest bid and they don't 
deliver it on time. Now, I'm reading an article that's on 
Twitter now that Boeing has come out and said that they wish 
they would never bid Air Force One because they are $660 
million in the hole. That's not the taxpayers' responsibility. 
We paid for a product, and we want it delivered. I don't care--
I do care that companies lose money; don't get me wrong. I 
think the process itself is where the real problem is at. The 
lowest bidder, you know, gets it, make them deliver it. And 
that's what I'm talking about here. We've got an aircraft that 
we can refuel from 100 percent of the time. This may say 2024, 
but what's it going to--when we get to 2024, is it going to 
move to 2026? Is it going to move to 2028? We have no way of 
knowing because this plane should have been delivered 100 
percent when? In 2018, 2017?
    Secretary Kendall. The original production aircraft should 
have met our requirements, and they did not.
    Mr. Carl. Okay. So that's 5 or 6 years behind----
    Secretary Kendall. Boeing is operating on a fixed-price 
contract. They've lost $5 or $6 billion already.
    Mr. Carl. They've lost money. We label that as upgrades, 
but truth is it's the design issues that they're losing money 
on. It was designed wrong. They don't have night vision. They 
couldn't refuel with the stick that they had. Pardon my 
terminology. And I'm about to run out of time.
    Real quickly, I'd like to make sure you understand also the 
selection of Huntsville as the site for the Space Force I think 
was right then, and I think it's right now. And I really would 
appreciate you all looking very strongly and keeping that.
    With that said, Mr. Speaker, thanks for your time.
    The Chairman. Mr. Franklin is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary 
Kendall, I apologize in advance if you've touched on this 
because I think I heard you engaging with Mr. Banks as I was 
coming in the room about divestment. I have more questions 
about the divestment.
    As you're aware, in last year's NDAA the Senate blocked the 
divestment of 42 A-10 aircraft. It's my understanding, and 
that's what I want to get your thoughts on, the inability to 
divest of those A-10s would potentially prohibit the beddown of 
F-35 squadrons at Tyndall. I don't know if those decisions were 
linked or not but a couple of questions regarding the A-10s. 
Did the inability to divest those A-10s last year have 
implications on the Air Force's fifth-generation fighter 
capability?
    Secretary Kendall. It has, and we're still trying to figure 
out how to react to that. The maintainers who are doing the A-
10s that we had planned to retire were going to be retrained 
and go to the F-35s. And now, because they still have to do A-
10, we're not able to do that. There are several hundred people 
that are affected by this, so we're trying to find another 
solution to that problem.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. What is the status currently of the 
beddown of the F-35 squadrons at Tyndall?
    Secretary Kendall. I think it's on hold until we can 
resolve this problem. C.Q., do you have any----
    General Brown. Yeah. We're going to have to delay a little 
bit because it's about--if I have my numbers correct--it's 
about 950 maintainers that was in the plan from last year to 
make that transition. So we are, as the Secretary described, 
looking at some other options on how we harvest the 950 
maintainers that would actually get this back on track.
    Mr. Franklin. And as was mentioned earlier, that's not an 
instant flip of the switch. Will those be A-10-trained 
personnel that will be switching over to the new platform?
    General Brown. It's a combination. It's a matter of, you 
know, as our airmen PCS [permanent change of station] and move, 
we'll have experience levels and we'll be able to move some of 
those airmen. Some of them will come from where they work on A-
10; they may come from other airplanes. But it's being able to 
move those airmen around; but having the flexibility is the key 
part to be able to have them available to transition from one 
aircraft to another.
    Mr. Franklin. Thanks. Secretary Kendall, continuing on this 
divestment theme, this year's proposed budget calls for the 
divestment of 33 F-22s, which, as I think my math is right, 
about a sixth of the total F-22 fleet. We all know how 
important fifth-gen fighters are to our great power competition 
that we're trying to reequip for coming out of 20 years in the 
Gulf, but can you expand on the potential implications of this 
divestment of fifth-gen aircraft, which we don't have enough of 
already?
    Secretary Kendall. That's essentially an efficiency move 
for us. We're taking out the Block 20, the oldest F-22s. 
They're less combat capable and would not probably be employed 
against a high-end threat. It would cost prohibitively to 
upgrade them, about $50 million per aircraft. And they're used 
for training now.
    What we can do is we can substitute fully combat-capable 
aircraft and use them for training with the ability to deploy 
those aircraft if we needed to. So, it's going to be an 
efficiency saving that will not significantly impact our combat 
capability.
    Mr. Franklin. And yet--but we're still re-winging Vietnam-
era aircraft that clearly aren't going to play a role in a war 
against some of these potential adversaries. Okay. So that 
answered that question.
    Are there any other legacy aircraft divestments that could 
allow us to continue funding and flying these? And you're 
saying it's cost prohibitive; it's really not. If you had the 
money, you'd invest it somewhere else besides these aircraft. 
So, there's nothing you can do software-wise or anything; the 
airframes themselves are just too far gone to make it 
worthwhile, even in a training capacity----
    Secretary Kendall. I'm supporting the budget that we 
requested. Quite frankly, though, if I had more money to spend 
in the Department of the Air Force, it might not go to 
airplanes at all. It might go to things like munitions, 
electronic warfare, and information security.
    Mr. Franklin. It's been an age-old problem of trying to 
fight like you train, train like you fight. It's hard, as a 
fifth-generation fighter, to go out and train. We don't want to 
use these frontline assets to train against one another and 
expend them in that sense.
    What role do you see, or do you see a greater role for 
using virtual and augmented reality on training ranges to try 
to avoid putting hours on these airframes that are so critical?
    Secretary Kendall. Well, we want to train our F-22 pilots 
on the same aircraft they actually would use in combat, so this 
will improve their training in that regard. But we do try to do 
a mix of simulators, as well as live training, to get the 
optimal mix from a cost-effectiveness point of view.
    Mr. Franklin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mrs. Bice is recognized.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
gentlemen, for being here this afternoon. We're now at 
afternoon.
    First of all, Secretary Kendall, I want to say thank you 
for the inclusion of the $30 million in the Air Force budget to 
acquire the needed real estate at Tinker Air Force Base for the 
forthcoming B-21 depot maintenance campus. That's incredibly 
important to my district and, certainly, critical to national 
security. So, I appreciate you including that.
    My question, as maybe expected, has to do with the E-3, and 
divestiture seems to be a hot topic in this hearing today. I 
want to talk about the proposed divestiture of the 15 E-3 
Sentry aircraft in the budget proposal. I was incredibly 
pleased to see that the official announcement that the E-7s 
would be the replacement aircraft for the E-3. However, there 
is a concern that I have as relates to divesting those 15 
aircraft before we ever even have a contract signed to move 
forward on the E-7.
    So, my question is, Secretary Kendall or General Brown, 
what is the estimated cost savings associated with the 
divestiture of the E-3s on a per-year and a per-aircraft basis?
    Secretary Kendall. If I have the numbers correctly, I 
think, by the end of the FYDP, we save a billion dollars a 
year.
    Mrs. Bice. A billion?
    Secretary Kendall. Yes. It increments as you go out and you 
accumulate more savings over time. But I think it gets to that. 
I'd like to confirm that for the record, but I believe that's 
about right. A little bit less than a billion.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 97.]
    Mrs. Bice. Great. Can you tell me if the savings associated 
with the divestiture will be applied to the procurement of the 
E-7s? Will the savings from the E-3s be applied to the 
acquisition of the E-7s?
    Secretary Kendall. It isn't a direct one-for-one 
correlation, but you can look at it that way if you choose to. 
In effect, the money that's saved goes into--we don't do a one-
for-one swap of money that way.
    Mrs. Bice. But if I'm saving you a billion bucks----
    Secretary Kendall. We look for the net savings and we try 
to make the investments that we need to do.
    Mrs. Bice. Okay. What can Congress do to move up the 
delivery of the E-7s? Currently, it is my understanding that 
we're looking at, if we were to sign a contract, we're looking 
at an FY27 delivery date. And if you're looking at divesting 
those 15 of the 31 aircraft, we don't have capabilities for 
quite some time. So what can we do to speed that up?
    Secretary Kendall. I would like to accelerate that 
delivery, if possible. I'm not sure at this point it's 
possible. We have about $225 million, if I remember correctly, 
in the budget for R&D in 2023 for the E-7. We're going to have 
to make some changes to the aircraft to meet our requirements.
    I am exploring options to try to accelerate those 
deliveries. I'd like to do that if we can. I'm just not sure 
it's possible right now.
    Mrs. Bice. Can you elaborate on why you think that's not 
possible?
    Secretary Kendall. The modifications that might have to be 
made and the time it takes to do the engineering and implement 
those, and then where we are in the production line in terms of 
being able to get aircraft. I think we start production, if I 
remember correctly, in 2025 and get delivery in 2027. And so, 
to accelerate that, there are some things that would have to 
happen to make that possible, and I'm not sure they can be done 
right now.
    Mrs. Bice. I want to quickly just say I had a great meeting 
with Colonel Coyle last week at Tinker Air Force Base to 
discuss the divestiture and maybe walk through some of the 
details of that, and I want to say that I appreciated his 
perspective and insight into what he's looking at and the 
challenges that he sees currently with the Sentry and why this 
E-7 procurement is important.
    But I am 100 percent for your deal. We need to speed it up. 
And whatever I can do to make that happen, I'm happy to work 
with the Air Force in making that a reality.
    I want to pivot quickly to the Retain Skilled Veterans Act, 
which my colleague, Blake Moore, has filed. I've been working 
closely with him, and this legislation would make permanent the 
ability for retiring service members to pursue positions at the 
GS-13 level or below without having to comply with the 180-day 
cooling-off period. With significant workforce challenges that 
we're seeing across the Nation today, I think the urgency of 
securing the permanence of this policy is very evident.
    Secretary Kendall and General Brown, could you discuss the 
current waiver of the 180-day rule and how it benefits the 
Department of Defense's workforce needs?
    Secretary Kendall. I'm not familiar with that issue, but 
I'm sympathetic to anything that increases our flexibility. 
We're finding difficulties in hiring, the length of time it 
takes and so on. We're not as competitive as we should be with 
the commercial world, with the outside market. So, anything 
that relaxes some of those constraints would be of interest to 
me.
    A lot of these constraints are put in place to prevent 
abuse. I think abuses tend to be very rare, but the constraints 
are always present. And so I think we need to look at these 
much more carefully and I'd be happy to have a conversation 
about that with you.
    Mrs. Bice. General, do you have any comments on that?
    General Brown. I'm not familiar with the specific 
legislation, but I agree with the Secretary. The faster we can 
get talent onboard, the better. Because otherwise, we might 
lose it if they have to wait too long.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Kahele [presiding]. Thank you. The chair now recognizes 
Mr. Moore for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the 
gentlelady from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice, for asking my questions 
for me. Thank you.
    General Brown and Secretary Kendall, I want to continue to 
talk about the 180-day rule. I'm a little concerned you're not 
familiar enough with the legislation. We will make sure that we 
communicate that directly to you. But many in your ranks are 
very familiar with it and very supportive of it, broad support 
across the entire Air Force.
    So, again, I hail from the First District of Utah where 
we're an Air Force district, the second-largest--Hill Air Force 
Base, second largest installation; 388th [Fighter Wing], first 
operational wing of the F-35; and the newly named, which we're 
very excited about the new name, the Sentinel program, the 
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Because of this, we're so 
focused on our depot work and we want to be able to have the 
flexibility.
    Again, the 180-day rule is crucial to be able to make sure 
that we have the workforce needs that we--as GS-13 and below in 
particular, that will reduce any potential issues or abuses 
that would ever come from something like this, and it helps us 
immediately hire and keep our workforce going.
    As you mentioned, you're not necessarily familiar with the 
legislation. Any other comments, now we have a little bit more 
time, to just talk about the need for this? I'll throw it to 
General Brown first. Making sure that, you know, we want to 
have full support for this particular piece, are you okay if we 
provide your office with detailed updates on this particular 
issue?
    Secretary Kendall. I'd be very interested in that. You're 
bringing back memories. In 1982, I was a captain in the Army, 
and over a weekend I came back to work as a GS-13. And I didn't 
have to wait 180 days, and I think it would have been a great 
discouragement to me if I had to do that. So, I'd be very 
interested in looking at this legislation.
    Mr. Moore. Well, we provided--there's a waiver that's been 
in existence for a while, and we've had long enough to look at 
the data and say, you know, this should be the status quo, 
we've got to get, remove this bureaucratic piece and make this 
and change this. We keep making incremental inches forward 
every time we have an NDAA cycle, and we need to address that 
this year. We need to be data-driven individuals from our side, 
on the Congress side, from the DOD, and say let's embrace this, 
let's [inaudible] that the unions are great with this, the 
workers want this, our defense depots desperately need this 
type of workforce. We know there's a shortage across our entire 
economy but particularly with this.
    Let me jump over to the Depot Caucus. So, I chair the Depot 
Caucus, and we recently held an event with the Army to provide 
them the opportunity to brief members on the Army, the OIB 
[organic industrial base] modernization plan. Many of my 
colleagues, particularly those of us with air logistic 
complexes, ALCs, are waiting for the Air Force's 5-year 
optimization plan [that] was supposed to be submitted alongside 
the budget.
    Can we expect, Secretary Kendall, can we expect to see this 
soon? Could you preview specific goals that are associated with 
FY23?
    Secretary Kendall. Overall, the fighter plan is what's 
reflected in our 5-year development plan. I think we're working 
on a 20-year organic industrial base plan, as well. I don't 
have the specifics in my head, but I'd be happy to get with you 
and talk to you about that.
    Mr. Moore. Yeah. We've seen a lot of work on the Army side. 
This is a win/win. This is a win we have. We have bipartisan 
members on the Depot Caucus from various districts with Army, 
Navy, Air Force bases, and we are really anxious, from the Air 
Force side, to be able to get the plan, so we can get working 
on this and make sure that we can implement it.
    Lastly, General Brown, from my understanding, the JASSM 
[Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile] and LRASM [Long Range 
Anti-Ship Missile] and the Stand-in Attack Weapon can help the 
F-35 reach its full potential as a fifth-generation fighter. 
Can you please provide an update on the implementation of 
advanced weaponry for the F-35 with battle management 
capabilities needed to address increasing adversarial threats?
    General Brown. Sure. Particularly on JASSM and LRASM that 
are basically built from the same body, we're maxing out 
production in this particular budget, and that's an important 
aspect of the capability, not just the airplane, as I've said 
earlier, on the weapons, as well. And then we're also putting 
money into RDT&E for Stand-in Attack Weapon to provide that 
capability for the F-35, as well. So those are two key.
    I'd also highlight JATM, the Joint Air Tactical Missile, is 
another aspect that we want to continue to develop to give us 
the air range, as well.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. Thank you both, and we'll follow up 
on the 180-day legislation and make sure you have clear copies 
of it.
    Mr. Kahele. The chair now recognizes Mr. Fallon for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.
    General Brown, how are you? Thank you all for coming. I 
wanted to start real quickly on, I don't want to spend a lot of 
time on it, but just, General, on a personal level, as an Air 
Force veteran myself, very proud. I love all four branches of 
the service; I just love the Air Force a little bit more.
    I was dismayed last year when I believed it was politically 
driven that some were alleging that there was a major problem 
with extremism in the military. I mean, you're always going to 
have some bad apples, but I took that as an affront because 
there's something, there's a difference between truth and then 
deliberate fiction.
    And that's why, you know, I just remember my experience. 
And the first thing they did when we got to on station was this 
is a meritocracy, we don't put up and we have zero tolerance 
for any kind of bigotry, any kind of discrimination, and we 
love that. That's America. And the Air Force and the military 
have been on the cutting edge, I think, in advance and further 
than our society had gotten, I think had been leading.
    That was 30 years ago. I suspect, I don't know, but I 
suspect it's getting even better. So, one of the questions that 
we asked each branch was--because what I want to deal with 
truth and data--how many folks have been separated in the last 
fiscal year due to extremist activities? And some of the other 
branches got us an answer. The Air Force hee-and-hawed and they 
didn't give us an answer, but they finally said, well, we don't 
track that.
    So, I was just wondering if you track it now. And if you 
don't, I would respectfully ask if you should because I just 
want to deal with truth so, if somebody says that again, I can 
say what are you talking about? Of the 330,000 active, it was 4 
or 5. And it's an issue, one is too many; but it's not a 
serious issue.
    So, I just wanted you to comment on that real quickly. 
Thank you.
    General Brown. I appreciate you asking the question. We'll 
have to get back to you. I know of a couple, personally, I know 
of that have been removed from the service based on extremism 
or extremist activities. But what I will tell you, a good 
majority of our airmen all live up to our core values. And 
that's exactly what it's all about, and it's the aspect we 
don't want any one of our airmen or guardians for that matter 
or any other service member to feel like they're being either 
harassed, discriminated, or live in an environment they can't 
reach their full potential.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 98.]
    Mr. Fallon. That's not unit cohesion, and we want them out. 
We want the bad apples out. I remember an instance, it was more 
sexism, but they kicked his butt out within a few weeks after 
he graduated, basically while he was in tech training.
    But just tracking it, then we can, if some yo-yos here, you 
know, waste your time with something like that, you know, we 
can have a ready answer. And if it is an issue, then we'll 
address it. I just want to move forward.
    So, General, with recruiting and retention, our office 
asked on the 13th of April of this month what the Air Force 
recruiting was for basic training graduates and, you know, Air 
Force officers commissioned. And we haven't got an answer yet, 
so I'd love to have that answer at some point. It's been 2 
weeks.
    But I did notice that FY22 we had 329,000 end strength, and 
in FY23 you're planning on 323. So, it's a reduction of almost 
2 percent. And when you think about nuclearized Iran, of course 
the largest land invasion we've seen in Europe in 70 years, and 
a resurgent China, what's the rationale and the reasoning 
behind the reduction?
    General Brown. That end strength reduction is tied to force 
structure. And so, one of the things we're doing is actually 
making sure we're aligning what we're doing from a force 
structure standpoint with our end strength, so those are tied 
together.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Secretary Kendall, with the pilots, 
I think we have, it's 12,451, and our strength is 14--we want 
14,101; so there's a delta there. What are our plans to remedy 
that?
    Secretary Kendall. We're looking at things that increase 
the efficiency of the pipeline to produce pilots, and we're 
trying to recruit more and bring them in. You know, we don't 
have an operational shortage of pilots in flying units. What we 
have is a shortage of rated people in staff jobs generally. So, 
it's not really affecting readiness that much.
    But we are making incremental progress. I think the pilot 
shortfall fell by about 300 this past year, so we're making 
some progress on that and we're doing a number of things to 
address that problem.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. Because I remember my PAS [professor of 
aerospace studies] when I was in ROTC telling me in the 1970s, 
after Vietnam, they let a bunch of pilots go and then a couple 
of years later they had a shortage. And then we were seeing 
that in the early 1990s where they were [inaudible] pilots and 
letting folks go, and then what happened, and he predicted it, 
too, he said you're going to have a shortage, and we did. I 
just don't want to see that----
    Secretary Kendall. We're having some difficulties with 
recruiting in general, not just pilots right now.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, and that's why I asked for those. I'm 
worried about that because I'm hearing that from people at 
Lackland, I'm hearing that from people in some of the bases 
with the Army, as well.
    General, the RC-135 Rivet joint platform, we make that in 
Greenville, Texas. It's in the district that I currently 
represent but won't come January. But I just want to--I know 
that we're in an unclassified setting, but I was wondering if 
you could comment on the contributions to our efforts to 
support Ukraine or our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization] allies vis-a-vis this platform.
    General Brown. Well, it's not just the RC-135. It's all the 
other ISR platforms that come together and help provide 
information, not only to ourselves to have a good sense of 
what's going on but to support Ukraine in their operations, as 
well. So, the RC-135, having been an air component commander a 
couple of times, and having to operate, personally, for me and 
the things I have to do as an air component commander, provide 
some pretty great capability to give us a good sense of what's 
going on within whatever environment we're monitoring.
    Mr. Kahele. Member's time has expired.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, thank you.
    Mr. Kahele. The chair recognizes Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
sticking with us today. I certainly think the American people 
deserve our close attention here.
    I'm struggling--and, Mr. Kendall, thank you for the call. 
Thank you all for the engagement. I'm still struggling to 
figure out how this budget builds and maintains an Air Force 
that can meet the National Defense Strategy. Mr. Kendall, we've 
received some briefings from you; thank you. We've received the 
overmatch brief. Essentially, if we buy into the notion that 
the Chinese Communist Party believes it has match or overmatch 
in the next 5 years, coupled with still deterring Russia, 
coupled with Iran, North Korea, and keeping a lid of global 
terrorism, how this budget gets us there.
    I mean, I'll be candid. I think we need to raise the DOD 
top line. We're going backwards with inflation. The comptroller 
used a 4 percent figure and we're sitting at 8. And, therefore, 
raise the Air Force top line to be able to both accelerate 
modernization and enable legacy retirement recapitalization by 
reprogramming recapitalization that preserves the combat 
capability because we don't know if and when the next Ukraine 
is going to happen or the next Taiwan or what have you. And 
I'm, as you've heard from many members, very concerned about 
this dip that we constantly seem to be in as we divest to 
invest.
    Secretary Kendall, I'm particularly concerned about 
readiness. We talked about it briefly. The Air Force's budget 
continues to take risk, particularly in weapon systems 
sustainment accounts. It's funded at 83 percent of the 
requirement. If you add in your unfunded priority list requests 
at about half a billion, that raises it to 87 percent, but 
we're still trading near-term readiness for long-term 
modernization. We're still in that dip, and I can't figure out 
why you aren't coming to us and saying this is what I truly 
need and here's the risks that we're taking. But, yesterday, 
when we spoke, you thought it was adequate. You thought it gets 
the job done.
    And I think we have a teachable moment right now in Ukraine 
on how you can have the shiniest, newest, most modern toys, 
but, if they're not ready, if they're not sustained, then, you 
know, at least Russia right now is feeling that pain, and I 
don't ever want to see us feel it.
    So, talk to me about readiness, particularly when our 
premier fighter, the Joint Strike Fighter, set aside the 
weapons readiness, isn't even sitting at 75 percent, and I 
don't see a path to get there.
    Secretary Kendall. General Brown and Commandant Berger 
wrote a great article on readiness, pointing out that you have 
to think about readiness much more broadly than we do 
traditionally. I have a card here with all the current 
availability rates for our aircraft, which aren't where I'd 
like them to be. But the real question is ready for what and 
when? And the threats are getting worse over time; there's no 
question about that.
    We do believe we have adequate ready forces today to deal 
with anything the National Defense Strategy would ask us to do 
today, support combatant commanders----
    Mr. Waltz. Do you believe we have it 5 years from now 
against an increasingly lethal, as we've been repeatedly 
briefed----
    Secretary Kendall. When I said in my opening statement we 
would have to make tough choices, this is partly what I was 
talking about. We're going to have to transition from the force 
we have to one that is going to be adequate to deal with the 
future threat, and the pacing threat is China. And it's not 
China everywhere in the world; it's China in the----
    Mr. Waltz. But I don't want to pace. I want to outmatch.
    Secretary Kendall. I agree with you completely----
    Mr. Waltz. And I don't see that. I just don't see us 
getting there in that budget, so I look forward to--I'll have 
some follow-on questions for the record of how we get there. 
And if we were to give you more to invest, I mean, we're out of 
time. What we're investing in today, if you believe that we may 
potentially be in a conflict 5 years from now, this is it, I 
mean, I believe. But I look forward to working with you----
    Secretary Kendall. Again, we have to be concerned not just 
with now, not just in 5 years, but 10 and 15 years. So, we've 
got to worry about all these timeframes.
    Mr. Waltz. I feel like we're in 1936 seeing what's coming 
in terms of a potential conflict. And I agree with you we have 
to think past it, but we have to win the next potential 
conflict----
    Secretary Kendall. My opening quote was from 1940, another 
timeframe of interest.
    Mr. Waltz. In the time I have remaining, General Raymond, 
thank you for our conversations about a potential space reserve 
fleet to match the civil air fleet construct. I want you to 
have those capabilities in a time of war, to grab those 
civilian capabilities. I look forward to working with you on 
that.
    And then, finally, General Brown, when will we get--the GAO 
has been making recommendations for 8 years on F-35. And most 
recently, they asked for a report on the reports. When will we 
get that report on F-35 sustainment? Because I just think it's, 
frankly, it's broken in many ways. And we need to be open-eyed 
and honest about it, particularly as we head into NGAD. But 
when will get that?
    General Brown. I'll have to get you an update on where we 
are. But to your point, though, we want to make sure that we're 
actually responding to those and taking the recommendations 
from the GAO seriously, which we are. But----
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 97.]
    Mr. Waltz. They've had some sitting on the table for 8 
years.
    Mr. Kahele. The member's time has expired.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Kahele. No more members with questions today. So, 
Secretary Kendall, General Brown, General Raymond, this 
committee thanks you for appearing before us today and for your 
leadership of the over half a million Air Force Active Duty, 
Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard members and their 
families who each and every day dedicate their lives in service 
to this Nation and the greatest Air Force in the history of the 
world.
    And with that, the Committee on Armed Services is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



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



                            A P P E N D I X

                             April 27, 2022

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

      

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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 27, 2022

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

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 27, 2022

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

      

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             April 27, 2022

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

      

             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLEGO

    Secretary Kendall. Expansion of Five Eyes-only activities would 
require coordination with the U.S. Intelligence Community, Interagency, 
Department of Defense, and all Five Eye nations. The Department of the 
Air Force, through its elements in the U.S. Intelligence Community, 
maintains unique and enduring bilateral intelligence relationships with 
Japan and South Korea. These arrangements provide valuable national 
security benefits to both the United States and the partner.
    Japan and South Korea are already included in several multilateral 
activities involving the Five Eyes nations. We are always amenable to 
considering the expansion of our multilateral forums or activities when 
doing so enhances the security and capability of the United States and 
our existing partners.   [See page 31.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GAETZ
    Secretary Kendall. Eligible families can use the Exceptional Family 
Member Program (EFMP) to meet their medical needs. Airmen and Guardians 
who qualify for the EFMP are able to request reassignment or deferment 
of an assignment to a location that lacks appropriate support for their 
family for various reasons. Enrollment in the EFMP requires identifying 
all family members requiring long-term general medical, special 
educational, early intervention and related services, or modified 
housing.   [See page 36.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. HORSFORD
    Secretary Kendall and General Brown. Our operational units do not 
have a training deficit against the legacy aircraft represented by 
contract ADAIR. Our training deficit is against advanced adversary 
systems. Test and training at Nellis is focused on defeating an 
advanced adversary, therefore our requirement at Nellis is to replicate 
those advanced systems. Contract ADAIR remains valuable at our FTUs 
where pilots are learning basic skills and not preparing for a high-end 
fight.   [See page 39.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. BICE
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force's proposed divestment of 15 E-3 
aircraft in Fiscal Year 2023, plus the divestment of an additional 5 
aircraft in Fiscal Year 2027 garners total savings of $2.93B across the 
Future Years Defense Program. The detailed per-year, per-aircraft 
savings information can be provided directly to your office.   [See 
page 55.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    General Brown. The only current Air Force sustainment reporting 
requirement is from the FY22 NDAA Section 141. IMPLEMENTATION OF 
AFFORDABILITY, OPERATIONAL, AND SUSTAINMENT COST; the first requirement 
is the establishment of an F-35 sustainment affordability cost target 
no later than 1 Oct 2025 followed by implementation of F-35 sustainment 
cost constraints beginning 1 Oct 2028.
    OSD and the F-35 JPO are currently in discussions with the GAO F-35 
Sustainment audit team to clarify the closure criteria for a number of 
the open recommendations. Once these discussions are completed, the 
results will be incorporated into the report that will be delivered to 
the committees.   [See page 62.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
    General Brown. The DAF separated three service members in the past 
fiscal year due to their association with extremist groups or because 
of acts of extremism. It is important to note that there is no specific 
basis for discharge linked to extremist behavior, nor are there 
separation codes associated with discharges for this reason. Members in 
violation of DODI 1325.06, Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal 
Gang Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces, are subject to 
disciplinary action--to include administrative separation, based upon 
their specific conduct.   [See page 59.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
    General Raymond. The University Partnership Program (UPP) 
facilitates the education and recruitment of a diverse pool of military 
and civilian Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 
talent into the Guardian workforce. UPP provides a consistent pipeline 
of required talent through scholarship, internship, and mentorship 
opportunities, and is comprised of 14 nationally-renowned universities.
    Currently, the USSF is supporting two (2) Guardians who will earn 
advanced academic degrees (AADs) at the University of Texas at El Paso 
in critical STEM disciplines. This initial effort contributes to Space 
Force's goal to support Guardians through degree programs that directly 
advance the USSF mission.   [See page 35.]



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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             April 27, 2022

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

    Mr. Turner. The Air Force's FY23 budget proposes reducing F-35 
annual procurement below last year's appropriated level, while 
purchasing additional 4th generation fighters that have not been 
produced at rates for the Air Force in roughly 20-plus years. As the 
Air Force tries to mitigate a fighter shortfall, how does this revised 
acquisition plan not add additional risk? How does the Air Force plan 
to mitigate this risk?
    General Brown. The Air Force continuously evaluates the threat and 
operational environment and prioritizes available resources to ensure 
operational needs are met. In the Fiscal Year 2023 budget cycle, the 
Air Force balanced the need for our future corner-stone fighter, the F-
35, with the need for a modern, high delivery capacity fighter, the F-
15EX. The decision to focus on F-15EX procurement will allow us to 
recap current F-15C/D locations--most notably Kadena--sooner than we 
would be able to had we not.
    Mr. Turner. I understand the Air National Guard has started to 
circulate a briefing titled ``Fund the Air Force the Nation Needs,'' in 
which they outline the insufficient level of resources for the Air 
Force, and the Air Guard in particular, needed to remain viable to meet 
the threats from China, Russia and other rogue states. I understand 
that your budget request was constrained, as it always is, and that the 
Air Guard must go through you to get major items like aircraft on the 
Unfunded Priority Lists (UPL). How many F-35s and C-130s did Lt General 
Loh ask you to include in your UPL for the Air Guard in order to help 
it retain relevancy?
    General Brown. The briefing titled ``Fund the Air Force the Nation 
Needs, is a state produced product not in circulation at the Department 
of the Air Force Headquarters.
    ANG Federal UPL submitted to the Air Force $8,297.2M; requirements 
aligned with winning the nation's wars and homeland defense. ANG 
validated equities included in AF UPL $131M (including $51M for FSRM 
not requested by ANG in its submission to the AF UPL).
    The list included:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANG Federal UPL Request                                       Submitted in AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5,300.0M 40 F35 A/C                                          Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,500.0M 12 F15EX A/C                                        Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$128M 24 F-15EX Conformal Fuel Tank                           Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$384M Weapon Sustainment System                               $63M Included AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$110M 14,000 Flying Hrs                                       Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$68M IT & JWICS                                               Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$191M MILCON                                                  $17M Included AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$14M Cyber Wing Conversion                                    Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$194M C130H Propulsion                                        Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$60M MAF Data Link                                            Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$316M Home Land Defense Munitions                             Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5M ANG Fed TA                                                Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$7.5M 5 Analysis of Alternatives                              Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.7M Cyber Range                                             Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$12M Drug Demand Reduction Contract                           Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$6M Artic Clothing                                            Not In AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.0M FSRM                                                    $51M Included AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$8,297.2M Total Requested                                     $131M Total (ANG Equities) Validated & Included in
                                                               the AF UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
    Ms. Speier. Secretary Kendall: Over the FYDP, the Army has 7 CDC 
[Child Development Center] projects and the Navy has 17 CDC projects, 
while the Air Force only has 3 planned. Additionally, the Air Force was 
the only service that did not request MILCON [military construction] 
money for a CDC in the FY23 President's Budget.
    --Why is the Air Force not prioritizing child care MILCON in its 
budget requests?
    --What is the Air Force's plan to reduce wait lists for child care?
    --Specifically, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, since the Air 
Force is the lead service for that installation, does the Air Force 
consider the Army children on the waitlist as well in its planning for 
MILCON and child care staffing? I visited JBER, and military spouses 
told me that they are waiting more than 1 year for child care. What 
will the Air Force do to expand child care capacity at JBER and reduce 
waiting times for child care?
    Secretary Kendall. The Department is pursuing multiple lines of 
effort to meet the child care needs of our Air Force and Space Force 
families. We are addressing the availability and delivery of Child 
Development Programs with a strategic approach to maximize child care 
options, expand child care capacity, and leverage customer feedback in 
determining emerging and ongoing needs. To address critical staffing 
shortages, we deployed a robust Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) Child and 
Youth Program (CYP) Recruitment, Retention and Special Employee Program 
in FY22 at all our installations. We have also developed and 
implemented targeted recruitment and retention incentives for Family 
Child Care providers to increase child care capacity and offer options 
that meet the different child care needs of families.
    CDC construction is part of the overall DAF [Department of the Air 
Force] childcare effort. The current status of CDC planning is as 
follows. One CDC (1) was included in the FY22 President's Budget (PB) 
and four (4) in the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's (CSAF) FY22 
Unfunded Priority List (UPL), with all projects being authorized and 
appropriated in FY22. After all the FY22 UPL projects were funded, we 
did not have additional CDCs sufficiently designed for inclusion in the 
FY23 PB.
    The CSAF included two CDCs in the FY23 UPL (JBSA Randolph and 
Wright-Patterson AFB), and postured two in FY24 (Hanscom AFB and Scott 
AFB).
    The DAF continues with the planning and design of an additional 11 
CDCs with provided FY20 and FY22 CDC Planning & Design funds. Projects 
will be included in future PB or potentially UPL submissions as designs 
are sufficiently matured. I recently visited Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson (JBER) and looked into the childcare situation there. All 
U.S. military members assigned to JBER, and other Department of the Air 
Force led Joint Base installations, are eligible for child care and 
included on our wait lists managed through the DoD wait list management 
system, MilitaryChildCare.com. Availability of affordable and quality 
child care options for all military families at the installation drive 
actions to pursue infrastructure and staffing solutions to address the 
imbalance between demand and capacity. JBER's greatest challenge to 
improving access to care is staffing in all of their child development 
programs. With an inventory of 65 rooms, JBER recently reported 29 CDC 
classrooms closed temporarily due to staffing shortages, resulting in a 
total of 393 vacant child care spaces. To address that staffing 
shortfall, recruitment, retention, and special incentives are being 
offered to include bonuses for sign-on, employee referrals, longevity, 
and achieving training/educational milestones. In addition, wages were 
increased for direct care staff and reduced child care fees for child 
and youth employees are offered to improve staffing levels. Efforts are 
also underway to recruit additional Family Child Care providers to 
expand childcare capacity and offer options that meet the different 
child care needs of families. Subsidy rates will increase in June 2022 
for Family Child Care providers willing to offer full-time care for 
children under two years of age. The weekly subsidy rate for standard 
providers will increase from $209 to $305 per week and $250 to $346 per 
week for accredited providers. As we address the staffing challenges to 
improve access to care, in FY23 JBER will execute a $2.4M CDC 
renovation project for the closed CDC to better address child care 
demand and maximize facility utilization.
    Ms. Speier. Secretary Kendall, please provide an update on the 
diversity and inclusion projects the Air Force is currently working on, 
including any changes to minimize disparate treatment in military 
justice.
    Secretary Kendall. The DAF is taking an integrative approach to 
recruit diverse talent representative of the eligible United States 
population, to retain talent we already have, and to routinely review 
policies, practices, procedures, or conditions that may negatively 
affect one group over another. In addition to standing up the Secretary 
of the Air Force Office of Diversity and Inclusion, we also have seven 
DAF Barrier Analysis Working Group Teams that identify barriers for 
underrepresented groups. Over time, we updated a number of policies to 
ensure they are inclusive of all members, without compromise to mission 
and readiness. We also conduct surveys, hold listening sessions, and 
focus groups to allow members an opportunity to inform us where 
potential barriers may exist, and to better understand why personnel 
choose to continue to serve, or conversely, to end their service. From 
a recruiting standpoint, we implemented recruiting strategies to 
broaden our reach, with the goal of increasing accessions of diverse 
military and civilian talent. This includes engagement with industry 
and other organizations, asking our General Officers to support 
community and event engagement through the `GO Inspire' initiative, and 
partnerships with industry and external organizations to reach diverse 
STEM-minded personnel. The Department is also focusing our efforts on 
the K-12 youth programs with the intent to inspire youth in 
underrepresented groups to pursue STEM and aviation careers. The DAF is 
making bias literacy a foundational competency for all leaders. We 
recently developed a policy mandating bias awareness training for 
hiring managers and piloted an in-person bias awareness workshop for 
command selection board members. The goal is to build bias literate 
Leaders and Practitioners and to mitigate the influence of personal 
biases when making talent management decisions. With regard to 
disciplinary outcomes highlighted within the Racial Disparity Review 
and DAF Disparity Review, the DAF is taking a holistic approach by 
looking at all of our pre and post accession factors, policies, and 
practices to see what effect they have upon disciplinary outcomes. We 
have also implemented the following efforts to improve data collection 
which will lead to improved evidence-based decision-making to address 
racial disparity issues: In May 2020, the DAF amended AFI 36-2907 which 
now requires commanders to collect demographic data on all service 
members who issue and receive written administrative disciplinary 
actions. In March 2021, the Air Force partnered with the RAND 
Corporation to fuse two separate but interrelated databases together 
with the goal of discovering causal connections to racial disparity in 
the Air Force military justice statistics.
    To better measure the scope of the disparity throughout the 
discipline system, the Air Force JAG Corps signed a Tri-Signature 
Memorandum to optimize collaboration among OSI, Security Forces and JA. 
Additionally, JA members actively participate in all of the DAF Barrier 
Analysis Working Groups to analyze our policies, procedures and 
practices which may have a negative impact on the military justice 
system. In early January 2022, the Air Force updated AFI 51-202 to 
include a ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard of proof for 
nonjudicial punishment to provide transparency, greater guidance for 
commanders, and increase trust in the process.
    Finally, the JA community is enhancing its bias training for JAG 
Corps members as well as commanders and senior enlisted leaders at all 
levels through courses at the Air Force JAG School, conferences, and 
local base efforts to increase awareness and understanding regarding 
how unconscious bias negatively impacts the military justice system. 
The JAG Corps has always placed an intentional emphasis on its own 
diversity recruitment efforts. Inclusive recruitment efforts have 
resulted in a Corps with greater diversity when compared to the 
national average of all law firms with over 700 lawyers.
    Ms. Speier. General Brown, what are the manning implications if the 
Air Force is unable to divest the A-10? If the Air Force is able to 
divest, what is the manning plan for those pilots and maintainers? 
Would there be improvement on undermanning in other areas?
    General Brown. As new weapon systems are delivered, the Air Force 
plans to transition A-10 personnel to the new platforms. Continuing to 
keep A-10s directly impacts the transition of experienced maintenance 
personnel to more relevant weapons systems where their experience and 
expertise are critically needed.
    Ms. Speier. General Brown, the Army recently implemented the 
Command Assessment Program, which includes a behavioral interview and a 
360-degree review (including feedback from peers and subordinates about 
leadership qualities) of officers prior to them becoming eligible for 
command. Does the Air Force have a similar plan to improve the 
selection of officers for command. If so, what is the plan and 
timeline? If not, why not?
    General Brown. Yes. One of our major commands (Air Force Special 
Operations Command) implemented a limited assessment pilot of commander 
candidates in the Special Operations functional specialties, centered 
on providing specific leadership feedback along with the development 
tools (and time) necessary to grow from the experience. The pilot 
assessment consisted of peer/subordinate feedback, cognitive and non-
cognitive assessments, and a personal interview by a specifically 
trained operational psychologist.
    Additionally, we beta tested a process that added additional 
assessments at the USAF Command Screening Board for wing and group 
commanders (O-6s) in May 2022. Within the beta test, a 360-type 
assessment was included as a confidential collection of feedback on 
leadership qualities by peers and subordinates. We also included an 
assessment that measures areas known as ``derailers'' that emerge in 
times of increased strain that, if left unchecked, may disrupt 
relationships, damage reputations, and derail people's chances of 
success in leadership.
    Double blind behavioral interviews, psychological testing, 
cognitive testing, writing samples, and physical fitness tests will not 
be conducted in CSB 23, but are under consideration for future CSB 
iterations as we build and scale up our leadership assessment program.
    Finally we are researching and developing the way forward on 
assessments for all commanders and senior enlisted leaders.
    Ms. Speier. General Brown, does the Air Force plan on implementing 
the talent marketplace for enlisted airmen?
    General Brown. The Air Force has already implemented the use of 
Talent Marketplace tools for Enlisted Airmen and plans to continue 
expanding these capabilities. In April 2022, the Air Force's Personnel 
Center (AFPC) fully transitioned approximately 31,000 Special Duty 
Assignments from our legacy Assignment Management System (AMS) platform 
to Talent Marketplace. The move provides Airmen with a modern feel and 
interactive features making it much easier for the billet owners to 
advertise, Airmen to volunteer, and the AFPC assignment teams to match 
the best-qualified and eligible Airman for these unique positions.
    Our next objective is to transition the bulk of Enlisted 
assignments to and from overseas locations using the Enlisted Quarterly 
Assignment List (EQUAL) to Talent Marketplace. This Talent Marketplace 
capability is projected for development late in calendar year 2022.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
    Mr. Kelly. The FY20 NDAA (Sec. 322) prohibits the use of 
fluorinated, or PFAS-based AFFF use on any military installation after 
October 1, 2024. I would appreciate if you could apprise the Committee 
on where the Air Force stands on meeting this aggressive schedule? As a 
follow-up, I understand that the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
for Energy, Installations, and Environment published a Memo dated 16 
November 2021 directing the Department of the Air Force to designate 
all aircraft hangers as either Tier 1 and Tier 2 Fire Protection 
Facilities by 16 February 2022. These Tier 1 facilities will have 
important, PFAS-free fire protection installed while the Tier 2 
facilities will not. Has this Tier 1 versus Tier 2 designation process 
been completed and, if so, would you please provide the Committee with 
a listing of these facilities and their subsequent designations? If 
not, when do you anticipate this designation process will be completed? 
Could you please share with the Committee the systems that the DAF is 
currently using and/or intends to use in Tier 1 facilities to prevent 
future fuel fires? Why isn't the Air Force designating all hangars with 
strategically and economically valuable aircraft as Tier 1 and then 
letting the bases or the major commands decide which hangars need to 
opt out of the Tier 1 designation?
    Secretary Kendall. I would appreciate if you could apprise the 
Committee on where the Air Force stands on meeting this aggressive 
schedule?
    A. The Department is committed to end the use of fluorinated AFFF 
foam by October 1, 2024 pursuant to Section 322. In order to provide an 
orderly implementation of that congressional mandate, the DAF is 
working with OSD and the services on building a foam replacement 
schedule while minimizing risk to the mission. The biggest challenge 
facing the DAF is getting an approved replacement foam.
    As a follow-up, I understand that the Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment published a Memo 
dated 16 November 2021 directing the Department of the Air Force to 
designate all aircraft hangers as either Tier 1 and Tier 2 Fire 
Protection Facilities by 16 February 2022. These Tier 1 facilities will 
have important, PFAS-free fire protection installed while the Tier 2 
facilities will not. Has this Tier 1 versus Tier 2 designation process 
been completed and, if so, would you please provide the Committee with 
a listing of these facilities and their subsequent designations? If 
not, when do you anticipate this designation process will be completed?
    A. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 designation is complete. All DAF hangars 
and similar facilities equipped with a foam based Fire Suppression 
System are categorized as Tier 2 Fire Protection Facilities. Facilities 
with approved exception, are categorized as Tier 1 Fire Protection 
Facilities. Exceptions for Tier 1 consideration are requested by the 
Air Force Major Command/Space Force Field Command based on their 
mission requirements. Currently, the DAF has received and approved 4 
Tier 1 facilities requests. Those facilities reside at Joint Base 
Anacostia-Bolling and Joint Base Andrews and provide support for 
Presidential activities.
    Could you please share with the Committee the systems that the DAF 
is currently using and/or intends to use in Tier 1 facilities to 
prevent future fuel fires? 
    A. Tier 1 facilities shall utilize one of the following specialized 
systems: Ignitable Liquid Drainage Floor Assembly (ILDFA), Low 
Expansion Foam System containing an approved Fluorine Free Foam (FFF), 
or High Expansion Foam System (HEFS). The ILDFA is the primary option 
for Tier 1 facilities.
    Why isn't the Air Force designating all hangars with strategically 
and economically valuable aircraft as Tier 1 and then letting the bases 
or the major commands decide which hangars need to opt out of the Tier 
1 designation? 
    A. The DAF used that exact approach but in reverse. All hangars 
were designated as Tier 2 facilities and the Major Commands/Field 
Commands have the ability to request Tier 1 designation. The DAF took 
this approach because research indicated that the risk to the aircraft 
and the mission due to a fuel based fire was very low but the foam fire 
suppression systems were frequently damaging aircraft and were an 
environmental hazard.
    Mr. Kelly. Mr. Secretary, over 10 years ago, the Department and the 
Congress determined that a second engine for the F-35 was costly and 
unnecessary. Yet your budget includes almost $300 million to re-create 
the second engine program at the expense of F-35 aircraft quantities, 
funds for F135 modernization, and NGAD propulsion. You have been 
publicly quoted saying that you prioritized integrating a second engine 
onto the F-35 at the expense of those existing programs.
    What has changed? Why are you prioritizing investment in a costly 
second engine for which you have no defined requirement, at the expense 
of existing F-35 program of record or NGAD propulsion?
    Secretary Kendall. The F135 engine will be challenged to provide 
the required combat capability as we continue to modernize the F-35A 
with new capabilities needed to address the advancing threat. We are 
working with the Joint Program Office to investigate all available 
options to increase the F-35A's range, power, and support for advanced 
weapons systems. While we evaluate those options, we continue to fund 
the AETP prototyping program in the FY23 PB as one of the possible 
solutions. Both AETP adaptive engine prototypes--GE Aviation's XA100 
and Pratt & Whitney's XA101--are under consideration for the F-35A 
Propulsion Modernization effort. Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion 
(NGAP) is leveraging AETP tech maturation and risk reduction to provide 
propulsion options for Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of 
Systems (FoS) capabilities. Both the AETP and NGAP program are key 
investments by the Air Force to maintain US superiority in fighter 
engine technology and enable our warfighters to fly, fight, and win.
    Mr. Kelly. The Air Force's plans for a second engine only work for 
a small subset of the F-35--the F-35A fleet of the USAF--and is 
estimated to cost as much as $40 billion over the program's life cycle. 
Conversely, modernizing the existing F135 engine would save as much as 
$40 billion in life cycle sustainment costs across the F-35 fleet, 
benefitting all Services and our allied partners.
    Why aren't you investing in F135 engine enhancements to field 
modernized capabilities across the entire F-35 fleet?
    Is the USAF willing to pay the $40 billion dollar bill for an 
alternate engine?
    Even if you did use a second engine on a small subset of the F-35 
fleet, won't DOD [Department of Defense] still need to modernize the 
F135 engine for the rest of the fleet?
    How can DOD afford to stand up a second separate depot maintenance 
infrastructure and supply chain, when it struggled for years to 
adequately fund its existing depot maintenance infrastructure?
    Secretary Kendall. The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) is currently 
working with the Services to on a business case analysis (BCA) for F-35 
propulsion modernization. The JPO BCA includes analysis of candidate 
engine options including the adaptive engine transition program (AETP), 
and upgrades to current F135 engine. The DAF is conducting an 
operational benefits analysis that is complementary to and leverages 
results of the JPO BCA. Both analyses are expected to finish before the 
end of Fiscal Year 2022. An engine upgrade or replacement is still 
several years away. We are working with the JPO to investigate all 
available options for increasing the F-35A's range and power beyond 
what the F135 can provide and what costs would be associated with those 
options. The current engine, the F135, will be challenged as we 
continue to modernize the F-35A with new capabilities needed to address 
the looming threat. The adaptive engine transition program (AETP) 
options currently under evaluation will be available for the AF F-35A 
and USN F-35C fleets which represent over 2,100 or 86% of the US F-35 
Fleet. If the AETP is approved for export it will be available for over 
2,700 F-35A and F-35C aircraft which represent over 83% of the current 
programmed world-wide F-35 enterprise. Additionally, the F-35 JPO, in 
cooperation with the Adaptive Engine Transition Program Office, is 
contracting both General Electric Aviation and Pratt & Whitney to 
perform feasibility assessments for developing a tri-variant solution 
of their respective AETP engines. Expected completion of these studies 
is in the second half of Fiscal Year 2022. We are working with the JPO 
to investigate all available options for engine enhancements and 
associated supporting requirements those options may entail.
    Mr. Kelly. Secretary Kendall, you have previously acknowledged that 
a second engine for the F-35 would be a costly and technically 
challenging endeavor and may not be affordable.
    What is the current estimated cost and timeline to develop, 
integrate and field to the warfighter an F-35A equipped with the AETP 
engine?
    The AETP program was originally intended for 6th Generation 
aircraft development. Why isn't the AETP engine being considered for 
the Air Force's NGAD program?
    Secretary Kendall. The AETP program is a technology development 
program to develop advanced engine technologies for features such as 
greater fuel efficiency and better thermal management. We are currently 
working with the F-35 Joint Program Office, Navy, and USMC to conduct a 
business case analysis (BCA) to explore engine solutions to help solve 
the F-35's propulsion related issues. The BCA will be complemented by 
an Air Force analysis of the operational implications of the different 
solutions. While the AETP program is one of the possibilities under 
consideration, a decision on what the solution is pending the outcomes 
of those analyses.
    The Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) prototypes are 
flight-weight, F-35 sized, engines. Propulsion options for Next 
Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) capabilities are supported under the 
Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program. The NGAP program 
builds upon the prototyping and technology maturation accomplished 
under the AETP to deliver advanced adaptive cycle engine options 
tailored for NGAD capabilities.
    Mr. Kelly. Secretary Kendall, are you aware of former Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force John Roth signing a report in March 2021 
titled ``The United States Space Force Components Plan''? Was the 
report ever delivered to Congress as directed in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Section 931? If not, why? Did 
the report approved in March 2021 titled ``The United States Space 
Force Components Plan'' conclude that ``the Department of the Air 
Force's recommendation to the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
is a two component USSF: a new full and part-time Space Component 
(single component) and a separate Space national Guard''? Giving your 
best military advice, do you believe that creating a Space National 
Guard is in the best interest of U.S. national defense? Why or why not?
    Secretary Kendall. I am aware of this report and that it was never 
approved by the Secretary of Defense.
    The Department relies every day on the critical missions our 
Reserve Component Airmen perform in space and highly value the people 
who perform those missions. Under any circumstance we want to retain 
those people and their contribution to the Space Force. When looking 
specifically at the Air National Guard space units, the Department has 
three options regarding these missions: Retain the current structure in 
the Air National Guard; absorb the missions currently performed by the 
Air National Guard space units into the USSF; or create a Space 
National Guard. The Administration strongly opposes establishing a 
separate Space National Guard (as stated in the Statement of 
Administration Policy for H.R. 4350--National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2022) and recommends enactment of the legislative 
proposal with the Congress for consideration now that will merge 
existing regular Space and Air Force Reserve space professionals into a 
new component providing the Space Force with a new talent management 
system with options for full and part-time service.
    Mr. Kelly. The FY20 NDAA (Sec. 322) prohibits the use of 
fluorinated, or PFAS-based AFFF use on any military installation after 
October 1, 2024. I would appreciate if you could apprise the Committee 
on where the Air Force stands on meeting this aggressive schedule? As a 
follow-up, I understand that the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
for Energy, Installations, and Environment published a Memo dated 16 
November 2021 directing the Department of the Air Force to designate 
all aircraft hangers as either Tier 1 and Tier 2 Fire Protection 
Facilities by 16 February 2022. These Tier 1 facilities will have 
important, PFAS-free fire protection installed while the Tier 2 
facilities will not. Has this Tier 1 versus Tier 2 designation process 
been completed and, if so, would you please provide the Committee with 
a listing of these facilities and their subsequent designations? If 
not, when do you anticipate this designation process will be completed? 
Could you please share with the Committee the systems that the DAF is 
currently using and/or intends to use in Tier 1 facilities to prevent 
future fuel fires? Why isn't the Air Force designating all hangars with 
strategically and economically valuable aircraft as Tier 1 and then 
letting the bases or the major commands decide which hangars need to 
opt out of the Tier 1 designation?
    General Brown. A. The Department is committed to end the use of 
fluorinated AFFF foam by October 1, 2024 pursuant to Section 322. In 
order to provide an orderly implementation of that congressional 
mandate, the DAF is working with OSD and the services on building a 
foam replacement schedule while minimizing risk to the mission. The 
biggest challenge facing the DAF is getting an approved replacement 
foam.
    B. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 designation is complete. All DAF hangars 
and similar facilities equipped with a foam based Fire Suppression 
System are categorized as Tier 2 Fire Protection Facilities. Facilities 
with approved exception, are categorized as Tier 1 Fire Protection 
Facilities. Exceptions for Tier 1 consideration are requested by the 
Air Force Major Command/Space Force Field Command based on their 
mission requirements. Currently, the DAF has received and approved 4 
Tier 1 facilities requests. Those facilities reside at Joint Base 
Anacostia-Bolling and Joint Base Andrews and provide support for 
Presidential activities.
    C. Tier 1 facilities shall utilize one of the following specialized 
systems: Ignitable Liquid Drainage Floor Assembly (ILDFA), Low 
Expansion Foam System containing an approved Fluorine Free Foam (FFF), 
or High Expansion Foam System (HEFS). The ILDFA is the primary option 
for Tier 1 facilities.
    D. Instead of a Tier 1 opt-out approach, the DAF used an opt-in 
approach. All hangars were designated as Tier 2 facilities and the 
Major Commands/Field Commands have the ability to request Tier 1 
designation. The DAF took this approach because research indicated that 
the risk to the aircraft and the mission due to a fuel based fire was 
very low but the foam fire suppression systems were frequently damaging 
aircraft and were an environmental hazard.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    Mr. Waltz. It appears the Air Force is taking a strong stand on 
divesting 4th Gen aircraft at a faster rate than planned from just last 
year. In 2021, Gen Brown discussed the 4+1 fighter set and seemed 
content on that thru 2030-2035, allowing the Air Force time to build 
the future force while minimizing risk to current combat capability. 
Has that changed, and if so, why has it changed in the face of a more 
aggressive China and Russia in 2022?
    Secretary Kendall. Balancing risk across time is required to 
achieve the fighter force structure that wins in the future. Our most 
dangerous adversaries are rapidly fielding advanced military 
capabilities and becoming more confrontational as their modernized 
systems join the strategic environment. To remain competitive in the 
future fight, the Future Fighter Force structure plan is predicated on 
reshaping the Air Force from seven fighter fleets down to four by FY28. 
That narrative has not changed and the reshaping from seven fighter 
fleets down to four is centered on continuing the development of the 
Next Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems, continuing procurement 
of F-35s and F-15EXs, reducing the F-16 fleet from 900+ to 600+ post-
block models, and completely divesting the aging and single-role F-15C 
and A-10 fleets.
    Mr. Waltz. The Air Force has made it very clear that there is 
deliberate intent to divest legacy aircraft in an effort to `Accelerate 
Change or . . . Lose'. What is the Air Force plan for mission 
replacement for the aircraft that are identified for divestment in the 
current FYDP? More specifically, what if the Air Force plan to 
recapitalize legacy aircraft in the Air National Guard like the A-10 to 
preserve invaluable experience and highly trained Airmen for future 
missions? Is there a recapitalization plan for divestments impacting 
the Air National Guard?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force is currently executing a Global 
Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure all fighter 
basing decisions are best aligned to the 2022 National Defense Strategy 
and fit within the existing USAF budget. Once this review is complete, 
the outcomes will be used to inform the strategic basing process which 
will then determine force posture laydown and impacts to individual 
units and bases.
    Mr. Waltz. As I understand it, the Air National Guard and Air Force 
support drawing the A-10 fleet down to 218 in the near term. What is 
the specific recapitalization plan for the Air National Guard bases 
affected?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force is currently executing a Global 
Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure all fighter 
basing decisions are best aligned to the 2022 National Defense Strategy 
and fit within the existing USAF budget. Once this review is complete, 
the outcomes will be used to inform the strategic basing process which 
will then determine force posture laydown and impacts to individual 
units and bases.
    Mr. Waltz. If the Senate/Congress authorized 72 Fighters per year, 
(F-35, F-22/NGAD, F-15EX, F-16NEXT) would that support the Air Force 
our Nation Needs for the 2022 NDS? If not, then why?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force is committed to maximizing the 
procurement of new fighters within given resources. Out fighter 
portfolio investment has increased over $1B from FY22 to FY23. Our 
investment in the future fleets must also take into account needed 
resources into advanced capabilities.
    Mr. Waltz. How can you justify rapid divestment of 4th gen fighters 
when it takes decades to field new capability, such as NGAD? Aren't we 
taking too big a risk on our current capability?
    Secretary Kendall. The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family 
of Systems (FoS) is foundational to Air Force air superiority 
capability in the future fighter force structure. Replacing the F-22, 
NGAD FoS will be the Air Force's primary air superiority capability in 
the highly contested environment and will have the ability to engage 
air and surface based threats and targets.
    Investments in FY23 range across the spectrum of capability. In the 
FY23 President's Budget, we increased our investment in the Air Force 
fighter portfolio by over $1B from FY22 to FY23. Investments in NGAD 
FoS, F-22 modernization, F-35 Block 4, F-15EX and other 4th generation 
aircraft modifications are all needed to meet a potential peer threat.
    Mr. Waltz. Given the unprecedented cost of Nuclear modernization, 
are you funded appropriately to modernize both the nuclear enterprise 
AND your aging fleets?
    Secretary Kendall. Our budget fully funds our key nuclear 
modernization programs, makes targeted investments to best position the 
Nation for peer competition, while accepting risk in legacy 
capabilities not optimized for the future fight we envision.
    Mr. Waltz. To Air Force Magazine on April 13 2022, Lt Gen Nahom 
stated that the USAF needs to buy 72 new fighters a year in order to 
recapitalize your current USAF fighter force in order to fight and win 
against a peer threat, such as China. With only 33 F-35s and 24 F-15 
EXs requested to be purchased in FY 2023, would you purchase more 
fighter aircraft if appropriated the funds to do so? How would these 
aircraft benefit our National Defense Strategy? How many years do we 
have to continue to purchase new fighters in order to properly posture 
our future USAF?
    General Brown. The Air Force is committed to maximizing the 
procurement of new fighters within given resources. Our fighter 
portfolio investment has increased over $1B from FY22 to FY23 to 
provide for both fighter aircraft and supporting capabilities like 
advanced weapons. Ensuring a proper fighter portfolio posture is a 
continuous process as we continually assess capacity and capability as 
the threat, operational and technical environments evolve.
    Mr. Waltz. In 2018, then USAF Secretary Heather Wilson announced 
the AF We Need proposal at the annual Air Force Association's Air, 
Space and Cyber Conference. That proposal stated that the USAF need to 
grow from 312 operational squadrons to 386 operational squadrons by 
2030. This also included growing the number of fighter squadrons in the 
Total Force from 55 today to 62 fighter squadrons in the future. In 
light of the latest 2022 NDS, does the USAF still need 62 fighter 
squadrons in order to compete and deter against the threat that China 
poses today? How would you posture those fighter squadrons between the 
USAF Active and Reserve components?
    General Brown. Since release of the 2018 NDS, USAF has not been 
able to achieve the across-the-board increases in operational squadrons 
the 2018 NDS called for. Since the initial 386 squadron analysis, we 
have done extensive additional wargaming, and analysis, primarily 
focused on the PRC as the pacing challenge, and we have found new ways 
of fighting could get us to a more capable future force structure. We 
may end up smaller in numbers, but with the help of Congress we will 
meet the intent of the 2022 NDS through the combination of enhanced 
capabilities and necessary divestment of costly and ineffective legacy 
systems. Our Force Design work to meet the threat is informed by the 
Total Force. I would be happy to discuss your question more fully in a 
Classified Setting.
    Mr. Waltz. The Air Force has made it very clear that there is 
deliberate intent to divest legacy aircraft in an effort to `Accelerate 
Change or . . . Lose'. What is the Air Force plan for mission 
replacement for the aircraft that are identified for divestment in the 
current FYDP? More specifically, what if the Air Force plan to 
recapitalize legacy aircraft in the Air National Guard like the A-10 to 
preserve invaluable experience and highly trained Airmen for future 
missions? Is there a recapitalization plan for divestments impacting 
the Air National Guard?
    General Brown. We value the experience of the Air National Guard 
and see it as a force multiplier. We expect recapitalization to be 
balanced across the reserve and active component, but it is unlikely 
all Air National Guard legacy fighter units will transition to newer 
fighter fleets. Our team is in the process of completing a Global 
Posture Review for fighters and rescue, intended to identify required 
force structure changes, strategic basing recommendations, and 
recapitalization plans for legacy aircraft. The DAF is committed to 
finding suitable missions (which may include non-flying missions) for 
these affected units to insure these highly skilled Airmen remain 
valuable contributors to the total force.
    Mr. Waltz. As I understand it, the Air National Guard and Air Force 
support drawing the A-10 fleet down to 218 in the near term. What is 
the specific recapitalization plan for the Air National Guard bases 
affected?
    General Brown. The Air Force is currently executing a Global 
Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure all fighter 
basing decisions are best aligned to the 2022 National Defense Strategy 
and fit within the existing USAF budget. Once this review is complete, 
the outcomes will be used to inform the strategic basing process which 
will then determine force posture laydown and impacts to individual 
units and bases.
    Mr. Waltz. If the Senate/Congress authorized 72 Fighters per year, 
(F-35, F-22/NGAD, F-15EX, F-16NEXT) would that support the Air Force 
our Nation Needs for the 2022 NDS? If not, then why?
    General Brown. The Air Force is committed to maximizing the 
procurement of new fighters within given resources. Our fighter 
portfolio investment has increased over $1B from FY22 to FY23. Ensuring 
a proper fighter portfolio posture is a continuous process as we assess 
capacity and capability against the evolving threat, operational and 
technical environments. Continued investment in the future fighter 
fleets will be supportive of the 2022 NDS objectives.
    Mr. Waltz. How many fighter squadrons do you need to meet the 2022 
NDS? What is the number?
    General Brown. The Air Force is continually looking at the 
Combatant Command authority requirements on our fighter squadrons and 
the capability needed for advanced threats. Our FY23 PB submission 
carefully balances the capacity of the fighter force with modernization 
of the weapons systems.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MORELLE
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you and Total Force Airmen and Guardians for 
relentless dedication to the nation and our Allies and partners. 
Question: The Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Appropriations Act reduced the 
Air Force's funding request by about half due to ``unjustified growth 
and forward financing.'' From my perspective, you appear to be both a 
skeptic and an advocate for the Air Battle Management System and I am 
curious of your thoughts of how the reduced funds in Fiscal Year 2021 
impacted the development of the Air Battle Management System and what 
can we look forward to if the Air Battle Management system is fully 
funded in Fiscal Year 2023?
    Secretary Kendall. Modernizing DAF C3BM is an operational 
imperative for the DAF and one of my top priorities. ABMS is a critical 
enabler to deliver decision superiority to our warfighters and to how 
we will fight in the future. ABMS is also the Department of the Air 
Force's primary contribution to Joint All Domain Command and Control 
(JADC2), the larger Department of Defense effort to digitally connect 
all elements of the U.S. military across all five warfighting domains: 
air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace. My understanding is that 
Congress provided reduced funding in Fiscal Year 2021 to refocus ABMS 
acquisition efforts toward design, development, and delivery of 
warfighting capability and away from a focus on experimentation. I 
completely agree with this direction.
    When I first took over as SecAF, I made it clear that ABMS should 
be focused on delivering meaningful operational capability. As you are 
aware, I started the Operational Imperative (OI) Initiatives in late 
2021 and ABMS is being defined by Operational Imperative #2: 
``Achieving Operationally-Optimized ABMS/Air Force JADC2''. The 
Department of the Air Force has since applied acquisition rigor to the 
ABMS portfolio and I believe we are moving in the right direction to 
deliver operational capability to the warfighter. The Fiscal Year 2023 
President's Budget request supports the ABMS portfolio and is an 
integral year toward ABMS delivering operational capability. In Fiscal 
Year 2023, every main ABMS effort, Digital Infrastructure, Capability 
Release #1 (Airborne Edge Node), and the Cloud-Based C2 application 
suite, will make strides toward initial implementation, pod builds and 
test flights, and delivery of minimum viable capabilities, 
respectively. In addition, we will tackle the complex integrated 
programs management and system engineering that is foundational to 
ABMS's future success.
    Mr. Morelle. Secretary Kendall and General Brown. This year's 
budget request really highlights your efforts in modernizing your part 
of the nuclear triad--I am tracking $1.1 billion for the Sentinel and 
$354 million for the B-21. Considering the PRC successfully 
demonstrated their global strike capability last summer (vis-a-vis a 
nuclear-capable, hypersonic Fractional Orbit Bombardment System) and 
the Russian Federation continues their nuclear modernization cycle, do 
you believe the U.S.' current investments in its ongoing nuclear 
modernization programs provide sufficient capabilities for the U.S. to 
remain a credible strategic deterrent to our enemies and for our 
Allies?
    Secretary Kendall. Yes, the planned investments in our ongoing 
nuclear and NC3 modernization programs provide the needed capabilities 
to maintain an effective strategic deterrent for our nation and our 
allies. Our budget fully funds our key nuclear modernization programs. 
Stable and consistent funding remains vital to the success of Triad 
modernization programs.
    Mr. Morelle. General Brown, thank you for taking the time to join 
us today. I know you and your team worked hard to prepare and we 
appreciate the work. Question: The interconnectedness of our strategic 
competitors, their aggressive pursuit of anti-access/area denial weapon 
systems and strategy, and their demonstrated ability of global strike 
is deeply concerning. These threats present our nation with an 
increased risk of engaging in a large-scale, all-domain, multi-theater 
conflict, whereby interoperability across our combatant commands, 
Allies, and coalition partners become essential parts of our national 
security. How will the Air Battle Management System contribute to 
interoperability across our combatant commands, Allies, and coalition 
partners and how will Allies and partners be folded into doctrinal 
concepts?
    General Brown. The Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) will 
create information and decision advantage by delivering relevant data, 
information, and capabilities to warfighters and operators at all 
echelons of decision. ABMS will ensure that operators providing battle 
management have access to and can share the key information to solve 
our most challenging operational problems, such as time critical 
targeting. ABMS will: connect today's and tomorrow's sensors; develop 
applications enabled by Artificial Intelligence (AI), sophisticated 
algorithms, and multi-layered cyber protection to make sense of massive 
amounts of trusted data; link space capabilities with weapon systems 
and personnel across domains; and design pods, platforms, pathways, 
procedures, and policies that deliver better, faster, and more 
resilient connections and integration across the US and Allied 
warfighting enterprise. ABMS will carry out the sophisticated systems 
engineering required to successfully integrate these capabilities.
    The DAF integrates Allies into our warfighting concepts and also 
trains to those concepts with our Allies. Our Allies are an integral 
part of the DAF's ability to counter rising threats from China and 
Russia. ABMS will be a secure military digital network environment 
built on proven commercial technologies, infrastructure, and 
applications. ABMS will make meaningful data available for our ally and 
partner warfighters through data discovery technologies and advanced 
data sharing processes. ABMS is the portfolio offering from the DAF to 
realize the JADC2 concept, but it is not a single machine, sensor, 
aircraft, or spacecraft; it is an integrated approach to share, 
process, and act on data in a way that translates to significantly 
improve tactical and strategic outcomes.
    Mr. Morelle. Air Force Doctrine Note 1-21, Agile Combat Employment, 
describes tailorable force packages designed to provide greater 
agility, lethality and power projection through scalability and multi-
capable Airmen. How will Agile Combat Employment affect the Air Force's 
Force Structure and end strength, and what is the plan to incorporate 
the contingency locations necessary to make Agile Combat Employment a 
reality? Thank you.
    General Brown. In accordance with the National Defense Strategy, 
the Air Force has been in the process of adjusting the way we present 
forces to the Joint Force Commanders. This Force Presentation 
methodology will ensure critical reconstitution and training is 
factored into decisions about our capacity to support Global Force 
Management requirements. In the new Force Generation model, select 
force packages will be organized, trained, and equipped to conduct 
Agile Combat Employment; however, this represents reorganization and 
retraining of existing combat and support capability, and not a change 
in end strength requirements. The readiness state of contingency 
locations to support agile operations varies greatly across the globe. 
We are identifying locations within United States territory to 
prioritize for future funding which will allow the incorporation of 
these locations unto agile basing. The Air Force continues to engage 
allies and partners to develop integrated operations which includes 
developing potential basing sites to provide the support and 
infrastructure that may be required for agile operations.
    Mr. Morelle. Secretary Kendall and General Brown. This year's 
budget request really highlights your efforts in modernizing your part 
of the nuclear triad--I am tracking $1.1 billion for the Sentinel and 
$354 million for the B-21. Considering the PRC successfully 
demonstrated their global strike capability last summer (vis-a-vis a 
nuclear-capable, hypersonic Fractional Orbit Bombardment System) and 
the Russian Federation continues their nuclear modernization cycle, do 
you believe the U.S.' current investments in its ongoing nuclear 
modernization programs provide sufficient capabilities for the U.S. to 
remain a credible strategic deterrent to our enemies and for our 
Allies?
    General Brown. Yes, the planned investments in our ongoing nuclear 
and NC3 modernization programs provide the needed capabilities to 
maintain an effective strategic deterrent for our nation and our 
allies. Our budget fully funds our key nuclear modernization programs. 
Stable and consistent funding remains vital to the success of Triad 
modernization programs.
    Mr. Morelle. General Raymond, thank you for taking the time to join 
us today. I know you and your team prepared hard for testimony and we 
greatly appreciate the work. Question: How do you envision working with 
the commercial sector going forward in Space beyond what is being done 
today? Further, what changes are you making to allow for companies that 
do not traditionally do business with the Department of Defense to do 
so?
    General Raymond. Having a robust commercial sector is key to our 
architecture resiliency and surge capacity. The Department is utilizing 
commercial technologies to support DoD Satellite Communications 
(SATCOM); Space Domain Awareness (SDA); Tactical Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR); Environmental Monitoring, and 
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT). This support includes 
commercial satellites, commercial data libraries, commercial ground-
based sensors, and commercial algorithms. To better embrace the 
burgeoning commercial space market in a ``buy before build'' approach, 
the USSF's Space Systems Command stood up the Commercial Services 
Office to establish strong working relationships with the venture 
capital community to inform strategic investments in commercial 
solutions and emphasizing dual-use technologies. The DoD use of 
commercial technologies in each of these capability areas has room for 
substantial expansion.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. JACOBS
    Ms. Jacobs. How are you taking into account quality of life factors 
in basing decisions
    Secretary Kendall. In accordance with FY 2021 NDAA Sections 483 and 
2883, the DAF considers a range of quality of life criteria when 
conducting its strategic basing process. This is accomplished through 
community questionnaires during the site survey process that capture 
information on factors including transportation, utilities, housing, 
healthcare, and childcare.
    Additionally, the DAF basing process uses the Support of Military 
Family framework to assess education support for military children and 
interstate portability of professional licensure for military spouses.
    Candidate locations' performance in the preceding categories is 
assessed during site surveys conducted to support the preferred 
location decision for basing actions. The results are presented to 
decision-makers alongside an assessment of the mission, capacity, 
environmental and cost factors. SAME QUESTION FOR CSO and CSAF
    Ms. Jacobs. With the Air Force expanding the Exceptional Family 
Member Program (EFMP) to protect the LGBQ+ community. How is the 
department informing LGBQ+ service membered? How soon will the service 
members expect to see a transfer ordered if needed?
    Secretary Kendall. It is important to note that the Exceptional 
Family Member Program (EFMP) has not changed. Members are eligible to 
enroll in the EFMP if they have a family member who has a diagnosed 
physical, intellectual, or emotional-psychological condition that 
requires ongoing specialized medical or educational services. Self-
identification as LGBTQ does not, in and of itself, render a dependent 
family member as eligible for enrollment in EFMP. A diagnosis of gender 
dysphoria may make a dependent family member eligible for enrollment in 
EFMP.
    Airmen/Guardians who qualify for the EFMP are able to request 
reassignment or deferment of an assignment to a location that lacks 
appropriate support for their family for various reasons. The timeline 
for generating EFMP assignments, depends on the complexity of the case, 
the time required to gather supporting documentation, the type and 
level of support/services required, and identifying an installation 
with the necessary support services.
    Ms. Jacobs. How are you taking into account quality of life factors 
in basing decisions
    General Brown. In accordance with FY 2021 NDAA Sections 483 and 
2883, the DAF considers a range of quality of life criteria when 
conducting its strategic basing process. This is accomplished through 
community questionnaires during the site survey process that capture 
information on factors including transportation, utilities, housing, 
healthcare, and childcare.
    Additionally, the DAF basing process uses the Support of Military 
Family framework to assess education support for military children and 
interstate portability of professional licensure for military spouses.
    Candidate locations' performance in the preceding categories is 
assessed during site surveys conducted to support the preferred 
location decision for basing actions. The results are presented to 
decision-makers alongside an assessment of the mission, capacity, 
environmental and cost factors.
    Ms. Jacobs. With the Air Force expanding the Exceptional Family 
Member Program (EFMP) to protect the LGBQ+ community. How is the 
department informing LGBQ+ service membered? How soon will the service 
members expect to see a transfer ordered if needed?
    General Brown. It is important to note that the Exceptional Family 
Member Program (EFMP) has not changed. Members are eligible to enroll 
in the EFMP if they have a family member who has a diagnosed physical, 
intellectual, or emotional-psychological condition that requires 
ongoing specialized medical or educational services. Self-
identification as LGBTQ does not, in and of itself, render a dependent 
family member as eligible for enrollment in EFMP. A diagnosis of gender 
dysphoria may make a dependent family member eligible for enrollment in 
EFMP.
    Airmen/Guardians who qualify for the EFMP are able to request 
reassignment or deferment of an assignment to a location that lacks 
appropriate support for their family for various reasons. The timeline 
for generating EFMP assignments, depends on the complexity of the case, 
the time required to gather supporting documentation, the type and 
level of support/services required, and identifying an installation 
with the necessary support services.
    Ms. Jacobs. How are you taking into account quality of life factors 
in basing decisions
    General Raymond. In accordance with FY 2021 NDAA Sections 483 and 
2883, the DAF considers a range of quality of life criteria when 
conducting its strategic basing process. This is accomplished through 
community questionnaires during the site survey process that capture 
information on factors including transportation, utilities, housing, 
healthcare, and childcare.
    Additionally, the DAF basing process uses the Support of Military 
Family framework to assess education support for military children and 
interstate portability of professional licensure for military spouses.
    Candidate locations' performance in the preceding categories is 
assessed during site surveys conducted to support the preferred 
location decision for basing actions. The results are presented to 
decision-makers alongside an assessment of the mission, capacity, 
environmental and cost factors.
    Ms. Jacobs. With the Air Force expanding the Exceptional Family 
Member Program (EFMP) to protect the LGBQ+ community. How is the 
department informing LGBQ+ service membered? How soon will the service 
members expect to see a transfer ordered if needed?
    General Raymond. It is important to note that the Exceptional 
Family Member Program (EFMP) has not changed. Members are eligible to 
enroll in the EFMP if they have a family member who has a diagnosed 
physical, intellectual, or emotional-psychological condition that 
requires ongoing specialized medical or educational services. Self-
identification as LGBTQ does not, in and of itself, render a dependent 
family member as eligible for enrollment in EFMP. A diagnosis of gender 
dysphoria may make a dependent family member eligible for enrollment in 
EFMP.
    Airmen/Guardians who qualify for the EFMP are able to request 
reassignment or deferment of an assignment to a location that lacks 
appropriate support for their family for various reasons. The timeline 
for generating EFMP assignments, depends on the complexity of the case, 
the time required to gather supporting documentation, the type and 
level of support/services required, and identifying an installation 
with the necessary support services.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. JACKSON
    Dr. Jackson. Secretary Kendall, I want to thank you for coming by 
my office a few weeks ago to meet with me.
    During the meeting we discussed some of the issues facing Sheppard 
Air Force Base, such as the timeline for the arrival of the new T-7 
advanced trainer aircraft.
    You told me that you would be following up with my office on some 
of the questions I had on the T-7, specifically the sequencing of new 
aircraft.
    Mr. Kendall, I just wanted to confirm that my office will be 
receiving that information in the next few weeks?
    Secretary Kendall. Under the current program of record, the T-7 is 
purchased at a rate of 48 aircraft per year. Sheppard aircraft arrive 
starting in the third quarter of FY32 with final aircraft delivery 
projected for third quarter FY34. Any delays or reductions driven by 
program acquisition or available funding would delay the dates provided 
above. Under SECAF's basing decision, Sheppard AFB is the 5th base to 
receive the T-7. The Air Force has not yet taken delivery of its first 
T-7 from Boeing; there are many variables that could affect/delay 
arrival dates at Sheppard AFB.
    Dr. Jackson. This year we begin the procurement process for these 
advanced trainers (T-7).
    According to the FYDP, we start slowly this year and then ramp up 
pretty aggressively in the out years.
    Mr. Kendall or General Brown, if additional funds were to be 
provided, would we be able to procure these aircraft sooner? Are there 
additional investments that would need to be made, such as MILCON or 
supply chain, that could help shift this to the left and get the 
aircraft operational for our student pilots sooner?
    Secretary Kendall. No. Additional funding will not allow the T-7 
program to significantly accelerate the schedule or procure aircraft 
sooner. The current timeline for the T-7 program is governed by 
successful completion of the Engineering, Manufacturing, and 
Development program and not by funding limitations.
    Dr. Jackson. As you know, Sheppard Air Force Base hosts the Euro-
NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program where many of our NATO partners 
train their fighter pilots right alongside ours.
    Many of these partner nations have expressed interest in investing 
in the T-7, just like they have for some other programs.
    Secretary Kendall, would the Air Force be opposed to allowing 
partner nations like Germany or the UK to invest in the T-7 program to 
potentially accelerate its fielding?
    Secretary Kendall. The AF plans to field the T-7 at Sheppard in 
FY32. An investment by our Partners and Allies would complicate a 
complex fielding plan in that the AF would not be able to accelerate 
its own fielding efforts. Additionally, a major change in aircraft 
ownership would require the AF to renegotiate its fee for service 
training process for one where we as the trainers for hire would not be 
the requirement owners and therefore not responsible for their funding.
    Dr. Jackson. General Brown, I still intend to take you up on your 
offer to come and visit Sheppard with me.
    When I was last down there, it was clear that we need the T-7 to be 
operational as soon as possible.
    One key issue that was raised to me is the engine shortage issue 
that impacts the T-38.
    As we look at a potential conflict with China, we can't afford to 
jeopardize the training for our pilots because we didn't invest 
appropriately in the next generation trainer.
    General Brown, how would our readiness be impacted if sorties were 
reduced at our pilot training bases because the T-38s aren't available 
to fly?
    General Brown. AETC is fully engaged on mitigating impact from lack 
of J-85 production. AETC's primary engine supplier has had issues since 
coming on contract, and while they are beginning to round the corner to 
deliver what we need monthly, we are working out of a fairly deep 
deficit. Left unabated this engine supply deficit could significantly 
impact production. In response, we have prioritized Sheppard on the 
latest tranche of engines and continue to aggressively assess the 
entire enterprise to ensure it is best positioned beyond the immediate 
logistics challenge. In addition to managing iron flow and engines 
across the command to level resources, we are pursuing additional 
production capacity from alternate repair sources. The lack of a 
consistent delivery schedule from the primary contractor still has 
potential to impact the T-38C enterprise, but with the aggressive fleet 
management and tapping extra production we believe the impacts in the 
short term can be minimized and set conditions to stave off long term 
effects. If the prime doesn't hold to their requirement we will relook 
longer term impacts and seek to extend the alternate levers. This has 
the full attention of AETC and AFMC leadership.
    Dr. Jackson. This year we begin the procurement process for these 
advanced trainers (T-7).
    According to the FYDP, we start slowly this year and then ramp up 
pretty aggressively in the out years.
    Mr. Kendall or General Brown, if additional funds were to be 
provided, would we be able to procure these aircraft sooner? Are there 
additional investments that would need to be made, such as MILCON or 
supply chain, that could help shift this to the left and get the 
aircraft operational for our student pilots sooner?
    General Brown. No. Additional funding will not allow the T-7 
program to significantly accelerate the schedule or procure aircraft 
sooner. The current timeline for the T-7 program is governed by 
successful completion of the Engineering, Manufacturing, and 
Development (EMD) program and not by funding limitations.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HORSFORD
    Mr. Horsford. Last month, I was pleased to learn that the Air Force 
had decided to permanently base 9 F-35s at Nellis as part of the 65th 
Aggressor Squadron at a future unspecified date. In response to a 
question about this basing decision, the Air Force informed Congress on 
April 8th that changes to the organic Aggressor fleet would not cause a 
decrease in the number of contracted adversary air pilots and that 
there were no projected changes for any contract adversary air company. 
However, I was surprised to recently learn that at this point the Air 
Force had already notified the Nellis adversary air contractor that 
their contract would not be renewed and that they would have to vacate 
Nellis by June 4th. The Air Force then told my staff on April 20th, 12 
days after informing Congress that no changes to adversary air were 
planned, that they did not intend to re-compete the Nellis contract and 
that they would transition entirely to organic adversary air beginning 
on June 4th. I'm confused how the Air Force plans to replace the 4,000 
flying hours, representing 63% of adversary air requirements, that the 
contractor currently flies at Nellis with the existing organic F-16 
fleet. Especially when no date has been given for the arrival of F-35s 
or additional aircraft. I think it's important to note that the organic 
Aggressors at Nellis have two missions, to both fly as Aggressors and 
support the test and evaluation unit. What happens when test and 
evaluation requirements compete with training? I'm deeply concerned 
that the apparent lack of a cohesive adversary air plan will not only 
continue to lead to uncertainty for my constituents--but also hurt the 
readiness of our pilots while they wait until an uncertain date for 
this future virtual environment to be fielded or F-35s to be delivered.
    With no additional aircraft on the ramp and a fully capable 
simulation environment still years away; how does the Air Force intend 
to bridge the capability gap for adversary air at Nellis after losing 
the aircraft and personnel responsible for 63% of aggressor flying 
hours?
    What is the specific strategy for adversary air across Air Combat 
Command?
    What month can we expect the first F-35 Aggressors to be delivered 
to Nellis and when will delivery be complete?
    Is the Air Force considering re-competing the adversary air 
contract at Nellis or at other Major Test and Training Ranges?
    Secretary Kendall. With no additional aircraft on the ramp and a 
fully capable simulation environment still years away; how does the Air 
Force intend to bridge the capability gap for adversary air at Nellis 
after losing the aircraft and personnel responsible for 63% of 
aggressor flying hours?
    A. Historically, we have discussed our Adversary Air gap in terms 
of the quantity of training available. With flying hours at historic 
lows, we simply cannot generate the number of organic red air sorties 
required. Over the last few years, we attempted to fill this quantity 
deficit via the use of contract adversary air. While this approach has 
proven valuable in certain circumstances such as at our FTUs, it has 
also illuminated our quality deficit. Nellis is home to our most 
advanced test and training, and it is the quality deficit that is most 
concerning there. We have found that crews who train routinely against 
lower quality ADAIR perform poorly when faced with 5th Gen adversaries 
due to the negative habits instilled by the lower quality of adversary. 
The Air Force is committed to closing the quality gap at Nellis by 
standing up the 65th Aggressor Squadron with F-35s and by sending 
additional 5th Gen crews TDY to support major exercises and training 
events. Closing the quality gap is most important for advanced 
training--such as that required at Nellis AFB. The company currently 
providing contract adversary air at Nellis AFB operates 3rd generation 
aircraft (A-4, L-159, Mirage F-1). This does not come close to 
replicating the pacing challenge. ACC plans to shift these contracted 
resources to locations where high-end, quality adversaries are a lesser 
priority (i.e. FTUs). Going forward, our best method of live-fly 
adversary replication may be to fly ``blue vs blue''--with one side 
performing offensive counter-air missions and one side performing 
defensive counter-air missions. This is akin to how a professional 
football team practices.
    This is the best way for us to approximate our pacing challenger 
while allowing our aircrew to get the best possible training value out 
of every flying hour.
    What is the specific strategy for adversary air across Air Combat 
Command? 
    A. The overall approach is to provide capability tailored to unit 
requirements. For the FTUs, this means a continued reliance on T-38s 
and contract ADAIR to provide a basic capability for new crews. For our 
operational units, this means a shift in focus to 5th Gen capability to 
provide realistic and relevant adversary air training, both live and in 
the developing high-end synthetic environment. In the short term, the 
Air Force will increase the quality of adversary air by standing up and 
F-35 aggressor squadron at Nellis, sending 5th Gen crews TDY to Nellis 
to support major exercises and potentially allowing additional Blue vs 
Blue training for 5th Gen units. For the long term, the Air Force is 
pursuing an unmanned adversary air platform which can be tailored to 
replicate a 5th Gen adversary. Versions of this unmanned platform 
promise to meet the quantity requirements currently met by T-38s and 
contract ADAIR.
    What month can we expect the first F-35 Aggressors to be delivered 
to Nellis and when will delivery be complete?
    A. The F-35 Aggressor Squadron stood up on 9 Jun 22 with two 
aircraft, with plans to add an additional nine when funding and 
maintenance conditions permit. The earliest delivery of the remaining 
nine aircraft will be in FY24.
    Is the Air Force considering re-competing the adversary air 
contract at Nellis or at other Major Test and Training Ranges?
    A. The Nellis Contract Air Support contract remains open and does 
not have to be re-competed for one year. However, at this time, we have 
elected not to exercise the remaining option year on the Nellis 
Contract Air Support effort. The decision was based on the contractor 
not being able to support high end threat replication which is 
necessary for training at Nellis. The remaining funds for this option 
year, which expire 4 June, were used at other operations and training 
units throughout the Combat Air Force locations where Contract Air 
Support threat replication remains sufficient.
    Mr. Horsford. I'm deeply concerned that the Nevada delegation still 
hasn't seen the Air Force' FY23 legislative proposal for changes to 
joint use in the Nevada Test and Training Range. I'm worried that this 
won't leave us enough time to engage with stakeholders and constituents 
in time to reach an agreement.
    What is the status of this proposal and when will the Nevada 
delegation be consulted on the details of your request?
    Secretary Kendall. The FY23 NTTR Legislative Proposal has been 
deferred by the Office of Management and Budget and will not be 
transmitted to Congress for FY23 consideration. The DAF looks forward 
to continued dialogue between Dept of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife 
Service, tribal governments, state/local governments, and members of 
the public through the Intergovernmental Executive Committee meetings 
to discuss the NTTR and stakeholder equities, including the Nevada 
Congressional delegation, in order to reach an amenable solution.
    Mr. Horsford. I'm concerned that this budget does not accelerate 
procurement of long-range standoff weapons that will be critical in a 
future high-end fight. While the Air Force has proposed procurement of 
550 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles, you have only requested 28 
Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles
    Given the rapid consumption of smaller precision munitions that 
we've seen in our Ukraine, and the importance of these long-range 
standoff weapons in a high-end fight, are you confident that these 
procurement levels will meet the needs of the Air Force in a near-term 
conflict?
    Is there an issue with production line capacity or are low LRASM 
procurement levels due to fiscal constraints?
    Secretary Kendall. Given the rapid consumption of smaller precision 
munitions that we've seen in our Ukraine, and the importance of these 
long-range standoff weapons in a high-end fight, are you confident that 
these procurement levels will meet the needs of the Air Force in a 
near-term conflict? 
    A. There are significant risks involved in high intensity conflict 
in the near term. Our current procurement levels for long range 
munitions will reduce this risk slowly. This risk decreases in the out 
years commensurate with our expected inventory. Until the inventory 
increases, the Air Force is prepared to execute portions of our 
campaigns from shorter ranges.
    Is there an issue with production line capacity or are low LRASM 
procurement levels due to fiscal constraints? 
    B. The production facilities for JASSM/LRASM will achieve a max 
production capacity of 720 missiles per year in fourth quarter 2025, 
comprised of 550 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), 120 
LRASMs, and 50 test and warranty missiles. Missile procurement is 
shared between the Air Force, Navy, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 
customers. The Air Force is programmed to maximize the production 
facilities; however, the FY23 PB request has  28 LRASMs in available 
production capacity between the Air Force and Navy. The Air Force would 
benefit from an ability to increase our inventory faster; however, we 
must balance risk against all of our mission areas. Munitions cover a 
wide array of targets, and all of them require increased inventories to 
meet the needs of our warfighters.
    Mr. Horsford. 40% of the Fiscal Year 2023 national defense budget 
request is within the Operation & Maintenance account. Yet, 
unfortunately, this part of the defense budget has the least amount of 
transparency. This is nothing new. We consistently lack the level of 
detail necessary to answer the fundamental question--are we 
sufficiently and efficiently investing in DoD's mission readiness 
requirements in support of the National Defense Strategy?
    As a first step in rectifying this problem, in the FY21 NDAA, 
Congress codified a requirement in section 118 of title 10, U.S. Code, 
for the services to submit readiness objectives and metrics for every 
major weapon system along with the budget materials starting with the 
FY23 request. This information is the first step to better understand 
what DoD's mission readiness requirements truly are.
    When can we expect the Air Force to comply with this requirement?
    Secretary Kendall. The Department of the Air Force's Fiscal Year 
2023 budget request was developed based on National Defense Strategy 
guidance. Our budget fully funded recapitalization of the nuclear 
enterprise and made great strides toward modernizing for a high-end 
fight. Additionally, our budget covered costs related to readiness, 
weapons system sustainment, flying hours, and pay for personnel all 
helping to ensure we remain capable to fight tonight.
    We continue to work diligently on the reporting of readiness for 
the joint fight. In line with the Department of Defense and the other 
services, we will provide the requested reports depicting both the 
required force and the acceptable level of readiness for the required 
force. We are in the process of preparing to address the Title 10 
U.S.C., Sec. 118 required materiel readiness, mission readiness, and 
operational readiness metrics, and will provide them to Congress as 
soon as they are available.
    Mr. Horsford. If the A-10 fleet is ultimately maintained above 218 
aircraft does the Air Force agree that additional wing sets must be 
procured to support that fleet size?
    Secretary Kendall. If required to maintain a fleet above 218, 
additional wings must be awarded on contract no later than April 2023 
(FY21 estimate) to prevent a break in production on the existing wing 
contract.
    Mr. Horsford. It was initially my understanding that the FY23 Air 
Force budget would transfer 100 MQ-9 Reaper aircraft from the Air Force 
to another government agency. However, your written testimony indicates 
that Air Force intends to ``remove'' 250 aircraft from the inventory by 
2027, including some Block 5 aircraft. Your testimony states that the 
remaining 140 aircraft will meet Combatant Commander requirements. I 
find this hard to believe considering that Combatant Commanders have 
testified their ISR needs are not being met at the current level of 390 
aircraft.
    What impact would this FY23 transfer of ownership have on 
operational employment of the existing MQ-9 fleet? Would this transfer 
affect availability of MQ-9s for use by the Air Force or any of the 
geographic combatant commanders? Will we see a change in MQ-9 combat 
lines operated by the Air Force in FY23? What will the impact be to 
Creech AFB if the Air Force is allowed to divest 250 aircraft by FY27?
    What capabilities are expected to be fielded by FY27 that will 
replace the capacity and capabilities provided by the current MQ-9 
fleet? Does the Air Force believe there will be no capability loss in 
the 2027 timeframe if divestiture is allowed?
    What capabilities would additional MQ-9s modified to the M2DO 
configuration provide to Combatant Commanders?
    What impact would this FY23 transfer of ownership have on 
operational employment of the existing MQ-9 fleet? A. None
    Would this transfer affect availability of MQ-9s for use by the Air 
Force or any of the geographic combatant commanders? A. No.
    Secretary Kendall. Will we see a change in MQ-9 combat lines 
operated by the Air Force in FY23?
    A. USAF MQ-9 combat line capacity remains the same between FY22 and 
FY23 and is unaffected by the FY23 transfer. Despite the FY23 transfer, 
operational changes to location, allocation and employment of USAF MQ-9 
capacity are expected every FY in accordance with SecDef directed 
Global Force Management process and procedures.
    What will the impact be to Creech AFB if the Air Force is allowed 
to divest 250 aircraft by FY27?
    A. There will be no impacts to Creech AFB.
    What capabilities are expected to be fielded by FY27 that will 
replace the capacity and capabilities provided by the current MQ-9 
fleet? 
    A. We are exploring several complementary capabilities within my 7 
priority DAF Operational Imperatives (OIs)--the critical operational 
capabilities and functions the DAF must invest in to protect the United 
States' ability to deter conflict and project power against pacing 
challenges. Multiple imperatives require operational analysis of un-
crewed aerial systems, especially in a systems-of-systems, or Family of 
Systems context. This ongoing work will influence the Department's way 
forward on medium altitude UAS Family of Systems. The capabilities 
proposed within the OIs are projected to supplant the capacity and 
capabilities provided by MQ-9s. The proposals are undergoing revision 
and prioritization for inclusion in the FY24 POM and are designed to 
account for the challenges of highly-contested environments and peace-
time competition alike.
    Does the Air Force believe there will be no capability loss in the 
2027 timeframe if divestiture is allowed? 
    A. Yes. The Air Force believes that greater domain awareness and 
actionable information is needed than what is currently provided by the 
MQ-9 fleet. The DAF Operational Imperatives, if prioritized within the 
POM and funded will provide this advantage. MQ-9s are ineffective in a 
highly contested environment against a peer adversary.
    What capabilities would additional MQ-9s modified to the M2DO 
configuration provide to Combatant Commanders?
    A. MQ-9s modified with M2DO capabilities provide Power 
Enhancements, Open Mission Systems, Anti-Jam GPS, Link 16, and Command 
and Control (C2) Resiliency. Power Enhancements and Open Mission 
Systems facilitate integration of new hardware and software to meet 
emergent mission needs. An on-aircraft Link 16 radio allows MQ-9s to 
participate in local tactical networks. C2 Resiliency upgrades will 
help protect MQ-9 datalinks against interference. The FY23PB provided 
appropriate funding for the Air Force to meet CCMD needs.
    Mr. Horsford. Last month, I was pleased to learn that the Air Force 
had decided to permanently base 9 F-35s at Nellis as part of the 65th 
Aggressor Squadron at a future unspecified date. In response to a 
question about this basing decision, the Air Force informed Congress on 
April 8th that changes to the organic Aggressor fleet would not cause a 
decrease in the number of contracted adversary air pilots and that 
there were no projected changes for any contract adversary air company. 
However, I was surprised to recently learn that at this point the Air 
Force had already notified the Nellis adversary air contractor that 
their contract would not be renewed and that they would have to vacate 
Nellis by June 4th. The Air Force then told my staff on April 20th, 12 
days after informing Congress that no changes to adversary air were 
planned, that they did not intend to re-compete the Nellis contract and 
that they would transition entirely to organic adversary air beginning 
on June 4th. I'm confused how the Air Force plans to replace the 4,000 
flying hours, representing 63% of adversary air requirements, that the 
contractor currently flies at Nellis with the existing organic F-16 
fleet. Especially when no date has been given for the arrival of F-35s 
or additional aircraft. I think it's important to note that the organic 
Aggressors at Nellis have two missions, to both fly as Aggressors and 
support the test and evaluation unit. What happens when test and 
evaluation requirements compete with training? I'm deeply concerned 
that the apparent lack of a cohesive adversary air plan will not only 
continue to lead to uncertainty for my constituents--but also hurt the 
readiness of our pilots while they wait until an uncertain date for 
this future virtual environment to be fielded or F-35s to be delivered.
    With no additional aircraft on the ramp and a fully capable 
simulation environment still years away; how does the Air Force intend 
to bridge the capability gap for adversary air at Nellis after losing 
the aircraft and personnel responsible for 63% of aggressor flying 
hours?
    What is the specific strategy for adversary air across Air Combat 
Command?
    What month can we expect the first F-35 Aggressors to be delivered 
to Nellis and when will delivery be complete?
    Is the Air Force considering re-competing the adversary air 
contract at Nellis or at other Major Test and Training Ranges?
    General Brown. A. Historically, we have discussed our Adversary Air 
gap in terms of the quantity of training available. With flying hours 
at historic lows, we simply cannot generate the number of organic red 
air sorties required. Over the last few years, we attempted to fill 
this quantity deficit via the use of contract adversary air. While this 
approach has proven valuable in certain circumstances such as at our 
Flying Training Units (FTU), it has also illuminated our quality 
deficit. Nellis is home to our most advanced test and training, and it 
is the quality deficit that is most concerning there. We have found 
that crews who train routinely against lower quality ADAIR perform 
poorly when faced with 5th Gen adversaries due to the negative habits 
instilled by the lower quality of adversary. The Air Force is committed 
to closing the quality gap at Nellis by standing up the 65th Aggressor 
Squadron with F-35s and by sending addition 5th Gen crews TDY to 
support major exercises and training events. Closing the quality gap is 
most important for advanced training--such as that required at Nellis 
AFB. The company currently providing contract adversary air at Nellis 
AFB operates 3rd generation aircraft (A-4, L-159, Mirage F-1). This 
does not come close to replicating the pacing challenge. ACC plans to 
shift these contracted resources to locations where high-end, quality 
adversaries are a lesser requirement (i.e. FTUs). Going forward, our 
best method of live-fly adversary replication may be to fly ``blue vs 
blue''--with one side performing offensive counter-air missions and one 
side performing defensive counter-air missions. This is the best way 
for us to approximate our pacing challenger while allowing our aircrew 
to get the best possible training value out of every flying hour.
    B. The overall approach is to provide capability tailored to unit 
requirements. For the FTUs, this means a continued reliance on T-38s 
and contract ADAIR to provide a basic capability for new crews. For our 
operational units, this means a shift in focus to 5th Gen capability to 
provide realistic and relevant adversary air training, both live and in 
the developing high-end synthetic environment. In the short term, the 
Air Force will increase the quality of adversary air by standing up and 
F-35 aggressor squadron at Nellis, sending 5th Gen crews TDY to Nellis 
to support major exercises and potentially allowing additional Blue vs 
Blue training for 5th Gen units. For the long term, the Air Force is 
pursuing an unmanned adversary air platform which can be tailored to 
replicate a 5th Gen adversary. Versions of this unmanned platform 
promise to meet the quantity requirements currently met by T-38s and 
contract ADAIR.
    C. The F-35 Aggressor Squadron stood up on 9 Jun 22 with two 
aircraft, with plans to add an additional nine when funding and 
maintenance conditions permit. The earliest delivery of the remaining 
nine aircraft will be in FY 24.
    D. The Nellis Contract Air Support contract remains open and does 
not have to be re-competed for one year. However, at this time, we have 
elected not to exercise the remaining option year on the Nellis 
Contract Air Support effort. The decision was based on the contractor 
not being able to support high end threat replication which is 
necessary for training at Nellis. The remaining funds for this option 
year, which expired 4 June, will be used at other operations and 
training units throughout the Combat Air Force locations where Contract 
Air Support threat replication remains sufficient.
    Mr. Horsford. I'm deeply concerned that the Nevada delegation still 
hasn't seen the Air Force' FY23 legislative proposal for changes to 
joint use in the Nevada Test and Training Range. I'm worried that this 
won't leave us enough time to engage with stakeholders and constituents 
in time to reach an agreement.
    What is the status of this proposal and when will the Nevada 
delegation be consulted on the details of your request?
    General Brown. The FY23 NTTR Legislative Proposal has been deferred 
by the Office of Management and Budget and will not be transmitted to 
Congress for FY23 consideration. The DAF looks forward to continued 
dialogue between the Department of Interior, US Fish & Wildlife 
Service, tribal governments, state/local governments, and members of 
the public through the Intergovernmental Executive Committee meetings 
to discuss the NTTR and stakeholder equities, including the Nevada 
Congressional delegation, in order to reach an amenable solution.
    Mr. Horsford. I'm concerned that this budget does not accelerate 
procurement of long-range standoff weapons that will be critical in a 
future high-end fight. While the Air Force has proposed procurement of 
550 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles, you have only requested 28 
Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles
    Given the rapid consumption of smaller precision munitions that 
we've seen in our Ukraine, and the importance of these long-range 
standoff weapons in a high-end fight, are you confident that these 
procurement levels will meet the needs of the Air Force in a near-term 
conflict?
    Is there an issue with production line capacity or are low LRASM 
procurement levels due to fiscal constraints?
    General Brown. A. There are significant risks involved in high 
intensity conflict in the near term. Our current procurement levels for 
long range munitions will reduce this risk slowly. This risk decreases 
in the out years commensurate with our expected inventory. Until the 
inventory increases, the Air Force is prepared to execute portions of 
our campaigns from shorter ranges.
    B. The production facilities for JASSM/LRASM will achieve a max 
production capacity of 720 missiles per year in fourth quarter 2025, 
comprised of 550 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), 120 
LRASMs, and 50 test and warranty missiles. Missile procurement is 
shared between the Air Force, Navy, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 
customers. The Air Force is programmed to maximize the production 
facilities; however, the FY23 PB request has  28 LRASMs in available 
production capacity between the Air Force and Navy. The Air Force would 
benefit from an ability to increase our inventory faster; however, we 
must balance risk against all of our mission areas. Munitions cover a 
wide array of targets, and all of them require increased inventories to 
meet the needs of our warfighters.
    Mr. Horsford. If the A-10 fleet is ultimately maintained above 218 
aircraft does the Air Force agree that additional wing sets must be 
procured to support that fleet size?
    General Brown. If required to maintain a fleet above 218, 
additional wings must be awarded on contract no later than April 2023 
(FY21 estimate) to prevent a break in production on the existing wing 
contract.
    Mr. Horsford. It was initially my understanding that the FY23 Air 
Force budget would transfer 100 MQ-9 Reaper aircraft from the Air Force 
to another government agency. However, your written testimony indicates 
that Air Force intends to ``remove'' 250 aircraft from the inventory by 
2027, including some Block 5 aircraft. Your testimony states that the 
remaining 140 aircraft will meet Combatant Commander requirements. I 
find this hard to believe considering that Combatant Commanders have 
testified their ISR needs are not being met at the current level of 390 
aircraft.
    What impact would this FY23 transfer of ownership have on 
operational employment of the existing MQ-9 fleet? Would this transfer 
affect availability of MQ-9s for use by the Air Force or any of the 
geographic combatant commanders? Will we see a change in MQ-9 combat 
lines operated by the Air Force in FY23? What will the impact be to 
Creech AFB if the Air Force is allowed to divest 250 aircraft by FY27?
    What capabilities are expected to be fielded by FY27 that will 
replace the capacity and capabilities provided by the current MQ-9 
fleet? Does the Air Force believe there will be no capability loss in 
the 2027 timeframe if divestiture is allowed?
    What capabilities would additional MQ-9s modified to the M2DO 
configuration provide to Combatant Commanders?
    What impact would this FY23 transfer of ownership have on 
operational employment of the existing MQ-9 fleet? A. None
    Would this transfer affect availability of MQ-9s for use by the Air 
Force or any of the geographic combatant commanders? A. No.
    General Brown. Will we see a change in MQ-9 combat lines operated 
by the Air Force in FY23? A. USAF MQ-9 combat line capacity remains the 
same between FY22 and FY23 and is unaffected by the FY23 transfer. 
Despite the FY23 transfer, operational changes to location, allocation 
and employment of USAF MQ-9 capacity are expected every FY in 
accordance with SecDef directed Global Force Management process and 
procedures.
    What will the impact be to Creech AFB if the Air Force is allowed 
to divest 250 aircraft by FY27?
    A. There will be no impacts to Creech AFB.
    What capabilities are expected to be fielded by FY27 that will 
replace the capacity and capabilities provided by the current MQ-9 
fleet?
    A. We are exploring several complementary capabilities within the 
SECAF's seven Priority DAF Operational Imperatives (OIs)--the critical 
operational capabilities and functions the DAF must invest in to 
protect the United States' ability to deter conflict and project power 
against pacing challenges. Multiple imperatives require operational 
analysis of un-crewed aerial systems, especially in a systems-of-
systems, or Family of Systems context. This ongoing work will influence 
the Department's way forward on medium altitude UAS Family of Systems. 
The capabilities proposed within the OIs are projected to supplant the 
capacity and capabilities provided by MQ-9s. The proposals are 
undergoing revision and prioritization for inclusion in the FY24 POM 
and are designed to account for the challenges of highly-contested 
environments and peace-time competition alike.
    Does the Air Force believe there will be no capability loss in the 
2027 timeframe if divestiture is allowed?
    A. Yes. The Air Force believes that greater domain awareness and 
actionable information is needed than what is currently provided by the 
MQ-9 fleet. The SECAF's 7 Priority DAF Operational Imperatives (OIs), 
if prioritized within the POM and funded will provide this advantage. 
MQ-9s are ineffective in a highly contested environment against a peer 
adversary.
    What capabilities would additional MQ-9s modified to the M2DO 
configuration provide to Combatant Commanders?
    A. MQ-9s modified with M2DO capabilities provide Power 
Enhancements, Open Mission Systems, Anti-Jam GPS, Link 16, and Command 
and Control (C2) Resiliency. Power Enhancements and Open Mission 
Systems facilitate integration of new hardware and software to meet 
emergent mission needs. An on-aircraft Link 16 radio allows MQ-9s to 
participate in local tactical networks. C2 Resiliency upgrades will 
help protect MQ-9 datalinks against interference. The FY23PB provided 
appropriate funding for the Air Force to meet CCMD needs.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
    Mr. Scott. What must be done to ensure that the B-21 Raider will 
not be a high demand, low density platform?
    Secretary Kendall. Affordability and producibility are critical 
elements to ensuring the B-21 Raider is not a High Demand/Low Density 
asset. Since Day 1 of the program, the Air Force remains focused on 
ensuring the B-21 Raider is an affordable bomber through the upfront 
establishment of affordability as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) 
along with fixed-price aircraft lots for LRIP as part of contract 
award. The B-21 Raider program is focused on ensuring the first flight 
test aircraft is a high quality build using production processes, 
production tooling, and the production workforce in order to drive 
production maturity. Additionally, Congress's support in the form of 
stable and consistent funding will support the B-21 program efforts to 
continue to execute within cost, schedule and performance goals defined 
in the government's Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The B-21 will 
form the backbone of America's future bomber force. Our current B-21 
program of record is based on a minimum fleet of 100 aircraft; however, 
the Air Force's current long-term bomber force structure plan is 
targeting 220 or more bombers, comprised of 145 B-21s and 75 heavily 
modified B-52s. The Air Force is also exploring the possibility of a B-
21 Family of Systems that could include an un-crewed combat aircraft.
    Mr. Scott. What must be done to ensure that Next Generation Air 
Dominance (NGAD) will not be a high demand, low density platform?
    Secretary Kendall. The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family 
of Systems (FoS) is foundational to the Air Force's air superiority 
capability in the future fighter force structure. Replacing the F-22, 
NGAD FoS will be the Air Force's primary air superiority capability in 
the highly contested environment and will have the ability to engage 
air and surface based targets and threats. As long as the other 
components of the future fighter force structure (F-35, F-15, and F-16 
fleets) are funded as requested in the FY23 budget, then they will be 
able to provide the necessary fighter force capabilities to the joint 
force ensuring the NGAD FoS is available to provide air superiority in 
the highly contested environment.
    Mr. Scott. John Clagett, Jim Douglas, and Lang Sias wrote an 
article entitled ``Next Generation Air Dominance Needs a New Flight 
Path'' in the September 2021 issue of Proceedings. Do you agree or 
disagree with the authors when they stated, ``Great power competition 
requires much greater procurement efficiency and wider technology 
participation than the current process enables. The current DoD 
procurement process includes cost, time, and technology problems that 
can no longer be accepted if the United States is to compete and win 
against peer competitors.''
    Secretary Kendall. Responding to the threats posed to the United 
States by peer competitors as identified in the NDS requires us to 
execute a wide range of acquisition programs that can deliver 
operational capability in the next five years. My seven operational 
imperatives are focused on exactly this problem, delivering these 
critical capabilities as fast as possible. We will leverage the 
acquisition flexibilities provided by Congress in this effort and will 
alert Congress to additional authorities we identify as needed.
    Mr. Scott. Will NGAD be an air-dominance fighter that is affordable 
to procure and operate and much better than anything Communist China or 
Russia can deploy against it?
    Secretary Kendall. The current budget reflects the Air Force's 
deliberate planning and enterprise approach to funding capabilities 
across the threat spectrum. By investing in a flexible fighter force 
mix the U.S. Air Force will create the opportunity for downward 
pressure on future operation and sustainment costs. Investment in the 
NGAD Family-of-Systems, or FoS, provides the capability, capacity, and 
affordability required to meet a peer challenger. NGAD FoS delivers the 
survivability, lethality, and persistence necessary to win over great 
distances in highly contested environments.
    Mr. Scott. What plans does the Air Force have to reduce the NGAD's 
development time and the costs associated with a broken procurement 
system?
    Secretary Kendall. The NGAD Family-of-Systems is aggressively 
leveraging Digital Engineering, Open System Architectures, and Agile 
Software Development to drive down costs while providing the most 
advanced fighter capabilities. The technology development and 
maturation for the NGAD Family-of-Systems takes time and, while we can 
buy down risk, the overall effort is best accelerated by ensuring 
stable funding of the program authorities we identify as needed. 
Procurement and sustainment activities will benefit directly from these 
robust digital, open, and agile development practices. The NGAD Family-
of-Systems acquisition strategy expands the industrial base and ensures 
the Air Force can leverage the latest innovation to sustain the 
nation's air superiority in support of the Joint Force today and 
throughout its lifecycle.
    Mr. Scott. Lieutenant Commander John M. Leeds, U.S. Navy, wrote an 
an article entitled ``Bring Back Patrol Bombing Squadrons'' in the 
April 2020 edition of Proceedings. Do you agree or disagree with the 
author conclusion that, ``The United States could expand its maritime 
strike capability by reviving World War II's patrol bombing squadron 
concept, pairing Navy P-8s with Air Force B-1s?''
    Secretary Kendall. The ability to strike maritime targets in a 
highly contested threat environment is a key component of our future 
force design. The use of legacy platforms such as B-1's does not ensure 
sufficient survivability for our aircrew in that environment. The DAF 
has begun multiple efforts to rapidly fill the maritime strike gap with 
advanced weapons guided by a variety of joint systems that will ensure 
target destruction as well as platform survivability.
    Mr. Scott. Commander Rob Brodie, U.S. Navy, wrote an article 
entitled ``Make Mine Warfare a Team Sport'' in the April 2020 issue of 
Proceedings. According to the author, ``The Air Force is happy to use 
research-and-development money to explore sowing sea mines from stand-
off aircraft (Quickstrike) and removing shallow-water minefields with 
the joint direct attack munition (JDAM) assault breaching system 
(JABS), but it is unlikely to acquire or prioritize the resources to 
accomplish these missions.'' Do you agree or disagree?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force remains committed to helping our 
Navy partners in the sea mine mission. However, this mission 
doctrinally belongs to the US Navy. The USAF helps with development and 
delivery, in accordance with the desires of the US Navy. The USAF, as 
always, remains open to all conversations with our sister services 
about burden sharing all mission areas across the services.
    Mr. Scott. Is the United States Air Force and the United States 
Space Force prepared for large scale combat operations today?
    Secretary Kendall. USAF: The Air Force organizes, trains, and 
equips forces that are prepared to conduct large scale combat 
operations anywhere on the globe.
    USSF: The Space Force organizes, trains, and equips forces that are 
prepared to conduct Large Scale Combat Operations that deliver 
Spacepower effects to the joint force and will execute this through 
service components embedded within each combatant command. We are 
aggressively pursuing the necessary capabilities and skills to continue 
to deliver these critical effects even if the combat operations extend 
into the space domain.
    Mr. Scott. Do you feel that every warfighter understands the logic, 
capabilities, and limitations of the autonomous systems they employ?
    General Brown. The Air Force Design for Great Power Competition 
requires increased reliance on automation and autonomy to meet the 
direct challenges posed by China as our pacing threat. To this end, the 
Air Force is aggressively pursuing these capabilities. We extensively 
train our warfighters to understand the logic, capabilities, and 
limitations of the systems they employ. This applies to manned and 
remotely-piloted aircraft. It also applies to all weapons, sensors, and 
capabilities employed from our platforms.
    Mr. Scott. What must be done to ensure that the B-21 Raider will 
not be a high demand, low density platform?
    General Brown. Affordability and producibility are critical 
elements to ensuring the B-21 Raider is not a High Demand/Low Density 
asset. Since Day 1 of the program, the Air Force remains focused on 
ensuring the B-21 Raider is an affordable bomber through the upfront 
establishment of affordability as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) 
along with fixed-price aircraft lots for LRIP as part of contract 
award. The B-21 Raider program is focused on ensuring the first flight 
test aircraft is a high quality build using production processes, 
production tooling, and the production workforce in order to drive 
production maturity. Additionally, Congress's support in the form of 
stable and consistent funding will support the B-21 program efforts to 
continue to execute within cost, schedule and performance goals defined 
in the government's Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The B-21 will 
form the backbone of America's future bomber force. Our current B-21 
program of record is based on a minimum fleet of 100 aircraft; however, 
the Air Force's current long-term bomber force structure plan is 
targeting 220 or more bombers, comprised of 145 B-21s and 75 heavily 
modified B-52s. The Air Force is also exploring the possibility of a B-
21 Family of Systems that could include an un-crewed combat aircraft.
    Mr. Scott. What must be done to ensure that Next Generation Air 
Dominance (NGAD) will not be a high demand, low density platform?
    General Brown. Because of the high expected unit cost of the NGAD 
platform, there is a risk that needed numbers may not be affordable. As 
a result, the Air Force is pursuing uncrewed combat aircraft that would 
be controlled by an NGAD platform and provide an overall more 
affordable air dominance capability. The Next Generation Air Dominance 
(NGAD) Family of Systems (FoS) is foundational to the Air Force's air 
superiority capability in the future fighter force structure. Replacing 
the F-22, NGAD FoS will be the Air Force's primary air superiority 
capability in the highly contested environment and will have the 
ability to engage air and surface based targets and threats.
    Mr. Scott. John Clagett, Jim Douglas, and Lang Sias wrote an 
article entitled ``Next Generation Air Dominance Needs a New Flight 
Path'' in the September 2021 issue of Proceedings. Do you agree or 
disagree with the authors when they stated, ``Great power competition 
requires much greater procurement efficiency and wider technology 
participation than the current process enables. The current DoD 
procurement process includes cost, time, and technology problems that 
can no longer be accepted if the United States is to compete and win 
against peer competitors.''
    General Brown. Responding to the threats posed to the United States 
by peer competitors as identified in the NDS requires us to execute a 
wide range of acquisition programs that can deliver operational 
capability in the coming years. The DAF's seven operational imperatives 
and eleven management initiatives are focused on exactly this problem, 
delivering these critical capabilities as fast as possible. We will 
leverage the acquisition flexibilities provided by Congress in this 
effort as well as advances in engineering practice. We will alert 
Congress to additional authorities we identify as needed. No one should 
expect ``acquisition magic'' from hypothetical approaches that have 
been tried before or arm waving about changing the procurement process. 
We have chased this illusion for decades, with disastrous results.
    Mr. Scott. Will NGAD be an air-dominance fighter that is affordable 
to procure and operate and much better than anything Communist China or 
Russia can deploy against it?
    General Brown. Because of the high expected unit cost of the NGAD 
platform, there is a risk that needed numbers may not be affordable. As 
a result, the Air Force is pursuing un-crewed combat aircraft that 
would be controlled by an NGAD platform and provide an overall more 
affordable air dominance capability.
    Mr. Scott. What plans does the Air Force have to reduce the NGAD's 
development time and the costs associated with a broken procurement 
system?
    General Brown. The procurement system isn't broken, but there is 
ample room for improvement. The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) 
Family-of-Systems (FoS) is aggressively leveraging Digital Engineering, 
Open System Architectures, and Agile Software Development to drive down 
costs while providing the most advanced fighter capabilities. The 
technology development and maturation for the NGAD FoS will take time 
and, while we can buy down risk, the overall effort is best accelerated 
by ensuring stable funding. Procurement and sustainment activities will 
benefit directly from these robust digital, open, and agile development 
practices. The NGAD FoS acquisition strategy expands the industrial 
base and ensures the Air Force can leverage the latest innovation to 
sustain the nation's air superiority in support of the Joint Force 
today and throughout its lifecycle.
    Mr. Scott. Lieutenant Commander John M. Leeds, U.S. Navy, wrote an 
an article entitled ``Bring Back Patrol Bombing Squadrons'' in the 
April 2020 edition of Proceedings. Do you agree or disagree with the 
author conclusion that, ``The United States could expand its maritime 
strike capability by reviving World War II's patrol bombing squadron 
concept, pairing Navy P-8s with Air Force B-1s?''
    General Brown. The ability to strike maritime targets in a highly 
contested threat environment is a key component of our future force 
design. The use of legacy platforms such as B-1's does not ensure 
sufficient survivability for our aircrew in that environment. The DAF 
has begun multiple efforts to rapidly fill the maritime strike gap with 
advanced weapons guided by a variety of joint systems that will ensure 
target destruction as well as platform survivability.
    Mr. Scott. Does the U.S. joint force faces a serious gap in 
maritime strike?
    General Brown. The PRC has and continues to develop significant 
nuclear, space, cyber, land, air, and maritime military capabilities, 
and they are working every day to close the technology gap with the 
United States and our allies. One of the DAF's biggest challenges is 
the ability to timely and efficiently acquire maritime mobile targets. 
Investments in ABMS and JADC2 are necessary to keep pace with the 
evolving PRC tactics and technologies. One of the SECAF's Operational 
Imperatives is focused on striking moving surface targets at scale. The 
DAF also has several weapons programs under development to help ensure 
maritime strike capability in the future. We would be happy to discuss 
those in a classified forum.
    Mr. Scott. Commander Rob Brodie, U.S. Navy, wrote an article 
entitled ``Make Mine Warfare a Team Sport'' in the April 2020 issue of 
Proceedings. According to the author, ``The Air Force is happy to use 
research-and-development money to explore sowing sea mines from stand-
off aircraft (Quickstrike) and removing shallow-water minefields with 
the joint direct attack munition (JDAM) assault breaching system 
(JABS), but it is unlikely to acquire or prioritize the resources to 
accomplish these missions.'' Do you agree or disagree?
    General Brown. The Air Force remains committed to helping our Navy 
partners in the sea mine mission. However, this mission doctrinally 
belongs to the US Navy. The USAF helps with development and delivery, 
in accordance with the desires of the US Navy. The USAF, as always, 
remains open to all conversations with our sister services about burden 
sharing all mission areas across the services.
    Mr. Scott. Is the Air Force seeing an increase in UAS overflight of 
its bases in the US and overseas?
    General Brown. Yes. The commercial proliferation and availability 
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) created new risks for the Department 
of the Air Force (DAF) and other Services. In 2021, there were 497 UAS 
overflights at DAF locations (Air Force and Space Force bases) overseas 
and in the homeland that impacted our missions in various ways such as 
ceasing airfield operations and posing aircraft strike hazards. From 1 
January to 17 May 2022, we've already experienced 129 UAS overflights.
    Technology trends have dramatically transformed legitimate 
applications of UAS while also making them increasingly dangerous 
hazards and weapons in the hands of state and non-state actors, 
criminals and negligent hobbyists. The AF and DoD must continue to 
protect and defend our personnel, facilities and assets in all 
environments where increasing numbers of UAS share skies with DoD 
aircraft, operate in airspace over DoD installations, and are employed 
by adversaries and negligent operators. The AF will continue to invest 
in the latest kinetic, non-kinetic and directed energy solutions to 
keep pace with threats and ensure our missions are not negatively 
impacted.
    Mr. Scott. What actions is the Air Force taking to defend against 
UAS threats?
    General Brown. After fielding various kinetic and non-kinetic 
Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft System (C-sUAS) technologies to meet 
urgent needs at locations in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and to 
safeguard missions supporting United States Strategic Command 
(USSTRATCOM), we designated Air Force Materiel Command as the Lead 
Command to support strategy and technology development. Our Security 
Forces perform operator duties to integrate this important mission with 
our air base ground defense skillsets. The USAF has programmed to spend 
$269 million on C-sUAS research and development (R&D), fielding and 
sustainment over the next five years (Fiscal Years 2023-2027). 
Currently, 87 of 187 USAF locations have c-sUAS capability that allows 
for response to incursions.
    To keep pace with the threats, our strategy focuses on delivering a 
government-owned, modular, open-system with automated Command and 
Control architecture that enables a backbone for rapid integration with 
the latest sensors and effectors developed by industry, academia or 
labs.
    The Secretary of Defense designated the Army as the Executive Agent 
for C-sUAS Groups 1-3 in 2020 to unify Service efforts within the 
Department. This led to the establishment of a Joint C-sUAS Office 
(JCO) headed by the Army. We continue to work closely with the JCO, who 
is responsible for coordinating joint requirements, minimizing 
duplication and redundancy across the Services, integrating testing and 
training efforts, and managing R&D funding for new, emerging 
capabilities that will become joint solutions across the force.
    Mr. Scott. Is the Air Force looking at utilizing directed energy, 
to include lasers and high power microwave technology, for base 
security and integration on Air Force aircraft?
    General Brown. The Department of the Air Force continues to mature 
and explore the military utility of Directed Energy (DE), including 
lasers and high power microwaves to counter threats posed by small UAS. 
The Air Force team is working closely with the Joint Capability Office 
for counter small UAS to identify requirements and opportunities for 
these technologies to mitigate threats to our bases. Additionally, the 
Department of the Air Force continues research on increasing the power, 
establishing required thermal management, and enhancing beam control 
technologies, while reducing the size, weight, and cost of DE systems. 
Increased power in smaller packaging is required for integration on 
future Air Force aircraft.
    Mr. Scott. Lt. Col. Kjetil Bjorkum, Royal Norwegian Air Force, 
wrote in the Fall 2021 issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly an article 
entitled ``Arctic Space Strategy: The U.S. and Norwegian Common 
Interest and Strategic Effort.'' How will the United States Space Force 
enhance it's relationship with Norway in the areas of space domain 
awareness, communication capacity, ISR, launch capability, and 
education, research, and technology development?
    General Raymond. The US and Norway have a long-standing 
relationship in space domain awareness (GLOBUS II radar site) and 
satellite communications (WGS and MUOS). The USSF is actively engaging 
with Norway on the Enhanced Polar Recapitalization (EPS-R), a hosted 
payload onboard a Norwegian satellite to provide protected SATCOM 
coverage in the North Polar Region, and is also exploring potential 
areas of collaboration in ISR, launch capability, education, research, 
and technology development.
    Mr. Scott. Are you satisfied with the number of Space Force 
personnel publishing papers in military and space journals? What can be 
done to encourage more Guardians to read, write, and think Space Power?
    General Raymond. A vital component of maturing the profession of 
arms in the space domain is active and constructive engagements, 
especially in peer reviewed journals. Success in this endeavor is 
measured in terms of the quality of the debate and discussion such 
engagements generate, not in the number of articles produced. Instead, 
it must be a place where we can take our thinking to the next level. As 
the first digital force, Space Force is charting new territory when it 
comes to exchanging ideas. Our culture demands we consider traditional 
methods such as journals and other types of publications but we must 
also integrate new technology like podcasts and audiobooks.
    We are engaging directly with Guardians on a number of fronts to 
encourage participation in developing and exchanging ideas in new and 
traditional ways. We are working with Guardians and members of other 
Services assigned to encourage space contributions to multi-service 
publications like Air Land Sea Application's (ALSA's) Battlespace 
Journal. This drives collaboration with their peers in the academic 
environment. Publications like the Battlespace Journal allow Guardians 
to present space concepts and contributions to all-domain operations to 
readers across the DoD increasing awareness about what space brings to 
the fight. These types of journals require our members to write and 
think in a way that those outside the space community can understand in 
the context of their operations and within a multi-domain environment.
    In addition to space and military journals, we encourage Guardians 
to sit on panels and publish in journals that have broader national and 
international audiences to demonstrate our thought leadership and 
solicit views more diverse than we can find within our own Service. 
Technology is advancing at an ever increasing pace so the only enduring 
advantage is the ability to learn and adapt faster than our 
adversaries. We must hone our critical thinking abilities in the 
international arena if we hope to gain and maintain space superiority 
at times and places of our choosing.
    The Space Force is cultivating a fearless culture and 
psychologically safe environment where we encourage public discussion 
and debate. Team leaders and members at all levels actively encourage 
one another to share their views and challenge conventional thinking. 
In this way, iron sharpens iron, making us a more agile and lethal 
force. In addition, we are strengthening our space-centric Professional 
Military Education (PME) programs to build on the foundational 
knowledge provided via initial training and education and solidified 
through practice and experience. Through our space-centric PME, our 
students and faculty continue to publish peer-reviewed and thought 
provoking pieces in recognized publications. Furthermore, our 
University Partnership Program (UPP) contributes to this effort by 
providing opportunities to write and potentially publish works on Space 
Power, with diverse highly technical partner academic institutions.
    Mr. Scott. What Space Force Chairs are still needed at our War 
Colleges and in the private sector?
    General Raymond. There are currently two Space Force Chairs, one at 
the National Defense University (NDU) and one at Air University (AU). 
Both of these positions are essential for developing future national 
security leaders who understand the strategic utility of space during 
employment in joint, combined, and interagency operations. These 
positions assist faculty and staff by providing space operations 
subject matter expertise in curriculum development, incorporating 
relevant space concepts throughout curriculum to produce space-minded 
national security professionals, and serving as liaison on space 
matters to NDU and AU school leaders. They also serve as academic 
advisors to space personnel at these schools by providing guidance on 
selected electives, exercises, and lecture series. Their contribution 
to enabling NDU and AU to provide space-minded leaders is essential and 
enduring.
    We do not have Space Force Chairs at private sector schools. Given 
the current manpower limitations, we are evaluating the need for 
additional Space Force Chairs to the Army, Navy, and USMC War Colleges 
in order to meet the intent of J7 Joint Professional Military Education 
(JPME) requirements within Service resourcing priorities.
    For the private sector, we do have our University Partnership 
Program (UPP), which we created in 2021 in order to develop a close 
relationship with a network of 14 universities that can provide world-
class space research and professional development opportunities. These 
relationships will enable the USSF to foster a diverse, highly 
technical and specialized workforce. The aim is to collaborate, as 
permitted by law and policy, on the long and short-term Science and 
Technology (S&T) problem sets; and to promote partnerships with 
academic institutions, government labs, and private industry. This 
collaborative and inclusive approach allows the USSF to promote and 
strengthen strategic relationships to deliver new capabilities at 
operationally relevant speeds that enhance security and preserve 
prosperity of the space domain.
    We have appointed 14 general officers or Senior Executive Service 
(SES) civilians and 14 colonels to serve as ``UPP Champions and Co-
Champions'' with the 14 UPP locations in order to build strong, long-
term bonds with each school. These Champions collaborate with 
University Presidents, Provosts, Deans, and Reserve Officer Training 
Corps (ROTC) Commanders to generate future diverse Science, Technology, 
Engineering and Math (STEM) talent to join the USSF.
    Mr. Scott. Are you satisfied with the development of models and 
simulations that test new space doctrinal concepts? If not, why not?
    General Raymond. I am not satisfied with our current modeling and 
simulation tools. We still have work to do but we have made some good 
progress over the past few years. The USSF Test and Training community 
is building a modeling and simulation capability for use at the 
National Space Test and Training Range. This past year, the USSF 
successfully conducted our first wargame in which we leveraged physics-
based simulations to assess the effectiveness of future force designs. 
Current modeling and simulation tools typically excel in either the 
space or ground domain ... our goal is to evolve toward holistic 
environments that model all elements of our systems and architectures.
    Mr. Scott. Is the Space Force exploring the use of directed energy, 
to include lasers and high power microwave technology, in space?
    General Raymond. Our efforts to protect U.S. space capabilities are 
classified. I would be happy to schedule an engagement with you in that 
setting to discuss this topic.
    Mr. Scott. Question for: General John Raymond 78) There are 
emerging technologies such as digital predistortion (DPD) that are 
improving the efficiency, power, and linearity of non-linear circuits. 
Is the Space Force looking at this and other technologies to improve on 
existing power efficiencies within our systems in space? Has this 
exploration been included in the Space Force budget?
    General Raymond. Yes, the Air Force Research Labe (AFRL) is working 
on solutions to improve the power efficiency in our space systems. 
Digital/Analog convergence as well as ideas for leveraging Artificial 
Intelligence/Machine Learning in space-electronics are being worked 
through multiple projects at AFRL like our Spacecraft Processing 
Architectures and Computer Environment Research which focuses on new 
solutions for data processing on-board spacecraft to improve the power 
efficiency, computational performance, and radiation tolerance. The 
approach identifies and prioritizes the areas that provide the biggest 
return on investment while exploring new trade space for game changing 
concepts--adiabatic circuits, a low-power electronic circuit that uses 
``reversible logic'' to conserve energy, is a great example of this. 
There is funding in the Science & Technology portfolio to pursue these 
efforts.
    Mr. Scott. Is the Space Force working with commercial industries to 
include their power efficiency advances in space?
    General Raymond. The Space Force Power and Energetics Capability 
Collaboration Team at the Space Force's Space Systems Command is 
working with commercial industry to develop pervasive power efficiency 
advances in space for spacecraft. The team has prioritized a set of 
published technical needs and power and energy roadmaps. The Space 
Force is also partnering with The Aerospace Corporation to keep track 
of ongoing/upcoming commercial advances and testing cells of interest 
in mission profiles to understand their advantages for space 
application. Space programs are already using some newer higher energy 
density technologies by use of commercial off the shelf (COTS) cells in 
many platforms. However, while these COTS cells do include many of the 
newer technologies, such as advanced electrodes and electrolytes, they 
are designed for different commercial applications and may not be 
suited for use in space. Instead they must first be tested and verified 
for their particular space applications/orbital profiles.
    Mr. Scott. How can the Coast Guard, as part of the joint force, 
assist the United States Space Force in executing their mission?
    General Raymond. The USCG directly supports the USSF through 
maritime safety and security operations for USSF spacelift operations, 
search and rescue support for NASA crewed spaceflight missions, and 
recovery and return of expended spacecraft boosters to port. The USCG 
indirectly supports the USSF through pollution monitoring, hazard 
response, anti-terrorism, and force protection activities along the 
coasts of the USSF's space launch bases. As we continue to work within 
the DoD and interagency to evolve operating standards and norms of 
responsible behavior in the space domain, there may be useful maritime 
lessons or exemplars from USCG experience.
    Mr. Scott. What advice do you have for the U.S. Coast Guard on how 
it can best capitalize on cheap, ready access to space to facilitate 
its missions?
    General Raymond. The Department has multiple solutions that provide 
satellite communications (SATCOM), Position, Navigation, and Timing 
(PNT), weather, and intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance 
(ISR) capabilities that can be, and are, leveraged by the USCG to 
conduct their missions. Integrated SATCOM efforts utilize both 
commercial and military capabilities to provide access to multiple 
wavebands, providing the ability to communicate in all-weather 
situations. There are space based environmental monitoring capabilities 
that provide timely weather data and coverage over denied and austere 
areas, providing cloud characterization, theater weather imagery, 
tropical cyclone intensity, sea ice characterization, and ocean surface 
wind vector data. PNT capabilities provide detailed location and timing 
services used both in land-based and ship-based situations. All of 
these capabilities support search and rescue operations, enabling 
monitoring of ports and waterways, and support movement and maneuver to 
enable other Coast Guard operations.
    Mr. Scott. Does the United States Space Force have all the 
authorities it needs to conduct space-based search and rescue 
operations? If not, what authorities are missing?
    General Raymond. The Space Force and DoD are not assigned an in-
space search and rescue mission, and we do not currently have any 
capability to conduct in-space search and rescue operations. However, 
the DoD provides Search and Rescue support to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA) for NASA's Commercial Crew Program and 
Artemis Program in accordance with established interagency 
arrangements. USSF has the ability to provide Space Domain Awareness, 
Beyond Line of Site satellite communications for rescue vehicles, and 
global 24/7 positioning, navigation and timing to search and rescue 
teams, as well as collaborating with the Intelligence Community and 
other agencies to share real-time data and imagery from weather and 
other satellites to support rescue operations.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KEATING
    Mr. Keating. The Air Force stated it will replace the current F-15 
fighters at Barnes Air National Guard Base, Fresno Yosemite Airport in 
California, and Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans with 
either F-15EX planes or the F-35As. Your testimony made clear that Air 
Force now only wants to buy 80 F-15EXs. I am concerned with what that 
might mean for remaining F-15C/D Eagles that the Air Force previously 
said would replace with new aircraft. In May of 2021, Barnes Air 
National Guard Base was evaluated as a possible base for the next-
generation of F-35A Lightning II fighter jets. Can you please explain 
what your testimony means for Barnes and the F-35A/F-15EX decision 
making process?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force is currently executing a Global 
Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure all fighter 
basing decisions are best aligned to the new 2022 National Defense 
Strategy and fit within the existing Air Force budget. Once this review 
is complete, the outcome will be used to inform the strategic basing 
process which will then determine force posture laydown and impacts to 
individual units and bases. The strategic basing process utilizes site 
assessment criteria that includes Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories.
    Mr. Keating. In May of 2021, Barnes Air National Guard Base was 
evaluated as a possible base for the next-generation of F-35A Lightning 
II fighter jets. How did Barnes Air National Guard Base finish in the 
Basing Action and scoring for both the F35 and F15X?
    Secretary Kendall. The process to determine the location for the 
tenth F-35A Operational Location (Ops 10) is still on-going. I 
anticipate selecting the preferred location before the end of the 
calendar year. The other candidate locations are anticipated to be 
recapitalized with F-15EX aircraft.
    Mr. Keating. What is the specific plan (timing for aircraft) to 
recapitalize the ANG F-15C bases in MA, CA, and LA?
    Secretary Kendall. The specific timing for recapitalization at all 
locations that are divesting aircraft is pending the results of the Air 
Force Global Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure 
all fighter basing decisions are best aligned to the new 2022 National 
Defense Strategy and fit within the existing Air Force budget. Once 
this review is complete, the outcomes will be used to inform the 
strategic basing process which will then determine force posture 
laydown and impacts to individual units and bases. The strategic basing 
process utilizes site assessment criteria that includes Mission 
(weather and training infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, 
and maintenance facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality 
and encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories.
    Mr. Keating. What is your best military advise on what F-15C unit 
should be the next to transition to the F-35?
    Secretary Kendall. Best military advice for selecting F-35 bed down 
locations is to follow the strategic basing process which utilizes site 
assessment criteria that includes Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories. As fighter 
force structure size changes, the strategic basing process should 
additionally be informed by the current Air Force Global Posture Review 
focused on the fighter enterprise. This review is intended to ensure 
all fighter basing decisions are best aligned to the new 2022 National 
Defense Strategy and fit within the existing Air Force budget.
    Mr. Keating. The Air Force stated it will replace the current F-15 
fighters at Barnes Air National Guard Base, Fresno Yosemite Airport in 
California, and Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans with 
either F-15EX planes or the F-35As.
    Your testimony made clear that Air Force now only wants to buy 80 
F-15EXs. I am concerned with what that might mean for remaining F-15C/D 
Eagles that the Air Force previously said would replace with new 
aircraft.
    In May of 2021, Barnes Air National Guard Base was evaluated as a 
possible base for the next-generation of F-35A Lightning II fighter 
jets. Can you please explain what your testimony means for Barnes and 
the F-35A/F-15EX decision making process?
    General Brown. The Air Force is currently executing a Global 
Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure all fighter 
basing decisions are best aligned to the new 2022 National Defense 
Strategy and fit within the existing Air Force budget. Once this review 
is complete, the outcome will be used to inform the strategic basing 
process which will then determine force posture laydown and impacts to 
individual units and bases. The strategic basing process utilizes site 
assessment criteria that includes Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories.
    Mr. Keating. In May of 2021, Barnes Air National Guard Base was 
evaluated as a possible base for the next-generation of F-35A Lightning 
II fighter jets. How did Barnes Air National Guard Base finish in the 
Basing Action and scoring for both the F35 and F15X?
    General Brown. The process to determine the location for the tenth 
F-35A Operational Location (Ops 10) is still on-going. The Secretary of 
the Air Force anticipates selecting the preferred location before the 
end of the calendar year.
    Mr. Keating. What is the specific plan (timing for aircraft) to 
recapitalize the ANG F-15C bases in MA, CA, and LA?
    General Brown. The specific timing for recapitalization at all 
locations that are divesting aircraft is pending the results of the Air 
Force Global Posture Review focused on the fighter enterprise to ensure 
all fighter basing decisions are best aligned to the new 2022 National 
Defense Strategy and fit within the existing Air Force budget. Once 
this review is complete, the outcomes will be used to inform the 
strategic basing process which will then determine force posture 
laydown and impacts to individual units and bases. The strategic basing 
process utilizes site assessment criteria that includes Mission 
(weather and training infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, 
and maintenance facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality 
and encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories.
    Mr. Keating. What is your best military advise on what F-15C unit 
should be the next to transition to the F-35?
    General Brown. Best military advice for selecting F-35 bed down 
locations is to follow the strategic basing process which utilizes site 
assessment criteria that includes Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories. As fighter 
force structure size changes, the strategic basing process should 
additionally be informed by the current Air Force Global Posture Review 
focused on the fighter enterprise. This review is intended to ensure 
all fighter basing decisions are best aligned to the new 2022 National 
Defense Strategy and fit within the expected Air Force budget.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Secretary, there has been a lot of discussion 
recently about autonomous fighter aircraft and the efforts the Air 
Force is pursuing to develop those platforms. Is the Air Force working 
to automate cockpit systems of big wing aircraft in the fleet? If so, 
which platforms? Can you describe the Air Force's approach for bringing 
autonomous flight capabilities to large-wing aircraft platforms? 
Finally, how would autonomous C-130Js and other large aircraft address/
impact the pilot shortages that the Air Force is currently facing?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force is examining different levels and 
applications of autonomy across many of our current and future 
platforms, to include crewed, uncrewed, and optionally crewed 
alternatives. We will continue to invest in those that realize 
meaningful gains in efficiency and effectiveness for the service. To 
the specific example of the C-130, we are still researching whether 
those gains from autonomy will result in the removal of Airmen from the 
cockpit, and if increasingly automated systems will change the formula 
for training, operations, and sustainment of the system, which has the 
potential to impact the threshold requirement for pilot manning.
    Mr. Brown. What is the Air Force's plan to bring F-35s to Joint 
Base Andrews (JBA) for the D.C. Air National Guard, the nation's last 
line of defense in the event of a conflict?
    Secretary Kendall. As we continue to recapitalize our fighter fleet 
to new platforms, the DC Guard will receive special consideration due 
to their unique mission set, defending the National Capital Region.
    Mr. Brown. With regard to the Crash Rescue Helicopter, the USAF has 
already begun to retire the existing HH-60G fleet.. What is your long-
term plan to provide rescue capability for combat force? How will the 
USAF keep the active and guard and reserve fleets available to support 
the DoD's rescue mission demands?
    General Brown. The HH-60W plays a significant role in bridging the 
legacy Combat Search and Rescue capability. Other means of rescue and 
developing concepts and technologies are currently being explored that 
may be more effective in emerging threat environments. The current 
Combat Rescue Triad (HH-60W, HC-130J and Guardian Angel) will span the 
gap between today and these emerging concepts and technologies. In the 
near-term, the department must invest in HH-60W modernization, 
increased integrated training opportunities in contested environments, 
and weapon system sustainment in order to ensure operational risk-
reduction prior to fielding of follow-on platforms. The added 
maintainability, increased aircraft availability, and reduction of 
rotational deployments will mitigate some of the losses of capacity to 
the DAF Total Force. The Department is taking prudent near term risk in 
order to transition from the force we have today to the force needed to 
meet our pacing challenge.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
    Mr. Wilson. As F-35A procurement stays at lower than planned 
levels, the USAF must ensure the smaller fleet of F-35s are able to 
meet the platform's full potential. Specifically, I am concerned the 
USAF Strategic Basing Process is not adequately considering long-term 
training, resilience, and readiness. Please describe how installations 
are being prioritized for F-35 basing, and provide the criteria 
referred to by CSAF ``Strategic look'' for future fighter fleet basing. 
Are all available installations are being fairly evaluated based on the 
long-term readiness of the F-35 fleet?
    Secretary Kendall. Installations considered for F-35 basing are 
evaluated using the strategic basing process which utilizes site 
assessment criteria including Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories. This 
criteria fairly evaluates all installations in a way that ensures the 
long-term readiness of the F-35 fleet.
    Mr. Wilson. Please describe how organic military installations are 
being prioritized for F-35 fielding and basing decisions. It seems 
logical the USAF would prioritize USAF-owned military installations and 
airfields, especially for ANG F-35 fielding. Is the USAF prioritizing 
Federally-owned and operated airfields? If not, why?
    Secretary Kendall. The Air Force Strategic Basing process provides 
a deliberate, repeatable, standardized, and transparent process for 
making Air Force strategic basing decisions. The process uses a 
criteria-based analysis to link mission and Combatant Commander 
requirements to the attributes of Air Force installations in order to 
identify locations that are best suited to support any given mission. 
The criteria for the next round of Air National Guard (ANG) basing has 
not been established yet, but is anticipated to mirror the criteria 
used during the last round of ANG F-35A basing. Previously, federally-
owned and operated airfields were not prioritized over other airfields 
as this wasn't a requirement stipulated by the National Guard Bureau, 
Air Combat Command, or the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and 
Programs.
    Mr. Wilson. Given Secretary Kendall and General Brown's assurance 
to look for creative solutions: How valuable to the Air Force fighter 
fleets would being able to split 28 x F-16 Block 52s between 
recapitalizing an ANG Wing (18 PAA) and then allowing the RegAF to 
retain the remaining F-16 Block 52s (6-7 aircraft) into Operational 
Test & Evaluation or other Air Force institutional mission? Please 
evaluate and share your assessment how the USAF can benefit long term 
by recapitalizing the 169th Fighter Wing (28 x F-16 Blk 52s (24 PAA)) 
with 20 x F-35 (18 PAA); yielding the opportunity for additional RegAF 
resources in institutional missions while still preserving enough 
fighter aircraft to cover a current ANG Fighter Wing (18 PAA)?
    Secretary Kendall. The strategic basing process utilizes site 
assessment criteria including Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories. The 169th 
Fighter Wing currently operates the newest block of multi-role F-16 
Block 52 fighter aircraft ensuring a fighter mission at McEntire Air 
National Guard Base for many years to come. It is unlikely that a near 
term transition to the F-35 would be an optimum solution since it would 
generate transition costs for a fighter aircraft location that is not 
in need of recapitalization. Additionally, the Air Force's Operational 
Test & Evaluation fleet as well as other small units such as the Air 
Force's Aerial Demonstration Squadron, the Thunderbirds, are currently 
right sized with block 50/52 F-16s and would not benefit from 
additional aircraft in a way that is affordable.
    Mr. Wilson. Can you guarantee that McEntire Joint National Guard 
Base will be honestly and earnestly considered for the ongoing Global 
Posture Review and in turn F-35A basing decisions?
    Secretary Kendall. Yes. Headquarters Air Force works closely with 
the National Guard Bureau and Air Force Reserve through the annual POM 
process to determine appropriate force mix between the active duty, Air 
National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. This force mix assessment 
includes the strategic basing process which utilizes site assessment 
criteria that includes Mission (weather and training infrastructure), 
Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance facilities, and ramp 
space), Environmental (air quality and encroachment), and Cost (one-
time and recurring) categories.
    Mr. Wilson. As F-35A procurement stays at lower than planned 
levels, the USAF must ensure the smaller fleet of F-35s are able to 
meet the platform's full potential. Specifically, I am concerned the 
USAF Strategic Basing Process is not adequately considering long-term 
training, resilience, and readiness. Please describe how installations 
are being prioritized for F-35 basing, and provide the criteria 
referred to by CSAF ``Strategic look'' for future fighter fleet basing. 
Are all available installations are being fairly evaluated based on the 
long-term readiness of the F-35 fleet?
    General Brown. Installations considered for F-35 basing are 
evaluated using the strategic basing process which utilizes site 
assessment criteria including Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories. This 
criteria fairly evaluates all installations in a way that ensures the 
long-term readiness of the F-35 fleet.
    Mr. Wilson. Please describe how organic military installations are 
being prioritized for F-35 fielding and basing decisions. It seems 
logical the USAF would prioritize USAF-owned military installations and 
airfields, especially for ANG F-35 fielding. Is the USAF prioritizing 
Federally-owned and operated airfields? If not, why?
    General Brown. The Air Force Strategic Basing process provides a 
deliberate, repeatable, standardized, and transparent process for 
making Air Force strategic basing decisions. The process uses a 
criteria-based analysis to link mission and Combatant Commander 
requirements to the attributes of Air Force installations in order to 
identify locations that are best suited to support any given mission. 
The criteria for the next round of Air National Guard (ANG) basing has 
not been established yet, but is anticipated to mirror the criteria 
used during the last round of ANG F-35A basing. Previously, federally-
owned and operated airfields were not prioritized over other airfields 
as this wasn't a requirement stipulated by the National Guard Bureau, 
Air Combat Command, or the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and 
Programs.
    Mr. Wilson. Given Secretary Kendall and General Brown's assurance 
to look for creative solutions: How valuable to the Air Force fighter 
fleets would being able to split 28 x F-16 Block 52s between 
recapitalizing an ANG Wing (18 PAA) and then allowing the RegAF to 
retain the remaining F-16 Block 52s (6-7 aircraft) into Operational 
Test & Evaluation or other Air Force institutional mission? Please 
evaluate and share your assessment how the USAF can benefit long term 
by recapitalizing the 169th Fighter Wing (28 x F-16 Blk 52s (24 PAA)) 
with 20 x F-35 (18 PAA); yielding the opportunity for additional RegAF 
resources in institutional missions while still preserving enough 
fighter aircraft to cover a current ANG Fighter Wing (18 PAA)?
    General Brown. The strategic basing process utilizes site 
assessment criteria including Mission (weather and training 
infrastructure), Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance 
facilities, and ramp space), Environmental (air quality and 
encroachment), and Cost (one-time and recurring) categories. The 169th 
Fighter Wing currently operates the newest block of multi-role F-16 
Block 52 fighter aircraft ensuring a fighter mission at McEntire Air 
National Guard Base for many years to come. It is unlikely that a near 
term transition to the F-35 would be an optimum solution since it would 
generate transition costs for a fighter aircraft location that is not 
in need of recapitalization. Additionally, the Air Force's Operational 
Test & Evaluation fleet as well as other small units such as the Air 
Force's Aerial Demonstration Squadron, the Thunderbirds, are currently 
right sized with block 50/52 F-16s and would not benefit from 
additional aircraft in a way that is affordable.
    Mr. Wilson. Can you guarantee that McEntire Joint National Guard 
Base will be honestly and earnestly considered for the ongoing Global 
Posture Review and in turn F-35A basing decisions?
    General Brown. Yes. Headquarters Air Force works closely with the 
National Guard Bureau and Air Force Reserve through the annual POM 
process to determine appropriate force mix between the active duty, Air 
National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. This force mix assessment 
includes the strategic basing process which utilizes site assessment 
criteria that includes Mission (weather and training infrastructure), 
Capacity (operations, logistics, and maintenance facilities, and ramp 
space), Environmental (air quality and encroachment), and Cost (one-
time and recurring) categories.

                                  [all]