[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Tester, Shelby, Murkowski, Moran, Hoeven,
and Boozman.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Navy and Air Force Weapons Systems Divestments
opening statement of senator jon tester
Senator Tester. I will call the hearing to order. I want to
begin by welcoming our witnesses.
Vice Admiral Crites, Vice Admiral Kilby, Lieutenant General
Nahom, I want to thank you all for being here today.
This subcommittee typically holds hearings with the senior
leadership of the military services to learn about the budget
requests for the upcoming fiscal year and the general posture
of each department. Our topical hearings are reserved for those
cross-cutting issues that have significant financial impacts,
there are a lot of policy issues wrapped up in divesting force
structure, but when the supporting arguments hold up budgetary
decisions as a reason to make these moves, we need to fully
understand what you were trying to accomplish.
The military, as a whole, is divesting from $2.8 billion in
legacy systems in fiscal year 2022 budget request, and that
dollar amount is split right down the middle between the Navy
and the Air Force. On the surface it makes sense to divest
systems and platforms that do not adequately meet current
military needs and that demand more resources than they are
worth.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to fit all the puzzle pieces
together in terms of what constitutes a legacy weapon, what new
technologies are ready to field, and how best to divest our
defense budgets. I called this hearing to start putting that
puzzle together.
Next week, this subcommittee will hold a classified
briefing on the technologies needed to counter China and
Russia, to gain a full picture of what is at stake. I am eager
to work with you to find the right balance between divesting
force structure and investing in the future.
Once again, I want to thank the witnesses for their
testimony today, and look forward to hearing from them.
With that, I will turn it over to you, Senator Shelby.
statement of senator richard c. shelby
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
welcome our witnesses today.
I look forward to hearing about the Navy and Air Force
plans for this divestment of weapon systems in 2022, and how
those plans better position our forces to deter, and if
necessary, win in the near-peer fight.
The proposal for divestment this year totals $1.37 billion
for the Air Force, and $1.26 billion for the Navy. The
Department's stated purpose for the divestments is to retire
vulnerable systems and programs that no longer meet security
needs, freeing resources to invest in higher priority items.
And while there seems a straightforward framework for
divestment decisionmaking, I would like to better understand
here how the budget top line impacted these decisions.
Of the Navy's $1.26 billion 2022 divestment
recommendations, $930 million is from divestment of ships.
These include cruisers, littoral combat ships, riverine craft,
and dock landing ships.
Given the Navy's stated priority of increasing fleet size
to compete in the Indo-Pacific, I would expect that those
savings are used to increase shipbuilding and ship operations.
The fiscal year 2022 budget request only includes a $300
million increase in ship operations that is accompanied by a
$700 million decrease in shipbuilding.
The Air Force, on the other hand, is divesting fighters,
tankers, logistic aircraft, command and control, and
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. I
think we can all agree here that some of these aircraft have
been in service longer than originally envisioned, and many
would be at a significant risk operating in an anti-access, and
area-denial environment.
That said, I want to understand, here at the committee
level, how the loss of these aircraft will be fully mitigated
by the introduction of new aircraft, or new systems, by
increasing the pace of procurement of aircraft currently in
production. I appreciate the complexity of the decisions the
Department has to make to balance near-term capabilities and
future technologies, and maintaining readiness across the force
structure.
I believe it is important that we have a better
understanding of how that has been accomplished in this
proposal. Additionally, I would like to know what the plan is
for the items that are divested. A very conservative estimate
of the initial investment and the procurement of in terms of
the Air Force would like to divest is $14 billion I understand.
That is a significant investment that we must be thoughtful
about here on the committee.
I raise this issue because this proposal includes
divestments of naval vessels that entered the Service less than
5 years ago, with a price tag around $520 million each. It also
includes unmanned ISR platforms that we just finished
procuring.
It is important we understand what you are doing, why you
are doing it, and how you are doing it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Next, we are going to hear from two folks. We are going to
hear from Vice Admiral Kilby, and then we are going to hear
from Lieutenant General Nahom.
We will start with you Admiral Kilby.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JAMES KILBY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR WARFIGHTING
REQUIREMENTS AND CAPABILITIES
Admiral Kilby. Thanks, sir. Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman
Shelby, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on
behalf of Vice Admiral Crites and myself, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Navy's
proposed divestments in the 2022 budget request, we thank the
subcommittee for your support of the Navy.
The United States Navy remains the preeminent maritime
force in the world. With 297 ships, your Navy is underway
around the world today, and every day, protecting America's
security, prosperity, values and interests across the globe.
Our goal is to prevent conflict, but should deterrence
fail, we are ready to answer the call to fight and to win. Our
maritime advantage is being challenged by adversaries that are
becoming more capable and more aggressive. The Navy and the
Nation must maintain a clear-eyed resolve to compete, deter,
and if necessary, defeat our rivals.
Our actions now shape the maritime balance of power and we
continue to develop and evolve a more lethal force to deliver
all-domain Navy power and maintain our advantage at sea. Naval
power is not simply a function of the number of ships, it also
requires the right balance of readiness, modernization, and
training.
The Navy's 2022 budget balances investments across
readiness, capabilities, capacity, and taking care of our
people to maximize our contributions to the Joint Force within
the limits of available resources.
Our budget decisions are underpinned by campaign analysis,
and warfighting analytics, and informed by aggressive reform
efforts to align every dollar to provide maximum warfighting
impact. In short, our budget funds what we need most in an era
of strategic competition.
However, the Navy is also dealing with a flat budget top
line that has not kept pace with inflation, and the force is
growing in size. As the subcommittee knows, these factors
pressurized the budget and force difficult funding decisions
based on warfighting priorities to deliver the right mix of
capabilities the Nation needs most.
That means divesting of platforms that are less capable,
less effective, and less relevant in the current and future
strategic environments, so that we can modernize and sustain
the readiness and wholeness of our current fleet, it also means
stopping or slowing procurement of existing platforms in order
to develop the next-generation capabilities necessary to keep
pace with our adversaries.
I want to be very clear here. I am not saying the platforms
proposed for divestment are unimportant, or provide no value,
but we have to ensure that we focus on our efforts on
delivering the best, most ready, and most capable Navy we can.
That is what the 2022 budget represents. It makes hard
choices, choices we believe are necessary to maximize naval
power, and deliver the highest war-fighting return on
investment with acceptable risk.
I urge the subcommittee and Congress to consider the Navy's
2022 budget in this light. Within the resources available, how
relevant each asset is, and in the future fight of how much
additional investment is required to keep the assets we are
divesting of relevant.
Again, we must be clear-eyed about are the investments
needed to compete, deter, and win in the future fight and the
urgency to accelerate those capabilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Navy's 2022
budget with you today. And we look forward to working closely
with you and your staffs to ensure we will continue to field
the most capable and relevant Naval Force to meet our Nation's
strategic objectives.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral James W. Kilby and
Vice Admiral Randy B. Crites
Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Shelby, distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
Navy's proposed divestments in the fiscal year (FY) 2022 President's
Budget (PB-22). We thank Congress and the Subcommittee for your support
in maintaining a Navy that is both lethal and ready to deploy globally
in defense of U.S. national interests.
In an interconnected and interdependent world, a dominant naval
force and a strong maritime strategy are critical to the security of
our Nation. The global security environment is increasingly influenced
by our competitors, requiring the Navy to provide credible combat power
forward to ensure a ready response to global crises and disasters. Even
as the world focused on dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic last year,
your Navy continued to deploy to hot spots around the globe where U.S.
interests are challenged, executing eight major Carrier and
Expeditionary Strike Group deployments, amassing close to 700,000
flight hours and over 23,000 total steaming days. This builds on two
decades of Navy forces deploying at our highest operational tempo since
World War II, in a conflict that has lasted five times longer.
As our national security posture evolves to confront new
challenges, the Navy continues to invest in key naval capabilities to
maximize our naval power contribution to the Joint Force. PB-22
advances critical Navy priorities to defend the nation, innovate and
modernize the force, increase resilience and readiness, and take care
of our Sailors, civilians, and families. For example, PB-22 supports
the sustainment of our readiness recovery to deliver credible ready
forces now by accelerating the Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Program (SIOP), and fully funds two submarine overhauls in
private shipyards. PB-22 aggressively pursues increased lethality and
modernization of capabilities with the greatest potential to deliver
non-linear warfighting advantages through significant research and
development investments in distributed and networked effects to
establish and sustain sea control, and future platforms and
experimentation with unmanned systems on the sea, under the sea, and in
the air. PB-22 continues key investments in advanced technologies and
modernization by prioritizing the recapitalization of the strategic
ballistic missile submarine, the Columbia class, which remains the
Navy's highest acquisition priority. And importantly, PB-22 supports
our people and the quality of their life by providing a 2.7 percent pay
raise in FY 2022, increasing investments in mental health and sexual
assault prevention and response programs, and developing talent through
training programs including Ready Relevant Learning, Live Virtual
Constructive, and the Naval Community College.
Aligned with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, the
Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, and within the limits of available
resources, the Navy's PB-22 budget represents the best balance and
right mix of strategic investments in our Sailors, readiness,
capability, and capacity. Our budget decisions are underpinned by
campaign analysis and warfighting analytics, and informed by aggressive
reform efforts to align every dollar to provide maximum warfighting
impact. As we balanced the urgent readiness and modernization needs of
our force today with investments in the future force, we also had to
make difficult funding decisions to divest of less capable platforms
and systems, freeing resources to invest in a future force that can
deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness. These divestment
decisions were rigorously reviewed, analyzed, and debated to ensure we
retain the capabilities needed to be ready to fight tonight, while
investing smartly for the future. At a high level, this analysis can be
summarized by examining the fiscal context and warfighting value
associated with divestments.
Fiscal Context. In constant, non-inflated dollars, the Navy's (as a
Service) total funding level (or budget topline) has remained
relatively flat since 2010. When inflation is factored in, the result
is an overall loss of buying power. Our budget topline today is roughly
the same as it was in 2010, despite a growth in the fleet size from 288
ships in 2010 to 297 ships today. In actual dollars, PB-22 reflects a
0.6 percent increase in Navy funding over the FY 2021 enacted
appropriations level.
The Navy and Department of the Navy (DON) has been able to offset
some of this lost buying power through a series of reform efforts going
back to 2012. From PB-12 to PB-22, the Department has executed or
programmed savings of over $150 billion from reform and efficiency
initiatives. These reforms involved business process improvements and
efficiencies, but also divesting of less capable platforms, mission
sets, or capabilities; reduced procurement; and changes in active and
reserve component mix. While more efficient, the Department is now also
very lean with little margin to address fact-of-life changes, such as
increasing material and labor costs that exceed inflation or pandemic
response. Going forward, with very few programs that have not already
been heavily scrutinized, reform and efficiencies are unlikely to
produce substantial savings. As identified in several recent
Congressional Budget Office publications, the pressure on all Navy
accounts will continue, with costs increasing at rates higher than
projected inflation rates.
The ability to self-finance growth in the size of the force is also
limited by strategic priorities and accounts that Navy considers non-
discretionary. We must pay our people and sustain our current force--we
will never field a hollow force. We must keep the Columbia class
program--a once-in-a-generation recapitalization program--on track for
lead ship delivery in 2027 in order to meet U.S. Strategic Command's
requirement for Columbia ballistic missile submarines to be on patrol
by 2030. And now we are faced with a once-in-a-century investment to
recapitalize and modernize our public shipyards. These must-fund
priorities limit our ability to recover readiness, modernize the force,
address shortfalls, and invest in new technologies to pace strategic
threats.
Finally, unstable and unpredictable budgets encumber the Navy's
ability to maximize use of every dollar. Continuing resolutions drive
inefficiency, uncertainty, and delays in execution that become
increasingly difficult to recover from in the years to follow. This
impacts everything from acquisition new starts to ship maintenance
planning to permanent change of station funding for Sailors and their
families.
Warfighting Value. Continuing to purchase and/or sustain older,
less capable or obsolete equipment takes defense dollars away from the
acquisition of systems that are needed for modernization or sustainment
of higher value systems. Our competitors--especially China--continue to
advance their capabilities. We must outpace those advances to remain a
credible deterrent to conflict around the world. This requires us to
maintain and improve this advantage on land, at sea, in the air, and in
emerging domains, including space and cyberspace. We must divest select
less capable platforms to ensure that every defense dollar is spent on
programs and equipment that will be relevant in the next fight. PB-22
proposes cuts to systems and capabilities that no longer meet the
challenges and requirements of the defense strategy, making room for
more advanced programs that maximize naval capability and lethality
aligned with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.
navy's pb-22 proposed divestments
The FY 2022 President's Budget includes a total of $1.3 billion in
cost savings across the Department of the Navy from proposed
divestments in FY 2022. This includes retiring less capable platforms,
reducing costs, and realigning funds to source higher priority efforts
to field the strongest balance of capabilities. The major Navy
divestments include:
Decommission Two Guided Missile Cruisers (CG 66 and CG 68). Today,
the average cruiser age is 32 years, with four ships already beyond
their 35 year service live expectancy. The Navy plans to divest two
non-modernized cruisers in FY 2022, in addition to the five previously
programmed for FY 2022 decommissioning in the FY 2020 and FY 2021
President's Budgets. Decommissioning these two non-modernized ships
enables reallocation of funds to achieve program wholeness for the
modernization of the remaining five CGs in the cruiser modernization
program (CG 63, 64, 65, 69, and 71). Due to ongoing execution
challenges, discovered growth work, and underestimation of risk in
system reactivation, cruiser modernization costs have grown by 90 to
200 percent above their initial programmed estimates. These five ships
provide sufficient capacity to sustain air and missile defense
commander (AMDC) coverage as DDG Flight III ships begin to deliver in
FY23 with more capable advanced radars.
Retaining CG 66 and CG 68 would require approximately $1.5 billion
to execute the required maintenance and modernize the ships, and CG 66
would likely return to operational status ``late to need'' after the
low-point inventory of AMDC-capable ships. A decision to retain these
two ships would provide, at most, 12 years of remaining service life
each, assuming a 45-year expected service life, and realistically four
remaining deployments total. This equates to $400M per deployment when
adding the cost of modernization to the operations and sustainment
costs for their remaining service lives--a low return on investment.
The five cruisers previously planned for decommissioning in FY 2022
are either at the end of their service life (CG 56 and 57) or are less-
capable ships with only basic ballistic missile defense capability (CG
61, 72, and 73). The cost of maintaining aging cruisers with
substantial degradations in material condition, including tank top
cracking, aluminum superstructure stress cracks, and increasingly
obsolete systems is prohibitive. Less-capable cruisers are being
divested to fund more capable Air Defense Commander (ADC) ships. DDG
Flight III ships and selective service life extensions of ADC cruisers
will provide the ADC capability needed in the future. The inventory of
vertical launching system (VLS) cells was considered in the divestment
decision. VLS cells in aging cruisers that cannot get to the fight due
to persistent material challenges add no warfighting value or
capability. It is more important to have fully ready, materially sound,
sustainable platforms equipped with and able to employ our most capable
offensive and defensive weapons.
Decommission One Dock Landing Ship (LSD 41). PB-22 continues the
divestment of dock landing ships consistent with the Commandant's
Planning Guidance and Force Design 2030 to divest of aging, least
capable force structure in order to reallocate funding towards
improving the Navy's lethality. The aging LSD ships continue to have
challenges with overall maintenance health and there is diminishing
return on investment for sustaining their increasingly obsolete
systems. PB-22 includes the decommissioning of LSD 41 in FY 2022. LSD
41 is currently 36 years old. This divestment avoids the cost of an
extensive 21-month CNO maintenance availability in FY 2022, three years
before the end of expected service life at 40 years.
LPD Flight II is the functional replacement for LSD ships and
begins to deliver in FY 2025. LPD Flight II integrates a more capable
combat system, radar, and communications system and will be CMV-22
capable. Navy is committed to delivering the most capable multi-mission
amphibious warships, partnering closely with the Marine Corps and our
critical industrial base. Amphibious warships, including the LPD Flight
II and the future Light Amphibious Warship, remain a key component of
the Nation's global forward presence, playing a pivotal role in
responding to world crises and supporting a broad range of missions
across the spectrum of conflict.
Decommission Four Littoral Combat Ships (LCS 3, 4, 7, and 9). The
FY 2021 President's Budget proposed decommissioning of the first four
LCS ships (LCS 1-4) because they are dedicated test ships with unique
systems and are not configured like the other LCS ships. The initial
two test ships will decommission in FY 2021 and PB-22 re-proposes to
decommission the third and fourth test ships once all testing is
complete in FY 2022. Decommissioning LCS 3 and LCS 4 avoids the
significant cost to upgrade these test ships to the common LCS
configurations, including structural, cooling, and hull, mechanical,
and electrical (HM&E) upgrades. It also avoids the additional cost of
procuring a mission package for these ships, which are not included in
the current mission package procurement plan. Continued fleet
operations would require purchasing a mission package for each ship.
Decommissioning LCS 7 and LCS 9 is a difficult funding decision
that allows the Navy to free resources needed to invest in higher
priorities. They were selected because their decommissioning presents
less impact to the Fleet employment and force management because these
ships are not scheduled to deploy in the near-term. In addition, both
ships do not have lethality and survivability upgrades or Naval Strike
Missile installations planned within the next two years and both
require combining gear repairs.
Divesting these four LCS ships results in cost savings and
significant cost avoidance to enable investments in higher priority
capability and capacity to prevail in future conflicts. Strategic
competition and the on-going focus on the Indo-Pacific region requires
a more capable small surface combatant for operations in contested
environments. The remaining LCS ships, with lethality and survivability
upgrades and the Naval Strike Missile, along with the FFG 62
Constellation class will provide the improved capability to support the
full range of military operations as part of a more lethal Joint Force.
Divest 12 Mark VI Patrol Boats from Coastal Riverine Squadrons.
Consistent with the divestment decisions above, investing in more
capable assets is necessary to prevail in strategic competition and
meet the demands of the defense strategy. In developing the PB-22
budget, the Navy analyzed the MK VI Patrol Boat's ability to compete
against a near-peer adversary and determined that the savings from
divesting MK VI would be better invested in higher priority platforms
better suited for strategic competition. The MK VI requirement
originated from a November 2007 Commander, U.S. Fifth Fleet Urgent
Operational Needs Statement for a visit, board, search, and seizure
overwatch platform in the littorals. This mission is decreasingly
relevant in the current and future threat environments, and the other
MK VI missions can be conducted by existing Navy surface combatants and
U.S. Coast Guard patrol boats.
The final deployment for the affected coastal riverine companies is
scheduled to be complete by approximately the end of 2021. MK VI
divestment provides cost savings from operations and maintenance
funding and manpower reductions. Navy continues to assess options for
final disposition, including potential transition to another service or
another U.S. government agency, nomination for Foreign Military Sales
(FMS), or placement into long-term storage. The Navy International
Programs Office has had at least one inquiry from a nation showing
interest in the Navy's MK VI patrol boats and in January 2021, the
Department of Defense announced that Ukraine is procuring two new MK VI
patrol boats, with a potential total sale up to 16 craft, through an
FMS case.
Accelerate Divestment of Navy F/A-18A-D Hornets. The FY 2019
President's Budget included a phased divestment of Navy F/A-18A-D
legacy Hornets, planned for completion by FY 2024. PB-22 accelerates
this divestment plan to complete in FY 2022, in conjunction with the
completion of the Navy Reserve's transition from F/A-18A-D to F/A-18E/F
from the Navy Active Component, and F-16C/D from the U.S. Air Force and
Air National Guard by the end of FY 2022.
Navy will divest 45 Hornets in FY 2022. This divestment reduces
long-term support costs for these older Type/Model/Series, while
retaining adversary capacity with F-16s and Block I Super Hornets, and
Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center testing capability using
Block I Super Hornets.
Accelerate Divestment of Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
Demonstrator (BAMS-D). The FY 2021 President's Budget originally
scheduled BAMS-D divestment in FY 2023.
BAMS-D has limited capability to perform maritime and littoral
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). PB-22 accelerates
divestment of BAMS-D to FY 2022 in order to harvest cost savings sooner
and reinvest in higher priority capabilities and capacity. BAMS-D is
not a program of record and was intended to be a demonstration
prototype for MQ-4C Triton, which will provide greater capabilities.
Maritime ISR missions will be conducted by P-8A Poseidon, MQ-4C Triton,
and EP-3E operations, which were extended by one year to FY 2024 in
compliance with the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.
conclusion
Thank you for the strong support this Subcommittee continues to
provide our Navy. The Navy takes seriously our duty to be good stewards
of taxpayer dollars by assessing and recommending the hard decisions
necessary to deliver the highest warfighting return on investment and
maximize naval power within limited resources. This requires a multi-
pronged effort to improve affordability, increase efficiency through
reform, and divest of systems that are decreasingly relevant to the
strategic environment or no longer operationally effective in executing
their missions. We ask for Congress' support of the critical balance
between readiness, capability, capacity and taking care of our people
as reflected in the FY 2022 President's Budget.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Admiral. Next, we have General
Nahom.
General.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID S. NAHOM, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS, U.S.
AIR FORCE
General Nahom. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Shelby, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Air Force divestitures and the
readiness implications. Additionally, thank you for your
continued leadership and dedication to the 689,000 Total Force
Airmen serving around the world today.
The American homeland is no longer sanctuary. Our citizens
face threats from a variety of actors, and our competitors
continue aggressive efforts to negate our longstanding war-
fighting advantages.
China's actions show a sense of urgency. They see a future
that is very different from the one that we would want to see,
and they are taking actions to realize that future. Their
efforts include a massive buildup of military power, and a
clear intent to use that military to gain leverage on us, and
our allies, and partners, is becoming ever more critical that
we recognize the need to change and modernize.
Through the 2022 President's budget, the Department and the
Air Force seeks to continue investment in technology that is
both lethal in survival against a peer threat. This ultimately
means divestment of some portions of the legacy platforms in
order to free up personnel and resources in order to fill more
capable systems to address emerging threats. As we look to
transition away from older, less capable aircraft and
appropriately managed fleet sizes, some legacy capabilities we
will see shifts in investments.
The Air Force fleet is currently 29 years old in fleet
average, the oldest air fleet of any service, we must recognize
and continue to invest in new platforms and weapon systems to
ensure the Nation has the right mix of cutting-edge technology
needed to remain competitive and stay ahead of our adversaries.
Keeping aircraft identified for retirement means funds intended
for investment in newer aircraft and capabilities will now be
used to fund older, less capable aircraft.
We must transition away from capabilities of today to
capabilities required for tomorrow, new capabilities that can
operate and survive in both high-end and low-end conflict.
Failure to recognize the need to modernize has long-standing
implications, and injects risks in the lethality of our force.
Keeping aircraft we weren't planning to retain also
requires manpower, a highly valuable resource we cannot afford
to waste. If we are unable to retire legacy aircraft, we
exasperate an already stressed manpower situation, and risk not
having the manpower necessary to transition to, operate and
maintain new aircraft such as the F-35 and KC-46.
Weapon System Sustainment, or WSS, costs are another clear
indicator the Air Forces need to modernize. Even with a 15
percent decrease in total aircraft inventory our sustainment
costs have increased 130 percent in the last 20 years.
Additional legacy aircraft break one-third more often, and take
10 percent longer to fix than they did just 2 decades ago.
This drives an increased maintenance workload, adding aging
aircraft back into the maintenance cycle means something else
will likely not get done on aircraft that we actually need for
peer competition.
In fiscal year 2022, we are asking the Congress to allow us
to better manage our fleet. We cannot be prepared for high-end
fight without trade-offs now. While painful, it is better to
accept risk today when we have the ability compared to the
future, when we may not have that luxury. Through that lens,
and from our perspective, these divestures are less about what
we lose more about what we gain.
Again, thank you for your support, and with your help, we
remain committed to making thoughtful divestiture decisions. I
look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General David S. Nahom
Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members
of this committee, on behalf of Acting Secretary of the Air Force, the
Honorable John P. Roth, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
General Charles Q. Brown, Jr., thank you for the opportunity to testify
for the Air Force.
Your Air Force remains committed to making the hard choices
required to balance the need to preserve near-term readiness for
today's missions with the imperative to also build the long-term
readiness essential to prevail in strategic competition with China or
any other nation.
National security is evolving. The clear and ever-present danger of
previous generations has become far more opaque and complex. Our
success in the strategic battlespace is dependent on the relevancy of
our capabilities and the Airmen who wield those resources.
Strategic competition utilizes both long-term strategy and short-
term improvisation. Our nation's military potency relies on developing
our airpower inventory toward platforms, equipment, and capabilities
that will be relevant in peer competition in 2030 and beyond. To
achieve this, we must shed capabilities that are too old, irrelevant in
the future dynamic environment, or are unsustainable.
We look forward to collaborating closely with this committee to
explore and evaluate all divestiture options regarding the A-10, F-15C/
D, F-16C/D, E-8, MQ-9 Combat Lines, RQ-4, C-130H and our tanker
transition plan that best help us to deliver on our promise to ``Fly,
fight, and win...airpower anytime, anywhere.''
current capacity and capability
Current Air Force aircraft are becoming significantly more
expensive to sustain as they age, and our fleet is the oldest in the
Department of Defense. The average age of the Air Force fleet is 29
years, while the U.S. Navy is 14 years and the U.S. Army is 15 years.
In comparison to our allies, the average age of the Royal Australian
Air Force (RAAF) is 9 years and the Royal Air Force (United Kingdom) is
16 years. Weapons System Sustainment (WSS) costs have increased 130
percent over the last 20 years, even with a 15 percent decrease in
total aircraft inventory (TAI). We need new platforms and weapons to
replace a legacy force, but also must invest in cutting-edge technology
needed to confront and pace peer competitors.
the fighter fleet
Our planned fighter portfolio, relevant in 2030 and beyond,
requires deliberate development, acquisition, training, modernization,
and sustainment of aircraft that meet the demands of future conflicts.
As part of our proposed fighter force structure change, the Air Force
must transition its fighter fleet from seven platforms (F-35, F-22, F-
16, F-15EX, F-15E, F-15C, and A-10) to four platforms (NGAD, F-35, F-
15EX, and F-16) plus the A-10 in the near/mid-term. To attain the
desired fighter fleet, the Air Force must right-size current aircraft
inventories to expedite the transition away from less capable, aging
aircraft and emphasize investment in future capabilities such as Next
Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and F-35 modernization. The desired Air
Force fighter fleet should match the capability and capacity of both
platforms and weapons to maximize lethality.
a-10 thunderbolt
The A-10 Thunderbolt has proven to be one of the most durable and
capable close air support aircraft in the Air Force inventory since its
introduction in 1977. The Air Force believes its analysis supports
reducing 42 A-10 aircraft from the current 281 to 239 in Fiscal Year
2022 (FY22) and plans to reach an end-state of 218 by FY23. This
reduction will appropriately size the fleet for cost-effectiveness
while simultaneously providing the capability to counter violent
extremist organizations and addressing lower-end fights into the 2030s.
A reduction of A-10 aircraft in FY22 will reset the fleet from nine
to seven combat squadrons. A 218 aircraft fleet allows Attack Squadrons
to maintain a minimum of 18 Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory,
guaranteeing one squadron is always available to support combatant
commander requirements for close air support and combat search and
rescue.
As we reduce the fleet to 218, by 42 in FY22 and an additional 21
in FY23, we will continue to re-wing and modernize the remaining A-10s.
Re-winging is the A-10's most significant modernization program and we
have purchased wings to outfit a fleet of 218 aircraft. In FY22, we
will continue executing FY21 funding to begin installs and support
engineering change orders, and other government costs that are
typically required to execute major modification efforts of this
nature.
Failure to right-size the A-10 fleet has considerable consequences.
Maintaining current fleet numbers will result in a significant buyback
cost to the Air Force to upgrade and sustain A-10s that are not needed
to meet future requirements, ultimately impacting the Air Force's
ability to purchase aircraft that will win a high-end fight.
The human capital toll is also significant. Between FY21-22 a total
of 91 F-35s will deliver. Failure to right-size the A-10 fleet means
hundreds of maintenance personnel will not be available to resource
platforms such as the F-35. While adding funds could solve the
personnel deficit, new recruits require training with a lead time of at
least a year (post recruitment), and the most critical billets of
experienced maintainers requires years to create and cannot be
purchased. Ultimately, relief is required from legislation that
currently prevents retirement of any A-10s. A right-sized A-10 fleet
provides the capability, capacity, and affordability to achieve
National Defense Strategy objectives and meet air superiority and
global strike needs for the Joint Force.
f-15c/d eagle
The F-15C/D supports both Homeland Defense and the air superiority
mission. Our F-15C fleet is aging, with two-thirds of the fleet past
its designed service life. The 234 F-15C/Ds in the Air Force inventory
will reach the end of their design service life in the next six to
eight years, and our analysis shows additional service life extension
programs are not cost effective.
The FY22 President's budget request divests 48 F-15C/Ds from the
active fleet (234 aircraft to 186 aircraft), which includes the
reduction of the F-15C/D squadron at Royal Air Force Lakenheath.
We have already started to replace this fleet with a modernized
successor by purchasing the F-15EX. The F-15EX ``Eagle II'' will
provide superior sensor, range, and payload for Critical Infrastructure
Defense. The transition from a seven-fighter force structure to a four-
fighter construct enables the Air Force to focus efforts on
capabilities relevant in the future spectrum of conflict. As the F-15C/
D fleet is reduced, increases in F-15EXs and F-35s will ensure no
degradation in capabilities.
f-16 c/d fighting falcon
The F-16 is the Air Force's primary multi-role fighter and
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense aircraft. Our more than 600 late block
F-16s will provide affordable capacity for the next 15 or more years,
in both competition and more permissive combat environments.
The Air Force's current fleet consists of 936 F-16s with 325 Pre-
Block and 611 Post-Block aircraft. Starting in FY22, due to rising
costs in sustainment, the Air Force begins a phased approach to a F-16
fleet Pre-Block reduction, decreasing the fleet by 47 F-16s (936
aircraft to 889 aircraft). In FY22, we will continue to modernize the
Post-Block F-16s we keep as our ``affordable capacity'' fighter into
the 2040s. The F-16 investment strategy funds modifications for the
most capable, late block aircraft to ensure they can operate and
survive in today's threat environment.
The F-16 Pre-Block fleet is not lethal nor survivable enough to
survive against near-peer air defense systems and threats. In order to
facilitate these capability improvements, we must divest legacy F-16
Pre-Block force structure and continue investment in needed National
Defense Strategy capabilities that will win a high-end fight.
e-8 jstars
The highly contested environment of the future will require
sophisticated command and control to facilitate battlespace management
and highly agile sensing grid capabilities. To stay ahead of emerging
threats, we must accelerate intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) modernization. The Air Force will improve ISR
capabilities by developing, producing, and fielding a family of
interconnected and multi-role crewed and uncrewed systems. This
investment pivot requires the Air Force to divest the E-8 Joint
Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), which cannot
survive in a highly contested environment. We must fund emerging ISR
capabilities that can collect in the most complex and dynamic areas.
In FY22, the Air Force seeks to retire 4 JSTARS aircraft to (16
aircraft to 12 aircraft). JSTARS does not support any ISR 2030 future
force requirement, nor does it support any near-peer engagement. It is
operationally imperative that, as JSTARS aircraft are retired,
personnel shift to assist in other, critically understaffed, areas in
support of newly emerging missions.
Currently, the Air Force is seeking relief from congressional
language that prevents immediate retirement of any E-8 JSTARS aircraft,
or language that hinders retirement. As required, the Air Force is
currently in the process of coordinating the required certification
through the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) for approval.
mq-9 reaper
The MQ-9 Reaper has proven extremely valuable as an uncrewed
aircraft operating in permissive environments where link access is
unencumbered, and air defense threats are relatively nonexistent. The
Air Force must focus on real-time domain awareness, enabled by data
fusion at the edge of the battlespace, secure data transport,
artificial intelligence, and penetrating collection capabilities.
Global Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(GIISR) capabilities must enable and connect to the Advanced Battle
Management System (ABMS) as part of the Joint All-Domain Command and
Control (JADC2) construct to remain competitive in the high-end fight.
Unlike traditional aircraft employment concepts, the MQ-9 presents
capability through combat- air-patrols (CAPs) rather than aircraft
number. In the FY22 PB, the Air Force seeks to reduce MQ-9 Government-
Owned Government Operated (GOGO) combat lines by 4 (60 combat lines to
56 combat lines). This reduction of combat lines does not equate to
reduction in aircraft inventory; no tails will be divested.
The FY22 PB funds existing technology maturation and modernization
activities that keep the platform operational and relevant until full-
scale divestments begin (planned around FY30). This funding
demonstrates the Air Force's commitment to the MQ-9 and the platforms
support to the Counter-Violent Extremist Organization mission. However,
we must also focus on right- sizing the fleet to enable investments to
modernize ISR for the highly contested conflicts of the future.
Reduction of combat lines also allows the Air Force to redirect funding
towards the completion of studies, analysis, and concept exploration to
determine an armed ISR follow-on effort to support the 2030 Force
Design.
Significant risks exist without proper divestment of MQ-9 assets.
Funding and personnel must support capabilities to win the future high-
end conflicts that require accelerated investment. If the Air Force
does not modify the MQ-9 force presentation and is required to keep 60
combat lines, it will become more vulnerable and increasingly
irrelevant even in low-end conflicts.
The Air Force requests no restrictive language preventing further
reduction of MQ-9 combat lines and no additional funding for MQ-9
procurement in FY22.
rq-4 global hawk
The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high-altitude, uncrewed, ISR collection
platform. While the system has exceptional loiter time and operational
reach, the Air Force is moving toward more survivable capabilities that
fulfill National Defense Strategy requirements. The Air Force's ability
to win future high-end conflicts requires accelerating investment and
accepting short-term risks by divesting legacy ISR assets that offer
limited capability against peer and near-peer threats. Retiring RQ-4
Block 30s allows the Air Force to field advanced technology while
bringing the ISR enterprise into the digital age using modernized
sensing grid technologies. The Air Force intends to retire the RQ-4
Block 30 fleet to invest in advanced penetrating ISR platforms, which
will enable the Joint Force to compete and win against a peer
competitor in the high-end fight.
The Air Force currently possesses 20 RQ-4 Block 30 aircraft and 10
Block 40 in the inventory. The FY22 PB proposes retirement of the
entire Block 30 fleet due to its inability to operate in highly
contested environments.
In FY21, the Air Force proposed divestment of the RQ-4 Block 30s;
however, Congress non- concurred. Current law requires the Air Force to
maintain an RQ-4 fleet until the service can prove the replacement
costs are less than RQ-4 sustainment and Joint Reconnaissance
Operations Center certifies the capability is greater than RQ-4 for
combatant commanders. However, the SECDEF waiver option states that
SECDEF can request a waiver if replacement capability is believed to be
worth the higher cost.
In the FY22 PB, the Air Force is once again proposing divestment of
the RQ-4 Block 30 fleet (20 aircraft) along with the SECDEF approved
waiver allowing the divestment. We must look to the future and continue
the transition towards a family of interconnected and multi-role
systems and sensors for the highly-contested environment that are
digitally engineered to increase data processing speed, mission
effectiveness, interoperability, survivability, and penetration at a
reduced cost.
tankers (kc-10, kc-135, and kc-46)
To maintain our edge in Rapid Global Mobility for the future fight,
Air Force must right-size the KC-10 and KC-135 fleets, while continuing
to invest in the KC-46. This transition plan requires shedding legacy
aircraft and repurposing airmen as KC-46s are delivered. As we move to
field the KC-46, Congressional language is restricting retirement of
legacy tankers.
The current National Defense Strategy mandates that the Air Force
maintain 479 tanker aircraft in its fleet. To achieve the future fleet,
the Air Force needs to retire the KC-10 and KC-135 on a one-for-one
basis with the KC-46A. Current models and simulations indicate that the
Air Force plan to recapitalize aging KC-135 and KC-10s with KC-46As and
non-developmental follow-on will meet the 2030+ anticipated aerial
refueling demand.
In FY22, the Air Force plans to divest 14 KC-10s (50 aircraft to 36
aircraft), and divest 18 KC-135 (394 aircraft to 376 aircraft).
Additionally, adding to capacity and capability, the KC-46 fleet will
increase from the 55 aircraft to 71 (+16 aircraft) in FY22. The
advanced communication capabilities of the KC-46 will also contribute
to advanced command and control (ABMS/JADC2) to enable advanced
targeting and battle management.
The Air Force requests approval to continue execution of the tanker
transition plan through right-sizing efforts. This will allow us to
manage the finite number of aircrews/maintainers and align them with
KC-46 Formal Training Unit allocations. In order to do this the Air
Force needs to retire KC-135s and KC-10s. With hundreds of personnel
tied up in legacy tanker missions, the Air Force will not be able to
support and maintain an entire squadron of modern KC-46 aircraft. With
these restrictions in place, units will be forced to maintain two sets
of aircraft with one set of crews and maintainers. This places a heavy
burden on our Airmen, and results in two insufficiently crewed fleets.
c-130h/j
C-130Hs and C-130Js are medium-size transport aircraft capable of
completing a variety of tactical airlift operations across a broad
range of missions. The fleet delivers air logistics support for all
theater forces, including those involved in combat operations. As with
other weapon systems, the Air Force is taking acceptable risk in the C-
130 portfolio as it focuses resources toward the future force.
In an effort to ``Accelerate Change or Lose'' the Air Force is
focused on modernizing the force at the cost of legacy capabilities to
ensure our nation is ready to fight and win in the future. We have
taken a measured amount of acceptable operational risk in force
structure to appropriately align available resources, inherently
increasing aircraft readiness rates and allowing for utilization of
fiscal resources on the remaining aircraft to maintain or further
improve readiness. Planned right-sizing of the C-130 fleet aims to meet
current operational needs while simultaneously investing in
technologies that support and advance our concept of victory.
In the FY22 PB, the Air Force seeks to continue right-sizing the C-
130H/J fleet to 255 with a net reduction of 8 C-130 aircraft. The Air
Force is committed to maintaining all current Air National Guard C-130
units. If any units do transition out of the C-130, we will ensure
transition to a mission that supports the future force and has long
term viability. Any transition will be mutually agreed upon by the Air
Force, the Air National Guard, and the State.
conclusion
The Air Force's FY22 budget submission demonstrates our commitment
to balancing near-term risk with readiness. While all platforms once
served a purpose, not all will meet the requirements and demands of the
2030 battlespace. We cannot continue the status quo business model; we
must make difficult decisions to shed increasingly irrelevant
capabilities.
Choosing which technologies we will further develop and take into
production is the most difficult decision; as this undoubtedly will
create an offset in some current capability and often incurs some
unplanned program cost growth. The Air Force must make these tough
choices and take calculated risk, seeking to reduce potential
inefficiencies where possible, when determining which capabilities have
the greatest chance of success against future adversary technologies.
China and Russia continue to develop and rapidly field increasingly
advanced designs, eating into and eliminating our technological
advantages. The Air Force cannot wait to develop advanced systems to
fight and win in the ever-changing highly contested environment.
We are committed to making the bold tradeoffs required to answer
President Biden's call to ``shift our emphasis from unneeded legacy
platforms and weapons systems [and] free up resources for investments
in the cutting-edge technologies and capabilities that will determine
our military and national security advantage in the future,'' and look
forward to working with this committee to mitigate risks as we do so.
On behalf of all Airmen, active, guard, reserve, and civilian,
thank you for your leadership and partnership as we build the ready Air
Force our Nation needs both today and into the future.
Senator Tester. Thank you of your testimony, and I
appreciate it.
You know, between this hearing and the hearing next week,
this is going to give you folks the opportunity to talk about
these retirements. And I can tell you that there is not a
member on this committee that doesn't get pressure from other
members that serve in the Senate, to keep some of these
systems. So this is really your opportunity to make your case.
And so we appreciate you being here to do exactly that.
Last year there was a lot of controversy about proposals to
reduce the C-130 fleet, as well as the Air Force basing plans
for new airplanes headed to the National Guards. The
President's proposal--the President's budget request plans to
divest eight C-130Hs. These planes are only flown by the Air
Guard units. And that cut is enough to eliminate an entire
Guard unit.
This has created some anxiety, as you can imagine, in
Congress. So here are a few direct questions to help clear up
what the Air Force is proposing.
Number one, has the Air Force identified a unit that you
want to convert to a new mission?
General Nahom. Sir, thank you for the question. You know,
the Air Force is seeking to reduce the C-130 overall inventory
from about 300 aircraft down to 255, and we are taking a very
measured approach. And for eight aircraft you identify in this
year's President's budget, we have not yet identified a unit.
We have some replacement missions we are looking at, and we
are, we are seeking units that we can come to a mutually
agreeable replacement mission.
We are not going to force a unit to change their mission.
We think some of these future missions we have to offer are
going to be very attractive, and we want to continue to have
that discussion and that dialogue with these units.
Senator Tester. So let me ask you this. Have you narrowed
it down at all?
General Nahom. Well, sir, with the--if you look at, going
from 300 to 255, that 45 airplanes, that is about five units.
Senator Tester. Yes.
General Nahom. We have already identified one, and we are
keeping Martin State and the A-10, and that was actually
mutually agreeable. And that works out well.
The second one we are looking at right now is an Air
Reserve unit down in Alabama that is going to convert to the
MH-139, our newest helicopter and form a training unit down
there, again, mutually agreeable.
The next one we are looking at is a cyber warfare wing. And
we are looking at a couple of units that could--that this would
be very--that this would be very well suited.
Senator Tester. Okay.
General Nahom. And we are having the conversations now, but
we have not committed to either unit or that actual mission
yet, sir.
Senator Tester. So my next question was going to be, what
happens if the home state of a unit disagrees with your
decision. And I assume your answer to that, not to put words in
your mouth, is that you are hoping that the replacement mission
will be attractive enough that they would be willing to give up
those C-130s?
General Nahom. Yes, sir. We were hoping we can actually
make some mutually agreeable changes, if not, then we will look
elsewhere.
Senator Tester. Okay. If Congress chooses to continue
investing in the newer, C-130Js, how will the Air Force choose
to determine where these planes are going to go? And how will
that affect the long-term strategy for the C-130 fleet?
General Nahom. Sir, right now we have--if you stipulate
that we go to 255 at some point, right now we have either
purchased or ordered 163 C-130Js that are in some form of
development. That leaves 92 C-130Hs. We also have money to
upgrade those 92 C-130Hs to the level we need to.
So with that being said, right now where we sit, we are
actually sitting pretty good with our C-130 investment, if you
say we are going to get down to 255. If not, then there would
be further investment either in modifying some C-130Hs or
purchasing C-130Js. If we do have C-130Js that are appropriated
and come to the Air Force, then we will go through our
strategic basing process to find the most suitable location to
put those aircrafts.
Senator Tester. Okay. So this question is for either
Admiral Crites or General Nahom. Look, savings from legacy
divestments should enable the departments to improve efficiency
and redirect money to higher priorities. This all depends on
the divestment proposals actually delivering on the savings
that you guys are planning on.
And so I would tell you that we have been accustomed to
cost estimates, for new weapons systems being too low. How
would you respond to critics who might say, the estimates of
savings of divestments is too high?
Admiral Crites. Thank you, Senator Tester, for the
question. So I think for the Navy, in particular, when we look
at our overall funding that is available for us to apply to the
different capabilities, the readiness, the items that we need
to bring in, we do it very carefully, and what we have seen
over the last, really, 10 or 11 years is essentially a flat
budget.
We have not kept pace with inflation. And what you will see
is, is back in 2010 we had about 288 battle force ships. We
declined, as we went through sequestration, down to about 271,
and we built our way out of that up to about 297 today. That
occurred as a result of a number of reform efforts and
divestitures that we did inside the Service.
The challenge that we are facing now is that the good
ideas, the things that we don't think we need to bring to the
future fight, we are starting to run out of that. And so we are
challenged as we see labor costs far exceeding inflation, the
cost and the complexity of the work that we are trying to do,
the materials that we are trying to buy, are all outpacing
inflation, yet we need to balance within the program that we
have. And so our priorities have not changed.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Admiral Crites. The number one priority is to bring in
Columbia. Number two is to ensure that we have a ready force.
Number three is to make sure that we are bringing in the
capabilities that we need. And number four has been capacity
that we can afford.
Senator Tester. Just a quick follow-up before I turn it
over to Senator Shelby. And that is, is that so when you do the
divestments that is going to save you X-amount of dollars. When
you replace those divestments with other systems, it is going
to cost you X-amount of dollars. Is anybody double-checking
your math?
Admiral Crites. Certainly. I mean, we have a number of
different groups and organizations that work cost estimating,
we work with industry and so forth.
Senator Tester. Good.
Admiral Crites. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. All right. Thank you.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What metrics did your individual services use to make
decisions about how and where to reinvest the savings that you
expect to realize from the divestments that you would like to
make?
Who wants to start?
General Nahom. I will start.
Senator Shelby. General, go ahead.
General Nahom. Well, Senator Shelby, thank you for the
question. Yes, I will tell you where we looked to invest,
obviously we start with what we need to look like in the future
to meet the threat. And we have done a lot. We have done
extensive wargaming on what that fight would look like, and
when you do that you can start looking at the Air Force, and
looking at what we have, and the aspects of it, that is not
going to be part of that fight.
So we use the strategy and the design we need to get to as
our first template of where we need to get to. And then you
look at some of the legacy platforms. Now, some of the
platforms, and that are--that may be not be part of that future
fight, we still need in current day operations. So there is
certainly a tug between what the combatant commanders need
today, and what are our wargaming and our analysis says we are
going to need in the future for that future peer threat.
And we are making those balances every day. And going back
to a little bit of what Senator Tester said too, is that when a
new weapon system comes on, very often they are coming on
slower than we would like. The F-35 is a perfect example. If
you go back to 2010 when we were making decisions on our
fighter force, we thought in 2021 we would have almost 1,000 F-
35s in service, we have about 300. And so therefore we adjust,
therefore we take some older systems, we upgrade them, we
service life extend as necessary so we can maintain that
balance for that current-day operations in that future fight.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Admiral Kilby. Except for this--can I just add for the
Navy, sir?
Senator Shelby. Go ahead, sure. Go ahead, yes.
Admiral Kilby. We are consistent with the Air Force. I
would say our POM (Program Objective Memorandum) process
introduces analysis and valuation where we really look at key
operational problems against the adversary, but particularly
China. And we look at their advances from an intel perspective,
understand what they are doing from a weapons perspective, and
what we see them doing. And we look at our program and balance
it against it. And then we have a model-based systems
engineering approach to look at those investments that we
think, will either accelerate or match the adversary.
So there is a de-emphasis on strongly held opinion, and an
emphasis on the analysis and the wargaming that proves these
technologies out. So we agree with the Air Force. I think it is
critical to do that.
I also agree that these new technologies are hard to
develop. So really, in my opening statement, I said, it is not
that the things we are talking about divesting are not
valuable. They are valuable. They are just less valuable than
the things we need to invest in to have a capable force.
Senator Shelby. Well, what you have got to do, I suppose,
is to analyze your current situation, readiness, with the
weapon systems of tomorrow, and what our adversaries might do
or could do, right?
Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. And that is what you are doing, isn't it?
Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay. The Navy has procured 35, from my
understanding, Littoral Combat Ships, or LCS to date. And now
that the ships are almost finished, and many have been
delivered to the fleet, the Navy appears to be less interested
in them. That said, the Navy has been talking about the need to
grow the fleet here before, 355 or more ships for years. But
they shift away from the LCS, it seems to me is a
contradiction. I don't know.
What is the Navy's assessment of risk if we enter a
conflict in the Indo-Pacific region with our current fleet,
what is the plan to increase the size of the fleet, if you have
one?
Admiral Kilby. Sir, thanks, I will start. The fleet size is
an important metric. We have done significant analysis over the
last--since 2016 on the fleet size. All those analysis, 2016
when----
Senator Shelby. But the size is not the only thing.
Admiral Kilby. No, no, sir, absolutely.
Senator Shelby. But it is the quality of what you have got.
Admiral Kilby. That is right. And I was just talking about,
size is not the only thing that matters here.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Kilby. The capabilities that those specific
platforms bring, matters. For example, the Flight III DDG
brings in the air and missile defense radar that is key against
some threats, against China. So in specific comment to the LCS
discussion, there are four LCSs that are proposed for
divestment in this budget.
LCS-3 and 4, which were the initial versions of the class,
and then 7 and 9 are affordability decisions to drive the
program where we need to have the most capable Navy we can
produce for you. 7 and 9 are cost avoidance for combining gear
repair, lethality upgrade, and a survivability upgrade that
have not been made on those ships. So really it is looking at
what we have and how we best position those, our fleet size
against what we need to do, sir.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. What will the Services do with
the equipment that it divests, and what efforts or studies have
been done to determine if the newer equipment, such as LCS and
RQ-21 might meet other U.S. defense government or allied
requirements? Has that been taken into account?
Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir. Different answers for different
platforms. The Mark VI is a fairly new platform, just not what
we view as capable a platform against China. LCS, as you
indicated, is a new platform, so there might be a future for
those ships, either foreign military sales or keeping them in
some kind of reserve capability. The cruisers on the other
hand, are at the end of their service life. So it would be very
difficult to come up with a construct where we would be able to
bring them out and make them relevant in the time we need to in
the adversary, so I think it is a different answer depending on
the specific platform, sir.
Senator Shelby. If you had been given additional resources,
we are trying to increase the budget, as you well know, we
think--a lot of us believe that the Defense proposal by the
administration is too short--too small. But if you had been
given additional resources, or if you are given additional
resources, which items currently proposed for divestments would
you retain because they are relevant to a potential near-peer
conflict? Assuming you got all money in the budget, because
this is budget-driven, you know that, to a point.
General.
General Nahom. Yes, sir. I will tell you. We have to be
careful, though, with the resources. Money, additional money
may be able to allow us to keep an asset. But one of the
resources we have to be very careful on, is our people, and as
we divest, and I will go back to the fighter example, you know,
the same, incredible men and women that are swinging wrenches
and flying FA-10s and F-16s today are the same incredible men
and women I need flying F-35s tomorrow.
And as we continue to take F-35s through the assembly line,
we have got to divest some, otherwise we run into huge manpower
problem. So the money is interesting and very important, but
the people piece is actually where I think is the most
difficulty when you talk about additional resources, sir.
Senator Shelby. The one thing you don't want to do is buy
yesterday's technology and somebody else is moving ahead of
you, do you?
General Nahom. That is true, sir. And that is why when you
look at where we are focused on our platforms, it is absolutely
an eye on peer competition. And that is why even some of the
stuff that we are divesting out of, there is a market for,
building on Admiral Kilby's conversation, like C-130Hs, and
even MQ-9s, and other things.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here. And we greatly appreciate your service to our
country.
Both the department of the Navy and the department of the
Air Force budget requests look to make significant divestments
in order to make necessary changes to their force structure.
This committee must ensure that our military has the weapons
and the platforms to prevail against the pacing threat of China
and Russia.
General Nahom, your testimony clearly paints the picture of
why the Air Force needs to modernize. While the average age of
the Navy fleet is 14 years, and the Army fleet is 15 years, the
Air Force, I believe, is 29 years. One of the Air Force's
modernization efforts is with the F-15 fighter aircraft. The
President's budget request divests 48 F-15C and Ds in order to
procure the modernized successor, F-15EX.
Why is the divestment of F-15C and Ds to procure F-15EX is
such an Air Force priority? And how is it in upgrading
capabilities? Also, how soon would we see F-15EXs operationally
capable of full-spectrum conflict?
General Nahom. Senator, thank you so much for the question.
You know, and the numbers there, the numbers do tell a story.
Another number that is very important is 44 percent of Air
Force aircraft are flying right now beyond their initial design
service life. So we are an aged Air Force and we do need to
recapitalize.
The F-15C, I am very familiar with that is the platform
where I spent most of my time in the Air Force, and it is
falling apart. There is a number of them sitting at Depot down
at Warner Robins right now, with additional cracks, looking for
dispensation, looking for ways to fix those aircrafts. We have
got to refresh the airplanes.
The F-15EX is not the F-15C that I grew up on. We are
benefiting from billions of dollars of Saudi Arabia and Qatari
investment into that platform to modernize it to a very viable
platform for future warfare, especially when you look at what
it can do in critical infrastructure defense, defense of the
homeland, as well as its ability to shoot and carry outsized
weapons for modern combat. So we are very excited about it.
But, for me, I look at it right now as, we have got to get
these units and these men and women that are doing incredible
work with these F-15Cs/Ds, and places all over the world,
whether it is in, RAF Lakenheath, or in Okinawa, Japan, or
incredible guardsmen sitting alert today in the F-15Cs, when
these airplanes are flying so far beyond their initial design
service life. To get them, new aircraft where they can safely
operate and defend our Nation is a huge priority. And the F-
15EX is allowing us to modernize a little quicker. We are
pretty excited about it coming to service.
Senator Boozman. Very good. General Nahom, our pacing
adversaries will never stop advancing, and the Air Force has
made it clear that modernization is critical to achieving a
future force that is agile, as you just described. Also
persistent, resilient enough to win in a great power
competition. Maintaining the status quo, no longer suffice, I
understand that this--with this comes a need to accept some
near-term risks.
General Nahom, what is the Air Force's strategy for
balancing near-term risk, and cost when considering divestment
options? And then also, we have talked about, you know, concern
about divestment and things like that. How does restriction on
divestment of specific fleets impact the Air Force's ability to
invest in cutting edge technology in the future?
General Nahom. Sir, thank you for the question. I tell you.
When you talk about balancing risk and that is the hardest
thing we do, and I am sure my Navy counterparts struggle with
this too. The real conversation is really between the Service,
in this case the Air Force, and the combatant commands, because
it is our combatant commanders that are out there fighting the
current-day conflicts right now.
And we have to be sure we are getting them what they need
in current-day operations. But we also have to work with them
to balance that risk. We have been very successful over the
last year, working very closely with TRANSCOM balancing that
tanker risk to find out exactly what we need day to day for our
air refuelers, but allowing us the resources so we can
modernize into the KC-46, and the modifications we need to make
the KC-135. So that balance is very important as we look to the
future.
Senator Boozman. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you.
General Nahom, let me pick up where you and Senator Boozman
were visiting, McConnell Air Force Base, the home of the KC-46,
and previously the KC, and currently the KC-135s, we take great
pride in McConnell and its refueling missions around the globe.
The Kansas Air National Guard is sometimes not thought of in
that process, but they are refueling, have a refueling mission
as well. They fly the 135s, and support refueling missions
around the U.S. and across the world.
Let me follow up with what Senator Boozman and you were
talking about. As the Air Force seeks to rebalance the
divestment of the KC-135s, replacing with the--and fielding the
46s, what safeguards are in place, in this process of
transition, to make sure that our mission is being--our
missions are being fulfilled?
General Nahom. Thank you for your question, sir. And that
goes back to that conversation with TRANSCOM, and the other
combatant commanders, to make sure that we, as an Air Force,
can give the day-to-day refueling capacity that is needed,
because it is lifeblood of operations around the world. I would
say one of the benefits we have in the air refueling, we right
now have over 490 tankers, if you can combine in the KC-46, a
lot of those tankers are in the Air Reserve proponent, the
Kansas Guardsman.
What we are able to do is not only work for the day-to-day
capacity. We are also able to work with our guardsmen and our
reservists with additional NPA, allowing them to meet some of
our day-to-day needs, and then allow us to divest.
The 135 is important, the bigger conversation is the KC-10,
as incredible as that airplane is, and any fighter pilot will
tell you, they love refueling off the KC-10, because it is an
amazing airplane, carries a lot. It is very expensive. And as
we phase in the KC-46, it is very important we phase out the
KC-10s, and we are on a very roadmap with that right now.
And we have worked out this roadmap with TRANSCOM, and the
other combatant commanders, to make sure we can give them
enough capacity to mitigate that risk, while we get to the
modern fleet, which will be 300 KC-135s, modernized, and 179 KC
46s. And then at that point, once we get to that 179, you will
see it--start about a bridge contract, because eventually even
those 300 KC-135s will be replaced. We just don't know what
that is right now. We know right now, the first 179 will be KC-
46.
Senator Moran. When you say you don't know when, is the
expectation that the 35s will generally be replaced with the
46s in the same kind of magnitude and scale?
General Nahom. They will be replaced because they are aging
like any other aircraft. We are going to the first 179, we are
going to go to a bridge contract after that, and you are seeing
us having those discussions right now with what that is going
to look like. And then we are keeping our eyes open to advanced
technology.
There may be something else beyond the KC-46, beyond a 767-
based platform, to take us into the future. We want to make
sure we keep our eyes open. We still have several more years of
procurement on the KC-46. So the good thing is we have time to
have these conversations, and look at the technologies out
there, and make sure that when we get to 179, and we go to Jet
180, and we start replacing the next round of KC-135s, we have
the right aircraft.
Senator Moran. I assume there is no indication or evidence
that we are going to need less refueling missions in the
future?
General Nahom. No, sir. I will tell you, if you look at--if
your eye is on China, like we all are right here, and you look
at the distances in the South China Sea, you have to have the
gas. I mean, there are some technologies we can talk about that
maybe use less gas in fighters, engine technology, things like
that. But overall, we are going to need the gas in the air.
Senator Moran. Should I have any concern about the Guard
units, as this transition is pursued, that they will lose their
refueling mission?
General Nahom. No, sir. There is no intention in that right
now, sir.
Senator Moran. So you wouldn't expect any specific,
National Guard units to be involved in a divestiture process
that would take them out of their mission?
General Nahom. No, sir. Especially not in the refueling, we
need the air refuelers. You know, one of the questions you will
see coming out as we look at ops, the next two beddown
locations for the Air National Guard, we are actually going to
have that conversation in the next year. And of the Air
National Guard units flying the KC-135 now, we are going to
transition two of those as part of that 179, and that
conversation will happen in the coming year.
Senator Moran. General, thank you.
General Nahom. Sure.
Senator Tester. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all
three of you gentlemen, for being here, and for your service,
it is much appreciated.
General Nahom, last year we agreed to retire the Block 20
Global Hawk. I am wondering, is there a current plan for those
airplanes? I have heard possibly support testing hypersonic
missiles. But is there a plan for those Block 20 airplanes?
General Nahom. Sir, I am not aware of any plan. You are
probably aware that we actually extended them a few months to
assist in the withdrawal from our Afghan Forces. But anything
beyond that, I will have to take that for the record, and
ensure I have that correct, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Okay. This year you are
requesting permission to retire Block 30 fleet, that is still
under consideration, let us say. And so my question is, are you
able to replace the capabilities of Block 30 fleet immediately,
if in fact we did go with your request on that?
General Nahom. Sir, if you look at what the Block 30s are
doing today. They do it very well. That is one of these places
where you look at some near-term risk to make sure we get to
the fleet we want. There is some capacity that they provide to
the joint users, the combatant commands out there, that we will
have to mitigate with other technologies.
But when you look at the future where we are going, the
Global Hawk, because future ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance) platforms, we have to--you know, the three
things that are most important is an ISR platform that can
survive in the threat, persist in a threat, and then be
connected. And the Global Hawk, because it was designed--it was
not designed with the threat we are looking at right now from a
resurgent China, we have to look to the future in that. And
that is where that risk with the combatant commanders comes in,
sir.
Senator Hoeven. Have you looked at strengthening the
survivability of the aircraft? Have you looked into that?
General Nahom. Sir, just the nature of that aircraft, the
altitude it flies, and then it--I will have to get back to you
in a classified session on that question. I will take that for
the record. But right now, when you look at that platform, the
speeds it flies, the altitude that it flies, and the makeup of
the aircraft, it is just not survivable in these contested
environments that we are going to be looking to gather
intelligence from in the future.
Senator Hoeven. Are you making any plans to retire the
Block 40?
General Nahom. Sir, the Block 40 right now is a little bit
different mission, because we actually rely on it for the GMTI,
the ground moving target indicator capability. We also rely on
the E-8 J STARS. We are going to retire a couple of J STARS
because that airplane is really showing its age. We are going
to need the Block 40s in the interim until we get to the ``what
next'', and we will have to come back in a classified session
to talk about that more.
But the Block 40s are going to be very critical in the next
6, 7, 8 years while we go to the ``what next'', and that
capacity will be important for the combatant commanders, sir.
Senator Hoeven. What is your rationale for curtailing
purchase of the MQ-9?
General Nahom. The MQ-9 right now, sir. We have over 300
platforms. We have enough platforms of the MQ-9 to take us into
the mid-2030s. We are not reducing the size of the fleet--of
the squadrons. We are not reducing any manpower out of those
squadrons. What we are asking for is to reduce some of the
combat lines in the manner in which we have been flying them in
the Middle East.
The way we have been flying the MQ-9, as amazing as that
platform is, we operate in a very manpower-intensive way. So we
are looking to reduce some of the combat lines and start
operating that aircraft a little differently. If you look at
how many platforms we have, over 300, we just don't need
additional platforms right now for the size of the enterprise
we have in the Air Force.
Again, it is one of those that is a balance too, because
the MQ-9, as incredible as it is for some of the current-day
operations, certainly things we do in the Middle East, it is
not survival. It was never designed for what we foresee
operations in the South China Sea, where the peer adversary
would be.
Senator Hoeven. So what are you going to replace it with?
General Nahom. Sir, that we have a family of systems, I
will have to come back to you in a classified setting to talk
more details about some of the platforms and some of the
capabilities we are bringing on, but we were certainly, if you
look at what the MQ-9 brings to the warfighter today, we are
certainly looking to make sure that we as an Air Force provide
that level of ISR to the combatant commands in the future.
Senator Hoeven. And I understand the concern with
survivability, particularly relative to the near-peer
adversaries. So I certainly understand that. But I also
understand that there is always a demand for ISR out there.
General Nahom. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. You always have a demand for more ISR.
General Nahom. Yes, sir. Absolutely----
Senator Hoeven. That is accurate, isn't it?
General Nahom. Absolutely accurate, and that is why we are
not taking any crews out of it. We are going to transition as
smartly as we can move in forward. I do believe though, the
reduction in the combat lines, because of our reduction of our
presence in the Middle East is appropriate. Now we will have
the opportunity to look at those platforms differently and use
them differently in competition, and in some of these places
around the world with less contested environments.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, General. And I look forward to
visiting with you further on this.
And to both of the gentlemen from the Navy, thank you for
your use of unmanned or drone aircraft. I think it has been
very effective, and I think you are doing a great job with it,
and it is much appreciated.
Again, General, thank you for the conversations we have had
on this subject, and look forward to talking to you more on it.
Senator Tester. And Senator Hoeven, next Wednesday, we are
going to be having a hearing in classified that you can take
all those questions back, and rock and fire with these guys.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. I appreciate both you and the ranking
member, thanks very much.
Senator Tester. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good morning. Thank you all for your leadership.
General Nahom, I understand that prior to my arrival here
at the committee, you had discussion with Senator Moran
regarding the KC-135s. And I wanted to just follow on to that
conversation.
We have been notified, four additional KC-135s that will
join the fleet at Eielson, we are looking forward to that. We
are very thankful for the continued partnership that we have in
Alaska. I am also very aware of the Air Force's plan to divest
the KC-135s as the KC-46s are available, recognizing that we
have got an aging fleet up there.
So the question for you this morning is with regards to
timeline of when the divestiture of the KC-135 would affect
Alaska, and when the delivery of the KC-46 might happen?
General Nahom. Senator, well thank you for the question.
You know, right now we are very focused on Alaska and these
additional tankers. This is a really good new story for the Air
Force. We need additional refueling capacity because the amount
of--I mean, it is the center of fifth-generation warfare in
higher Air Force, with what is going on up at Eielson with the
F-35, and certainly with the plus-up of F-22s down in
Anchorage.
Getting more for refueling capacity has been our most
immediate need. And that is why those additional four, and we
are committed to getting those four tankers there as quickly as
possible. We are just trying to build--we are assessing and
building the infrastructure around them to make sure that we
can take care of the mission, the added mission, as well as the
airmen we send up there.
Right now as we--the KC-135s are going to stay there until
we can replace them with something. We need refueling capacity
in Alaska, not just for the training on the JPARC, but also to
project the power of those platforms around the world. And in
that, in having that refueling capacity there immediately is
game-changing for us.
Now when we go to the KC-46, we are going to look at the
next two KC-46 locations for the Air National Guard in the next
year. We will assess all the locations to make sure we find the
most suitable location, and that will go through our normal
strategic basing process.
Once we get to 179 of those airplanes, we will start--we
are going to look at a bridge contract, and then we are going
to look at a follow-on tanker, to see what is the most
suitable. Eventually, those KC-135s will be replaced.
Eventually they have to, they are aging like any other platform
in the Air Force.
When that is and what that platform is, whether it is the
KC-46 or some other refueler that I cannot tell you right now.
I do know that we will have robust refueling capacity in Alaska
until that point, and then we are going to continue on with a
new platform. I just don't know exactly when that time will be,
ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. But it looks like you are very, very
focused on making sure that we don't have this gap that, in
fact, we will be able to--whether it is utilizing, perhaps KC-
46s, in kind of a rotation in and out in the interim, you are
looking at all of these as potential consideration?
General Nahom. Yes ma'am. And, you know, if you look at
Alaska too, and what you need from that, if you look at the
Pacific and how quick things can happen in the Pacific, we need
to get air power to places around the world instantaneously,
and sitting up there at Anchorage, or sitting up there at
Eielson, waiting for a tanker to come from Kaunas, is not going
to help us when we need to get air power out immediately.
And having the fifth-generation aircraft there to train at
that incredible range is wonderful, but then we have to be able
to get it out quickly. And so the additional four tankers and
increasing air refueling capacity, Alaska is one of the better
moves we made in the last year?
Senator Murkowski. Well, you know, how much I--I know you
have heard this from Senator Sullivan, but we all recognize
that this is key. We can put the assets out there, but if you
can't fly them around because you don't have the fueling,
refueling capacity, we have not helped anyone.
Let me switch subjects real quickly. And this relates to
icebreakers, Polar Security Cutters, you all know that we have
made some good investments, and momentum with the Polar
Security program. We want to make sure that we are maintaining
that course. But as we are looking to divest, to invest, if you
will, in new technologies and platforms, how are you
incorporating the Arctic domain into the planning here? And,
you know, we recognize that the Navy is certainly going to
benefit from increased Coast Guard, Polar Security Cutters, do
you need more assets up north to bolster your maritime domain
awareness in this region?
Admiral Kilby. So, ma'am, I will start. And I will ask
Admiral Crites to come in if he wants to add anything. But as
we think about new platforms, like DDG(X), understanding that
operating environment, and the reach, and where the adversary
is potentially going to be is critical for us. So we have to
make that as part of the design criteria when we develop that
ship based on our wargaming and analysis, and where we think we
are going to operate.
It looks to me like there is a couple of drivers for that
new hull form, one of them is potentially firing a conventional
prompt strike missile, or something like that, which will
require it to operate in different areas than we have in the
past, and perhaps present opportunities for us.
So we would certainly include all those operating
environments in that structure as we kind of work through that.
But DDG(X) is an important ship for us in the future, because
we need to create a ship that can be modernized. And the Flight
III is an awesome ship. It is going to be the best ship in the
world when we produce DDG-125. The availability of service life
allowance from an HM&E perspective, hull mechanical and
electrical perspective, to upgrade it to additional sensors is
challenging.
So we need a platform that can have the reserve to be
updating and supportive of new things. So I think that will be
a first opportunity for something forward-fit in the future in
the combatant realm for us to do that. Of course, our
submarines operate all over the world and provide us great
access.
Anything to add, Admiral Crites?
Admiral Crites. Yes, ma'am, thanks for the question. I
would just say that we strongly support the Coast Guards'
icebreaker fleet, as well as Polar Security Cutter. We have got
some good investments in 2022 associated with the Arctic, some
good investments in R&D that is tied to autonomous systems, and
sensing, as Admiral Kilby mentioned, submarine presence and our
ability to operate up there is important.
The National Defense Strategy that is being worked now,
there will be additional direction, I think, provided in that
document. The Secretary of Defense had highlighted that I think
in his testimony recently, and we are looking forward to seeing
that. But it is absolutely important, and we are certainly
focused there, and looking at our strategy with the Coast
Guard.
Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that.
Admiral Crites. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. I recognize that the Secretary is going
to be up in Alaska, up in the Eielson area, over the weekend on
the way to other points, so I think it is his first trip as
Secretary, and we are looking forward to his positive review
afterwards.
Thank you as chairman.
Senator Tester. Thank you. I just have one quick follow-up
question, and it follows up on something that Senator Shelby
had asked you guys that I think is very important. And that is,
how many of these proposals are divestments due to saving money
versus weapons that are simply past their prime?
Admiral Kilby. So it is a mix, sir. Cruisers are ships that
we value greatly and were originally designed for 30 years. So
of the ships that we are considering divesting of in this
budget, many of those were produced in the last budget, two are
presented in this budget, Hue City and Anzio.
So those are not, I would say, totally affordability-
driven, they are maintainability-driven, and relevance-driven.
There are some other investments, though, that we talked about
that are younger, that we could get more service life
allowance, that we made a decision, based on their
capabilities, that they would be less relevant, but there is
certainly hull life left on those.
Senator Tester. Okay.
General Nahom. And sir, from the Air Force. I would, I
would say that we are not divesting anything that we would need
for a peer fight. We are certainly, because of the budget, we
are buying things at a slower rate than we would like, fighters
are a perfect example, we are not buying fighters fast enough
to replace the fighters that are falling off due to age.
I would say, based on the budget, though, we are divesting
some systems that we could use in the interim to fill in some
of that capacity that the combatant commanders need. And that
is what we are--that is that risk piece, but we are still
trying to create that Air Force that we believe that the Nation
needs to defend our interests in the coming decades.
Senator Tester. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. General, at what point--I know you have to
think about this--will we get to where, looking at the risk in
the world to us and our allies, that we had better be careful
what we, not only divest, but how much we get for the future?
Is that a thought sometimes, every day?
General Nahom. Absolutely, sir. I am not--and I am always
concerned what we divest, because I know the combatant--what
the combatant commanders and our airmen need around the world.
I am very concerned with readiness, that we are not investing
in readiness right now, the one of my bigger concerns. But I
will tell you, I am very concerned with what we are not with--
you know, when we are talking about, you know, B-21s, or the
next-generation air dominance, you know, some of these things
are not going to be in service for 10, 12 years.
And, you know, we have got to make sure that we continue
the investment, so they do arrive. We cannot afford to bring on
the B-21 and have that--that bomber is going to be critical to
our Nation's defense. And we cannot do what we did with the B-2
and only buy 20 of them. We have got to make sure that we stay
invested in these systems moving forward. And that is a
concern, sir.
Senator Shelby. But we have to stay looking long-term at
the future, knowing China is a long-term thinker and
implementer, long-term. They sit in readiness, but the answer
is in tomorrow, and tomorrow, aren't they? Are they not?
General Nahom. Yes, sir. We obviously need to look at the
threat. And I will say the thing that gives me the most pause
when you look at the threat, you know, I have been asked, you
know, did the NDS (National Defense Strategy) back in 2018, get
it right? And I would say, yes but, I would say the threat is
accelerating much more than we would have thought back in 2018.
Senator Shelby. But we also have to think, where are we
going to be in 10 years.
General Nahom. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Because we think the Navy has always
thought, the Air Force did and the Army did, but the Navy,
especially, because of the cost and time to build ships and
submarines. So you have got to think of, say, 10 years from
now, or even 20 years. The Chinese though have the economic
base that the Soviet Union never had as far as the future
wealth to--as a nation. You can see it coming. I mean, it is
there, whether you like it or not. Is that true?
General Nahom. Yes, sir. I would say they have some
advantages, as do we. You know, we, we have a lot of partners
and allies out there that other nations don't--or that China
does not have. You know, recently we had exercise----
Senator Shelby. We do today, but we have got to think of
where are we going to be, say, 10 years from now, or 20 years.
General Nahom. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Because they are, by nature, pretty
patient, aren't they?
General Nahom. Yes, sir. You know, there are signs that,
you know, are very positive. You know, when you look at an
exercise where you have, Italian, British----
Senator Shelby. Yes.
General Nahom [continuing]. Israeli, and U.S. Marine--U.S.
Air Force, U.S. Marine, the F-35s, all operating together in a
single exercise, that is something our adversaries cannot
match. And I think there is some power in that. And I think, as
we look to the future, not just the investments, we look at our
partners and allies, and then we talk a lot about in the Air
Force about the Advanced Battle Management system, and how that
relates what the Navy is doing with overmatch, and the joint,
all-demand, command and control system, and how we share data,
and how we modernize together. I think there are--that we are
doing--we are making good investments as we look to the future,
but it is certainly something to keep an eye on. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Senator Shelby.
We, appreciate your testimony here today. Senators may
submit additional written questions and we asked if that
happens, that you respond to them in a reasonable amount of
time.
This conversation is going to continue next week. This
Defense Subcommittee will reconvene on July 28, which is a
Wednesday at 10 a.m. It will be in closed session to examine
the next-generation weapons systems in the fiscal year 2022
budget request.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Tester. Thank you, guys. I assume you are going to
be at the hearing next week. So we will see you then.
With that, this committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., Wednesday, July 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
July 28.]