[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.]