[Senate Hearing 117-889, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-889, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 AND
THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 2792
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CON-
STRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR
SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
__________
PART 4
AIRLAND
__________
JUNE 15, 22, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COTTON, Arkansas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
TIM KAINE, Virginia JONI ERNST, Iowa
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia RICK SCOTT, Florida
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
MARK KELLY, Arizona TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
Elizabeth L. King, Staff Director
John D. Wason, Minority Staff Director
_________________________________________________________________
Subcommittee on Airland
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Chair TOM COTTON, Arkansas
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada RICK SCOTT, Florida
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
June 15, 2021
Page
Army Modernization............................................... 1
Members Statements
Statement of Senator Tammy Duckworth............................. 1
Statement of Senator Tom Cotton.................................. 2
Witnesses Statements
Bush, Mr. Douglas R., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for 4
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
Murray, General John M., USA, Commanding General, Army Futures 5
Command.
Peterson, Lieutenant General Erik C., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, 7
Army G-8.
Questions for the Record......................................... 30
June 22, 2021
Modernization Efforts of the Department of the Air Force......... 33
Members Statements
Statement of Senator Tammy Duckworth............................. 33
Statement of Senator Tom Cotton.................................. 34
Witnesses Statements
Nahom, Lieutenant General David S., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 35
of the Air Force for Plans and Programs.
Questions for the Record......................................... 79
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2022 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
ARMY MODERNIZATION
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Tammy
Duckworth (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Senators Duckworth, King,
Peters, Manchin, Rosen, Kelly, Cotton, Wicker, Tillis,
Sullivan, Scott, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH
Senator Duckworth. The Airland Subcommittee will come to
order.
Before we start, I would like to say how pleased I am to
chair this Subcommittee and its oversight responsibilities of
our Nation's primary land and air forces. I look forward to
working with Senator Cotton and Committee Members as we
continue the Subcommittee's collaborative approach during this
critical time.
I think we can find broad agreement within the Subcommittee
as we confront the issues facing our soldiers and airmen and
their families. On to business. We meet today to receive
testimony on the United States Army's modernization efforts and
its fiscal year 2022 budget request.
Our witnesses this afternoon are Mr. Douglas Bush, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology; General John Murray, Commanding General, Army
Futures Command; and Lieutenant General Erik Peterson, Deputy
Chief of Staff, Army G-8. I welcome each of you and thank you
for your service and willingness to appear before us today.
The interim national security guidance states that the
United States will ensure our armed forces are equipped to
deter our adversaries, defend our people, interests, and
allies, and defeat threats that emerge. For the Army, that
means ensuring it is manned, trained, and equipped in a manner
that equals its vital role in a Joint Force and remains ready
for global employment.
Today, we are focusing on the equipping side. A few years
ago, the Army developed a clear picture of its future,
assessing requirements and identifying gaps. It then focused on
prioritizing future capabilities and modernizing enduring
systems while divesting legacy platforms. It has done so by
appropriately recognizing the importance of focusing on its
role in multidomain operations, while not losing sight of its
unique place as the preeminent land force, and it has done so
in the context of an assertive PRC [Peoples Republic of China]
and a disruptive Russia while not losing sight of full spectrum
operations.
Today, we seek updates on the Army's six modernization
priorities: long-range precision fires, next-generation combat
vehicles, Future Vertical Lift, the Army Network, Air and
Missile Defense, soldier lethality, and its rapid capabilities
development efforts in hypersonic, directed energy, indirect
fire protection, and mid-range capability. We commend the
Army's initiative in creating the concept of a multidomain task
force to address combatant commander requirements, and we are
interested in hearing about this and other operational
concepts, requirements, and modernization plans underway,
particularly, as they relate to planned or potential fore-
structure changes. We hope that you articulate how the Army's
fiscal year 2022 budget request balances modernization with
advance procurement. We are concerned about the risk the Army
is assuming by prioritizing future capability over enduring
force modernization efforts, specifically, in the areas of
aviation, wheeled- and tracked-combat vehicles, and IT
[information technology], and cybersecurity upgrades;
furthermore, we must understand the impact of these decisions
on the modernization of the Army National Guard and Army
Reserves, critical components of the total Army. Finally, the
committee is keenly interested in how the Army's budget
requests manages risk to the industrial base. I would like to
commend the Army for making bold steps in its efforts to
modernize soldier-centered practices, such as soldier
touchpoint in the prototyping phase and ``try before you buy''
partnerships with industry, seem to be the evolution the Army
needed to reset its acquisition programs. But hard decisions
lie ahead. The establishment of Army Futures Command placed
sharp focus on requirements but remains nascent. The Army must
ensure the modernization enterprise and the civilian oversight
function remains strong through leadership transitions. I have
great confidence in you all and look forward to an open and
cooperative effort in our common endeavor to continue to fuel a
world-class Army.
Senator Cotton?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
First, let me say that, of course, none of us ever want to
turn the gavel over once you have held it, as I have chaired
this Committee for the last 6 years, but is it a great honor to
turn it over to a fellow veteran and someone who is served our
Nation with distinction in uniform and now in the Senate in a
sacrifice more than most of us could ever imagine. So,
congratulations on making the chair of our Committee.
I would say that I expect to have as good a relationship
with you as I did with Senator Manchin and then with Senator
King, but obviously, I expect to have a much better
relationship with you than those two guys.
Senator Duckworth. Yes.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, General Murray, General Peterson,
thank you for being here today. Thank you for taking the time
to visit yesterday.
I also want to recognize here at the outset that yesterday
was the Army's birthday and to express my deep thanks to our
soldiers and their families and the Army's civilian
professionals for their selfless service to our Nation.
As you are all well aware, the National Defense Strategy
directs our Nation's military to prepare for great power
competition. Some might say the return of great power
competition, but I would say it never left the scene to begin
with. This means the Army must be prepared to compete with,
deter, and if necessary, decisively defeat potential
adversaries like China and Russia.
Unfortunately, the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2022 does not provide the Army the resources necessary to
accomplish this objective. The Army top line for fiscal year
2022 is nearly $4 billion lower than this year's enacted
amount. The request for procurement is nearly $3 billion lower
or 12 percent less than last year, and for funding and funding
research funding, development, test, and evaluation activities
has been slashed by almost 10 percent.
Given these cuts, the Army was forced to make a difficult
choice between a holistic force modernization effort or
concentration diminished resources on the development of future
capabilities.
While I agree with the decision by the Army to focus on its
highest modernization priorities, I am concerned, nonetheless,
that delaying modernization of assets, like the Abrams tank,
without a replacement even on the drawing board, leaves our
Nation less secure, our troops less prepared, and our Army less
ready for great power conflict.
The decision to dramatically slow the modernization of the
primary platforms used by today's soldiers is extremely
troubling.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
impacts and risks of these cuts to the Army's ability to
accomplish assigned tasks from the National Defense Strategy. I
also hope to hear our witnesses explain the crucial role that
Army forces would play in competition in conflict with China.
I am hopeful this explanation will dispel a misperception
held by some that the Indo-Pacific is primarily or even solely
an air and maritime theater of operation.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
the progress being made on the highest priority modernization
efforts for strategic competition with China and long-range
precision fires, in particular.
Thank you, again.
Senator Duckworth. I thank the Ranking Member.
Our first witness is Mr. Bush. It is good to see you again.
We have when through many NDAAs [National Defense Authorization
Act] together, well into the early morning. I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Bush?
STATEMENT OF MR. DOUGLAS R. BUSH, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bush. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cotton, distinguished Members
of the SASC [Senate Armed Services Committee] Airland
Subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to
appear before you to discuss the Army's modernization program
and the resources requested in the President's budget for
fiscal year 2022.
I am pleased to be joined today by my teammates, General
Mike Murray, and Lieutenant General Erik Peterson. We
appreciate your making our written statement as part of the
records for today's hearing.
Madam Chair, our shared mission is to ensure that the Army
continues to achieve overmatch against all potential
adversaries, ensuring that our Army can fulfill its mission to
compete successfully, deter, and if necessary, fight and win
our Nation's wars and part of the Joint Force.
We support the Army's transformation through modernization
in order to meet future challenges. Even during a global
pandemic, this past year has been one of dramatic change, rapid
innovation, shared challenges, and significant progress, with
an unprecedented unity of effort across the Army modernization
enterprise.
Next, I would like to take a moment to address the
Subcommittee's specific request for views outlined in our
invitation. First, the Committee has asked our views on the
current status of the Army's ongoing modernization efforts
across the Army's six modernization priorities, specifically
focused on 31+4 signature efforts. In this regard, I would ask
the Committee Members to review our joint witness statement
that summarizes these efforts, but I would note that they are
all fully supported by the fiscal year 2022 budget request.
Second, the Committee asked our views on how the Army's
managing risk while prioritizing future capability over
enduring force modernization efforts, especially in the area of
aviation, wheeled- and tracked-combat vehicles, and IT
cybersecurity upgrades. While difficult choice were made to
make adjustments, I think this budget request reflects a
careful balance between appropriate levels of funding for
enduring efforts, such as these, in our future modernization
goals.
Finally, the Committee asked for our views on how the
Army's fiscal year 2022 request manages risk in the industrial
base, as well as progress in reforming modernization
requirements, acquisition, and resourcing processes. First,
while no budget is without risk, I am confident that the
request before you represents what we consider acceptable risks
and manageable risks to the industrial base, as well as the
entire equipment portfolio; further, the Army modernization
community is committed to reform. We are grateful to you and
your colleagues on the Committee for form initiatives that have
been instrumental in our efforts to streamline and gain
efficiencies in the acquisition process and accelerate delivery
of equipment to soldiers.
This includes our use of middle-tier acquisition authority
for rapid prototyping, to accelerate select efforts linked to
our modernization priorities, including, among others, the
Extended Range Cannon Artillery, Integrated Visual Augmentation
System, and Next-Generation Squad Weapon. We have also used
other transaction authority or, OTAs, to help us streamline,
selectively, the acquisition research initiatives, prototype
projects, and follow-on production efforts.
In both of these areas, you have my commitment that the
Army will use these authorities conservatively and only where
needed to accomplish our modernization objectives. You also
have our commitment to ensure that appropriate Army, internal
Army oversight measures are in place to monitor our use of
these new authorities granted by Congress. Overall, I think the
fiscal year 2022 budget request for Army modernization reflects
continuity in the Army's continued commitments to its highest
priority modernization programs.
While Members will find that adjustments were made in
programs to achieve that goal, I believe that the fiscal year
2022 budget request of $34.1 billion for Army Research,
Development, and Acquisition reflects the Army's efforts at
making careful choices and supporting continued progress across
the Army's modernization priorities.
Let me close by saying that realization of our
modernization efforts is highly dependent on support of the
Army's fiscal year 2022 budget request. Investments in this
budget complement and reinforce the Army modernization efforts
you have already supported so strongly and thank you for that
support in the past. The key is predictable, adequate, and
timely sustained funding to ensure the United States Army
remains the best equipped land force in the world.
I appreciate your time today and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
General Murray, welcome, and I want to send a word of
gratitude to your wife, Jane, for being with you all these
years as you served our Nation. Thank you.
General Murray. Some days that is in doubt, ma'am.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN M. MURRAY, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL,
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
General Murray. Chair Duckworth, Ranking Member Cotton, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
soldiers and civilians of Army Futures Command, thank you for
this opportunity to testify about Army modernization.
The dedicated and selfless men and women that I serve with,
work hard every day to ensure the modernization of our Army. It
is indeed an honor to join Mr. Doug Bush here today. I would
just note that the partnership, which is absolutely critical,
between AFC [Army Futures Command] and ASA(ALT) [Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology] was strong in the past and remains strong under Mr.
Bush's dedicated leadership.
It is also an honor to join the newest member of the Army
staff and our teammate, Lieutenant General Erik Peterson, the
brand new Army G-8.
As you mentioned, the Army is in the midst of a
transformational change. This change is necessary to maintain
our global and competitive edge, to deter conflict, and if
called upon, to fight and win, as part of the Joint Force. The
Army is transforming how we fight, what we fight with, how we
organize, and how we do business, and, importantly, who we are.
Project Convergence, the Army's campaign of learning and
experimentation is informing all aspects of transformation and
I would like to take an opportunity to say just a word about
each of them.
First, we are transforming how we fight. The Army's current
concept is multidomain operations; our contribution to the
developing Joint Warfighting Concept. The Army's Training and
Doctrine Command is now in the process of transitioning
multidomain operations into Army doctrine.
At the same time, our Futures Studies Program is bringing
together concept writers, intelligence professionals, and S&T
[science and technology] experts with leading thinkers from
academia, industry, and other communities, to build our next
concept.
Second, we are transforming what we fight with. Our
material modernization includes the 31+4 signature efforts
based upon our six consistent modernization priorities. Our
fiscal year 2022 request includes $11.3 billion to support
these signature efforts. Thirty-one of these efforts are led by
powerful teams comprised of our cross-functional teams, program
executive offices, and program managers, and four of these
efforts are led by the Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical
Technologies Office. Twenty-two of these capabilities with this
budget are currently projected to begin fielding over the next
4 years.
Third, we are transforming how we organize. The multidomain
task force will enable a convergence of the integration of
effects across all domains for Joint Force commanders to create
multiple dilemmas for our adversaries. Security Force
Assistance Brigades foster close partnerships with host nation
ground forces in critical locations. They give us a strong
foundation in competition and a head start in crisis and
conflict.
Fourth, we are transforming how we do business. Soldier-
centered design puts technology and prototypes into the hands
of soldiers from the operational force early so that we can
learn. Learning early changes how we generate requirements and
how we partner with both traditional and non-traditional
industry. Our Army Applications Lab is spearheading effective
ways to work with non-traditional innovators, leveraging
existing authorities to make it easier to work with the Army.
Fifth, and maybe most importantly, we are transforming who
we are. We are exploring how best to find, train, utilize, and
importantly, retain the tech talent we know we will need for a
future fight. Our Artificial Intelligence Integration Center
works with Carnegie Mellon University to offer data science
courses, to grow software designers and engineers, and to
foster a more technologically savvy workforce. Our software
factory takes soldiers from any career field with the right
aptitude and grows them into skilled coders.
We are in the process of transforming almost every aspect
of our Army. There are, however, two key things that we must
hold onto; that would be our purpose and our most precious
resource: our people.
Our fiscal year 2022 budget request builds on the
consistent priorities and strong momentum of our 2021 request.
Stable and consistent funding from Congress supports our
ability to serve our Nation, take care of our people, and
continue the momentum of our modernization efforts.
Thank you for your consistent support of our Army, your
consistent support of our soldiers and their families, and
thank you for having me here today.
It is an honor and a privilege to lead and represent the
soldiers, civilians, and families of Army's Futures Command,
and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, General.
General Peterson, it is good to have a fellow aviator here,
but I am not giving you preferential treatment.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ERIK C. PETERSON, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMY G-8
Lieutenant General Peterson. Thank you, Chair Duckworth.
Ranking Member Cotton, distinguished Members of this Senate
Armed Services Committee, Airland Subcommittee, thanking for
the opportunity to appear and testify regarding the Army's
fiscal year 2022 modernization efforts. Thank you, as well, for
your enduring support of our soldiers, civilians, and families,
as they play their vital role in the defense of our Nation; a
role that they have played for 246 years as of yesterday, our
Army birthday.
Our requested investments in modernization in fiscal year
2022 reflect our deliberate 3-going-on-4-year effort to
accelerate focused modernization and place transformational
capabilities in the hands of our soldiers. These capabilities
firmly support our National Defense Strategy and our interim
defense guidance and contribute directly to the Joint Force's
ability to deter, and when called upon, fight, and win
decisively.
They reduce risk imposed by increasingly aggressive
competitors and foes and will help us achieve the decisive
overmatch that we need. To that end, we remain committed to our
six modernization priorities and the 31+4 overarching efforts
aligned with those priorities and that commitment, combined
with several years of ruthless prioritization, constant
reassessment and re-evaluation, and your sustained support,
promises to bring over 20 new important capabilities to bear in
the next 4 years.
Through teamwork, engaged senior leadership, refinement of
process and authorities and resources you have granted us, we
continue to accelerate. From refined requirements processes and
the responsible employment of other transactional authorities
to experimentation, prototyping, and soldier-centered design,
the transformation you are helping us with is being brought to
bear.
The progress is not without risk. Several years of ruthless
prioritization, eliminating, reducing, and deferring lower-
priority and less-necessary efforts, as well as divesting of
legacy capabilities, has left little flexibility in our top
line.
We made the easy choices the first couple of years of this
effort. We are now well into the realm of hard choices, really-
hard choices, and downright excruciating choices; as such, we
ask for your continued, engaged support and its predictable
authorizations and resources on time to help us maintain this
transformation.
In closing, I would like to offer one additional brief
thanks and that is to your staffs, committee, and personal, who
professionally facilitate the engagement necessary to advance
our common commitment to the defense of our Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear and I look forward
to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Douglas R. Bush,
General John M. Murray, and Lieutenant General Erik Peterson
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Mr. Douglas R. Bush, General John M.
Murray, and Lieutenant General Erik Peterson
introduction
Chair Duckworth, Ranking Member Cotton, distinguished Members of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland, thank you for your
continued support and enduring commitment to our soldiers, our
civilians, and their families. On behalf of the Secretary of the Army,
the Honorable Christine Wormuth, and the Army Chief of Staff, General
James C. McConville, we thank you for the invitation to appear before
you today.
Our shared mission is to make sure that the Army continues to
achieve overmatch against all potential adversaries, ensuring that our
Army can fulfill its mandate to compete successfully, deter, and, if
necessary, fight and win our Nation's wars as part of the Joint Force.
We support the Army's transformation through persistent
modernization in order to meet future challenges. Even during a global
pandemic, this past year has been one of dramatic change, rapid
innovation, shared challenges, and significant progress with an
unprecedented unity of effort across the Army modernization enterprise.
The Army is boldly transforming to provide the Joint Force with the
speed, range, and convergence of the cutting edge technologies that
will be needed to provide future decision dominance and overmatch for
great-power competition.
The Army is transforming how we fight, what we fight with, how we
organize, how we do business, and who we are. We are already realizing
the benefits of these efforts. Your support of our fiscal year 2022
budget request will ensure we are able to achieve persistent
modernization.
the strategic environment
The Interim National Security Strategic Guidance highlights an
increasingly assertive People's Republic of China and increasingly
disruptive behavior from Russia. China is
our pacing threat. Both states are applying all instruments of
national power, including military modernization as they compete
aggressively with the United States.
China is progressing in artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and
cyber. Advancements in hypersonics add to its strategic reach,
endangering some of our traditional force projection assets. Both China
and Russia have also committed to an increased pace and scope of
military exercises, honing their joint warfighting capability, while
China went through a large scale restructure and change of leadership
to reinforce and enhance its modernization goals.
In addition to these traditional threats, the United States is
facing increased competition in the Arctic, challenges resulting from
climate change, and the prospect of future pandemics. The Army's
modernization efforts take these new realities into account as we
define capability requirements and develop new concepts.
how we fight
Our Multi-Domain Operations concept describes how we fight--by
continuously converging effects across all domains, at the speed of
relevance. We are in the process of transitioning this concept to
doctrine in order to ensure the Army is capable and ready to support
Joint Force operations. At the same time, we are working to develop the
future concept based on future threat assessments, emerging Science and
Technology (S&T), and experimentation. We established ``Team Ignite''
in order to create feedback loops among these efforts and inform how we
will fight in the future.
what we fight with
The Army remains committed to our six consistent modernization
priorities: Long Range Precision Fires, Next Generation Combat Vehicle,
Future Vertical Lift, Network, Air and Missile Defense, and Soldier
Lethality. In fiscal year 2022, the Army continues to focus on building
a multi-domain force by divesting some equipment that does not support
future warfighting capabilities.
We are grateful to Congress for the stable funding provided to
support our modernization efforts. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget Request continues to fund our six priorities, as we aggressively
pursue our ``31+4'' signature modernization systems.
The fiscal year 2022 budget builds on the progress we have made
across all modernization priorities to align requirements developers
with acquisition experts and representatives from the testing,
logistics, science and technology, and other communities, dramatically
reducing the time span from identification of a capability gap to
prototype testing and operational experimentation. Within each area, we
highlight our recent progress, our partnership, and the way forward
with continued, steady funding.
The Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) Cross-Functional
Team (CFT) is partnered with Program Executive Office (PEO) Missiles
and Space:
The Army's Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) can
now shoot in the 70 kilometer range with accuracy. We are on track to
field the first ERCA battalion in fiscal year 2023.
We had a successful and accurate flight test of our
Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) in 1st quarter fiscal year 2020. We
will begin fielding PrSM in fiscal year 2023.
The Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies
Office (RCCTO) continues to make progress in delivering the first
hypersonics battery in fiscal year 2023. Working closely with the CFTs,
RCCTO manages the development and production of the Army's hypersonics
effort, the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). With a successful
flight test in March 2019, the program has additional joint flight
tests planned in fiscal year 2021-23 to validate the Common Hypersonic
Glide body design, the Army launcher and the Command and Control
system. Also, later this year, RCCTO will field the road mobile, C-17
transportable prototype battery to an operational unit, minus the
missiles. This will allow the unit's soldiers to start training with
the equipment so they are ready when the missiles arrive in fiscal year
2023, providing the Army with a hypersonic capability.
Additionally, RCCTO received the Mid-Range Capability
(MRC) mission in July 2020, which leverages existing Service missiles,
software, and hardware to fill a critical capability gap identified by
the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM). The MRC prototype will be
fielded to an operational battery in fiscal year 2023.
The Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) CFT is
partnered with PEO Ground Combat Systems:
. The decision to revisit the characteristics, acquisition
strategy, and schedule of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle
(OMFV)--very early in its cycle--is the type of decisive action that
working as an integrated team enables. We remain committed to the OMFV
program. The need for this ground combat vehicle capability is real. It
is imperative we get it right for our soldiers.
The Robotic Combat Vehicle will undergo increasingly
rigorous experiments and capability demonstrations between fiscal year
2022 and fiscal year 2024, with a decision to procure or reassess no
later than fiscal year 2024.
The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle is currently fielding
and is an adaptable and more survivable general-purpose, mortar
carrier, medical evacuation, medical treatment, and mission command
vehicle that replaces the 1960s-era M113 Family of Vehicles.
In 4th quarter fiscal year 2025, we are on track to
deliver the first fielding of Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) and to
give our light infantry much needed firepower.
The Future Vertical Lift (FVL) CFT is partnered with PEO
Aviation:
Following the successful firing of a SPIKE Non-Line of
Sight (NLOS) missile from an AH-64E Apache in 4th quarter fiscal year
2019, we will achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal
year 2023 with three Combat Aviation Brigades. This capability extends
range by four times over our current HELLFIRE missiles.
The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) closes
the gap left by retirement of the Kiowa. Two prototypes will fly in
fiscal year 2023, followed by a year-long flight demonstration.
The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) will
replace part of the UH-60 Black Hawk fleet with increased speed, range,
payload, and endurance. We expect initial FLRAA prototypes in fiscal
year 2025.
FVL will leverage advances in Unmanned Aircraft System
(UAS) technology to develop the Shadow replacement and Air Launched
Effects, which includes a wide array of payloads and extended
communication mesh networks with a fielding plan in fiscal year 2025.
The Network CFT is partnered with PEO Command, Control,
Communications-Tactical:
We are currently fielding Capability Set 21, including
commercial radio, satellite communications, and cross domain solutions
of the Integrated Tactical Network to four Infantry Brigade Combat
Teams in fiscal year 2021, and a newly modernized, agile, and scalable
tactical network transport tool suite to three Expeditionary Signal
Battalions-Enhanced. These capabilities allow our commanders greater
connectivity options, make the network more intuitive for our soldiers,
and increase interoperability with allies and partners. Soldier
feedback and experimentation will inform continued fielding of
Capability Set 21 in fiscal year 2022, as well as Capability Set 23.
Congruent with Network modernization, the Army is
seeking to modernize Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to meet
current and emerging threats by providing the Joint Force with
advanced, assured positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems.
Included are modernized receivers that meet Congressional mandates to
transition to M-code GPS and integrate alternative PNT technologies for
our ground combat platforms, dismounted soldiers, precision weapons and
munitions, and aviation systems.
We are currently fielding the first generation mounted
assured PNT systems to our forward deployed formations with a second
generation ready for fielding no later than fiscal year 2023. We are in
the process of evaluating solutions for dismounted soldiers and
continuing work on precision weapons and aviation variants. The Army
recently approved development of Navigation Warfare tools to ensure
that Army forces have continued access to this critical part of the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Additionally, the Army continues to invest in the
ground segments of space-based technologies that close operational gaps
in deep sensing and targeting activities. We are coordinating with
partners in the intelligence community, the Space Force, and private
industry to enhance Army access to Low Earth Orbit space-based sensing
and link with national level capabilities to provide tactical-level
sensor-to-shooter capability to combat formations.
The Air and Missile Defense (AMD) CFT is partnered with
PEO Missiles and Space:
The Army's integrated Air and Missile Defense
capabilities will protect Joint Forces from enemy aircraft, missiles,
and drones to enable operational effectiveness. This includes both
theater and short-range air defense systems like the Maneuver-Short
Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD). The Army just fielded the first unit, 5th
Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment in Europe and will have
four battalions equipped by fiscal year 2023.
RCCTO continues to make progress on its Directed Energy
Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) effort, a 50 kilowatt
(kW)-class laser on a Stryker, scheduled to conduct a combat shoot-off
later this summer at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. This will be the directed
energy component of the M-SHORAD battery, and the DE M-SHORAD
prototypes with residual combat capability that will be delivered at
the platoon level in fiscal year 2022.
There have also been advancements made in relation to
directed energy development for Indirect Fire Protection Capability
(IFPC), which pairs high-energy lasers with high-power microwaves for
fixed and semi-fixed defense. RCCTO is leveraging Office of the
Secretary of Defense and Air Force investments for a 300 kW-class IFPC-
High Energy Laser, and IFPC-High-Power Microwave directed energy
capabilities that will be delivered at the platoon level in fiscal year
2024. These directed energy weapons are a strategic tool in the fight
against modern battlefield threats. This spring, the Army will conduct
a shoot-off to inform our decision on the enduring IFPC solution.
The Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) IOC
is 3rd quarter fiscal year 2022, with fielding on track for one
battalion. An integral part of AIAMD, the Integrated Air and Missile
Defense Battle Command System (IBCS), is a revolutionary command-and-
control system that streamlines sensor-to-shooter linkages for air and
missile defense engagements.
As directed by Congress, we are preparing for an
initial deployment of the Interim Cruise Missile Defense Capability at
the end of fiscal year 2021.
The Soldier Lethality CFT is partnered with PEO Soldier:
The Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) is a
good example of a departure from the traditional requirements process.
We are working with Microsoft Corporation in three-week sprints, going
directly to soldiers in each of the sprints to refine the product and
make sure we get it right. This approach led to a significant reduction
in the estimated delivery schedule to soldiers, and we are on track for
delivery to the first unit by 1st quarter fiscal year 2022.
We equipped the first unit with the Enhanced Night
Vision Goggle-Binocular (ENVG-B (Directed Requirement)) September 2019,
with five brigades equipped by March 2021. The ENVG-B (Program of
Record) is scheduled to field the first unit in 2nd quarter fiscal year
2022.
In 4th quarter fiscal year 2022, we will equip the
first unit with the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGWS) Rifle and
Automatic Rifle, as well as General Purpose Ammo and an improved sight
system.
Additionally, our Synthetic Training Environment CFT
has already put prototypes of One World Terrain (OWT) in the hands of
units. More than just imagery, it provides a 3D representation of the
entire earth that we can integrate into simulation. When paired with
IVAS, it will allow our soldiers to simulate any location on the planet
right from their combat goggles. OWT has also shown how it can be used
operationally to help forward-deployed units identify locations to
harden their security posture and improve the protection of their
soldiers.
Our budget request also includes support for research in nine S&T
priority areas: disruptive energetics, RF electrical materials,
quantum, hypersonic flight, AI, autonomy, synthetic biology, material
by design, and advanced manufacturing. Our investments in S&T are
helping solve problems in each of the modernization priority areas, as
well as identify future opportunities.
Finally, the Army is pursuing clean energy initiatives to reduce
the Army's carbon footprint and its reliance on fossil fuels. Key
initiatives include the development of improved power generation
sources, the electrification of small air and ground robotics systems,
and advancements in fuel efficiency for both current and future
programs. For example, we are developing the technology to obtain
better fuel efficiency for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle,
generators, and heating and cooling systems. We are also investing in
the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which we believe will
improve fuel efficiency for future Army aviation assets.
how we organize
We are developing new organizations as we transition from
modernization concepts to tangible sources of strategic readiness. The
Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) is one example, providing long range
precision fires in conflict and long range precision effects in
competition. During INDOPACOM's Pacific Fury 21 exercise, the MDTF
validated its ability to synchronize long range fires and effects with
the Joint Force.
The Army uses AimPoint 2035 to describe what our future force will
look like. We are refining those descriptions through experimentation
and analysis of the impact emerging technology will have on the
character of war. The investments are included in the fiscal year 2022
budget request and will inform the changes we need to provide a combat
credible force of the future.
how we do business
(ASA)ALT, AFC, and G-8 are key stakeholders in the Army
modernization enterprise, along with other organizations across the
entire Army, including HQDA staff and other Army commands. AFC, under
the strategic direction of HQDA, develops and delivers future concepts,
requirements, and organizational designs based on its assessment of the
future operating environment. AFC plays an essential role in developing
system characteristics, informed by experimentation and technical
demonstrations, and refining these characteristics into requirements.
ASA(ALT) develops, acquires, and fields materiel solutions that meet
the operational requirements defined by AFC and others, and acts as the
acquisition decision authority throughout the acquisition lifecycle. G-
8 is the day-to-day manager of the requirements approval process and
the developer of the Project Objective Memorandum (or ``POM'') at the
Headquarters, Department of the Army, in concert with ASA(ALT) and AFC.
Each of the Army's eight CFTs bring together representatives from
all key stakeholder communities--scientists and technologists,
operators, requirements experts, logisticians, and industry--in
collaboration with their partner PEOs. The partnership among ASA(ALT),
AFC, and G-8 also provides a unique opportunity for close collaboration
between the CFTs, ASA(ALT)'s PEOs, and G-8's System Synchronization
Officers to bring system concepts and designs to life, along with the
appropriate level of funding. With the strong partnerships between the
CFTs and PEOs, the responsible PEOs assign and oversee the program
managers for all ``31+4'' signature systems. This close working
relationship between the CFTs and the PEOs is extremely valuable: the
acquisition community contributes to AFC's operational requirements
development process and the CFTs participate in deliberation over
acquisition strategies, while each organization retains its own
responsibilities.
Soldier Centered Design drives the entire process. Taken from
industry best practices, this concept allows the Army to get feedback
from soldiers and commanders early in the development process. This is
accomplished by getting equipment into the hands of soldiers from the
operational force early, through Soldier Touchpoints, in order to
refine the requirements before we even start to write requirement
documents and significant investments are made.
Speeding up the staffing of requirements documents has been key to
shortening the overall time line from idea to fielding. We
significantly reduced the amount of time to staff and approve
requirements documents since 2018, where it took an average of 245
days, to 119 days in fiscal year 2020, and we intend to reduce the
staffing time by another 20 percent this year.
Project Convergence is the Army's campaign of learning and
experimentation. Working closely with our counterparts from the other
Services, we identify Joint warfighting problems to solve. We use the
Army's Joint Systems Integration Lab and experimentation events ``in
the dirt'' to test together and ensure we can connect them.
Project Convergence informs the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint
All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) and the Joint Warfighting
Concept (JWC).
Congress has called on DOD to forge new partnerships with both
commercial industry and small businesses to develop adaptive approaches
and apply innovative contracting tools in support of modernization. The
establishment of the Army Application Lab allows us to both attract
nontraditional technology firms to solve Army problems and make the
Army a preferred business partner while increasing the return on our
investment. As an example, we have been able to reduce the award times
for Small Business Innovative Research contracts from 224 days to just
25 days, removing a significant barrier to entry for many small,
innovative companies.
The Army continues to implement the reform initiatives granted by
Congress, which were designed to streamline and gain efficiencies in
the acquisition process. These initiatives, which have reduced
bureaucracy and helped the Army accelerate the delivery of capability
to the field, include the granting of Middle Tier Acquisition Authority
(MTA) which allows for both rapid prototyping and rapid fielding
efforts, and the expanded use of Other Transactional Authority (OTA),
which now can be extended to include production. The Army is using MTA
for rapid prototyping to accelerate select efforts linked to the Army's
modernization priorities, including ERCA, IVAS, Lower Tier Air and
Missile Defense Sensor, PrSM, NGSW, and MPF, each of which is designed
to leave a residual capability with the warfighter that can enable
constructive feedback and refinement of requirements. The Army
effectively utilizes OTA to streamline the acquisition of basic through
advanced research activities, prototype projects, and follow-on
production efforts. OTAs are simplified contract mechanisms that lend
themselves to working with small companies and non-traditional
contractors, two known sources of technological innovation. The Army
used OTAs to more quickly award contracts in support of the Federal
Response to COVID-19. In fiscal year 2020, the Army awarded more than
1,300 agreements valued at $13.7 billion.
In addition, in the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization
Act, Congress encouraged delegation of Milestone Decision Authority
(MDA) for most acquisition programs from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to the Military Departments. The Army further delegated MDA for
some of these programs to the PEO level and below when appropriate.
This delegation allows the Army to appropriately align program
oversight with risk, resulting in reduced bureaucracy and increased
efficiency.
All of these initiatives, combined with AFC's integrated governance
process, allows for better and faster modernization decisions and
faster requirements development.
who we are
Army transformation is more than weapon systems and equipment. It
also involves people. Ultimately, people are the Army's foundation and
our greatest strength. It is critically important that we recruit,
develop, and retain talent for the current and future force. To that
end, the Army is moving to a 21st century talent management system to
ensure people feel they are valued members of the team. Additionally,
the Army has established digital talent initiatives to ensure our
workforce is trained to effectively apply the technologies being
developed. The Software Factory, for example, is increasing the Army's
digital proficiencies while leveraging agile Development, Security, and
Operations practices and cloud technologies to build organic software.
Through partnerships with Carnegie Mellon University, the Army's
Artificial Intelligence Integration Center (AI2C) is developing data
science and AI expertise to ensure proficiency in the applications and
ethics of AI and machine learning.
With the right people, with the right skills, in the right places,
we can successfully--and persistently--modernize the Army.
conclusion
The Army is nearly three years into the biggest transformational
change since the early 1980s, modernizing and building a multi-domain-
capable force that delivers speed, range, and convergence of emerging
technologies. The Army, to be clear, will never be ``done''
modernizing. We are laying the foundation now to make sure the Army
continues to modernize for the future of 2035, and for the one after
that.
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss Army Modernization
and for your strong support of our soldiers, Army civilians, and their
families. We look forward to your questions.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
We will begin with our first round of questions. I will
begin first. General Murray, Secretary of Defense Austin has
made it clear that the PRC is the top priority, that it is the
pacing threat to our Nation's defense, but many suggest that
the primary warfighting roles in the Pacific belong to the Navy
and the Air Force.
What role does the Army play in the Pacific and how does
Army modernization support the Army's ability to play at that
role?
General Murray. Madam Chair, thank you for that question.
Obviously, I have a pretty strong opinion on the Army's
role, not only in the Pacific, but anyplace the Joint Force
goes, and I would just start by saying, you know, your military
never fights as a single service; we always fight as a Joint
Force. The Army's role, I believe, in INDOPACOM [Indo-Pacific
Command], specifically, spans the spectrum you talked about
from competition through crisis and into conflict, and I think
we have an especially important role to play in terms of
deterrence.
I mentioned the Security Force Assistance Brigades and the
partner, the ability to build partners, and partner capacity up
front. The partnerships with countries with your United States
Army with countries throughout INDOPACOM is very strong and it
gets stronger.
As the secretary mentioned this morning, the chiefs of
defense in many of those countries are land force commanders
and those partnerships and General McConville has been very
engaged and proactive in strengthening those partnerships
throughout INDOPACOM.
I would say from one aspect, in particular, is the joint
service and all joint services, in order to operate, depend
upon the Army for logistics support. So, that is a strong role,
no matter what phase of the operation you are in, is the
logistics support.
Then, specifically, as it relates to the modernization
priorities, obviously long-range precision fires, when we
started the concept called multidomain operations, it was based
upon the premise that the Army could use long-range fires to
begin to break down what we call anti-access/area denial
strategies and really enable the Joint Force and really enable
joint fires, operating as a Joint Force.
Then, of course, the multidomain task force brings together
not only lethal capabilities, but also electronic warfare,
cyber intelligence capabilities that are useful in competition,
through crisis, and into conflict.
Then I would just lastly add that we are already there. So,
the last time I checked, South Korea and Japan were part of the
INDOPACOM AOR [Indo-Pacific Command] [Area of Responsibility]
and we have sizable populations within those two locations.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I actually just returned from
South Korea where I met with General Abrams and had a very,
very productive visit.
I understand that the Joint Staff is working on a new Joint
Warfighting Concept. DOD [Department of Defense] just released
a new joint, all-domain command, and control strategy. You have
already referenced this, and as the Airland Subcommittee, we
are also paying careful attention to the Air Force's work on
their Advanced Battle Management System.
How do the Army's modernization efforts, including Project
Convergence, support these broader joint efforts?
General Murray. Yes, ma'am, and thank you, again, for that
question.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, we believe
multidomain operations, as we turn this into doctrine, is not
only our contribution to the joint warfighting concept, but it
actually is or will become part of it. We are hoping to inform
that exercise, and that is from a concept standpoint.
From a Project Convergence standpoint, last year, we
executed Project Convergence and it was an Army-only, because
we pulled it together pretty quickly. This year, beginning in
December, we formed a, at the three-star level, a joint board
of directors that includes not only all four, and now five
services, because the Space Force has now joined us, but also
the Joint Staff J-6, who is responsible for the JADC2 [Joint
All-Domain Comand and Control] concept at the Joint Staff
level, and the Joint Staff J-7, who is responsible for the
Joint Warfighting Concept.
Those two responsibilities, nobody is trying to take that
away from the Joint Staff or the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council. What we are trying to do is come together as the
services and begin to inform not only the concept of JADC2, but
the concept of joint warfighting from the bottom up, and so,
the services working together, meeting someplace in the middle
with the top-down work to Joint Staff is doing, we believe, is
the best way to come up with a viable Joint Warfighting Concept
and a viable concept for Joint All-Domain Command and Control.
Senator Duckworth. General Peterson, the President's
defense budget requests for fiscal year 2022 puts some pressure
on the Army top line and Army leadership as testified about the
need to make tough choices. You were saying you are into the
excruciating-choices level at this point.
What does that mean for the Army's ability to protect its
31+4 signature modernization efforts?
Lieutenant General Peterson. Thank you, Chair Duckworth.
The 2022 budget request does, in fact, protect our 31+4. We
have continued our deep-dive process, formerly known as night
court, to realign resources to ensure we retain, and in some
cases, accelerate momentum with the 31+4. But it is
challenging. These are tough choices with respect to the
resourcing and funding of enduring and legacy systems and we
work very, very closely to assess that risk and ensure that it
is manageable.
During our process for fiscal year 2022, we gleaned a
realignment of $1.6 billion through our very, very
excruciating, continued, rigorous realignment of funding in
order to continue to support those modernization priorities.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Let's continue down the track
that Senator Duckworth started us on about the Army in the
Pacific, especially in conflict against China.
General Murray, could you elaborate a little bit on the
roles and the importance of land-based, long-range fires in the
Pacific and why it is so vital that we modernize and procure
those systems.
General Murray. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for the
birthday wish, and happy birthday to the State of Arkansas, 185
years today, I understand, if I am not mistaken.
It really goes back to the beginning of what I described as
multidomain operations. We understood the significant
modernization that China was undergoing, not only in its ground
forces, but really across all of its services, and we
understood, as we studied it, this concept of anti-access/area
denial. I sat in this room with H.R. McMaster, and you heard
when you were chair, we were outranged and outgunned.
The beginning of the breaking down that anti-access/area
denial layer to enable the Joint Force, we believe, begins with
long-range precision fires. We also believe that multidomain
effects, better known for the Army as mid-ranged capability,
the ability to target from land, either moving terrestrial or
moving targets afloat, is key to the ability to begin to break
down that protective bubble, that operational defense, if you
will, and really open up apertures or corridors for the rest of
the Joint Force to exploit.
Senator Cotton. Why is it so important that the Army and
the Marine Corps, once ashore, have that capability? Why is the
Navy and the Air Force not enough?
General Murray. Because I believe that multiple dilemmas,
any opponent, the more dilemmas you can present to an opponent,
they can focus on a single threat and it allows them to focus
on that single threat. So, the more dilemmas you can present,
the more angles you can come at on opponent from, and the
terrain does offer you an advantage in terms of places to hide
and places to maneuver that the sea and the air don't
necessarily give you.
Senator Cotton. You can keep a lot more of the big guns
there, right?
General Murray. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. A lot easier to store those things on a
piece of ground than it is on a ship or an airplane.
General Murray. A lot easier to resupply them.
Senator Cotton. Also, I noticed, not just the Army, but the
Marine Corps has been investing heavily in that kind of long-
range precision strike capability. There are some skeptics.
Can you tell me what is the status of this question between
the services and the chairman and the Department's civilian
leadership.
General Murray. I hate to speak for the chairman and the
leadership at OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] level--
--
Senator Cotton. They told me you could.
General Murray. I doubt that.
[Laughter.]
General Murray. At the service level, at least when we are
working through Project Convergence, there is no disagreement
on the necessity of presenting those multiple dilemmas.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Mr. Bush, I want to turn now to the big question, though,
which is the top line budget. It was cut by $4 billion last
year, and as we heard in the testimony already, the Army was in
front of this Subcommittee over the last 2 years talking about
how hard it was working through the night court process to find
some extra pennies and nickels under underneath Uncle Sam's
cushions.
So, obviously, cutting $4 billion from the top line this
year, which includes a 10 percent cut from the Research,
Development, and Acquisition (RD&A) account is going to put
severe strain on Army's modernization efforts.
Could you just explain to us how it is going to be possible
to cut $4 billion, 10 percent out of RD&A to sustain the
modernization equipping requirements after we have heard for
the last 2 years of how close we were already blade-running on
these efforts. I mean, it seems to me we are well beyond fat
and even muscle, and now moving deep into the bone.
Mr. Bush. Of course, Senator.
For starting, the math is the math. It is a $173 billion
Army budget. R&D [Research and Development] procurement is only
$34 billion of that, so 20 percent. So, from an affordability
standpoint, future leaders and Congress can, of course,
consider how that mixes within the Army. So, the choices we had
to make in the equipping area, as you pointed out, sir, do show
those reductions, primarily in R&D and procurement, as the top
line was reduced. So, sir, how did we do that?
We did accept risk in some areas of the budget in terms of
slowing down things, such as Abrams modernization and other
things, in an effort to protect the highest interests. Sir, you
have seen the budget. You have seen what we did and how those
choices were balanced and the Army and those members will form
their own views about those choices that we made.
But there was an attempt to do that wisely, to not damage
the industrial base as part of that, and to not place undue
risk, while there is always some risk, on the operational
force, by slowing down modernization efforts outside 31+4.
Senator Cotton. I worry that the most immediate impact is
going to be on those, what we call enduring capabilities,
things like the Abrams tank or the Paladin Howitzer, and I know
we use terms like accept risk there, but what that means is
that our soldiers are out there working those tanks and those
guns right now are going to have either older equipment or
equipment that is less well-maintained or less training time on
that equipment; is that right?
Mr. Bush. In some cases, sir, yes.
Parts of the Army have always had different equipment than
other parts. Even in the 1980s, Europe was the priority. People
back in the States had less-modern equipment, but striking that
balance is not an easy one, sir. The Army has tried to maintain
essential modernization so that war plans and other things can
be met with the right equipment and the best equipment at the
right time.
Senator Cotton. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Senator Hawley?
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your service to
our country.
I want to start, Mr. Bush, if I could, with the Missouri
question from my home state. Missouri is the proud home of the
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
So, let me ask you about the plant and the timeline to
establish a 6.8 millimeter ammunition manufacturing capability
at Lake City that would support the Next-Generation Squad
Weapon and, otherwise, help us build war reserves.
Mr. Bush. Of course, Senator.
So, the first thing is, as you mentioned, the Next-
Generation Squad Weapon is an example of the Army doing things
differently and quickly. So, we are in rapid prototyping, about
to go under rapid fielding, hopefully, which will include down-
selected and ammunition type of that caliber, 6.8 million
meter, which the Army does intend to produce at Lake City
eventually.
So, initially, we will be relying on contractor production.
The 2022 budget has projects in it that lay the groundwork on-
site for the future new facilities that will produce the new
ammunition in the future. So, sir, there is going to be a
transition over 3 to 5 years, I believe. That timeline is
partly dependent on which new specific type of ammunition the
Army chooses, because each of the three vendors has a different
type of round. So, we will know more about that in the fall,
sir, once we have got a selection made.
Senator Hawley. Great. Very good. That is helpful. Thank
you.
Let me shift to some questions about the pacing theater.
Both Senator Duckworth and Senator Cotton were asking you about
this and about the Army's role in the pacing theater in
INDOPACOM and in the pacing scenario. I want to ask about the
pacing scenario.
General Murray, I want to start with you. Both Secretary of
Defense and Deputy Secretary Hicks have testified about the
pacing scenario being a Chinese fait accompli against Taiwan
and about the need for the United States to maintain an ability
to defeat that fait accompli in order to maintain effective
deterrence. That, of course, puts a premium on the Army's
ability to respond quickly to a Chinese offensive, maybe even
without any warning. So, can I just ask how Army's Futures
Command is incorporating this scenario into the capabilities
development process.
General Murray. Thank you for the question, Senator.
The Army and none of the services can build, in my case, an
Army for a specific scenario in a specific theater. We do have
global responsibilities and that explains, some of the other
things that we are doing in the budget.
Specific to the fait accompli, and it is a scenario that we
started off with, to be honest with you, when we started to
look at this, there are two sponsor to a fait accompli. You can
either prevent it through deterrence or, we believe, through
long-range fires positioned in the theater, because the
quickest way to get from Point A to Point B is already be at
Point B, or then, if that fait accompli is completed, then you
are facing a potentially long, protracted effort to reverse
their effort.
Our preference is either through deterrence or being
present in theater with the assets, primarily long-range fires,
to help convince the Chinese, number one, that today is not the
day to try this, and number two is if they do try it, to help
the rest of the Joint Force prevent that. That would be my
response.
Senator Hawley. Yeah, very good.
Can I just ask you if you agree with the Secretary,
Secretary Austin, that is, and the Deputy Secretary, that our
forces have to be able to defeat a Chinese fait accompli
scenario.
General Murray. Of course they do.
Senator Hawley. Yeah, I thought that might be your answer.
But let me ask you how you envision PrSM [Precision Strike
Missile] being used in the Pacific.
Do you envision it being deployed forward on a regular
basis or surged into theater, as needed, in the event of a
crisis or conflict?
General Murray. That is primarily up to the INDOPACOM
commander, the employment of forces. With my experience, I
could see both. As you know, for the precision strike missile,
we have already flown it 400 kilometers, which is a record for
one of our systems. Later this fall, we will shoot it from
Vanderburg and we will see how far it will actually go and
spiral to. We will incorporate a seeker to allow it to target
both, land-based and sea-based emitters.
Then we have begun, in this budget, to invest in extended-
range, which our hope is to get it out over a thousand
kilometers.
Senator Hawley. Very good.
When do you plan to field PrSM with an anti-ship warhead?
General Murray. I believe that is in 2026 or 2027.
Senator Hawley. Got it.
Do you see this becoming primarily a sea-denial asset or
doing both, sea-denial and land-attack?
General Murray. Both. Depending on which theaters you are
talking about and the role, and once again, the desires of the
combatant commander.
Senator Hawley. Very good.
Let me ask you here in my last few seconds, either for you,
General Murray or you, General Peterson, how you envision the
Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon helping the United States respond
effectively to any Chinese fait accompli against Taiwan and any
contingency. I am particularly curious in how you envision that
capability allowing us to hit time-sensitive targets, the
mobile command centers, for instance, that Chinese forces would
rely on to mount any effective invasion.
General Murray. At least the first iteration, and I think
this is true of most, if not all of the services, time-
sensitive targets become problematic just by based on the time
of flight. But if you are talking hypersonic flight, it is a
very quick launch to target, so it does help you, to a degree,
cover those distances in a time-effective manner.
The primary advantage of the hypersonic weapons that we are
developing is the range that it provides us, and we have had
one test shot. We have another test shot coming up in the not-
too-distant future. So far, successful. We stood up the unit at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state and we are
starting to deliver training equipment to them. So, we are on
track to deliver, in 2023, the first hypersonic battery.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
With the ranking Member's agreement, we will begin a second
round of questions. Thank you.
General Peterson, I am going to follow-up with the line of
questioning that the ranking Member began, which has to do with
prioritizing future capabilities at the expense of ongoing
modernization efforts.
The Army submitted a $5.5 billion in unfunded requirements.
Within that, there was this decision that had to be made to
prioritize future capabilities at the expense of ongoing
modernization efforts of enduring capabilities, which left just
under $2 billion, 1.9 billion for modernization and equipping
and unfunded requirements.
I have three questions that I would like you to answer and
I am going to give them all to you right now. What are the top
modernization projects included in this list? How are you
ensuring that enduring capabilities receive sufficient priority
through support deterrence, or if necessary, emergent
requirements?
I am worried, also, about the increasing costs of
maintenance costs of aging equipment.
Finally, how do these decisions impact the modernization
efforts and timeliness of the Army National Guard and Army
Reserves, the timelines, sorry, of the Army National Guard and
Army Reserves' modernization?
Thank you.
Lieutenant General Peterson. Chair Duckworth, in reverse
order, if I may. First, the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve, in some cases, we do slow modernization across the
entire, total Army force, be that with aviation efforts or our
ABCTs [Armored Brigade Combat Teams], based on these tough
choices that we have alluded to.
Each and every one of our forces will pay some of those
bills across the board. As you may be aware, in the aviation
portfolio, we will retain the older versions of the Apaches in
the Active force, actually longer than we will in the National
Guard, and we will divest of the older Blackhawks in the
National Guard earlier than we will in the Active force. So,
there is not a disproportionate burden being borne by our
multicombo teammates and partners here; these are informed
decisions across the board as we spread the pain, if you will.
With respect to our enduring investments, there are
multiple cuts in the reflected, for restorals if the resources
are available in the Chief's UFR [unfunded requirements] list.
We have several of the enduring systems involving our ABCTs
that we reflect. Those are our prime, heavy-fighting forces
that are at rate there, that we do ask for your consideration,
and those would be the primary ones in the enduring forces. We
will have our ABCTs, our heavy forces and the elements of
those, and our striker forces for an extended period of time.
With respect to the modernization priorities that are here,
there are many opportunities for acceleration; again, we funded
them appropriately to meet the needs and keep them on plan. The
requests in the Chief's UFR list are for opportunities for
acceleration.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Bush, maturing technologies to an appropriate level is
critical to ensuring that the systems delivered to soldiers
function as expected and provide the capabilities required.
How is the Army ensuring technologies are demonstrated in
an operational environment before they are transitioned to a
program of record, and please describe how the Army decision-
process has sufficient dexterity to ensure iterative technology
development is included, even after transition to that program
of record status. Thank you.
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator.
So, in the first part, I think the Army, as you have seen,
the Army is taking a new approach over the last few years with,
rather than the traditional process, going to more of a
prototyping first, then determining requirements, then going
into production, with soldiers involved in that prototyping
phase to ensure that the requirements reflect what the needs of
the service are.
That transition from prototyping at different levels of
fidelity to actual production is the difficult part of this new
approach. So, the key thing we are doing is working
collaboratively with General Murray's team and my team, is to
make sure that those handovers between prototyping and actual
production are planned well in advance.
The teams work together to make sure it is not being thrown
over the fence, but rather, worked together through the process
to make sure we go from a prototype to a production system in a
way that is responsible and is properly tested.
So, one of my personal commitments to you is to ensure that
the testing, especially operational and safety testing, no
corners are cut in that regard, even those we are trying to go
quickly.
Ma'am, if I could on the requirements part, I would defer
to General Murray for a little more color there.
General Murray. Ma'am, just a very quick example. So, two
systems are handheld radios and the new Manpack radio. You talk
about an operational environment, we deployed them with the
unit to the Joint Readiness Training Center and we had testers
and evaluators with the unit at the Joint Readiness Training
Center to get after exactly what you talked about. This is an
example.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Senator Manchin?
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
General Murray, the Army has used the Reserves and National
Guard forces extensively for over 20 years to support the
global war on terror, however, I am concerned that they have
not adapted to supporting them with the same training and
assets as if they were an Active component. I will give you an
example.
There are 8 Army National Guard Combat Aviation Brigades
with 4 battalions of AH-64 Apache helicopters, each only manned
by 18 aircraft, instead of the 24 typical of an Active Duty
battalion. The number used to be higher with eight battalions
of Apaches, all manned with 24 at one time.
The reduction, itself, was a blow to readiness for the
National Guard, but we have heard that the Army now plans to
phase out its own supply of D-model Apaches, without offering
conversions of those aircraft to National Guard, which would
bring the brigades back to full strength.
So, is there any reason why they can't be transferred to
the National Guard, those aircraft?
General Murray. You know, I am going to ask General
Peterson, an aviator to chime in here, Senator.
The one thing I will say before I turn it over to him is,
at least from our perspective, when you look at things like
rearm, which I know came up in this morning's hearings, as
well, the Army views that as compo-agnostic. So, regardless of
compo, the unit that is going first, give it a war plan, give
it a contingency, gets the most modern equipment the Army can
possibly provide.
A lot of the Echo model that you are talking about, which
is replacing the Delta, is a conversion, so my guess is units
across the Army are short as we send Delta models back to the
factory to be refurbished as Echoes.
Senator Manchin. Go ahead.
Lieutenant General Peterson. Senator, I apologize if
somehow a disinformation campaign struck there.
The bottom line is, we are absolutely committed to staying
on track to completely fielding our National Guard----
Senator Manchin. Back to 24?
Lieutenant General Peterson. Absolutely. We are committed
and we are resourced to do so.
Currently, the plan is to field the, to buy out the AH-64E
by 2025 with fielding in the next couple of years. The Active
component will retain two D-model equipped units. But the Guard
will be fully resourced with their full battalions and the most
modern capability.
Senator Manchin. That is good news.
Lieutenant General Peterson. We are not diverting from
that. That is not a new plan. We are rigidly sticking to it and
our----
Senator Manchin. I have no idea how the absolutely
erroneous information got out, but we will try to track it
back, to help get the culprit.
Let me ask this question, if I can, General Peterson, this
is probably for you, too, the Army's future fighting force
method has been to strengthen existing alliances, develop new
partnerships, increase readiness, and build a more lethal
force.
Every day I am reminded how vulnerable we are from the
cyber, and I am on the Cyber Committee and chair that
subcommittee, and I am deeply concerned with the cybersecurity
capacity and capabilities to operate seamlessly with our
civilian partners. I view the capabilities of the National
Guard in the cyber domain as critical enablers to support the
local authorities and to influence national security both,
abroad and domestically.
So, my question would be, as part of the future 2028 Army
concept, how do you see the National Guard being used to
influence cybersecurity?
Lieutenant General Peterson. Senator, thank you for that
question.
With respect to our overarching cyber approach and
strategy, there are multiple components of that. First, is the
people component, which involves force structure and training
and recruiting and, certainly, retention of the very talented
professionals associated with those unique skill sets, which
also have an exceptionally high demand and competitive salaries
in the civilian world. I know that our Army is taking that
under our talent-management strategies very, very seriously.
We have stood up cross-components, new structures and new
organizations that optimize the cyber teams at various
locations. I do not recall the specific number that are in the
National Guard, but I know that they have been resourced and
continue to flush out those teams.
With respect to the specific implementation of the
equipping or the modernization side, I would ask if we could
speak in another forum or session to talk about the determined
investments that we continue to make in that realm that bring
us capabilities that keep us relevant and at pace with the
specific threats.
Senator Manchin. Mr. Bush, my time is running out really
quick. Referring from stagnation and research and development
and doctrine is critical deficiencies to viability of any
organization, as we know. My question would be, what
participation from the other services is there with Project
Convergence on ensuring acquisition is conducted with joint
interoperability in mind? We have such a difficult situation
there and challenge, it seems like.
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator, if I could, I will start briefly
and then turn that to General Murray if that is okay----
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Mr. Bush.--as the person in charge of Project Convergence.
We are constantly working with the other services across
R&D efforts. I cannot say that we are perfectly synchronized,
but we do meet often and have tried to leverage each other's
efforts where we are doing that, especially in the realm of
command and control, which I think General Murray can talk to
you with regard to JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Comand and Control]
and Project Convergence.
General Murray. Senator, Project Convergence deals
primarily with early S&T [science and technology], R&D
[research and development] efforts, and so very low technology-
readiness levels. I think the place where the services get the
most benefit of working together is a place at Aberdeen Proving
Ground, we call the Joint Systems Integration Lab, where we
have the opportunity to come together and understand at the
very beginning of what is going to work together well and what
is not going to work.
So, instead of stove-pipe developmental systems that we
have to tie together once we have produced it, we have figured
out how to tie things together at the very beginning. There is
a tremendous amount of learning in a lot of areas to include
what is being pursued from a research, development, test, and
evaluation perspective by the services and there is open
sharing of good ideas and ways to proceed.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, all. I appreciate it.
Senator Duckworth. Senator Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
I was watching the hearing in my office and my colleagues
touched on a lot of the questions that I was going to ask, but
I did have a few things that I wanted to go back to. One is the
Next-Generation Squad Weapon.
Mr. Bush, I think you mentioned that the Lake City
Ammunition Plant, or you may have in prior testimony, I don't
know if you did it in this hearing, 3 to 4 years before they
can fully ramp-up for producing the munitions. I think in
response to Senator Hawley's question, you said you may rely on
contractors to field munitions sooner than that.
The 3 to 4 year, I go back a lot of times, if you have ever
seen me do any kind of hearings on acquisition, I go back to
the 680-page next-generation handgun, 10 years to select, 10
years to deploy. About the time we will need another one.
The time frame for the Next-Generation Squad Weapon,
relatively speaking, is probably going to beat that mark, but
what can we do to speed this up and to what extent should we be
looking at other ways to produce in the future?
When we are talking about Next-Generation Squad Weapons,
should we also be talking about next-generation ammunition
manufacturing and distribution?
With all due respect, my colleague from Lake City, when you
see some of the technologies, I have gone out and visited True
Velocity, polymer-based casing, lighter, more accurate. To what
extent do those moderate ways of manufacturing munitions
actually enter into the equation?
Mr. Bush. Senator, first, on Next-Generation Squad Weapon,
and I think it is the polar opposite of what happened with the
handgun. So, you may really use those as two extremes. It is
using every rapid method we have to test weapons that are being
tested now. We picked three vendors and their weapons are in
the hands of soldiers going through testing.
There will be challenges with that, but we are hoping to
narrow that down, and the first quarter of fiscal year 2022 is
the selection down to the final one. So, in terms of
acquisition process, sir, I don't think there is another
authority that Congress can give us to go any faster than we
are in this case.
With regard to the ammunition, I believe all three of these
selected vendors have a different ammunition approach, with
polymer, cased telescoped, and perhaps one that is a little bit
more conventional. So, I believe the Army is aware of the
innovation in that space.
This weapon will not equip the entire Army, initially, so
you could probably look at it as possibly a first step, and I
believe as advances in ammunition come through, General
Murray's team working on requirements for possibly new types of
capabilities we will need against enemy defensive equipment,
for example, would be in the lead for that.
Senator Tillis. Maybe, General Murray, you can add to that,
but I am also curious about the future of designing. Right now,
we design next-generation weapons around the kind of known for
the ammunition, but are we reaching a point where we design
guns around new ammunition-delivery systems, you know what I
mean. I mean, we are using, basically, the same kind of
technology that we have been using for about 100 years; the
casings, build a gun around it.
But tell me a little bit about what we are doing for future
generations for any of kind of small arms.
General Murray. So, Senator, thank you, and to add on to
Mr. Bush's answer, because of the way we are doing this, we do
have three entirely different designs for the bullet. So, to
credit for the acquisition community in Lake City, we don't
know what the manufacturing requirement is going to be, because
we don't know what we are going to have yet, and so the
ammunition is, by necessity, trailing the development of the
weapon.
In the case of this weapon, we started with, not a bullet,
but just the effector, the lethal end, the lethal mechanism of
the cartridge, which was government-developed, and went to
industry and said, build us not only one weapon, but two
weapons, an automatic rifle and an automatic weapon, a rapid-
fire weapon around this effector, and that is why we ended up
with the three different types of cases and three entirely
different designs for weapons.
One is what they call a bull-pup, and the other two are
more conventional, and we had tremendous interest from
industry, and I think we are going to end up with a very viable
solution with that approach. It was a completely different
approach, as Mr. Bush said, than the handgun.
Senator Tillis. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Duckworth. Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
General Murray, this question is for you about Project
Convergence, the centerpiece for transformational change for
the Army. So, last August and September, Project Convergence
2020 conducted its capstone event at Yuma Proving Ground, an
ideal location to host an event like this, not only because
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma is next door and was able to
provide an F-35, but it is a great environment to operate in;
good weather, but also a challenging environment, desert
environment.
That is important, to make sure that we know our technology
is going to work when we need it the most. An important part of
this concept of modernization is trying out innovative ideas
and technologies, sometimes even before they are fully matured.
You mentioned very low TRLs [Technology Readiness Level] for
some of these items, finding out early on, which ones work,
which ones don't. I want to really applaud that mindset,
because I believe this is exactly what we need to innovate and
to respond to emerging threats.
So, General, what are some of the lessons learned from last
year's demonstration, maybe something that didn't go quite as
planned, but also, was there any relatively low TRL item that
performed well and surprised you and you think could be in the
Army's future?
General Murray. So, Senator, thank you.
We are actually coming out to Yuma, again, later this year
as you probably know, a little bit later; hopefully, it is not
120 degrees again when we are out there.
Senator Kelly. I think it is today.
General Murray. Project Convergence taught us a lot, and as
you mentioned, it was Army S&T coming out of Army labs. The key
thing there is, you know, as we begin to work with these
technologies, it is Government-owned intellectual property, and
so we were free to work on those technologies at Yuma in the
dirt with soldiers and coders and engineers working side-by-
side. That is the first lesson, is the power of marrying up
soldiers and engineers, that soldiers can say, if only it could
do this, and then an engineer or a coder or a scientist can
say, it can do that, give me 6 hours it recode some of this and
we will see what it can do. That was the first powerful lesson.
The second powerful lesson is, and we didn't have all of
the cross-functional teams out there, is the realization as you
look across the Army modernization, the systems integration and
the systems engineering of what we are doing, the whole has to
be greater than the sum of its parts. As you start to pair
these things together, you can accomplish some pretty amazing
things.
Last year was focused on sensor to shooter. We got a
process that was in tens of minutes, down to tens of seconds
using, to include space-based sensors at extended ranges.
The third thing we learned was that we have got to have
coders in the Army because we were literally rewriting code
each and every day to make things work, which was the genesis
of the thing we called the software factory, which I mentioned
in my opening comment, the ability to reach out and really
capitalize on the talent, not recruit the talent, but
capitalize on the talent that is currently in the Army and then
give them those skills so we have those front line coders on
that future battlefield.
The power of the, and we had not planned for the Marine
Corps F-35. Out of the generosity and willingness to
participate, they came in. We were able to link the F-35 to
ground and pass traffic, targeting data both up and down, which
was a first for us to be able to do that.
Project Convergence 2021, which you will see this year, and
you are welcome to attend, you will see all four services out
there doing basically the same thing; working to solve joint
problems from the ground up.
There was an algorithm that we used to pair, and there are
lots of things that I was impressed with, but to pair the best
shooter that we had available in deconfliction of airspace and
range, ammunition on hand, and it did it through an automated
algorithm.
There was a technology we had at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
that basically took the feed from the sensor, did the target
mensuration down to 10 digits, cleared the fires, put it in a
standard message format, passed it back down to Yuma Proving
Ground in your state, and then it went through this algorithm
to match it up with the best shooter.
So, we had lots of things. Nothing worked perfectly at the
demonstration last year. There were very few things that worked
perfectly, but I think that is the beauty of it. This is not a
canned exercise. We are actually trying to make these
technologies work together in ways, in some cases, they were
never designed to do.
Senator Kelly. General, would you say that that algorithm
was at the level of using artificial intelligence on the
battlefield?
General Murray. I would say machine learning at this point
and we are continuing to mature it.
Senator Kelly. All right. So, we are going to need to
continue to have these partnerships with institutions across
the country, universities like the one we have in Arizona or
the three major universities, to make sure that you have those
coders available to incorporate and continue to develop these
technologies.
General Murray. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General.
Senator Duckworth. Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, last fall, the Army reported to
Congress that the Iron Dome Missile Defense System would meet
the Army's need for an interim capability to protect troops
from short-range mortars, artillery, and rockets.
What is the current status of that program, including its
acquisition, training, air defense integration, and fielding?
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator.
So, the first tasking from Congress was two batteries in
operation, and the Army will have two operational batteries of
the original Israeli Iron Dome system by the end of the year,
capable of being deployed, and they will be part of the Army's
air defense force.
So, what follows is what the Army is working on now, which
is a system that will provide additional capability working
with some different vendors that we are hoping to get a
decision on in the near future to down-select and then move
into production to provide protection that is even better than
what Iron Dome provides, in regards to, for example, cruise
missiles and some unmanned vehicles.
Senator Cotton. When you say ready to deploy later this
year, that means with a maneuver unit, capable of deploying
around the world, in conflict?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir, that is the plan.
Senator Cotton. What is the biggest hurdle to integrating
Iron Dome into our maneuver units and our air defense systems?
Mr. Bush. Full integration of software.
Senator Cotton. Is there a way to achieve that or is that
why you are looking at alternative systems that will address
some of those other threats, as well?
Mr. Bush. That is part of the answer, sir, yes.
Senator Cotton. The short answer is, they don't want to
give up all the code, right. Okay. Got it.
Active protection systems, General Murray, there is a $16
million unfunded request for Bradley- and Stryker-centric
active protection systems to defeat incoming RPGs [rocket
propelled grenades] and recoilless rifle rounds. Can you
explain the importance of getting that request funded and how
delaying that fielding, the fielding of that system, or how
delayed the fielding of that system will be if it remains
unfunded.
General Murray. It would be a guess to tell you how long
because it is going to depend on future budgets, Senator,
whether we can fit it into the base budget.
The money you mentioned is really to work on
characterization of a system called Iron Fist Light Decoupled,
and that is a long acronym. We have been working with Iron Fist
for a while.
The issue with the Bradley fighting vehicle is the size of
the top of the turret; it is hard to get an active protective
system on there. The problem with the Stryker vehicle is it is
not as heavy as armor as an Abrams, so you get residual
penetration of the vehicle without an appropriate system; plus,
the systems have to be lighter, than, for instance, the trophy
that is on the Abrams.
So, that money is designed to characterize Iron Fist Light
Decoupled, plus, do some work with some other developing
systems and then work that into, eventually, a capability that
we will field on both, the Bradley and Stryker.
Senator Cotton. Okay. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Peterson. Senator?
Senator Duckworth. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Lieutenant General Peterson. Pardon me, Senator.
If I may add, that is one piece, and, again, it reflects
acceleration of a specific capability in that UFR list.
Overall, vehicle protective systems, or suites, which is a
comprehensive, layered approach to protection of our combat
vehicles, has over $200 million invested in it in the 2022
budget, fully funded and reflected.
Again, we are seeking opportunities to invest in other
capabilities and to accelerate specific capabilities. In
another forum, we would be honored to talk to you about that
comprehensive, layered approach.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
General Murray, it is our understanding that some of our
more expeditionary units, like the 82nd Airborne, are
experimenting with a light tank that could be airdropped to
provide a little extra firepower on the drop zone.
What is the current status of that program and to what
extent have any testing succeeded?
General Murray. We are in the middle of soldier touchpoints
for two vendors with what we call mobile protective firepower,
which is in better terms, a light tank.
The one correction, sir, is airdrop is not one of the
requirements that we are currently pursuing. One of the vendors
is significantly lighter than the other. I mean, there could be
a potential there, but that is not an Army requirement, to
airdrop it.
So, the first vendor, and we are in competition right now,
so that is why I said vendors, instead of specific industry-
partner names, has completed a live-fire soldier touchpoint
testing and is getting ready for a limited-user test. The
second vendor is now in the process of delivering vehicles to
Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The 82nd Airborne will go through
the same process with soldier touchpoints, a live-fire, and
then we will do the LUT [limited user test] concurrently, so we
have similar weather, similar conditions, similar everything
before we select which vendor.
Senator Cotton. Okay. If it is not air-dropped, how are you
going to get it onto the battlefield? Is it follow-on airlift
after airfield seizure?
General Murray. Airland, yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. Is the Marine Corps showing any interest in
this kind of capability since they just got rid of all of their
Abrams?
General Murray. No, sir.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
So, General Peterson, and also for Mr. Bush, so, supply
chain security is an issue that is a top priority for me when
it comes to our national defense and that includes all the
parts and components that make our weapons systems work. That
is why in recent weeks, I worked to secure $2 billion in
dedicated funding for programs like the microelectronics R&D
network, as authorized by section 9903 of the fiscal year 2021
NDAA.
I am pleased that this was included in the U.S.
Competitiveness and Innovation Act that passed the Senate just
last week, and once implemented, this effort will close gaps in
domestic, semiconductor, laboratory, and manufacturing capacity
as quickly as possible by leveraging the research capabilities
of universities across the Nation.
So, General Peterson, as the person responsible for
matching resources to the defense strategy and the Army's plan,
how are you thinking about the Army's microelectronics needs to
support the services' modernization goals?
Lieutenant General Peterson. Senator, thank you very much
for that question, and as well as the recognition of the gap in
the risk to our National Security Strategy with respect to the
supply chain vulnerabilities.
Very specifically, in 2022, we recognized the challenge
with the offshore vulnerabilities of microelectronic sources
and with limited capabilities, fleeting capabilities currently
here in the United States, we participated in both, a joint OSD
buy with over $200 million in 2022 of required, trusted
microelectronics, as well as a unilateral investment of over
$60 million, as we continue to ensure that we have the supply
chain for essential modernization, as well as new efforts and
our enduring systems to mitigate the vulnerability to that.
For a longer term, the entire Joint Force and OSD are
working collaboratively with you and other supporters to ensure
that we have enduring onshore capabilities, and we appreciate
your continued emphasis there.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Bush, you know, part of, it is not only sourcing the
microelectronics, the semiconductors, here in the United
States, instead of overseas, one critical aspect of this is
also the ``fab to lab'' testing component. Right now, we, as a
Nation, semiconductors are often tested, ours are tested in
China and some European countries. This poses a national
security issue for us.
Do you agree that it would be in the best interests of our
Nation and our national security to do that fabrication to lab,
or ``lab to fab'' testing onshore, rather than in near-peer
adversary countries?
Mr. Bush. Senator, without having deep expertise, I would
say, yes, of course, we would prefer do that kind of thing
here.
If I could add some context to the overall efforts we are
looking at with regard to supply chain risk, about 50 years or
more of globalization has produced deep, interconnected,
international supply chains for all our companies that the
Department of Defense works for, and in particular, we find
those with non-traditional companies that maybe haven't worked
with the Defense before, but are private companies or
commercial companies, have international supply chains.
The first thing we are trying to do, our guidance for now,
the first thing we have to do is see ourselves. So, the Army is
trying to develop in-house capability to analyze and understand
supply chains on our own, rather than only relying on industry
to do that.
The second thing, sir, will be to evaluate risk. A
different risk calculus, perhaps, between something in Canada
and something in China, as you pointed out.
The third thing will be mitigation and that is where the
challenges will really come and the choices will have to be
made between critical things like semiconductors and
microelectronics, like you are describing, sir, and choices
that we will have to make on other things that might be made
overseas, but might be acceptable to be made overseas and that
will be a ``cost to risk'' trade-off because we also are trying
to maintain our current production lines at the paces that they
are going, while balancing the risks of international supply
chains. It will be a long, ongoing effort, sir.
Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, Mr. Bush, and thank you,
General Peterson.
I yield back.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
I want to thank all three witnesses for your testimony
today and your responses, and I thank you again. I look forward
to working with you all into the future. Good first hearing,
and, again, I just want to thank everybody.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thom Tillis
future vertical lift
1. Senator Tillis. General Murray, the Army's Future Vertical Lift
(FVL) modernization program consists of two distinct aircraft, each
designed to accomplish different missions in the Army's future force.
They are the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program,
designed to replace the Blackhawk and the Future Armed Reconnaissance
Aircraft (FARA) designed to fill the void left by the retirement of the
Army's armed scout aircraft. The Army has budgeted $181 million between
fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2021, and Congress has added $185
million during the same period. The Army suggests that this program is
its number 3 modernization initiative (out of 6) and the total funding
is between number 5 and 6 in total dollars over the FYDP. Additionally,
the Army has awarded two competitive prototypes for each variant, both
to Bell Helicopter and LM/Sikorsky.
The Future Vertical Lift program is considered the furthest along
of all the projects under the CFTs, and Futures Command. The FLRAA
program, in particular, is the one major program that is actually
flying. This is not a ``paper'' program, and thus represents the
``Poster Child'' for a successful acquisition program coming out of
Futures Command.
The existing vertical lift fleet, according to CSIS, lacks the
necessary speed, range, endurance, survivability, and lethality to
compete in the Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment. The U.S.
Army FVL program seeks to modernize the vertical lift fleet by
delivering the most modern, versatile, and lethal power projection
platform to insure success on the modern battlefield. There have been
recent articles in the press (believed to be pushed by those opposing
FVL) which have been critical for the Army's requirement for speed. The
Army has pushed back aggressively citing the need for speed and range
to increase lethality and allow the Army to achieve a more lethal force
in the Great Power Competition, and Indo-Pacific Theater.
The Army has consistently discussed the need for speed and range,
as well as survivability when it comes to the future vertical lift
aircraft. Could you explain to this Committee why speed and range are
so critical to the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft and how this new
technology will allow the Army to leverage FLRAA as a power projection
platform?
General Murray. FLRAA is the next generation of affordable vertical
lift, assault and intra-theater aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC)
aircraft, and is effective and decisive in the lower tier of the air
domain.
FLRAA expands the reach of ground forces to conduct air assault
missions from relative sanctuary across the battlespace, reducing enemy
reaction time and freedom of action. The cost per effect for FLRAA to
insert two infantry battalions in one period of darkness is on par with
the cost of twice as many H-60s to achieve the same effect.
FLRAA compels the enemy to respond to multiple dilemmas through its
ability to move and converge ground forces through decentralized
operations over extended distances.
The fundamental capability of FLRAA is the reach and thereby the
power projection it provides in the increasingly dangerous and complex
multi-domain operations environment. Additionally, FRLAA will remain
survivable with the use of Air Launched Effects (ALE) and integration
with other maneuver forces and long-range fires, all enabled by the
network.
2. Senator Tillis. General Murray, how will this capability assist
the Army with its strategy in the Indo-Pacific Theater and in the Great
Power Competition?
General Murray. The Future Vertical Lift (FVL) ecosystem includes
the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA), the Future Long-Range
Assault Aircraft (FRLAA), Air Launched Effects (ALE), an adaptive
command and control network, artificial intelligence decision agents,
and lethal and non-lethal effects. It is a purpose-built capability for
multi-domain operations, and is set to become the tip of the spear for
the Army's Multi-Domain Corps and Multi-Domain Division in the era of
great power competition.
With transformational speed, range, and the ability to converge
Army and Joint sensors and shooters to enable decision dominance, FVL
is poised to provide the Joint Force threat penetration at the outset
of large-scale conflict. In addition, FVL will provide overmatch
capability and capacity to out-tempo the enemy at all Army echelons to
win the close fight.
China's investment in creating a dense network of anti-access/area-
denial (A2/AD) capabilities throughout the Pacific island chains
presents a complex problem. It inhibits U.S. power projection, erodes
joint freedom of maneuver, and ultimately diminishes credible
deterrence.
Dominating in the lower tier of the air domain, the FVL ecosystem
provides a unique advantage against A2/AD systems, such as Integrated
Air Defense Systems (IADS), enemy long-range fires, and threat command
and control systems. Hidden by surface clutter while operating at lower
altitudes, FVL outmatches radar and observation with the standoff and
swarming capability of its Air Launched Effects (ALE) with Electronic
Warfare (EW) and lethal strike capabilities. Joint force aircraft and
follow-on maneuver forces can exploit this penetration to destroy other
critical targets once FVL destroys or neutralizes the IADS barrier.
3. Senator Tillis. General Murray, is the Future Vertical Lift
program fully resourced, across the FYDP for both the FLRAA and FARA
programs, both Research and Development funding and Procurement
funding? What are the amounts of funding, through the FYDP? In which
year will Congress see funding requested for procurement dollars?
General Murray. We do not yet know how much funding will be
allocated to the Army each year beyond fiscal year 2021, so I cannot
tell you that both FLRAA and FARA are fully resourced across the FYDP.
Fiscal year 2030 remains our target for equipping the first unit.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
cold-weather all-terrain vehicle
4. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant
General Peterson, the Cold-Weather, All-Terrain Vehicle is not on the
Army's ``31 plus 4'' modernization list. As I understand it, two firms
were recently selected to build CATV prototypes that would replace the
obsolete Small Unit Support Vehicles, which enable mobility for Arctic
operations. Can you provide an update on this modernization program,
including when it will achieve initial operational capability?
Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant General Peterson. The Cold
Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV) program awarded Other Transaction
Authority agreements to two vendors in April 2021 for the prototype
phase. Each vendor delivered two vehicles in June 2021 and the Army is
performing testing at Cold Regions Testing Center, FT Greely, AK.
Successful completion of the testing of these prototypes will determine
eligibility to compete for a production contract.
A production award is anticipated in 4th quarter fiscal year 2022,
with projected First Unit Equipped in 4th quarter fiscal year 2023.
arctic brigade combat teams
5. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant
General Peterson, the Army Arctic strategy calls for the transformation
of the Alaskan-based BCTs into Arctic BCTs to ``recapture our cold-
weather dominance.'' Part of my understanding of this transformation is
that it requires a shift away from Infantry Carrier Vehicles, or
Strykers, to a vehicle that provides better mobility in Arctic terrain.
What is the status of the Army's transformation effort?
Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant General Peterson. The Army
is finalizing options and timelines to transform the Alaska-based
Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) into a more Arctic-capable
formation. We are developing the formation's requirements and expect to
announce options in fiscal year 2022. Ground mobility requirements in
Arctic terrain could be provided by the Cold Weather All-Terrain
Vehicle (CATV) that is replacing the aging Small Unit Support Vehicle
(SUSV). However, the CATV is intended to provide a movement capability
to support training, Homeland Defense (HD), Defense Support to Civilian
Agencies (DSCA), and Search and Rescue (SAR) in a non-combat
environment. If the CATV is deemed a suitable replacement for use in
combat brigades, the Army will have to adjust the procurement
objective. The CATV program is in the prototype phase, with vehicles
from two vendors conducting testing at the Cold Regions Testing Center
at Fort Greely, Alaska. Our current timeline projects a production
award in fiscal year 2022, and first unit equipped in late fiscal year
2023.
6. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant
General Peterson, will the Army's focus on the ``31 plus 4''
modernization list impact the timelines for 1-25 and 4-25 BCTs to
convert to Arctic BCTs?
Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant General Peterson. The Army
is reviewing options for conversion of structure to Arctic capable
formations. Once approved, those conversions will follow the Total Army
Analysis (TAA) timeline with announcements typically in the first
quarter of the fiscal year. The decision will be followed with a
synchronization of resources (personnel, training, and equipment)
required for the conversions to meet the timeline and ensure minimal
impacts to the Total Force.
arctic multi-domain task force
7. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant
General Peterson, it is my understanding that the Army will create an
Arctic Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) in Alaska. It will consist of
several units currently assigned to 1-25 and 4-25 in addition to newly
assigned units. Which long-range precision fires systems will this unit
field and will they undergo Arctic testing before fielding?
Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant General Peterson. The Army
is exploring options to build Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)
capabilities, Mid-Range Cannon (MRC) capabilities, and High Mobility
Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) capabilities. Force structure
decisions in support of the Arctic are under evaluation. However, the
testing and evaluation strategy of all new weapon systems considers the
intended operational environment of the system and incorporates climate
testing to determine operational effectiveness within that environment.
8. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant
General Peterson, it is my understanding that the Arctic MDTF will
include long-range precision fires that the Army wants to operate along
Alaska's vast coastline for extended periods of time to create anti-
access/area denial networks. Is the Army considering how civilian and
military infrastructure will impact Arctic Multi-Domain Task Force
(MDTF) operations along Alaska's coastline?
Mr. Bush, General Murray, and Lieutenant General Peterson. The Army
has not yet conducted the detailed analysis to evaluate the tactical,
technical, and logistical feasibility of any particular concept of
operations. Therefore, it is not possible to say that if an MDTF were
stationed in Alaska how it would operate, to include what impact those
operations would have on military or civilian infrastructure.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2022 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2021
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MODERNIZATION EFFORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Tammy
Duckworth (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Duckworth, Peters,
Manchin, Rosen, Kelly, Cotton, Sullivan, Scott, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH
Senator Duckworth. I would like to call the hearing to
order. The Ranking Member is 2 minutes out, so we will get
started.
I am especially pleased that everybody is here today. I
want to extend a warm welcome and thank each of our witnesses
for appearing before this Subcommittee today. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Last week, the Subcommittee heard from Army witnesses about
the challenges in the Army's modernization portfolio, and I
look forward to hearing from our Air Force witnesses about the
challenges and opportunities they face in modernizing the Air
Force.
I am especially interested in hearing from the witnesses
about how the Air Force plans to manage its multiple
modernization programs in ways that deliver the capabilities
our warfighters need in a timely manner to defeat our most
capable adversaries, while protecting our taxpayers' dollars
and avoiding too much risk to support combatant commander
requirements.
This discussion of modernization programs surely should
include the F-35 fighter, the B-21 bomber, the KC-46 tanker,
and Advanced Battle Management System, or ABMS, which seeks to
replace the JSTARS' [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System] capabilities, among others.
In an effort to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, the
Air Force has been particularly aggressive in implementing
accelerating acquisition authorities, including from major
defense acquisition programs.
Congress has given DOD [Department of Defense] these new
authorities and it is Congress' job to oversee the Department
and ensure that the Department uses its authorities to pursue
these modernization programs in a more efficient and effective
manner.
Our witnesses this afternoon face huge challenges as they
strive to balance the need to support ongoing operations and
sustain readiness with the need to modernize and keep the
technological edge that are so critical to successful military
operations. Specifically, our Air Force will bear a large share
of the burden of implementing the National Defense Strategy
that is derived from Secretary Austin's review.
There is no ignoring the fact that inter-state strategic
competition with increasingly capable adversaries is a primary
U.S. national security concern.
There are a number of other issues that we need to hear
about from the Air Force, but in the interests of time, I will
stop here and wait for our discussion.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their service and
for appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon, and I
will now turn it over to our Ranking Member, Senator Cotton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
Gentlemen, thank you for your appearance this morning.
Thank you, as well, for your decades of distinguished service.
The current National Defense Strategy directs our Nation's
military to be prepared, to deter, and if necessary, defeat our
peers, like Russia and China. In order for the Department of
the Air Force to meet that requirement, it must be properly
manned, trained, and equipped to win in both, air and space.
Given the President's Budget, however, I am fearful that is not
an achievable goal.
At the end of the Obama administration, the Air Force was
at the lowest level of readiness in history; fewer than 10
percent of combat squadrons were ready to deploy and even fewer
were prepared for a peer fight. We have substantially improved
readiness in the last 4 years, but we have a long way to go on
modernization and this budget is nowhere close to adequate.
Air Force leaders have stated the Air Force is too small
and too old to do what the Nation asks; in fact, 44 percent of
our aircraft fleet is beyond its service life. Understanding
that we can't continue to fly these aging fleets forever, we
need to invest and increase procurement to give you the
resources you need to divest older systems.
All the independent studies show that you need to grow and
modernize, but in this budget, you are forced to get smaller
and I am concerned that your current budget is inadequate to
achieve a moderate risk force, which is required by law.
China and Russia, combined, are already spending more to
modernize their force than we are, yet this budget reduces Air
Force procurement by almost 15 percent and flight hours have
been reduced, as well. We understand all this is caused by a
budget that falls well-short of the 3 to 5 percent real growth
recommended by the National Defense Strategy Commission report;
in fact, it does not even keep up with rapidly rising
inflation.
The men and women who volunteer to serve this great Nation
deserve to be given the tools and the resources necessary to
win. So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the
impact of this budget on the readiness and the modernization of
the Air Force and the risks that the Nation accepts if we don't
change it. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. I now call on the witnesses to begin
your testimony. Do you have an order that you are choosing to
go with, General Nahom?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, ma'am, I will start.
Senator Duckworth. Okay.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID S. NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Lieutenant General Nahom. Chairwoman Duckworth, Ranking
Member Cotton, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for having us here today to provide testimony on the
Department of the Air Force's 2022 budget requests.
Additionally, thank you for your continued leadership and
dedication to the United States' military and the Department of
Air Force's 689,000 total force airmen serving around the world
today.
As you know, our Nation faces a complex set of current and
future security challenges that require we think and act
differently and with urgency. Our Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, General C.Q. Brown, has articulated what is at stake.
Unless we make significant changes to the Air Force's program
force, we will not meet the pacing threat of China in 2030, and
unless something changes, we will not be able to accomplish the
Air Force's core missions in the future operating environment.
The American Homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Our
citizens face threats from a variety of actors in both,
physical and digital arenas, and our competitors continue
aggressive efforts to negate our longstanding warfighting
advantages. One of the most remarkable differences between us
and China, for example, is a sense of urgency to change and
modernize.
We can state definitively that 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 moving with a
purpose to realize that future. Their efforts include a massive
buildup of military power and a clear intent to use that
military to create leverage on us and our allies and partners.
As we continue to work with each of you, it is becoming
apparent that our collective thinking is beginning to shift. We
are, together, waking up to this challenge and 2022 offers us
another opportunity to change accordingly so that our actions
match our growing sense of urgency.
Together, under this Committee's oversight and leadership,
along with our industry partners and innovative airmen, we
remain the preeminent power projection force in the world
today. I would like to briefly outline some elements of that
capability and how we intend to maintain the preeminent power
of our Nation's future.
The Air Force provides sole, long-range bomber capability
for joint and allied forces and our fleet is in any demand
across the globe. Combatant commands have discovered the
flexibility and messaging power of the bomber task force. Our
2022 budget continues to fund this flexible bomber capability,
while setting up a transition from three bomber fleets to two,
the B-21 and a rebuilt and refurbished B-52.
A key element of this modernization is the development and
fielding of advanced munitions, including hypersonic munitions,
such as the Advanced Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, and the
next generation of cruise missiles.
Extensive war gaming analysis make it clear that we must
also reassess our future fighter force mix and adjust
investment priorities to provide the capability, capacity, and
affordability required to meet a peer threat.
Modernization programs cannot transform our fourth-
generation fighters into fifth-generation or our fifth-
generation fighters into the Next Generation Air Dominance, or
NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance].
The Air Force fighter fleet should match the capability and
capacity of both, platforms and weapons, to mission
requirements. In order to achieve this, the Air Force must have
the flexibility to rightsize our current aircraft inventories,
to expedite the transition away from less-capable, aging
aircraft and emphasize in investment in future capabilities.
As we discuss power projection, we must remember the Air
Force provides refueling capacity that makes this projection
possible for both, the Joint Force and our allies. As we
transition to a two-tanker fleet of modernized KC-135s and new
KC-46s, we will retire the KC-10, freeing up the airmen we need
to build the KC-46 into the capability the taxpayer has paid
for.
While we work to rectify some discrepancies, we stand
behind the KC-46 and believe it will be a great refueling
capability for decades to come. Even today, it has taken on
many of the day-to-day refueling requirements and that said,
our plan is to make full use of the KC-46 in the near term,
while fixing discrepancies as soon as possible.
One area where our investments have paid tremendous
dividends is in airlift. Our airlift fleet is the envy of the
air forces around the world and this year's budget continues to
invest in C-5s, C-17, and C-130 fleets.
We will be paying particular attention to the tactical
airlift fleet in the coming years as we balance risk across all
of our Air Force portfolios. The Air Force goal is to
ultimately reduce the C-130 fleet to 255 aircraft, but that is
only contingent upon our ability to find mutually agreeable
replacement missions for any C-130 unit that would re-mission.
To meet the challenge of a highly contested environment, we
must also envision a future ISR [intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance] portfolio that consists of multi-domain, multi-
intelligence, collaborative-sensing technology. It will be
resilient and persistent to support both, kinetic and non-
kinetic capabilities, alike.
Global integrated ISR must transition to connected and
survival platforms. This will be required to accelerating
investment and accepting short-term risk by transforming away
from less-capable ISR assets. Our goal is a ready, next-
generation ISR enterprise that possesses decisive advantage to
the warfighter, while remaining competent across the entire
spectrum of conflict.
In closing, I want to personally thank the Members of this
Committee and the broader Senate Armed Services Committee, past
and present. When I entered the Air Force, your predecessors
and some of you had worked to develop a force that gave my
generation what we needed to defend our country and interests
around the world.
Today, we must work together to modernize to the future so
the next generation can say the same. We have done this before
and I am confident, together, we can do this again.
I am honored to serve on the same team with General
Richardson and General Guastella. They work tirelessly to think
differently about how we acquire and operate the force of our
future airmen.
Again, thank you for having us, and we look forward to your
questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Lieutenant General Duke Z.
Richardson, Lieutenant General David S. Nahom and Lieutenant
General Joseph T. Guastella follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General Duke Z. Richardson,
Lieutenant General David S. Nahom and Lieutenant General Joseph T.
Guastella,
introduction and strategic environment
Chairman Duckworth, Ranking Member Cotton, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for having us here today to
provide testimony on U.S. Air Force modernization. Additionally, thank
you for your leadership and dedication to rebuilding the United States
military.
Our Nation faces a complex set of current and future security
challenges requiring that we think and act differently and with
urgency. The American Homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Our citizens
face threats from a variety of actors in both the physical and digital
arenas. Competitors, especially China and Russia, continue aggressive
efforts to negate our long-standing warfighting advantages while
challenging America's interests and geopolitical position. China in
particular is the Nation's pacing threat. It has rapidly become more
assertive, and is the only competitor potentially capable of combining
its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a
sustained challenge to a stable and open international system.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has articulated what is at
stake with his Accelerate Change or Lose white paper. It states
``unless we make significant changes to the Air Force's programmed
force, we will not meet the pacing threat of China in 2030. Unless
something changes, we will not be able to accomplish the Air Force's
core mission's in the future operating environment.'' A growing body of
evidence from adversary assessments, recent wargames, exercises,
studies, reports, and other analysis underpins this assessment.
To make these changes will require difficult choices. It will
require taking calculated risk now to reduce existential risk in the
future. When considering the missions we perform today, in the Middle
East and elsewhere, it is fairly easy to calculate risk and recognize
the necessary changes. However, measuring risk becomes more challenging
when we look into the future, at conflict scenarios with peer
competitors like China. We must consider the risk that arises if we
fail to recognize the need to change. The risk to our Nation of losing
in those scenarios far outweighs the calculated risks we are willing to
take today to accelerate change.
The mission of the U.S. Air Force is to fly, fight, and win . . .
Airpower anytime, anywhere. Military airpower is global, agile,
flexible, rapid, and when necessary, highly destructive. The Air Force
was created to realize the potential of military airpower to defend the
United States, our citizens, and our friends. We know our potential
adversaries respect--even fear--U.S. airpower, as they devote extreme
amounts of money, time, and manpower to defend against it. We also know
they are fielding capabilities to attack the U.S. and our allies
through the air. In this, they hope to hold our territory, bases, and
citizens hostage, making us vulnerable to coercion. Both of these
conditions are not new. They existed after World War II and provided
the impetus to create the Air Force in 1947. In 2021, we must remember
this ``why'' behind the Air Force as we look to the future. We can make
the changes necessary to sustain and strengthen the U.S. advantage in
airpower, but to do so, we must concentrate on the core reasons we
exist.
The U.S. Air Force has five core missions: air superiority;
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); command and
control; global strike; and global mobility. These core missions
represent what the Nation expects of the U.S. Air Force, and they are
part of our heritage; however, our continued ability to provide these
core missions in defense of the Nation is not guaranteed. The Air Force
must change, because our environment is changing and our competitors
are closing in. For too long, we have mitigated short-term risk at the
expense of long-term, and we must correct this imbalance.
Since the publication of the National Defense Strategy (NDS) in
2018, the Air Force has worked tirelessly to identify new ways of
approaching our toughest challenges in a peer fight, to include careful
assessments of current and future risks. But our work is far from over.
We look forward to continued engagement on the Air Force's future force
design with this Subcommittee and all of our stakeholders. It is the
only way to ensure we are building a relevant and ready force for the
future. This year's budget request will be another step in that
journey.
air force in demand
Global Force Management
Through Joint Staff-led Global Force Management (GFM) processes,
the Air Force attempts to optimize force capabilities for operations
against peer competitors, fulfill Combatant Commander requirements, and
provide stability to the Total Force. The Air Force also actively works
GFM issues through the Joint Staff as the Department of Defense's (DOD)
global command-and-control mechanism to adjust distribution of forces,
and to conduct global force strategic planning.
During fiscal year 2021, as in years past, the Air Force was
employed in unique and disparate locations across the globe at all
levels of conflict. Our limited supply of capability will never satisfy
global joint force demand for air power. Through GFM, the Air Force
worked hard to balance risk with supply and demand, and to optimize our
unique global flexibility to rapidly deploy with scalable, tailorable
forces to all Combatant Commanders.
The Air Force is the Nation's ``9-1-1'' force. The preponderance of
our Total Force is required within the opening days of any conflict. We
have repeatedly demonstrated our ability to employ air power within
hours, any day, to any point on the globe at the speed of relevance.
Looking forward into fiscal year 2022 and beyond, the Air Force will
continue to refine our equities and contributions within GFM processes,
maturing concepts such as Dynamic Force Employment (DFE) and Agile
Combat Employment (ACE), and through the utilization of our new force
presentation model, Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN). Through
these initiatives, the Air Force is postured to regain Total Force
readiness, meet strategic guidance, enable modernization, and balance
current operations with future capability requirements.
Dynamic Force Employment
The 2018 NDS introduced the concept of Dynamic Force Employment
(DFE) as a Secretary of Defense resource to provide options for
proactive and scalable employment of the Joint Force to compete, deter,
and win in great power competition. Since fiscal year 2019, the Air
Force has leveraged DFE as a more effective means of using air power
for strategic effect, while recovering and building peer adversary
readiness in accordance with the NDS. For fiscal year 2021, the Air
Force has conducted multiple DFEs and will execute several more before
the end of the year.
Through the application of DFE within GFM processes, the DOD can
proactively shape the strategic environment, while modernizing,
testing, and gaining readiness to both respond to contingencies and
ensure the long-term viability of the Joint Force. DFE is a better
utilization of air power to rapidly meet Combatant Command requirements
and assure allies and partners versus the traditional readiness-
consuming heel-to-toe rotational presence.
Air power's inherently dynamic, agile, and strategic attributes
enhance DFE effects to expand competitive space beyond regularized
patterns while providing maximum responsiveness to emergent priority
missions. DFE is also a valuable resource for the Air Force to explore,
experiment, and refine rapid employment concepts such as ACE and the
Bomber Task Force (BTF) to advance air power's global ``enhanced
maneuver'' effectiveness and resiliency. For all these reasons, we
continue to receive more requests for DFE than we can satisfy. This
will continue forward in fiscal year 2022, and highlights the
importance of adhering to national strategy, the GFM process, and
successful fielding of AFFORGEN to maintain a sustainable ready Air
Force that can compete and overmatch peer adversaries.
Agile Combat Employment
The U.S. Air Force continues to develop and refine the ACE concept.
ACE is the ability to quickly disperse and cluster forces to a
cooperative security location and conduct operations across all
domains, while maintaining operational flexibility. This operating
method will allow the U.S. to present our adversaries with multiple
dilemmas during both the day-to-day competition and potential future
conflict. The ability of ACE to sustain combat operations using
advanced, agile, and adaptive logistics is being validated through
multiple exercises worldwide. Earlier this year, Airmen from Lakenheath
Air Base, United Kingdom, exercised this concept as part of the
Exercise Baltic Trident. This exercise showcased ACE concepts such as
multi-capable Airmen, interoperability with allies and partners,
smaller manpower footprints, and a reduction in the reliance on
prepared airfields. Future investments in both U.S. and allied airfield
infrastructure, combined with rapidly deployable support, will be
necessary to ensure ACE viability as the concept matures. Planned
fiscal year 2022 military construction investment in both European and
Pacific theaters support further development of the ACE concept.
air force we need (readiness)
Our readiness is a combination of the capacity, availability, and
capability of the force to meet the tasks required of the Nation as
detailed in the NDS. In spite of COVID-19, our current force readiness
has remained flat over the last two-years; however, we have seen modest
increases in readiness for our ``fight tonight'' units over the same
period. Today's readiness is undermined by three main factors: 1) our
force is too small to meet current demand; 2) our fleets are too old
and in some cases only relevant for today's needs; and 3) our training
infrastructure is outdated.
Over past decades, readiness has become synonymous with
``availability'' and ``capacity,'' which are largely measures of
military units available for immediate deployment and ready to ``fight
tonight,'' while ``capability'' took on a lesser role. In order to be
ready and relevant for the great power competition ahead, we must
transform the force and its training infrastructure to provide the
capabilities the NDS demands. We must balance the risk and demands of
the current environment with the need to arrive in the future with the
capacity and capability we need.
As we transition to the force we need, it is essential to modernize
and eliminate costly and less-capable legacy systems. This will lower
operating costs, improve availability, and provide essential
capabilities to present a combat-credible and ready force to meet the
demands of great power competition.
Operational Test & Training Infrastructure
We know from both experience and experimentation that combat crews
increase lethality and reduce attrition when they train against the
actual or representative threats they will encounter in combat.
Therefore, we are fully committed to advancing and modernizing our live
and synthetic programs to provide relevant and realistic training for
tomorrow's force.
Ready and relevant requires improvements to training in both the
live and synthetic domains. The live domain includes required airspace
and ranges, modernizing the replication of current and future
adversarial threats, as well as real-time data processing and control
and evaluation of combat training engagements. The synthetic domain
requires the creation of a common synthetic environment that provides
all users the authoritative data for threats, terrain, weather, and
friendly forces for high value simulator training against peer threats.
In the live domain, our range priority remains our two largest
ranges, the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) and the Joint
Pacific-Alaska Range Complex (JPARC). We will upgrade the threat
replication of both of these ranges to Level 4 (near-peer)
capabilities. With current and programmed funding, NTTR and JPARC are
projected to achieve Level 4 in fiscal year 2030 and fiscal year 2032,
respectively. The Air Force is evaluating options to accelerate these
upgrades. In addition, we intend to upgrade six Primary Training
Ranges, both CONUS and OCONUS, to a Level 3 capability by fiscal year
2033.
Our range modernization approach also addresses the encryption and
movement of data to improve the realism of our training events. We will
procure the Navy's Tactical Combat Training System II (TCTS-II) to
modernize our Combat Training System (CTS) requirement. In addition to
addressing the pending obsolescence of our P5 Combat Training System
pod, this will provide an ability to share encrypted data for training.
This will allow our 4th and 5th generation, and eventually 6th
generation platforms, to train together in a manner is not achievable
with current technology. Concurrently, we are pursuing a Live Mission
Operational Capability (LMOC) to standardize and modernize our training
ranges. In addition to eliminating manpower intensive processes, this
capability allows us to tie legacy threat systems together to create a
more realistic adversary Integrated Air Defense System.
Our range modernization approach will ensure our live ranges
provide both realistic and relevant training environments to our future
force. Moving forward, live training will always be the cornerstone of
Air Force readiness; however, the live training environment is
constrained by the geographic limitations and technological
improvements of both our and our future adversaries' capabilities. This
mandates a shift in portions of our combat training to the synthetic
training environment to allow aircrew members to fully use their
capabilities and effectively practice the tactics, techniques, and
procedures they will employ against future adversaries.
This shift of advanced training to the synthetic arena requires us
to replace disparate, legacy synthetic environments with a common
synthetic training environment. Development of this environment will
provide a Level 4 (near peer) training capability for all operational
units while allowing our advanced platforms to exercise capabilities
they cannot use in a live environment. This synthetic environment will
be the only arena in which Air Force, Joint, and Coalition units can
train together using their full capabilities in realistic scenarios.
We are confident these tailored improvements to our live and
synthetic training capabilities will provide our crews with the ability
to maximize the lethality advantage of current and future weapon
systems.
Pilot Production
The Air Force remains focused on improving the overall pilot
inventory within the Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force
Reserve. Today we are still short approximately 1,900 pilots. Over half
of that shortfall is in the Air Reserve Components. In the Regular Air
Force, our shortfall resides in our younger pilot ranks due to 10-years
of under-production. In order to match pilot requirements with
production we must sustainably produce 1,500 pilots per year. At this
rate we can properly train, absorb, and manage each production year.
Substantial short-term increases in production to improve the overall
inventory sooner are not manageable. We must expand production quickly
to 1,500 and then maintain it for the foreseeable future.
We have spent the last two years developing ways to expand
production with our existing five-base production plant. We are
instituting and testing a number of initiatives that will expand our
annual production capacity to at least 1,500 pilots by 2023. These
initiatives include modernizing pilot training to improve the quality
of new pilots for the challenges of advanced 5th generation aviation,
streamlining the helicopter pilot production path, adjusting the
training program for those candidates with extensive civil aviation
experience or completion of accredited aviation programs, improving
simulator instructor recruitment and retention, and evaluating a remote
simulator instruction concept. In all of these instances we leverage
technology to improve the training experience, conduct training
earlier, and augment our proven production methods. In all cases, the
quality of our graduates remains critical to our long-term success and
readiness. As we expand production we will not sacrifice the quality
within our pilot production enterprise.
Air Force Force Generation
The Air Force is transitioning to a new AFFORGEN model that
provides the Joint Force with a sustainable high-end Air Force ready
for peer competition and major combat operations in accordance with the
NDS. Due to air power's inherent flexibility, our previous generation
models could not easily define sustainable capacity and capability
limits, nor could it easily facilitate modernization towards rapid
force employment concepts to develop future force readiness. As a
result, over the past 20+ years, the Air Force has been ``all in'' at
the expense of readiness and modernization. While we knew this was
happening, the Air Force lacked the ability to present an easily
understood model that reflected all facets of airpower that could
communicate how the Air Force was being consumed faster than it could
rebuild readiness.
To address these issues, and to get after the heart of General
Brown's Accelerate Change or Lose initiatives, AFFORGEN has become the
Service catalyst for a paradigm and cultural shift in how we prepare
and present credible and capable air power. Aligning to the notion that
we can no longer sacrifice future readiness for the sake of ``right
now,'' AFFORGEN provides the Service with a standardized, easy to
understand, and defendable model that builds readiness over time and
clearly predicts the impact of GFM actions to future force offerings,
readiness, and modernization. AFFORGEN also balances tradeoffs between
short-term and longer-term force elements of equipment readiness such
as depot modernization, stabilizes manning to avoid abrupt readiness
declines in training, resources units to sustain higher-levels of
readiness over longer periods of time, provides leadership with greater
unit training and readiness forecasting, and better informs corporate
resourcing and budgeting decisions.
Institutionalizing AFFORGEN will take leadership at all levels.
Through GFM processes, we have begun the hard work today, setting
conditions to establish Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal
year 2023, maturing through fiscal year 2024 and fiscal year 2025.
current capacity and capability
Following NDS and National Security Strategy guidance, the Air
Force seeks to invest in technologies and field systems that are both
lethal and survivable against a peer threat. This ultimately means
transitioning away from many legacy platforms in order to free up
manpower as resources to field more capable systems and modernize. If
we are to modernize to address the emerging threat, we must use
resources tied to our legacy platforms and weapons systems that are
decreasing in relevance today and will be irrelevant in the future. We
must strike a balance between risk in the near-term and risk in the
future.
Bomber / ICBM Force Structure
The future of our bomber force relies on the B-21 and a heavily-
modified B-52. Our budget proposal supports the Defense Department's
principal priority to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
deterrent that safeguards the Homeland, assures allies, and deters
adversaries. Nuclear deterrence is the highest priority mission of the
Department of Defense--our deterrent underwrites every U.S. military
operation around the world and is the foundation and backstop of our
national defense.
B-21
The B-21 Raider will form the backbone of our future bomber force.
The B-21 will have the range, access, and payload to penetrate the most
highly contested threat environments to hold any target on the globe at
risk. The B-21 will provide the capabilities to deter and, if needed,
win in high-end, near-peer conflicts. Not only will the B-21 underscore
our national security as the most flexible leg of the Nuclear Triad, it
will also support Combatant Commanders across the range of military
objectives as both a nuclear and conventional bomber. In under three
years, the B-21 has transitioned from a digital design to two test
aircraft being manufactured on the production line. The Fiscal Year
2022 President's Budget ($2.87 billion) continues to fund the
production of test aircraft and supports scaling the manufacturing
infrastructure and capacity across the supply base. In addition, the
budget also includes $108 million to procure initial long-lead parts in
advance of low rate initial production.
In parallel, beddown preparations at Ellsworth Air Force Base
(AFB), South Dakota remain on-track. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget requests $343 million to begin construction of six projects at
Ellsworth AFB. The first B-21s are projected to arrive at Ellsworth AFB
in the mid-2020s with base infrastructure ready to support. A second
Environmental Impact Statement is expected to begin in 2022 to assess
the final two basing locations, Dyess AFB, Texas and Whiteman AFB,
Missouri.
The fiscal year 2021 NDAA required the Air Force to preserve
minimum Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory levels with a path to a 225
bomber fleet. Our preferred end state is a two bomber fleet compromised
of 225 modernized, relevant, and healthy B-21 and B-52 aircraft. The
Air Force is committed and on track to meet its key performance
parameter of building B-21s with an average procurement unit cost of
$550 million (Base Year 2010) / $639 million (Base Year 2019), assuming
a minimum fleet of 100 aircraft.
B-52
While the last B-52 Stratofortress entered service in the U.S. Air
Force in 1962, we expect to continue operating the B-52 through 2050.
We will continue to invest in modernization programs to keep the
platform operationally relevant. Major modernization efforts include
the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP), Radar Modernization
Program, Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT), and
installation of Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) secured
satellite communication capabilities.
The Air Force's number one priority for the B-52 is to ensure
platform viability through 2050 and the CERP is critical to achieving
this goal. CERP will replace legacy engines (TF33-PW-103) with new
commercial engines using Middle Tier of Acquisition processes to remove
more than three years from the traditional program schedule.
Additionally, CERP is more complex than just a standard commercial
engine refit. CERP includes new engines, flight systems, and cockpit
throttle and displays. The Radar Modernization Program is also
necessary to ensure viability through 2050 and will modernize the
current Strategic Radar (AN/APQ-166), which is based on 1960s
technology modified in the 1980s.
B-52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) fleet
modification will be complete in fiscal year 2023. This system provides
an integrated communication and mission management system, as well as a
machine-to-machine interface for conventional weapons retargeting.
CONECT's digital infrastructure and architecture is the foundation for
the 1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade, which allows for internal
carriage of J-series weapons through modification of the Common
Strategic Rotary Launchers. This significantly increases the B-52's
capability to store and deliver the Joint Direct Attack Munition
(JDAM), Laser-JDAM, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and
its extended range variant, and the Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD)
along with its jamming variant. Finally, the integration of the long-
range standoff (LRSO) nuclear air-launched cruise missile and AEHF will
ensure the continuation of the B-52's role in the airborne leg of the
Nuclear Triad. The Air Force remains committed to B-52 modernization to
ensure the Nation's oldest and most versatile frontline long range
bomber remains relevant through 2050 and beyond.
B-1
The B-1 is a long-range, supersonic multirole bomber capable of
flying intercontinental missions with the largest payload of guided and
unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. In fiscal year 2021 we are
retiring 17 B-1s as authorized in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA. This will
allow the Air Force to focus available resources on sustaining and
modernizing the remaining combat-coded B-1s. The goal is to retire the
most challenging aircraft to sustain in order to improve readiness of
the remaining fleet. We will ensure the B-1s remain lethal and viable
until B-21s are operational in sufficient numbers. The recently
completed Integrated Battle Station upgrade enhances crew situational
awareness and precision engagement capabilities and is the B-1's
largest modernization effort ever. The first aircraft with this upgrade
was delivered in January 2014 and the last aircraft was completed in
September 2020. Other efforts to update the B-1's communication systems
are ongoing and ensure the B-1 remains the backbone of the Air Force's
long-range bomber force until the B-21 arrives.
Lastly, the B-1 is the Air Force's threshold platform for the Long
Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). Integration of this weapon, coupled
with the B-1's long range, high speed, and large payload capacity,
postures the B-1 for an important role in any conflict in the Indo-
Pacific region.
B-2
The B-2 is the only long-range strike aircraft capable of
penetrating and surviving advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems to
deliver weapons against heavily defended targets. Its unique attributes
of intercontinental range, precision strike, large conventional or
nuclear payloads, ability to penetrate defenses, and low observable
profile allow it to execute Nuclear Deterrence Operations, Nuclear
Response, Global Strike, and Global Precision Attack missions. The Air
Force will ensure the B-2 remains effective until the B-21 is
operational. Because delays in the Defensive Management System
modernization effort would limit the operational utility of the system
by the time it would be fielded, the Air Force abandoned full Defensive
Management System modernization. Instead, we are replacing the B-2's
unsustainable cathode ray tube displays with modern sustainable
displays.
The Air Force completed development efforts to re-host the Stores
Management Operational Flight Program software in the Flexible Strike
program. This enables the B-2 to take advantage of advanced digital
weapon interfaces, such as those used by the B61-12 nuclear weapon. The
Flexible Strike capability reached Initial Operational Capability in
November 2020 as part of the B-2 P6.2 block effort, which includes
Military GPS User Equipment and B-2 hardware to support carrying the
B61-12 weapon. The Air Force completed fleet-wide installation of the
Common Very-Low-Frequency/Low Frequency (VLF/LF) Receiver, providing
the B-2 with a VLF/LF receiver for secure, survivable, strategic
communications. Other on-going B-2 modernization programs include
Adaptive Communication Suite upgrades, enhancement of the
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, replacement of the Crash
Survivable Memory Unit, integration of hardware upgrades for employment
of the B61-12 nuclear weapon, and software upgrades to allow the B-2 to
carry the extended range variant of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff
Missile (JASSM-ER). Development of the Radar Aided Targeting System
software upgrade began in October 2018 and will provide improved
navigational handoff to weapons in a GPS-denied environment. Finally,
the B-2 will continue sustainment efforts for the on-going Low
Observable Signature and Supportability Modification effort to improve
aircraft maintainability and availability.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Modernization
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are integral to U.S.
nuclear deterrence. The Air Force is in the initial stages of replacing
this 1970s-era ICBM capability with the Ground-Based Strategic
Deterrent (GBSD). The GBSD is the most cost effective option for
modernizing the ICBM leg of the Nuclear Triad and supports the NDS to
modernize the capability of nuclear forces. The GBSD will extend and
improve the capabilities of the ground-based leg of the Nuclear Triad,
providing a credible and responsive deterrent capability against
current and emerging adversaries through 2075. The new weapon system
will provide improved nuclear surety, safety, and effectiveness with
enhanced security features as well as technologies that cannot be
incorporated into the existing Minuteman-III system. Furthermore,
attempting to keep the Minuteman-III through a Service Life Extension
Program (SLEP) is not a cost-effective option. GBSD will provide more
efficient operations, maintenance, and security by modernizing critical
infrastructure and decreasing lifecycle costs.
The GBSD program remains on track in pursuing a low risk,
technically mature design and is using innovative digital engineering
and acquisition strategies to increase development speed and ensure on-
time delivery. Deployment is scheduled to begin in the late-2020s in
order to resolve capability, attrition, and age-out concerns with the
Minuteman-III weapon system, as well as meet warfighter requirements.
The Nation is focusing investment on these new missiles and the
associated infrastructure and accompanying re-entry systems.
Fighter Force Structure
The Air Force must accelerate change to its fighter force structure
to meet the threat posed by China and Russia, ensuring the Air Force
can achieve air superiority and dominance over peer adversaries and has
the capacity to meet world-wide demands in the 2030s and beyond.
Extensive gaming and analysis using the most difficult problem (i.e.,
China) and the most difficult scenario (i.e., Taiwan) at the most
difficult time (i.e., 2035), shows that the Air Force must change the
future fighter force structure mix by changing investment priorities to
provide the capability, capacity, and affordability required to meet
the peer threat. To just keep pace with the threat would require an
additional $6 billion to $7 billion per year to modernize our current
force projected into the future. Even if that was affordable, this
force would fall well short of the capability required to counter a
future peer threat. Modernization programs cannot transform our 4th
generation fighters into 5th generation fighters, or 5th generation
fighters into next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD).
Our fighters are becoming significantly more expensive to sustain
as they age, and ours are the most aged of all. The average age of the
Air Force fleet is 28.6 years, while the U.S. Navy is 14.4 years and
the U.S. Army is 15.3 years. In comparison to our allies, the average
age of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is 8.9 years and the Royal
Air Force (United Kingdom) is 16.5 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 an aging force, but also must
invest in cutting edge technology needed to confront and pace peer
threats.
In realistic budget projections, we must balance the need for high
end technology with affordable capacity. To attain this 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 NGAD and F-35
modernization. The desired Air Force fighter fleet should match
capability and capacity of both platforms and weapons to mission
requirements. As part of its force structure change, the Air Force must
transition its fighter fleet from seven platforms (i.e., F-35, F-22, F-
16, F-15EX, F-15E, F-15C, A-10) to four platforms (i.e., NGAD, F-35, F-
15EX, F-16) plus the A-10 in the near- to mid-term.
Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
The Air Force is investing in technologies as part of a family of
capabilities to assure air dominance in the future. NGAD is an
advanced, air superiority fighter designed to operate within the most
challenging operational environments and replace the aging F-22. The
requirement to establish and maintain air superiority within the
battlespace cannot be understated as it underpins the joint force
operations in any theater. NGAD is our program that supports studies,
analyses, technical maturation, and prototyping activities leading to
enhancements in lethality, survivability, interoperability, and
persistence to ensure air superiority. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget requests $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2022 to fund the continued
development of a next generation open mission system architecture,
advanced sensors, cutting-edge communications using open standards, and
integration of the most promising technologies into the family of
capabilities. Furthermore, this program incorporates novel agile
acquisition practices through its competitive industry consortium
approach that is yielding favorable results and provides greater value
for the taxpayer. Our efforts are being shaped by multiple analyses,
including recommendations from the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
approved Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan, recently completed NGAD
Analysis of Alternatives, and several others from renowned analytic
organizations. Continued investment in NGAD technologies is critical to
ensuring continued air dominance within emerging threat environments
for all future joint operations.
F-35
The F-35 is the cornerstone of our future fighter fleet. The F-35
today is dominant, purpose built, and equipped with advanced weapons
for the contested environment. The original program of record was
designed to replace all F-16s and all A-10s. Whether the Air Force is
able to afford to replace the majority of the fighter fleet with F-35s
is a decision-point that is still a few years away. In the near-term,
we must concentrate on achieving the F-35 capability needed for
advanced threats. While the F-35 is a formidable platform today, it
faces challenges to ensure it stays dominant against an evolving future
threat. To keep pace with the threat in future contested scenarios,
follow-on modernization efforts centered on ``Block 4'' enabled by
Technical Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware must be affordably realized on
competition-relevant timelines. The F-35 operating costs (as currently
projected) and long-term sustainment costs are areas of concern that
need continued focus and work to address affordability.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request decreases the F-35
procurement quantity in fiscal year 2022 to 48 from the fiscal year
2021 enacted position of 60 aircraft and commits $5.09 billion to
procurement, $985.4 million to development and $704.5 million to fund
necessary sustainment, capability development, and retrofit cost gaps.
Block 4/TR-3 provides the capabilities we need to address future
threats and maintain advantage. Procuring additional aircraft before
Block 4/TR-3 ``cuts in'' to production will drive a retrofit bill and
is therefore not desired.
F-22
The F-22 is the only operational multi-mission air superiority
fighter aircraft that combines stealth, supercruise, maneuverability,
and integrated avionics to make it the world's most capable air
superiority aircraft. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request
includes $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2022 for modernization efforts
essential to gain and maintain air superiority against evolving
threats. The Capability Pipeline, an agile acquisition construct,
combines former TackLink16, Tactical Mandates (TACMAN), and GPS M-code
programs to deliver slices of each capability on a regular release
cadence to the field. Future modernizations will continue to leverage
the ``Capability Pipeline'' as a vehicle to rapidly prototype and
iteratively field critical enhancements with capabilities delivered to
the fleet in order to ensure ``first look, first shot, first kill''
capability in highly contested environments. The transition timeline
from F-22 to NGAD is dependent on the progress of NGAD development
efforts.
F-15
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 Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget request divests 48 F-15C/Ds from the Active fleet. 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
Eagle II additionally brings outsized long range weapons (i.e., air-to-
surface and air-to-air) into a peer fight. The Fiscal Year 2022
President's Budget request procures 12 F-15EX aircraft at a cost of
$1.335 billion. Notably, the Air Force remains fully committed to
advanced 5th and next generation capabilities and the F-35. The
decision to refresh the 4th generation fighter force with the F-15EX is
a complementary step to both F-35 procurement and NGAD development, and
helps mitigate capacity risk while balancing near-term readiness
concerns.
The existing F-15E Strike Eagle fleet provides all-weather, long
range global precision attack in all but the highest threat
environments. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $488.7
million in fiscal year 2022 to continue modernization efforts to ensure
the aircraft remains viable to the 2030s. Modernizing the F-15E with
Early Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS), also used
on the F-15EX, demonstrates our commitment to building a more lethal
Air Force. EPAWSS will allow the F-15E/EX to survive to attack targets
in high threat environments.
F-16
The F-16 is the Air Force's primary multi-role fighter and
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) 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. We are beginning to transition away from our oldest,
early block F-16s, with a reduction of 47 planned in fiscal year 2022.
We will continue to modernize the late 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 Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $888.3 million in
fiscal year 2022 to continue these modernization efforts. This includes
continuing the Service Life Extension Program comprising 12 structural
modifications, affecting 300 aircraft, as well as several avionics
capability upgrades including the Active Electronically Scanned Array
(AESA) Radar upgrade. The new radar replaces the current mechanically
scanned radar, with greater ability to detect, track, and identify low-
observable, low-flying, and slow-flying targets. This joint emerging
operational need is critical for the F-16 platform to meet aerospace
control alert mission requirements to properly defend the Homeland
against modern threats. These radars continue fielding in fiscal year
2022.
A-10
The A-10 remains an effective close air support platform for the
current Counter Violent Extremist Organization fight. With very limited
utility in a contested fight, we are right-sizing our A-10 fleet for
the current and anticipated future demand and then structurally
extending and modernizing the aircraft we keep. We will continue to re-
wing and modernize 218 A-10s while we reduce the fleet by 42 in fiscal
year 2022 and an additional 21 in fiscal year 2023. The Fiscal Year
2022 President's Budget requests $122.8 million (Procurement; and
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funds) in Fiscal Year 2022
for modernization. The 2016 and 2017 National Defense Authorization
Acts restrict retiring or divesting A-10s until completion of the F-35
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation comparative tests and
associated reports, and the Secretary of the Air Force briefs the
findings to congressional committees. We are seeking legislative relief
to delink the Comparative Test portion, which is complete, from the
overall Initial Operational Test and Evaluation report, which is not,
in order to begin right-sizing this fleet.
Trainers
T-1, T-6, and T-38
The Air Force is continuing investment efforts in its trainer
platforms, including modernization programs for the T-1, T-6, and T-38
fleets. The T-1A Avionics Modernization Program will modernize the T-1A
fleet and address known obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing
supply issues. For the T-6, the Air Force is completing installation of
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out, modernizing the
Aircrew Training Devices and Crew System life support equipment, and
providing logistics support. Additionally, research and development
activities will be funded for the Next Generation On-Board Oxygen
Generation System (OBOGS) to improve the safety of pilot training and
address on-going physiological events in the T-6 aircraft. For the T-
38C, modifications are also required to sustain and upgrade the fleet
until the T-7A delivers, including avionics, Pacer Classic III, Talon
repair, inspections, maintenance, and front canopy replacement programs
until the eT-7A is delivered. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget
requests $3.9 million, $8.8 million, and $54.3 million for the T-1, T-
6, and T-38 fleets, respectively.
eT-7A
The Advanced Pilot Trainer (eT-7A) contract was awarded to The
Boeing Company on 27 September 2018. The eT-7A System Critical Design
Review was completed in the summer of 2020. The eT-7A replaces the Air
Education and Training Command's existing fleet of 427 T-38C aircraft
with 351 aircraft and associated simulators, ground equipment, spares,
and support equipment. The eT-7A will provide student pilots with the
skills and competencies required to be better prepared to transition
into 4th and 5th generation fighter and bomber aircraft. The Fiscal
Year 2022 President's Budget request of $199.3 million continues the
program's Engineering and Manufacturing Development and early aircraft
flight test efforts, as well as procures long lead support equipment,
ensuring we meet the 2024 Initial Operational Capability and 2034 Full
Operational Capability milestones.
Munitions
The Air Force must maintain a suite of affordable air-to-air and
air-to-ground kinetic and non-kinetic weapons delivering capability and
capacity to defeat rapidly evolving peer competitors. As such, we
continue to procure preferred munitions, but are tapering production as
programs approach warfighter inventory objectives, while simultaneously
investing in new technology to counter future peer threats in highly
contested environments. During the last several years, we have
successfully ramped up production capacity across the portfolio and our
Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request reduces procurement rates
of preferred munitions to sustain inventory objectives, while
continuing to provide resources to apply toward advanced weaponry and
hypersonics. We will continue to invest in future weapon design,
development, and fielding to ensure advanced capabilities are available
to engage all future threats. To ensure success, munitions procurement
will remain an item of interest across the FYDP.
Joint Direct Attack Munition and Small Diameter Bomb
The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is the air-to-ground weapon
of choice in the current fight and the expenditure rate has reduced by
42 percent in fiscal year 2021 (840) compared to fiscal year 2020
(1,443). After increasing tailkit production to 45,000 tailkits per
year in fiscal year 2018 to meet the needs of the Services and Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) partners, the Air Force has adjusted to demand and
now plans to procure 1,900 tailkits in fiscal year 2022 with a request
of $124 million, with Navy and FMS partners procuring the remaining
production capacity.
Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB I) and II (SBD II) provide reduced
collateral damage effects and increased load-out per sortie for our
warfighters. Due to its high operational utility, the Air Force ramped
the line for SDB I from 3,000 weapons per year in fiscal year 2015 to
8,000 weapons in fiscal year 2017. With demand dropping and advanced
standoff weapons in higher demand, the Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget requests $82.8 million and plans to order 998 weapons leaving
residual production capacity available to FMS partners. For SDB II, the
Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $294.6 million to procure
985 weapons.
Finally, Hellfire missiles provide a time-sensitive, direct strike
capability for our remotely-piloted aircraft and remain in high demand
around the world. Production capacity, shared between Hellfire and
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), was ramped up from 5,000 missiles
per year in fiscal year 2015 to 11,000 missiles per year in fiscal year
2019. With lower demand and higher priority advanced weapons
requirements, the Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $104
million and procures at least 1,274 Hellfire missiles.
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and Advanced Medium Range Air-
to-Air Missile
As the Air Force responds to current operational demands, we are
also looking to the future to ensure we are prepared to defend against
more advanced threats as directed in the NDS. Doing so requires
advanced weapons capabilities and the Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget request reflects the Air Force's plan to continue investing in
those areas, specifically with the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff
Missile (JASSM), the Long-Range Anti-Ship Munition (LRASM), and the
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). These weapons
provide unique and necessary capabilities for the highly contested
environment.
JASSM is the premier air-to-ground, low observable missile for
defeating threats in highly contested environments and is the weapon of
choice for a future fight against peer adversaries. The program is
focused on increasing inventory by implementing a strategy to ramp up
production rates and monitor subsystems for obsolescence. To achieve
this, we have partnered with industry to expand production capacity to
satisfy a 47 percent increase in our inventory objective. The Fiscal
Year 2022 President's Budget requests $711 million, with the
corresponding available max rate for JASSM increasing to 525.
LRASM, produced in the same facility as JASSM, is a purpose-built
anti-ship missile particularly critical for the future fight in a
maritime environment. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget does not
request procurement due to a supply chain obsolescence limitation.
Future procurement has mitigated the limitation.
Production of AMRAAM missiles, a critical air dominance weapon,
remains consistent with fiscal year 2022 procurement levels by
requesting $214 million for 168 missiles, as industry partners begin to
cut-in a solution to obsolescence issues through the Form Fit Function
Refresh (F3R) effort.
Stand-In Attack Weapon (SiAW)
To defend the Nation in an increasingly competitive global
environment, we must look beyond currently fielded weapons systems and
invest in future advanced munitions capabilities. To that end, the Air
Force continues to invest in development of the Stand-In Attack Weapon
(SiAW) to deliver a strike capability to defeat rapidly relocatable
targets, a hallmark of the highly contested environment. SiAW is the
munition that gives the F-35 unique air-to-surface capabilities in the
high end fight for the entire Joint Force. The Fiscal Year 2022
President's Budget requests $166.5 million for SiAW development and
prototyping.
Hypersonics
The Air Force is poised to field the first production hypersonic
munition in the DOD. The AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon
(ARRW) is completing test and begins procurement with budget requests
of $160.8 million for 12 munitions in fiscal year 2022 and $238 million
for research and development. Capable of employment from fighters as
well as bombers, the Air Force is also developing the Hypersonic Attack
Cruise Missile (HACM) to complement ARRW. The Fiscal Year 2022
President's Budget request of $200 million for HACM development is
designed to result in production article procurement in late fiscal
year 2026.
Tanker Fleet
Tankers are not only the lifeblood of our Joint force's ability to
respond to crises and contingencies quickly, but are also essential to
keeping our Air Force fueled as a global force. By the end of fiscal
year 2022, the tanker fleet will be comprised of 376 KC-135s, 36 KC-
10s, and 74 KC-46s that execute rapid U.S. global operations. As of May
2021, we have accepted 45 KC-46 Pegasus aircraft and will receive a
total of 179 KC-46s. As we transition away from the aging KC-10 and
right-size the KC-135 fleet, we continue to look towards the next
generation for tanker recapitalization options.
KC-46
While we continue to sustain the current tanker capability,
building the future tanker fleet remains one of the Air Force's top
acquisition priorities. The KC-46 will deliver greater operational
readiness, flexibility, and survivability to the Global Reach mission.
The Air Force awarded Lot 6 on 13 January 2021 and Lot 7 on 20 January
2021, increasing the number of production aircraft on contract to 94.
The Lot 8 contract for up to 15 aircraft is projected to award in the
second quarter of fiscal year 2022.
The first KC-46 aircraft delivered to McConnell AFB, Kansas (Main
Operating Base 1), on 25 January 2019. The Formal Training Unit at
Altus AFB, Oklahoma, received its first KC-46 on 8 February 2019. The
Air Force established Main Operating Base 2 at Pease Air National Guard
Base, New Hampshire, on 8 August 2019, and Main Operating Base 3 at
Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, on 12 June 2020. Main Operating
Base 4a at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is planned to receive its
first KC-46 in the first quarter of fiscal year 2022. The Air Force
will continue taking delivery of KC-46s at a rate of approximately 1.4
per month.
The Air Force remains committed to ensuring Boeing corrects
deficiencies identified in both developmental and operational test and
evaluation of the KC-46's effectiveness, suitability, and mission
capability. Partnered with Air Mobility Command, we have worked hard to
accept the KC-46 while ensuring its major deficiencies--the Remote
Vision System (RVS) and stiff air refueling boom--are properly
addressed without undue burden on taxpayers or warfighters. On 2 April
2020, we reached agreement with Boeing to fix the RVS deficiencies
through significant upgrades, known as RVS 2.0, at no additional cost
to the government. The air refueling boom engineering change proposal,
initially awarded in August 2019, was definitized on 30 September 2020.
The RVS design solution is expected by the end of fiscal year 2023, and
the stiff air refueling boom design solution is expected at the
beginning of fiscal year 2024. The retrofits and installs for both RVS
and the boom across our fleet will begin in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2024. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has
stated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) will conclude
after the RVS and boom deficiencies are resolved; IOT&E is expected to
complete in fiscal year 2024. Additionally, we delayed the full-rate
production decision until after IOT&E is complete and we are in receipt
of the statutorily-required Beyond Low Rate Initial Production report
from DOT&E.
Despite its current deficiencies, the KC-46 is safe to operate
(adhering to flight manual cautions provided to our operators) and will
be the Air Force's best tanker for contested environments due to
enhanced situational awareness, battle management, and threat
countermeasures. By accepting the KC-46 with known deficiencies, the
Air Force was able to initiate familiarization and operational test
activities while working with Boeing on long-term efforts to correct
deficiencies. Accepting the KC-46, and fixing deficiencies in parallel
with operational test and evaluation, is the fastest way to achieve
full operational capability to meet warfighter requirements. Air
Mobility Command is making the KC-46 available for limited operational
taskings to alleviate pressure on legacy tanker fleets and allow some
legacy tanker retirements.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $73.4 million in
RDT&E funding for the ongoing KC-46 Engineering and Manufacturing
Development and post production modification efforts, to include the
boom telescope actuator redesign effort resolving the stiff boom
deficiency. Additionally, the budget requests $2.4 billion in
procurement funding to award Lot 8 (14 aircraft plus associated spares,
engines, support equipment, and wing air refueling pods).
KC-10 and KC-135
The average age of our KC-135 and KC-10 tankers is 60 and 36 years
old, respectively. Both fleets are challenged by aircraft parts
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source issues. With the help
of organic Air Force depots and industry, we are able to maintain these
platforms as effective and safe weapon systems for the warfighter. We
are executing several key modernization, safety, and compliance
initiatives to ensure our KC-135 fleet remains viable beyond 2040.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request will continue KC-
135 modernization efforts including the Block 45 program, the Aero-I
SATCOM program, and the Rudder Position Indicator program. To address
supportability, reliability, and maintainability issues with legacy
flight and engine instruments, the Block 45 program integrates a
digital flight director, autopilot, radar altimeter, and electronic
engine instrument display for our operators. The Aero-I SATCOM program
allows the KC-135 to use Iridium SATCOM service, as the current
Inmarsat service is planned to sunset in January 2023. Additionally,
the Rudder Position Indicator program enhances safety of the KC-135 by
providing the aircrew with situational awareness for the actual rudder
position.
Additionally, the budget requests funding to keep our KC-10 fleet
operational through its planned retirement, and includes funding for
service bulletins and low cost modifications to ensure Federal Aviation
Administration certification.
The Air Force took measured risk in fiscal year 2022 tanker
capacity in order to resource the capability we need for the future
fight. As we look to better align the Air Force with the NDS, KC-10 and
KC-135 retirements were accelerated. In fiscal year 2022, the Air Force
is retiring 14 KC-10s and 18 KC-135s from the Active Duty fleets.
Presidential Airlift
VC-25B
The VC-25B program will replace the U.S. Air Force Presidential VC-
25A fleet, which faces capability gaps, rising maintenance costs, and
parts obsolescence as it ages beyond 30 years. The VC-25B program will
deliver two new aircraft to meet the requirements for the President to
execute the roles of Head of State, Chief Executive, and Commander-in-
Chief. Two Boeing 747-8 aircraft are being uniquely modified to provide
the President, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air
transportation and a level of communications capability and security
equivalent to that which is available in the White House. Modifications
to the 747-8 aircraft began in February 2020 in San Antonio, Texas, and
include an electrical power upgrade, dual auxiliary power units that
are usable in flight, mission communication systems, an executive
interior, military avionics, a self-defense system, autonomous
enplaning and deplaning, and autonomous baggage loading.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $681 million to
continue Engineering and Manufacturing Development, aircraft
modifications, and other product support activities.
Strategic and Tactical Airlift
C-5
The C-5 Super Galaxy provides all-weather worldwide strategic
airlift for combat forces, equipment, and supplies, exemplifying Rapid
Global Mobility as outlined in the NDS. Current investment programs
focus on fleet obsolescence, maintainability, and safety of flight.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $25.4 million in
procurement funding, predominately for communications, navigation,
surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) and core mission
computer/weather radar (CMC/WxR) system equipment. CNS/ATM upgrades
include Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
modifications required for global airspace compliance. The CMC/WxR
effort replaces an antiquated radar system with diminishing
manufacturing sources and upgrades the core mission computer processor
to meet the demands of future software modifications.
Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests
RDT&E funding to support replacement of the Multifunctional Control and
Displays (RMCD). This comprehensive sustainment modification mitigates
the obsolescence of the current control and display units and increases
capacity for future technology integration into the cockpit.
C-17
The C-17 is the only aircraft in the Air Force inventory that
combines tactical capability with strategic range to operate from
austere airfields. The fleet of 222 aircraft provides our Nation with
unmatched flexibility to conduct theater and inter-theater direct
delivery, airdrop, aeromedical, and special operations airlift
missions. Agile and efficient software and hardware updates ensure
timely readiness, safety, and capability improvements as this premier
airlift platform contributes to our national security objectives.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests procurement
funding to continue critical modifications to the C-17 fleet. This
includes a filter fire mitigation for the On-Board Inert Gas Generating
System, Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures defensive systems, and
training system upgrades. The modification effort of a replacement
heads-up display will address obsolescence of the current C-17 heads-up
display and improve the system's availability, reliability, and
maintainability. Additionally, fiscal year 2022 RDT&E funding will
address obsolescence and flight safety issues. The Beyond-Line-of-Sight
communication system effort modernizes multi-channel voice and data
communication subsystems to ensure the C-17 keeps pace with changes in
Department of Defense communication infrastructure.
C-130H/J Fleet
The C-130 fleet consists of C-130H and newer C-130J aircraft, as
well as special mission aircraft (AC/LC/EC/MC/HC/WC-130s). 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.
C-130H
The Air Force continues to modernize the C-130H fleet through a
four-pronged approach emphasizing aircraft safety, airspace compliance,
modernization, and partial recapitalization. Our C-130H Center Wing Box
replacement program breathes new life into some of our hardest flown
aircraft, enabling them to continue to safely operate well into the
future. The C-130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) Increment 1
ensures the C-130H fleet is outfitted with modern communication
equipment and complies with U.S. and international airspace transponder
mandates. We completed the AMP Increment 1 installations for the C-130H
fleet in April 2021. The AMP Increment 2 program improves the C-130H
fleet maintainability and reliability by providing a new digital
avionics suite, and mitigating obsolescence and diminishing
manufacturing source challenges. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget requests $9.8 million in RDT&E and $29.8 million in procurement
funding to support the C-130H fleet.
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. Specifically, in fiscal year 2022 we plan to retire C-130H
aircraft. Additionally, the Air Reserve Component (ARC) will be
receiving five new C-130Js, resulting in a net reduction of eight
aircraft.
C-130J
The Air Force has partially recapitalized the C-130H fleet with C-
130Js, which also supports our Special Operations missions by providing
Special Forces with extra weight carrying capacity, longer range, and
better fuel efficiency. These special mission variants of the C-130J
conduct airborne psychological operations and offensive electronic
warfare (EC-130J), weather reconnaissance (WC-130J), search and rescue
(HC-130J), and special operations (MC-130J and AC-130J). The Air Force
has multiple modification efforts for the C-130J, including Center Wing
Box replacement, Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures, and an
accelerated avionics upgrade to meet 2024 Federal Aviation
Administration and international airspace mandates. The C-130J Block
8.1 modernization program, currently in production, delivers new
communication and data link capabilities, a modern flight management
system, and other key capabilities to the field. In addition, the Air
Force plans to upgrade both our C-130H and C-130J fleets with a Mobile
User Objective System and a Second Generation Anti-Jam Tactical Ultra
High Frequency Radio satellite communication system to ensure we
maintain key communication links anywhere in the world.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests funding for C-130J
RDT&E and $933.8 million for C-130J procurement and modification
efforts. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget also requests funding
for HC/MC-130J RDT&E and HC/MC-130J procurement and modification
efforts.
Rotorcraft
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget continues investment in the
Air Force's critical rotorcraft modernization programs, including the
CV-22 Osprey, HH-60G, HH-60W, and MH-139A programs.
CV-22
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $186 million in
fiscal year 2022 for the CV-22 fleet to assist in execution of the
National Military Strategy by providing transformational mission
capability to special operations forces warfighters. The Air Force
continues to make improvements to the CV-22 with modifications designed
to improve readiness, reliability, and relevance. Future efforts will
make the CV-22 more cost-effective while ensuring the viability of its
unique long-range payload capacity coupled with vertical take-off and
landing capability.
HH-60G and HH-60W (Combat Rescue Helicopter)
The Air Force is the only Service with a dedicated force organized,
trained, and equipped to execute theater-wide Personnel Recovery. The
HH-60G fleet currently accomplishes this mission by conducting day,
night, and marginal weather Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) operations
to recover isolated personnel in hostile or permissive environments.
Due to the advancing age and current attrition rates of the HH-60G, the
Air Force must continue to sustain existing HH-60G helicopters while
using the Operational Loss Replacement program to meet Combatant
Command requirements until we can fully recapitalize with the HH-60W
(Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH)) program. The HH-60W will be
specifically equipped to conduct CSAR across the entire spectrum of
military operations. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request
reduces the total fleet to 105 air vehicles from the program of record
of 113. The Air Force has fully funded the CRH program to meet National
Military Strategy objectives through Personnel Recovery missions. The
Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget requests $15.6 million and $996.7
million for the HH-60G and HH-60W programs, respectively.
MH-139A
The MH-139A (formerly UH-1N Replacement) program is an element of
the Air Force nuclear enterprise reform initiative and also supports
operational airlift within the National Capital Region. This program
will deliver up to 80 replacement helicopters, training devices, and
associated support equipment to replace the legacy UH-1Ns. The Fiscal
Year 2022 President's Budget requests $16 million for the MH-139
program, which will fund the continued test and development of the
aircraft with a delay in production decision expected in fiscal year
2023. The first six aircraft have been delivered and are being used to
finalize test and development.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Aligned with the NDS, the Air Force is aiming to re-orient the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Enterprise by
aligning ends, ways, and means to address the peer threat environment
through the increased use of human-machine teaming. The end goal is a
ready Next Generation ISR Enterprise possessing a decisive advantage
for the warfighter while remaining competent across the entire spectrum
of conflict.
To meet the challenges of a highly contested environment, the
future ISR portfolio will consist of a multi-domain, multi-
intelligence, collaborative sensing grid that uses advanced technology.
It will be resilient, persistent, and penetrating to support both
kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities alike. Global Integrated ISR must
transition to connected, survivable platforms, and that requires
accelerating investment and accepting short-term risks by transitioning
away from outdated and underperforming ISR assets that offer limited
capability against peer and near peer threats.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request takes further steps
towards repurposing, retooling, automating, and stabilizing the force
to ensure the ISR Enterprise can achieve this vision within the next
decade.
MQ-9
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request of $357.9 million
will continue MQ-9 fleet modernization efforts aimed at providing
needed capabilities to the Combatant Commands. To date the MQ-9 fleet
has flown approximately 2 million hours, with 91 percent of those hours
supporting combat operations. This level of warfighter support is
facilitated by a unique program architecture in which MQ-9 sustainment
and modernization efforts are managed as separate, yet fully integrated
and complementary, programs of record. This allows the Air Force to
focus on operating and sustaining fielded MQ-9s while development and
testing of planned modernizations are conducted in parallel. By
structuring this way, mature and proven upgrades for the program at
large are delivered when and where they are needed.
MQ-9 modernization efforts include the establishment of an MQ-9
Multi-Domain Operations (M2DO) configuration which are capability
upgrades that will keep the fleet relevant. Some of the upgrades in the
M2DO configuration include Anti-jam Ground Position System, C2
Resiliency, Enhanced Power, Link-16, and an effective and reliable open
systems architecture. Additionally, the MQ-9 program is actively
engaged in mitigating the operational and maintenance impacts of
sustaining a multi-configuration fleet as well as enabling airspace
integration and access.
RC-135
The Air Force is committed to sustaining and upgrading the RC-135
fleet as it continues to be our most capable, relevant, and viable
signals intelligence platform. Continued modernization using rapid
acquisition and fielding processes is critical as we address emerging
peer threats and the return to great power competition. The RC-135 is
critical to our decision advantage as it provides vital intelligence
data at unrivaled speeds to both the national-level intelligence
community and the tactical-level warfighter.
The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request facilitates mission
system improvements for the entire RC-135 variant fleet. Efforts
include the automation of additional search and detection capabilities,
improved near-real-time data distribution and collaborative processing,
and exploitation and dissemination supported by enhanced artificial
intelligence algorithms. Also, the first KC-135 to WC-135 conversion
will be accomplished and delivered in fiscal year 2022. Finally, our
partnership with the United Kingdom's RAF on the RC-135 and the RAAF on
the MC-55 Peregrine continues to set the standard for cooperative
efforts that strengthen alliances while increasing partner
interoperability.
RQ-4
The RQ-4 Global Hawk uncrewed aircraft system provides high
altitude, long endurance, all weather, wide area reconnaissance and
surveillance. The Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request of $121.7
million furthers modernization and sustainment efforts, to include
modernizing the ground segment, addressing diminishing manufacturing
sources, and standing up and assigning a maintenance depot for RQ-4
launch and recovery elements and mission control elements.
The Ground Segment Modernization Program is on track to complete
installation of upgraded cockpits at Grand Forks Air Force Base and
Beale Air Force Base in fiscal year 2023. Finally, the Air Force is
pursuing a Secretary of Defense waiver for RQ-4 Block 30 divestment as
authorized in the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA. The Department intends to
repurpose funding in penetrating ISR capabilities.
future capability
Competing against rising peer adversaries during this time of
unprecedented technology change requires a competitive acquisition
system--one that is faster and more agile than our rivals.
Consequently, the Air Force is transforming what we buy, how we buy,
and who we buy from to retain the battlefield dominance we presently
enjoy.
Understanding what to buy begins with a deep understanding of our
potential adversaries and the anticipated future operating environment.
We are using a future force design that incorporates adversary
assessments and lessons from wargaming and other analysis to drive
warfighter requirements and our acquisition choices. We will continue
to incorporate our learning from these activities into future design
iterations. This overall force design is being folded into our planning
and programming in order to transition from the force we have to the
force we need.
faster acquisitions
Fielding systems faster is step one. Through rapid prototyping
authorities granted by Congress, like Middle Tier of Acquisition, we
are trimming low-value-added steps that previously bogged down programs
and slowed capability to warfighters. In May 2019, we achieved our
``Century Challenge'' goal of removing 100 years from program schedules
and we've just kept going toward a new goal of 150 years. By the end of
fiscal year 2020, we identified 83.75 years of program accelerations
for MTA programs and an additional 29 years of accelerations by
tailoring our traditional acquisition programs. Rapid prototyping--
``flying before you buy''--is not just a faster acquisition approach;
it allows risks to be tackled earlier, before systems are in production
when there is still time to troubleshoot. The benefit is proving out in
our MTA programs, which maintain the same documentation and discipline
as traditional programs.
The Department of the Air Force is embarking on an acquisition
transformation by driving a ``Digital Trinity'' of initiatives into our
acquisition enterprise. The Digital Trinity consists of Digital
Engineering, Agile Software Development, and Open Systems
Architectures. These three initiatives will greatly reduce acquisition
schedules, increase our access to innovative and emerging technology,
reduce vendor lock, and allow us to field warfighting systems at the
speed of relevance. Digital Engineering approaches will change the way
we do business - shifting us from a document-based enterprise to one
based in models and data, allowing us to analyze, assess, and make
decisions regarding our system designs at machine enabled speeds. Agile
Software Development enables us to deliver rapid, iterative
improvements to our software in an assured and secure manner. Finally,
Open Systems Architecture will maximize flexibility in system design,
improve access to commercial products and competition, and enable our
weapon systems to be affordably and quickly modernized and upgraded.
To successfully do this, the Department must establish a digital
environment, or ``tech stack,'' that is accessible across
organizations--both industry and government--and enables our workforce
to access, understand, and modify the models of our weapon systems. We
must change the way we do business beyond document-based descriptions
of our weapon systems toward model-based systems engineering methods
that extend across the lifecycle from design to disposal. We must apply
smart coding and containerization to bring functionality from the labs
to the field at a rapid pace.
The Air Force is pursuing these initiatives on several fronts.
First, our Air Force Digital Campaign, with over 900 participants, is
drafting best practices and training, developing acquisition tools and
enablers, and crafting the steps forward. The Air Force has also issued
acquisition guidance for each of the three elements of the Digital
Trinity. We are actively deploying acquisition enablers, software
containerization and code reuse platforms, and open architectures
embodied in mature Government Reference Architectures.
Finally, we have a number of trailblazing programs that are
actively employing these initiatives and experiencing great results.
The T-7 program, our next training aircraft, is embracing model-based
engineering and 3D design tools. In doing so, Boeing reduced assembly
hours by 80% and cut software development time in half. The aircraft
moved from computer screen to first flight in just 36 months. Our
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) Program analyzed over 6 billion
variant designs digitally prior to making a selection. GBSD's
implementation of all elements of the Digital Trinity will enable
faster design cycles, ensuring the land-based element of our nuclear
triad is a deterrent for many years to come. The A-10 Enhanced Wing
Assembly program demonstrates the value these principles bring to
legacy platforms. Implementing digital engineering resulted in 236,500
operational hours returned to the A-10 fleet through individual
aircraft maintenance assessments based on risk analysis methods
pioneered by the organic A-10 government team. These tools have the
ability to ensure airworthiness, safety, and affordability of the A-10
fleet into 2030 and beyond. We're excited about the potential of these
new digital practices and look forward to reaping the benefits.
smarter acquisitions
As a key innovation engine for the Department of the Air Force,
AFWERX teams Airmen and Guardians talent with commercial technology
developers to transition agile, affordable, and accelerated
capabilities. Per May 2020 direction from the Vice Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, AFWERX 1.0 was combined with AFVentures and Agility
Prime. In this arrangement we moved AFWERX under the Air Force Materiel
Command, where the Air Force Research Laboratory provides the
``organize, train, and equip'' functions for AFWERX, while strategic
direction is provided by the Service Acquisition Executive. In December
2020, SpaceWERX became part of AFWERX, and in January 2021, the Small
Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
Center of Excellence also joined AFWERX. Together AFWERX establishes
technology, talent, and transition partnerships for competitive
commercial advantage and military capability through the three lines of
effort, AFVentures, Prime, and Spark.
``Air Force Ventures'' or ``AFVentures'' is a key means of
accelerating capability development by adjusting our work with
startups, small businesses, and private investors. With over eighty
percent of our Nation's research and development (R&D) now commercial--
and our Defense Industrial Base continuing to shrink through mergers
and acquisitions--transforming the way we work with commercial
companies is imperative. In 2018, we began energizing our Small
Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Program
(SBIR/STTR) to lower barriers for commercial tech companies, speed
contracts, and bring private investment into the Defense market. Since
2018, using our AFVentures process, we have awarded more than 2,000
contracts, with over 75 percent of the recipient small businesses being
new to the Department of the Air Force. Those companies have gone on to
raise $2.2 billion in follow-on private capital and win $1.4 billion
non-SBIR government funding, resulting in a $5.6-to-$1 Return-on-
Investment for the Department of the Air Force.
This Air Force Ventures process - one in which we open the door for
innovative companies to propose ideas to the Department of the Air
Force - showed strong value last year in being applied to non-Defense
missions. Specifically, the AFVentures team was integrated into the
Department of the Air Force Acquisition COVID-19 Task Force used to
fight the COVID-19 pandemic, and asked to scale their operations to
support FEMA, DHHS, and Joint priority missions. Over the course of
2020, the AFVentures process brought in over 3,700 pandemic-fighting
ideas, 449 of which were identified to meet emerging COVID-19 related
requirements - including PPE manufacture, digital contact tracing, and
remote telework. The AFVentures evaluation approach, which can scale to
evaluate hundreds of proposals in a matter of weeks, was implemented by
the FEMA Emergency Response team, evaluating over 300 proposals and
resulting in $645 million worth of awards. In all, the lessons learned
from last year showed that the AFVentures process can be quickly
implemented to solve emerging and urgent needs.
In an effort to scale the AFVentures success and accelerate
transition of emerging technologies AFWERX established Prime. The first
Prime program is Agility Prime. Agility Prime is a non-traditional
program seeking to operationalize commercial electric vertical takeoff
and landing (eVTOL) vehicles (i.e., ``flying cars'') for military
missions to accelerate the emerging commercial market. Agility Prime is
the only all-electric passenger aircraft program in the U.S.
Government. So far the program has awarded more than $100M of contracts
with close collaboration between FAA, NASA, DOT, DOE, and HHS. Agility
Prime use cases include: humanitarian response, disaster relief,
firefighting, distributed logistics, personnel recovery, disaster
response, ship to shore delivery, and medical evacuation. The
Department of the Air Force has unique testing and safety resources and
military use cases to help mitigate current commercial market and
regulatory risks. Agility Prime has been using these resources, rather
than significant R&D funding, to attract investors, build confidence,
and expedite commercialization, all while providing warfighters
revolutionary flexibility with assessment across 13 different air
mobility missions, some that will be tested in exercises beginning this
year. Since releasing the Innovative Capabilities Opening in February
2020, 24 companies have applied. Two of those companies have made it
through the Air Force airworthiness process, with several more
following soon. This unlocks their opportunity to generate revenue for
commercialization and to generate more data for accelerated learning,
and civil and military certification. The program is designed to
certify safety and airworthiness, procure systems for the most
promising missions, and reach operational capability by fiscal year
2023. Expanding our R&D enterprise from creator to catalyst is key for
accelerating dual-use technology and countering the advantages of
state-sponsored industrial bases. Based on the success of this model,
AFWERX Prime announced Space Prime as the follow-on to ``Agility
Prime.'' Other potential Primes go across five sectors to include
commercial alternative energy, autonomy for mission and maneuver,
digital engineering and advanced wargaming, supersonic travel, and
microelectronics.
Foundational to the success of any of these AFWERX efforts is the
amazing innovation network of Airmen and Guardians being empowered by
Spark. AFWERX Spark has implemented fellowship programs to include the
Defense Ventures Fellows, AFRL Fellows, and Academic fellows to rotate
through AFWERX or private industry. Additionally, Spark empowers over
80 base-level Spark Cells to ensure close connectivity with current
needs of our Airmen and Guardians.
integrated and adaptable acquisitions
Our potential adversaries are modernizing and advancing individual
systems while bringing families of systems (or systems of systems)
together into an architecture to deny U.S. interests and counter
potential U.S. action. To meet this threat we must not just field
capable individual systems but also integrate our systems so they can
work in unison to achieve the necessary operational effects on
increasingly rapid timelines allowing us to fight at machine speeds.
The Department of the Air Force must not only invest in war-winning
capabilities but also invest in war-winning technology architectures.
By way of analogy, it is no longer sufficient to have the right
ingredients, but we must also have the best recipe.
To achieve this integrated approach, we continue to design,
demonstrate, and evaluate a Department of the Air Force-wide integrated
architecture under the auspices of our Department of the Air Force
Chief Architect. This effort will require programs and platforms
themselves to be built with agility via open systems and open standards
so that they can adapt and upgrade components quickly in response to
threats or opportunities to integrate technology as advances are made.
We will also be engaged in a regular campaign of learning at the
architecture level with live demonstrations and evaluations of how we
fight and where we fight. This is critical to moving from simply buying
ingredients and hoping they form a coherent recipe, to a deliberate
approach that impacts overall Air Force and Space Force architecture
design, investments, technical requirements for future capabilities,
and acquisition baseline updates for current systems.
An example of this impact of force level demonstration and
evaluation occurred in February of this year during an Architecture
Demonstration and Evaluation with U.S. European Command. This effort
showed the importance of demonstrating and evaluating at the
architecture level not only ``how'' the Department fights but also
``where'' it fights. By taking Architecture Demonstrations and
Evaluations to the field, the Department uncovered mission-critical
gaps that could not have been uncovered merely at test ranges. This
testing allows us to discover and fix the problems now rather than on
the road to conflict when it would be too late to correct. We are
committed to working with our Joint and Allied Partners so that
existing systems can join easily. We ask Congress to support this
capability so that future operators on the battlefield enjoy the same
empowered capabilities they presently enjoy at home.
connecting with the joint force
One effort that will stress how fast and smart our requirements,
acquisition, and operations process can move is Joint All-Domain
Command and Control (JADC2) powered by the Advanced Battle Management
System (ABMS). Charged by the Secretary of Defense with leading the
concept development for JADC2, the Department of the Air Force is
building ABMS to create decision superiority by delivering relevant
information and capabilities to warfighters and operators at all
echelons. ABMS will integrate today's and tomorrow's sensors; develop
applications embedded with artificial intelligence, sophisticated
algorithms, and multi-layered protections to make sense of massive
amounts of trusted data; link space capabilities with weapons systems
and personnel across all domains; and design pods, platforms, pathways,
procedures, and policies that connect and integrate the warfighter
better and faster than in any time in our history.
On 24 November 2020, the Department of the Air Force Rapid
Capabilities Office (DAF RCO) was assigned as the Integrating Program
Executive Office (PEO) for ABMS in a deliberate transition to start
acquiring enduring capability through focused acquisition efforts and
investments in digital infrastructure. Moving forward, the DAF RCO will
build on the Chief Architect Office (CAO) work from 2019-2020 which
focused ABMS resources on technology maturation across product lines
identified as ``ONEs'' and Onramp demonstration activities to prove the
viability of the JADC2 operational construct. Upon transition to the
DAF RCO, the product lines were replaced with a more streamlined
acquisition framework and supporting personnel returned to originating
Program Offices, laboratory directorates, and integrated product teams
for continued maturation and proliferation.
The ABMS acquisition effort will pursue two interconnected
investment paths: enduring digital infrastructure investments and
Capability Release packages, which leverage those enduring investments
but focus on closing kill-chains and delivering immediate operational
capability to the warfighter. DAF RCO is working in conjunction with
the acquisition community to ensure Air Force and Space Force systems
have seamless interoperability and compatibility to meet the JADC2
operational requirements. The six ABMS capabilities required to connect
the warfighter are secure processing, connectivity, data management,
applications, sensor integration, and effects integration.
Driven by requirements approved by the Chief of Staff of the United
States Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations, Capability Release
#1 (CR #1) (Airborne Edge Node) will focus on the edge network to
enable sharing of information across 5th generation tactical air and
provide situational awareness to KC-46 and C2 nodes. Data from CR #1
(Airborne Edge Node) will enable faster decision-making by the
tactical, operational, and strategic customers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
Subcommittee. The dialogue we have today will help us design, build,
and operate a force capable of fighting and winning now and in the
future.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Who is next?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Ma'am, that was a combined----
Senator Duckworth. That was combined for all three of you.
Okay. Sounds good.
So, then, we will begin with questions. My question is
actually for all three witnesses and please feel free to answer
in the order that you see fit.
A large area of contention in the Air Force budget request,
again, this year, is the number of aircraft the Air Force
intends to retire earlier than previously planned, and you
addressed this already in your remarks. Based on the testimony
we have gotten at the full committee and other subcommittees,
it would appear that the Air Force believes they have
alleviated concerns about the number of air-refueling tankers
raised last year by TRANSCOM [Transportation Command]
commander, General Steve Lyons, and are now taking partial
credit for the KC-46 meeting those tanker requirements.
That raises a point that I would like to make this
afternoon. While there may be some parochial issues tied to
retiring aircraft, I do think senators are also genuinely
interested in the capabilities associated with aircraft and
have concerns about risks from retiring systems too early with
no replacement. I understand the issues of maintaining aging
aircraft, but if there are no replacements for that capability,
then we need to reconsider the retirements.
That is certainly my concern about retiring C-130s in the
face of likely increases in demand arising from the forthcoming
mobility-capability requirement study. So, I would like all
three of you to answer this. Why does the Air Force keep asking
for these retirements when the rationale has not changed much
and has failed to convince Congress before?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Ma'am, I can start, and I will
talk about this individually, the KC-46, and certainly when we
get to capabilities, I will hand it over to General Richardson.
We have been working very closely with TRANSCOM and I know
we have had very good conversations in the last year and we
have come to an agreement to make sure we are correctly
managing the day-to-day need for tankers worldwide, while we
make sure we are also reallocating the resources to modernize,
specifically, for the KC-46.
We look at the minimum tanker requirement out there, 479.
We meet that now; unfortunately, that is with KC-46s that are
not completely operationally ready. But we can maintain a fleet
to meet the current demand. We are using a mix of, obviously,
the legacy tankers, as well as using MPA days to take advantage
of our total force airmen in the air refueling missions, day-
to-day, both, in the Middle East and around the world.
The KC-46 is going to be an incredible asset to our Air
Force. We are getting use out of it right now, not just in
limited air refueling, but also in airlift and air medical
evacuation. The RVS [remote vision system] 2.0 fix is coming
forward and even before that, we are able to use it in many
missions around here, stateside, freeing up KC-135s to go
overseas.
It is very important, though, as we modernize, we have to
retire some things because we have limited resources and one of
the hardest resources to manage is people. The same people
right now that are flying KC-10s and operating and maintaining
those KC-10s are the same people we need to operate and
maintain our KC-46s. So, as we continue to accept 15 KC-46s a
year, if we are not retiring on the back end, we end up having
a manpower problem with these units and that is certainly a
concern.
Sticking with the KC-46, I will turn it over to General
Richardson about the capabilities to see if there is anything
that I am missing.
Lieutenant General Richardson. Senator, thank you for the
question.
In terms of the capabilities, I think your fundamental
question is a risk calculation. General Nahom mentioned limited
resources, so what we are trying to do is work within those
resources and basically do a risk calculation.
In terms of the KC-46, we are pretty comfortable with this
Remote Vision System 2.0 redesign that we are doing. We will
close out the preliminary design review of the actual new
camera system this summer and then we will march towards a
retrofit schedule that will start in fiscal year 2024;
meanwhile, we have accepted, I think we are up to 45 of the 94
that are on contract right now.
So, that capability is building up. It is getting stronger.
Our ability to use it is getting better. Air Mobility Command
is working on an interim capability release plan to start using
that capability.
I kind of look at this in a similar fashion as I do with
some of our systems that we really love a lot today, and the
two that I am thinking of right now off the top of my head are
the C-17 and the JASSM [joint air-to-survace standoff missile]
missile; both of those got a very, very rough start, but we
worked through them and we matured them. We were the only
customer for them and so we had to kind of be the folks that
matured them.
I view KC-46 the very same way. I do think it is going to
be an incredible tanker and I think it is already growing
towards that route. So, we have a number of deficiency reports
that we are burning off. The Remote Vision System is the one
that we are most critically worried about, but we are actually
getting after it pretty heavily and it is not going to cost the
taxpayers any additional money to get it fixed.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
General Guastella, would you like to add anything?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Ma'am, thanks for the
question.
Not too much to add, except that I have actually received
gas in an F-16 off the KC-46 and it is the best tanker I have
ever tanked off of. It is very smooth behind that thing and it
is also a very capable aircraft with excellent director lights.
So, it is already delivering for us.
How we are mitigating this, ma'am, is the tanker
requirements are global. We are using them right now today to
retrograde out of Afghanistan. We are using them in the
Pacific. While those are forward requirements where our KC-135s
and KC-10s are being used, there are home-station requirements,
such as training and tests that we are actually looking at
employing the KC-46 as it currently is, in those roles as we
modernize the visual system. So, we are getting the most we can
out of it to hopefully free up some of those tails to
transition to the new fleets.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Gentlemen, last week I asked General Brown
about the risks if the Air Force cannot modernize. According to
its plans, those risks are stark, in my opinion. I don't see
the PLA [People's Liberation Army] Air Force having a debate
about modernization of its military or adequate top line
budget.
I agree when the Air Force says modernization is critical
to achieving a future force that is resilient enough to win in
great power competition.
General Nahom, we have certain aircraft that are of limited
capability to fight in a highly contested environment against
near-peer adversaries, something like, say, the A-10. Could you
please describe for us the risks that we will be accepting as a
Nation if the Air Force is not given the authority it has
requested to retire aircraft that might be less capable in that
high-end peer conflict.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Thank you, Senator, for the
question.
The A-10 is an incredible aircraft. I do, I always like to
take it back to when we started with the F-35s. You know, we
bought F-35s and went down this road, intending to replace A-
10s and F-16s. There is a certain point where we have to
actually start replacing these aircraft, and we know the F-35
has had a bit of a rocky road throughout the last decade, so we
know we need to continue to work through that.
We are not trying to retire A-10s in the near term. What we
are looking to do is reduce the A-10 fleet from 281 down to 218
airplanes. That goes from nine operational squadrons down to
seven. At seven operational squadrons, we will still have more
A-10s than F-22s in service.
Why seven was significant, we put a lot of analysis behind
that. That allows us to keep one squadron full up in Korea and
the other six squadrons, three Guard, two Active Duty, and one
Reserve squadron, in a rotation to always offer up the
combatant commanders at least one A-10 squadron on the road
continuously. We felt that was a good position to be in, so
then we could actually take those resources, that frees up
nearly a thousand airmen, maintainers and operators, that we
can then transition into future platforms, specifically, the F-
35.
As we look at the F-35, we are having resource issues,
mostly with manpower, because we have to start replacing some
platforms. Right now, the F-35, the Air Force has approximately
300. That is now the second-biggest fleet of fighters in the
Air Force and we are going to have to resourcing it accordingly
as we go forward, sir.
Senator Cotton. That is just one example of the trade-offs
you have between retiring some number of legacy aircraft as you
continue to build up the new fleet of aircraft; is that right?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir, and that goes across
all of our fleets.
Senator Cotton. Some of those investments are also
happening in classified programs; is that right?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir, especially in the ISR
realm.
Senator Cotton. So, retired aircraft are done in ways that
attracts Congress' attention and local newspapers' attention.
It is not always clear what we are getting from those savings.
Some of it is clear, we are getting more F-35 aircraft, but we
are also getting a lot of stuff that we can't talk about in
this setting that is essential to defeat China; is that right?
Lieutenant General Nahom. That is correct, sir.
Senator Cotton. That is what I thought.
General Guastella, the ability for the Air Force to train
to win our Nation's wars requires the Congress to provide you
the resources, in particular, flight hours needed to prepare
for a high-end flight. Given the removal of the overseas
contingency operations fund and the reduction of flight hours
for this budget request, can you explain the risk to readiness,
in general, and, specifically, the impact to our pilots'
ability to conduct adequate training and providing the Beyond
the Horizon support for counterterrorism in the Middle East.
Lieutenant General Guastella. Thank you, Senator.
So, without a doubt, pushing the OCO [Overseas Contingency
Operations] flying hours into the Air Force's base budget has
put additional pressure on those valuable dollars in that
budget and it has been very difficult to sustain the fight
against the counterterrorism fight and the counter VEO [Violent
Extremist Organization] fight, as well as move to that modern,
high-end training.
But I will tell you what, our airmen have done incredibly
well in fighting today's fight, but the risk, just like you
alluded to, sir, is the longer-term risk and the need for those
airmen that are in this day-to-day fight, to be able to train
against a peer competitor, have those opportunities to fly
advanced scenarios, where they can really hone their skills
against a peer, and that is something that is very challenging.
We are doing our best to manage this.
By the way, our flying hours are also a function of what
our aging fleet can support. These very old fleets, 28-year
average age, cannot generate the volume of flying hours that we
would like it to, and so it is key that we retire some of those
aged aircraft and allow us to modernize to airplanes that can
generate to sortie rates.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
The potential decline in flight hours can also put more
stress on retention efforts of your pilots, as well; is that
right?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Yes, sir. Without a doubt,
the pilots that came in want to fly and they want to fly in
advanced scenarios that really build their skills. So, I think
it will be a win-win.
Senator Cotton. I have had extensive discussion with your
pilots over the years and almost all of them say that the
number one reason that they would want to stay in the Air Force
longer is if they could fly more, as opposed to doing
administrative duties.
Did Lieutenant Guastella join the Air Force because of pay?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, I certainly didn't join
the Air Force to do the job I am doing now.
[Laughter.]
Lieutenant General Guastella. But, I will tell you what----
Senator Cotton. Did you join because of the pay or did you
join because you wanted to fly high-performance aircraft in
defense of our Nation?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, I wanted to fly high-
performance aircraft in defense of our Nation and I have been
honored to be able to do that.
Senator Cotton. I am sure that a bonus to retain all of
those captains and majors, Guastella, and Richardson, and
Nahom, might be appreciated by them, but there is no way you
could possibly pay what they would make in the civilian world,
but you can allow them to fly high-performance aircraft in
defense of their Nation, can't you?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. I think we should do more of that.
Senator Duckworth. I joined the Army to fly low and slow,
actually, not high, and fast.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. I joined the Army to sleep on those low-
and-slow aircraft and jump out of them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Duckworth. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chair.
First off, I want to thank each of you for your service. Do
you acknowledge that our threats seem to be increasing year
after year now and do you have any feeling that, whether you
are thinking about Russia or China, that you think they are
going to invest less money in the future than they are
investing today?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir, and I would say, you
know, when you look in 2018 when the NDS [National Defense
Strategy] came out, you really had to see change.
I have been asked, did the NDS in 2018 get it right?
I would say, yes, but I would say it is accelerated much
more between 2018 and now than I would ever have anticipated.
So the acceleration of the threat is very eye-watering right
now.
Senator Scott. Do you believe in the case of Communist
China that as they build up their economy, they are going to
continue to invest bigger and bigger dollars?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir, I believe so.
Senator Scott. So, have you participated in any war games
in defense of, that would go through and say, are we adequately
prepared to be able to defend Taiwan? Are you done any war
games in that regard, any of you?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, we, in the Air Force, have
done several war games, which get at to the hardest problems
out there, vis-a-vis, China. To get into the details, I would
absolutely love to get into a classified setting so we could
talk more specifically about them.
But I will say that, as I said in my opening statement,
there has to be a change in how we are investing our dollars if
we are going to meet that threat in the future, and we are very
concerned by that.
Senator Scott. Do those war games give you any pause that
we have the ability to defend Taiwan today?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I want to be very careful
what I say in an unclassified setting, but certainly, the
threat does give me pause.
Senator Scott. There are public articles that say in our
war games, we wouldn't be able to defend Taiwan.
Have you seen those?
Lieutenant General Nahom. I have definitely seen some
public war games and items from think tanks that do question
our abilities, yes, sir.
Senator Scott. So, do you believe that the budget that has
been proposed is going to be adequate to both, defend the Indo-
Pacific, and, in particular, Taiwan, and modernize the way you
envision we have to do it, or do you just feel like you are
stuck and you have to take this because of your position?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I guess it would be hard for
me to sit here and say that we couldn't use more resources, one
of the positions I believe we have to be in is how we spend the
resources we have, because I think we have some opportunity to
focus the resources that the Air Force has been given, not just
the dollars, but the manpower, and the incredible airmen we
have, I think there are some thanks we can do differently as we
invest moving forward.
Would more resources be helpful?
Absolutely. But I also think with how we modernize is a
very important conversation that we have to have.
Senator Scott. Does it give you pause when you see, like
you talked about that, Russia and China are spending so much
more money to modernize that we are, does that also give you
pause in our ability to defend ourselves and our allies?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I would say what Russia and
China are doing with their forces and how they are posturing
and their aggressive behavior at times, does give me pause
continuously. Yes, sir.
Senator Scott. Okay. Can you give me some examples of the
President's budget where it is going to give you confidence
that we are getting better prepared, rather than less prepared.
Any of you?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Well, sir, there are definite
things we are doing to improve in our readiness and we have
been working on that for several years now to increase our
ability to fight today. But we are also looking at our ability
to fight in the future and we are not just looking at combatant
commander risks today, but in the dialogue of risk, we are
talking about today's risk, combined with future risk.
The work that we have been doing is actually, almost the
same communication we are having right here in this setting is
talking about managing the risks today; where should we accept
risk today to allow aircraft to be retired or monies to be
shifted to areas where we can modernize to keep pace or stay
ahead of the China and Russia threat.
So, I think those are areas of success, but like General
Nahom said, we are always at a shortfall for resources in this
environment and considering the demands that are being placed
on the Air Force across the spectrum of warfare.
Senator Scott. Can you all talk about where you feel like
we are, as compared to Communist China and Russia with regard
to hypersonic weapons? Are we doing a better job developing
hypersonic or are they doing a better job?
Lieutenant General Richardson. I would say we are ramping
quickly, Senator. So, this particular budget that we just put
forward, we have the ARRW [Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon]
program, which is going to go into production in fiscal year
2022; that will be the first operational hypersonic weapon. Not
just that, but we are also starting are the HACM [Hypersonic
Attack Cruise Missile] program, which uses a different flight
profile to produce risks and to cause confusion for the enemy
on having to handle two different delivery mechanisms. So, I
think we are catching up very, very quickly.
So, whether we are at parry or not, I can't say. I do know
that we are getting after it. We are applying a significant
amount of resources the last few years towards that, over.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Now, my partner who recently went to
Taiwan with me, our senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks,
again, for your leadership. I really appreciated the trip that
we took together. I think it made an impact.
You know, when the Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece,
the Global Times, is calling a trip by three U.S. senators a
vile provocation, and what else did they call it? It was
pretty----
Senator Duckworth. I don't know. My response was, Hooah.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. Our response was, Oorah, but, you know,
the same, similar.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. It was actually, I think very impactful
CODEL [Congressional Delegation], so thank you very much for
that.
So, gentlemen, I am a big, big fan of the Air Force. You
guys have a tough job. I am just going to state it right here:
this budget is unacceptable in my view and you have to come up
here and defend it. That really sucks for you, right, because
you don't like the budget. You don't have that say that, but I
know you don't like the budget. I don't like the budget.
Hopefully, the Chair doesn't like the budget. I know the
Ranking Member of this Committee doesn't like the budget.
It is a cut, inflation-based cut to our forces when the
Biden administration is doing double-digit increases to other
Federal Agencies. Those are all facts. You have to come up
here, suck it up, try to defend a budget you don't like.
But I am going to be a little harsher on the Air Force than
I typically am, because I am a pretty big advocate. Here is the
issue, JPARC [Joint Pacific Alaskan Range Complex] is, I think,
and I have heard it from the chief of staff and everybody else,
one of the most important ranges in our inventory because it is
huge. Like everything else in Alaska, it is huge. Airspace is
bigger than Florida. You can do fifth-generation standoff
training that we are going to need, increasingly.
Admiral Aquilino just talked about modernizing our ranges
as really important. Chief of Staff, General Brown, just last
week in a question I had for him, gave me his commitment, which
he has given many times, on prioritizing and accelerating the
investments in JPARC and the Nevada Testing Range.
But here is my issue, and I am just learning about it
today, and I am actually quite ticked about it. In March of
2020, the Air Force submitted a report on the modernization of
JPARC and the NTTR [Nevada Test and Training Range] and said
the goal was to get complete modernization, fifth-generation
modernization by fiscal year 2026, okay. That is pretty far out
there, but that was the commitment about a year ago.
Today, I am learning in this hearing, your joint statement
for the record indicates current Air Force planning now extends
this much-needed modernization to fiscal year 2032. So, I am
just learning you bumped it 6 years. The Chief of Staff of the
Air Force last week said he was prioritizing this modernization
and now we are going to be a decade out, and that is completely
unacceptable.
You want to talk about a high-end fight with fifth-
generation fighters, why am I learning about this today in this
hearing and what the hell is the Air Force doing, bumping this
6 years when the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, twice in the
last year, has said that this is a priority in modernization?
Is this another self-inflicted wound of the Biden budget
crushing our military, crushing our readiness?
I really want an answer here, gentlemen, and I find this
completely unacceptable. What the hell, how did this happen, 6
years?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I would say for the ranges
right now, I know where the Chief of Staff was just here last
week about the NTTR and the JPARC, when we look at our
resources across all our ranges, we had to prioritize this year
and we correctly put the NTTR and the JPARC as our top two.
Senator Sullivan. Uh-huh.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Then there are going to be a
series of ranges just below that. So, the NTTR and the JPARC,
our intention is to get those to what we call a threat-level 4
so you can actually train at that level----
Senator Sullivan. By 2026. That is what your goal was last
year----
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan.--a year ago, almost to the day.
So, what happened?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, and I would say as we look--
--
Senator Sullivan. By the way, you didn't bump it 1 or 2
years; you bumped it 6 more years. Like, what happened?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, as we modernize the ranges,
the concern is not only the threat emitters, which are so
important, that we are trying to modernize for the JPARC for
the NTTR, as well as, we have to look after the adversary air,
because if those F-16s are going to timeout in the next handful
of years.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Right now, we are aggressively
looking at the plans to make sure that the JPARC is our
exquisite training ground, because that and the NTTR truly are,
especially for the Pacific Forces.
Senator Sullivan. Again, you are not answering my question,
General, with all due respect.
This went from a 2026 timeline to a 2032 timeline and I
just found out about it today. Why did you bump it 6 years?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, for the exact breakdown of
what was delayed, to bump it out, I will have to take that for
the record and get back to you and your staff.
Senator Sullivan. Again, it is not 1 year, not 2 years, not
3 years----
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan.--you bumped it more than half a decade.
Do we have half a decade to get our fifth-generation fighting
fleet ready to compete with China and Russia?
I don't think so. That is actually a decade from now, 1
decade from now. I don't think this is even remotely
acceptable. We need answers.
Madam Chair, this is a huge issue and with all due respect,
gentlemen, and, look, I love the Air Force. I know you guys
have served for decades, but this is completely unacceptable.
We need details and answers, and I am going to ride the Air
Force really, really, really hard on this, hopefully, in
conjunction with the Chair and the Ranking Member, to get
answers to this issue. I literally walked in here and just
found out about it.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir. We will get those
questions answered for the record, sir.
Senator Duckworth. Via Webex, Senator Rosen?
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chair Duckworth, Ranking
Member Cotton, for holding this hearing.
I appreciate the witnesses for your being here today to
testify and, of course, for your service to our Nation.
I would like to speak a little bit about the MQ-9; again,
of course, it is really important in Nevada. So, General
Guastella, the MQ-9 Reaper is critical to supporting our
current intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
requirements. A key part of the MQ-9 architecture is their
mission at Nevada's Creech Air Force Base.
Last year, CENTCOM [Central Command] Commander, General
McKenzie, included additional MQ-9 funding at the top of his
unfunded priorities and in April he told the Armed Services
Committee of the MQ-9's importance and his need for more of
them, not fewer.
The Air Force today still lacks the ISR capacity to meet
combatant commanders' requirements contained in the 2018
National Defense Strategy. Despite this, the Department has
proposed cutting this platform, their most cost-effective,
without a program of record, without a program of record to
replace it, which would reduce, which would risk further
widening the ISR capability gap.
So, General Guastella, Secretary Austin told me during the
DOD posture hearing that the Air Force is reducing the number
of MQ-9 lines, but not the number of tails. I am curious why
there is any reduction at all when the Air Force today still
lacks the ISR capacity to meet combatant commanders'
requirements.
Can you please explain this counterintuitive strategy,
reduction strategy, and is there something that is going to
replace the MQ-9 with a new program?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Thank you, Senator, I
appreciate that question.
I absolutely share your observation that there is a
tremendous demand for airborne ISR across the combatant
commands, and it is difficult to get at that requirement with
the force we have.
I will share this, though, also. Our MQ-9s have done
incredibly well for decades now in the fights that we have been
in and they are doing very, very well today. But the
requirements for our ISR enterprise is we have aircraft that
are persistent and connected. We have that today. But they also
have to be survivable.
It is important that we balance the fleets of ISR that we
have between today's capabilities and a modernization effort to
get after a peer competitor, because that is not something the
MQ-9 was designed to do. So, while we can't talk about all of
the options here in this forum, we would welcome to come back
to you and discuss where we intend to go with the ISR
enterprise in a different setting.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to set up a
classified time to speak with you about a possible next-
generation program, if it is going to replace it.
But the time I have left, I would like to talk a little bit
about wildfires because wildfire season is upon us on the West
Coast. We know that every state in the West is in extreme
drought, not going to get any better.
So, General Nahom, the Nevada's Air National Guard's 152nd
Airlift Wing in Reno, they fly, like, C-130s to some of the
hottest temperatures, the highest elevations, the most
challenging mountainous environments of any C-130 unit, and
integral to their mission is flying the Modular Airborne
Firefighting System, the MAFS, and in support of the U.S.
Forest Service.
Like I said, this wildfire season is predicted to be,
unfortunately, some of the worst that we have ever seen, and
so, upgrading the Nevada Air National Guard C-130H fleet with
the C-130Js would have substantial impact on their readiness
and their firefighting capabilities, not just in Nevada, but
across the entire Western United States, which it is just so
critically important.
I was really discouraged the Air Force was not considering
MAFS when evaluating base candidates for the C-130J, and even
more disappointed when Reno wasn't selected. But last week, I
was heartened when Acting Secretary Roth told me his committee
would work with me to see if there are ways that the Air Force
can give some consideration, and General Brown committed to
having MAFS considered as one of the criteria for base
candidates for the C-130J.
So, General Nahom, can I get a similar commitment from you,
because we need to look at many mission sets that our National
Guard has, this just being one of them, for us in Nevada,
supporting the up and down the West Coast. Can I get that
commitment that you will forward that?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
We work very closely with the Guard and the C-130 community
to make sure we are prioritizing and taking into account the
special missions of the C-130 fleets.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
I really appreciate that because we have some of the
longest, roughest terrain to travel and our Guard does a
tremendous job with the resources they have, and we need even
more.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back my time.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Senator Hawley?
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Thank you for your
service to our country.
I want to get to China, but I want to start with the C-
130Js, where Senator Rosen, the topic she was just on. General
Nahom, General Richardson, give me a sense of how the Air Force
is determining the number of C-130Js that are required across
the Active force and the Air National Guard.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, the total number right now
we are looking at as an Air Force, I mentioned in my opening
statement was 255. If you break that down by the C-130Js we
either have now or are currently on order, that is about 163
aircraft. That leaves 92 C-130Hs that we would fully modify for
our fleet of 255.
That is obviously subject to change. As we said, getting to
255 is a stretch goal. That is if we can get that with mutually
agreeable replacement missions and we may not get there and we
understand that. But we believe that 163 is a good number.
We have to be careful as we take on new C-130Js, that comes
obviously at a cost to what we could do with that money for
other areas that we are, frankly, carrying greater risks than
on the C-130 platform.
Senator Hawley. Got it. The 139th Airlift Wing at Rosecrans
in Missouri has done outstanding work with the C-130Hs, as I am
sure you know, of countless disaster-relief operations, regular
deployments to Europe, to CENTCOM, PACOM. I would hope and
expect that the 139th would be at the top of the list as you
think about additional, future locations for the C-130Js.
Can I have your commitment that you will work with me on
that and consider us in Missouri for----
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
Senator Hawley. Great. Thank you.
Briefly, on the A-10, back to your divestment plans there,
what are the Air Force's plans for the 442nd Fighter Wing at
Whiteman Air Force Base, also in my home state, as you continue
to scale down the number of A-10s that you have?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Right now, sir, our plan over the
next 2 years is to go down 63 airplanes and, as I said, from
nine to seven operational squadrons. What is at Whiteman is
part of those seven, so that is part of the group that is
staying.
The two squadrons that would come down would be the one
operational squadron at Davis-Monthan, and the one operational
squadron at Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is on, we are on track
right now to convert them to the F-16.
Senator Hawley. Got it. That is great. That is very
helpful. Thank you.
Let's shift to China. If China is our pacing threat, and I
think that you have been little bit clear about that,
certainly, the Secretary has been, General Millie has been,
then I would say that defeating a Chinese fait accompli into
Taiwan has got to be our pacing scenario, and no other
scenarios is as urgent or important and no other scenario poses
as great a challenge, frankly, I think to the Joint Force, than
the fait accompli does in Taiwan.
So, with that in mind, General Brown testified last week
that the United States must maintain its ability to deny a
Chinese fait accompli against Taiwan. My question for you is,
how is the Air Force incorporating that specific scenario into
your capabilities-development process?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I think, especially if we
can come back in a classified setting, show you our war game
and I think you would be very pleased that we are absolutely
using the pacing threat, China, with the hardest scenarios in
all of our war gaming. That is directly influencing our
investment options right now when you look at how we are
organizing our strategy and design and how we are going to
implement that into our POM [program objective memorandum].
That is why you are seeing our chief talk about that two-
bomber fleet, getting to the B-21 quickly and those
modifications of the B-52 with the long-range weapons. Getting
to that four-fighter fleet, very controversial replacing the F-
22 with the next-generation air dominance to get at that
toughest problem. So, I think you are seeing that, as well as
in our ISR design, that we will not be able to discuss in this
forum, but I think that you will see that that pacing threat
with that toughest scenario is absolutely influencing our
investment.
Senator Hawley. Great. I would love to follow-up with you
and get a brief in the appropriate setting.
Can we talk about LRASMs [long range anti-ship missiles]
for a second? Your budget for last year requested five. Your
budget this year, unless I am mistaken, requests zero.
I asked General Brown about this. He said that the Air
Force isn't buying any LRASMs this year because it is focused
on hypersonics.
My concern is, is it fair to say that hypersonics are not a
1:1 replacement for LRASMs, because even if we do use them to
go after Chinese surface targets, for example, they are so
expensive, we won't be able to field them at a scale that we
could with LRASMs.
Help me understand the thinking here, the trade-off.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir, and LRASM is an
important weapon and we actually have that in mind with all our
future scenarios.
There are other ways we can get at surface ships, as well,
and we will have to get to a classified setting, but there are
other, we are absolutely invested and committed to advanced
weapons. We have to be really careful we don't buy a lot, with
our fifth-generation and sixth-generation platforms, we don't
go flying around with third-generation weapons; we are very
cognizant of that. I think that you will see that in our
classified investment.
Senator Hawley. I appreciate that and I look forward to
that, and what I am driving at is just making sure that we are
able to maintain a very robust sea-denial capability. Because
it seems, again, in the pacing theater, and with, in your
words, the most challenging threat, that is the pacing
scenario, sea denial seems to be pretty key.
So, what you are telling me is that you are absolutely
focused on that and on the ball?
Lieutenant General Nahom. We are certainly focused on that
scenario, sir, of the most challenging scenarios and with the
pacing threat, yes, sir.
Senator Hawley. Very good.
All right. My time has expired. Thank you.
I look forward, and I will follow-up with you about the
briefing.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Now joining us via Webex, Senator Manchin.
[Pause.]
Senator Duckworth. All right. He is not there.
I will take the next questions----
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Duckworth. Oh, there he is.
Senator Manchin. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I
appreciate it. I am so sorry. I had a little technical
difficulties there.
Let me start out with, if I can, with Lieutenant General
David Nahom. General, I would like to bring your attention to
an issue that is very dear to me is the Airlift Wing in
Martinsburg, the 167th Airlift Wing in Martinsburg, West
Virginia.
They are currently down one hangar, I am sure you are aware
of that, to structural issues, which, as I am understanding,
greatly impacting their ability to carry out their maintenance
on their fleet of C-17 aircraft. I worry that this is isolated,
to my understanding, across the Air National Guard, which is
even more concerning, when you take into account that the
Reserve component maintains over 70 percent of our military's
tactical airlift capability.
The only thing I can ask you if that has been brought to
your attention and if you can give me any type of timetable or
if you will look into it.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I would say that specific
issue with Martinsburg, I do not have the data on that actual
issue and I will definitely take that for the record and get
back to you and your staff on that one.
But what I will say, though, if you look at our facilities
modernization and sustainment accounts, we call it FSRM
[facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization], this
is a challenge. We have a lot of infrastructure in the Air
Force and the resources and the funds are a challenge to keep
up with all the facilities----
Senator Manchin. General, if you could give us a backlog on
deferred maintenance, it would be very helpful, sir. We could
see how we could help you.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir, absolutely. We will
take that for the record with your team.
Senator Manchin. Okay. The tactical and operational
reliance on satellite communications is deeply understood by
our adversaries. I am concerned of their future efforts to
interrupt that vital link between those on the ground, the air,
and the space.
I think we both can agree that timelessness and accuracy of
data transmissions increase survivability substantially by
prioritizing support to the joint warfighter and the
interoperable integrated enterprises.
So, what are your priorities to support the joint
warfighting concept, as it relates to space operations?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, General Guastella here
to take an attempt at it.
For starters, we are very excited for the Department of the
Air Force to include the Air Force and Space Force's
participation and engagement in development of the joint
warfighting concept, and it really is illuminating the
differences in how we are going to fight in the decades ahead.
In every service, it offers opportunity to demonstrate desired
areas of transformation and, most importantly, how we will
integrate and keep that competitive edge in the future.
A huge aspect of it is modernization and, obviously, we
have talked before about aircraft modernization, but,
certainly, we are very, very reliant on our SATCOM, satellite
communications. While I will have to get back to you with a
more detailed answer from the Space Force side, as I noted, it
is the Department of the Air Force, we are working together to
not only defend our capabilities, but also have offensive
capabilities to keep that competitive edge on orbit.
Sir, pending any questions?
Senator Manchin. Okay. General Richardson, this year has
demonstrated very publicly, the threat posed to our critical
infrastructure from malign cyber actors, and part of that
critical infrastructure, as you know very well, is Defense
Industrial Base.
So, how does the budget reflect your plans to integrate
cybersecurity measures into each new and legacy system within
the Air Force?
Lieutenant General Richardson. Thank you for that question.
I would attack that a couple of ways. The Department has
got a CMCC [Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification] program
that is in place now to make sure that the Defense Industrial
Base has got the protections in that they need on the cyber.
Another thing that we are doing, also, is this idea of digital
acquisition where we are taking more ownership of the tech
decks that we are developing our weapons systems in.
So, agile software, for example, the systems that we are
using, the tech decks that we are working on come with
continuous authority to operate, as long as the Defense
Industrial Base and the Government are using those systems.
So, we are trying to attack it through a couple of
different ways. Not just the requirements on the systems,
themselves, but also in how we are actually developing the
systems, using these digital acquisition tools. Thank you.
Senator Manchin. Thank you.
General Guastella, it is vital that we have a modernized
nuclear deterrent to include the NC3 enterprise that is ready
and capable to execute at any time. At the same time, we have
rapidly aging and outdated systems to do that job with, such as
the E-4B and the E-6B.
So, do the age and lack of some modern capabilities on
these platforms pose a risk to us right now in guaranteeing the
ability for us to employ our nuclear forces when we choose?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Senator, it is General Nahom, I
will take a swing at this one.
So, obviously, the E-4B and our Nuclear Command Control,
that is a big part of our nuclear recapitalization that is
going on right now, and I think you will see that with our
investment in the E-4, specifically, the E-4 recap, as well as
other aspects of our NC3.
So, it is certainly something that is clearly on our mind.
Not just the weapons, for our nuclear recapitalization, but the
command and control is an Air Force responsibility that we are
taking very seriously.
Senator Manchin. If you could keep us informed, sir, on the
timeliness of when you think that is going to be accomplished
and what your timetable is to get it done.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir. We will get back to you
in a classified setting with a timetable.
Senator Manchin. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
General Nahom, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has said
that the F-35 will remain a cornerstone of the Air Force
fighter inventory today and into the future.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2022 budget request includes
funding for the procurement of an additional 48 aircraft,
bringing the Air Force F-35 inventory to 376. I support the F-
35 program. I have been very impressed with the capability. I
had an opportunity to get in the simulator a few weeks back.
I am also concerned, though, that we still don't have a
firm grasp on how to reduce the costs for this program. The GAO
[Government Accountability Office] report released in April
found that there is a difference of $3.7 million per aircraft
between actual sustainment costs and with the services, project
they can afford over the program's life cycle. By 2036, this
gap will lead to a total overrun of $4.4 billion, and that is
for the Air Force alone. The GAO estimates that the Air Force
will need to reduce expenses by 47 percent to bring costs to a
level that the service can sustain.
So, General, what is your understanding of the main factors
that are driving the high program costs today and what efforts
has the Air Force taken to reduce these costs to ensure that by
2036, it does not exceed the ability to maintain the fleet?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I will start on that and
then I am going to turn it over to, General Richardson has a
lot of really good specifics on this.
It is a concern, when you look at the F-35. As the chief
said, it is the cornerstone. We are very pleased with the F-
35's performance. There are some things, increased performance
we need to get out of it with TR3 [Technology Refresh #3] and
Block 4 that you are very familiar with.
The operation sustainment costs and the ONS [operation
needs statement] costs are a concern. When you look at those
estimates you were talking about, those were estimates that we
made a long time ago and they were not accurate. We are seeing
out of the airplane right now, at a higher price point for ONS
than we had anticipated nearly 20 years ago when we made some
of these assumptions.
But when you look at the costs, the manpower and the
consumables are probably the two things that we can actually
affect, we are certainly getting after it.
I am going to turn it over to General Richardson, because
he has more specifics on some of the programs going forward on
that.
Lieutenant General Richardson. Yeah, thank you, Senator.
I then if you bucketed the costs, this really comes down to
just four things. The first is just consumables and
repairables, things that break. So, there are lots of things
you can do there. You can make them break less and you can make
sure that you have the repair capability for them when they do
break.
Manpower, it is manpower and tested-weapons system. I think
as we mature the weapons system, those numbers will come down.
We expect them to come down but right now, General Nahom is
having to apply a lot of blue-suit maintenance to maintain
them.
The third one is fuel. That is a bit uncontrollable. I
guess it is what it is. The manpower and the fuel make up a
good portion of the ONS cost on it.
The fourth one is just the sustaining support. I think the
two that we are really going to try to attack are the
consumables and the repairables and then the sustaining support
where we are kind of needing, Lockheed help sort of maintaining
the aircraft.
So, there are a number of things that we are doing. We are
attacking it pretty heavily. One of the things we are doing is
we are negotiating right now to, on the 3 years, instead of,
like, annual contract, a 3-year sustainment contract that
actually has performance incentives in it. That is the first
thing we are doing.
The second thing we are doing is we are doing what is
called a business-case analysis to see what is the best way to
attack those four levers, that I just talked about. That may
lead to a change. It may not. I don't know yet. That is
ongoing. It will conclude this summer.
We are also looking at kind of a whole host of different
contracting mechanisms. I would be remiss if I also didn't
mention the engine. So, as you may know, there are a lot of, I
won't say a lot, I think there is--General Guastella, I think
it is 30-some-odd holes that we are faced right now with on the
engine. So, we are also working to make the, you know, to
looking at our spares posture on the engine, doing a number of
things there.
But, I can assure you that we are not happy with where we
are at. General Brown is certainly not happy, but we are also
not sitting around waiting; we are working very closely with
the Joint Program Office, General Fick, to bring those costs
down. I think we are going to make a lot of headway. I don't
know if we will close the gap entirely that General Nahom needs
us to close, but I know that darn well, we are going to make a
very solid run at it.
Senator Kelly. General, on the consumable-repairable side
of this, other than the issues with the Pratt & Whitney engine,
is there any specific parts that are just experiencing other,
like, high-failure rates that are a larger percentage of the
consumable-repairable costs?
Lieutenant General Richardson. We are having issues in a
couple of areas, like canopies is an issue. It is not so much
that. Actually, when this jet flies, it lands what we call,
Code 1; it lands green, ready to go for another sortie most of
the time, and that speaks----
Senator Kelly. My understanding is about the same as an F-
16 or----
Lieutenant General Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Kelly.--any other fighter.
Lieutenant General Richardson. What we are working on right
now, though, is when it does break, it tends to stay down for a
very long time, and that is because we haven't stood up the
repair infrastructure. We should have gotten started on that,
frankly, a lot sooner than we did, and so that is the part that
we are really attacking.
What I am talking about is the depots to actually repair
the parts, whether they are government depots or they are
contractor depots, we need to get those depots stood up so that
when the part does repair, we can get it replaced quickly and
back into the jet.
Senator Kelly. I understand.
I am also very interested and looking forward to seeing the
TR3, Block 4 capability when that comes online. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
I join Senator Kelly in my concerns about the time on wing
costs with the F-35 engine, as well as the overall costs. I
think it is going to affect your ability to buy all the 1,763
aircraft that you plan to buy.
Senator Peters?
Senator Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen. It is good to see you here today. I
just have a few questions.
First off, with respect to aerial, unmanned refueling, two
weeks after the MQ-25 successfully refueled an F/A-18, the Air
Force issued a sources sought announcement for a bridge tanker
that could, I think the operative word is ``could,'' could be
unmanned. This seems a little bit undefined as I look at that.
So, my question is, how does this reflect on how the Air
Force views unmanned refueling, generally?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, you know, I would say there
is a lot of opportunity here, and when watching the MP-25 fly,
it is pretty exciting.
I think where we are with the KC-46 right now and getting
the RVS [remote visual system] 2.0, and I will let General
Richardson add to this, we are actually going down that road
with a technology that will allow us to do unmanned refueling
on a larger scale, that the Air Force needs.
Now, for the bridge contract, once we get to 179, the
bridge is to allow us a bridge to what next technology is out
there. So, we are just now starting to look at, to assess what
that is going to look like, even though we have several years
left for production on the KC-46.
But, General Richardson, over to you for the----
Lieutenant General Richardson. I think General Nahom got it
right. The bridge tanker is exactly that. We are looking at,
largely, non-developmental items, though. So, we are not
looking at something that is going to require a lot of time and
effort to develop and so we are starting that process early.
We do expect to progress down. We do think we are on a path
to fix the RVS 2.0. We do think we have a very good contract in
place for 13 lots of 179 KC-46s that we think we have a very
good price on. Even the thirteenth lot is capped in price.
This effort here, would then, kind of pick up at that point
to bridge us to something that might look something like what
you had mentioned, maybe something, you know, uncrewed, for
example. It doesn't mean that we wouldn't look for an uncrewed
on this bridge tanker.
The bridge tanker effort right now is really just, we are
just kind of collecting information. It is in the very, very
early stages. We will be at this for a few years, trying to
figure out what our actual requirement is.
The responses to those requests for information will help
inform our requirement as we get closer towards the end of the
KC-46 procurement.
Senator Peters. My next question is related, as we move
forward with these new technologies, and I know the Air Force
is moving to divest itself of a number of legacy aircraft and
rely on the 4.5 design. But what it seems is that we are going
to have more installations than missions as that continues to
move forward.
So, General Nahom, the question to you is, how does the Air
Force plan on transitioning these installations, which may be
losing their legacy missions, to align them with the Air
Force's modernization strategy so that they can continue to
have a meaningful role in the Air Force?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I would say, thank you for
the question.
We are actually working very closely with the units and the
locations as we do modernize, because as you rightly said,
there is legacy equipment we are going to be taking out of the
Air Force, but there is new equipment coming in and there are
new missions coming in, as well. I think it is not about
removing locations or removing units.
There is going to be some repurposing units into modern
ways of fighting as we, for example, step out of the older F-
16s and the older F-15s and step into the F-35s and then
eventually NGAD and some of our ISR items, as well. Some of
these bases are going to look very, very different, but right
now, we are not seeing a lot of bases that are going to be
going away and locations and units that are going away, but we
do see some change in mission out there. I think it is actually
fairly exciting as we look forward.
Senator Peters. So, as the missions change, but I would--
you can comment if you are looking at phasing out legacy
aircraft, so a base that has a flying mission, if new flying
missions are coming onboard, you would try to focus those on
those bases that are losing a flying mission to get the new
mission, would that be a fair assessment?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir. It is actually not just
to keep that base in business, but we actually, we have a--
there is a big advantage to this. We just did this with the F-
15C, our single-seat F-15s. As they came out of service, we did
a very holistic look at the new airplanes coming in, because as
these locations are there and the units are there, we take
advantage of not only the facilities that are already there,
but you take advantage of the human capital that is at a lot of
these locations, especially in the Guard and Reserve,
absolutely. Because that is how we save resources, by taking
advantage of what is already there at these locations with the
new missions coming in.
Senator Peters. So, for example, if you had an A-10
squadron that was going away, you would look at that base as
being a priority place to put an F-35 squadron, perhaps?
Lieutenant General Nahom. Yes, sir. Right now, we are
looking at, as we bring new fighters on, and if you look over
the last couple of years and looking forward the next few
years, there are actually more fighters are coming into the Air
Force than are going away. So, we are going to be looking for
locations.
I think you are seeing a lot of that with the F-15C
retirement, which is the most acute one, but you are also
seeing that down in Florida with Tyndall Air Force Base and
other locations, where we are taking advantage of the runways
and the facilities and the people that are there to bring on
these new missions. But, absolutely, sir.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen. Thanks for your service.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
This is the end of the first round of questions. I do have
some additional questions and I know Senator Sullivan has
indicated that he has some additional questions, as well. So, I
would like for us to continue at least until 16:00, which is
when the hearing was supposed to go.
So, I am going to go ahead and ask my additional question.
I have to throw in a rotary-wing question because I am here and
there is no way we can just talk about fighter jets all the
time, all you high-speed guys flying around that are way up in
the Earth's atmosphere.
The Air Force has taken a long time to get around to
replacing the UH-1 helicopters in the force. At this time last
year, the Air Force was planning to buy MH-139s in fiscal year
2022 and now, however, the Air Force does not have any MH-139s
in fiscal year 2022. I understand there may have been some
issues with FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and
certifications of the helicopters.
General Richardson, can you explain what happened with the
program and was there an FAA-certification problem, and if so,
what are you doing to fix the problem or to meet the need for
the aircraft?
Lieutenant General Richardson. Yes, Senator, I would be
happy to take that question.
I wouldn't say that it is an FAA problem, per se. So,
because this is derivative of a commercial helicopter, we are
not going to lose, so to speak, the type certificate that comes
with that helicopter. So, we are going to modify it with
military equipment and systems and then we are going to get
supplemental type certs that ride on top of that type
certificate.
This aircraft actually needs three supplemental type certs.
Type cert number three, supplemental type cert number three has
already been granted. One and two are behind. The one we are
most worried about is the second one, and it has to do with
there is a defensive system that has a cell around it and it is
causing some funny air disturbances, and so we are working to
understand those air disturbances so that we can get this
supplemental-type cert for that.
So, it is not necessarily that the FAA is being slow or
anything like that; it is really just trying to work through
those technical issues. When we look at the program, it is not
ready for production.
So, here is a case where rather than just progressing
forward into production, we are just going to make sure that we
get that right and then we will put the production in fiscal
year 2023. Other than that, the program is going pretty well.
We just have to work through that one issue.
Senator Duckworth. Isn't it a fixed-price contract?
What happens when you don't buy it in fiscal year 2022?
Lieutenant General Richardson. It is a fixed-price
contract, that is exactly right, but they will have to meet the
specification requirements in order--so, before we go into
production for lot one there, is a certain amount of entry
criteria that we have to get past in order to award the
contract. Boeing understands that.
Senator Duckworth. Okay. So, the Air Force will not be
penalized?
Lieutenant General Richardson. No, ma'am, absolutely not.
Senator Duckworth. There will be no costs, okay. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan, you had additional questions?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to talk again, and, again, this goes to your top
line budget where you just had to make tough choices. It is
just really helpful for the committee to know, but the Air
Force's budget requests for this year reflects a decrease to
the flying hours program, and after factoring in reduced buying
power from inflation, a decrease in the weapons sustainment
system, and per a GAO report released just last year, November
2020, the Air Force, with the exception of hueys, has
consistently not met mission-capable rates over the past
decade. I have the report right here.
So, can I get an explanation from you, gentlemen, how the
Air Force justifies reducing funding to these two critical
programs, flying hours, I think that is as critical as it gets
in terms of training our pilots, and the Weapons Systems
Sustainment program, when, according to the GAO, the service is
still struggling to meet its readiness goals, particularly, in
terms of flying hours.
Can I get any or all of you to take a crack at that, and,
look, again, if you are reducing flying hours and training
because of the budget, because the President, in my view, put
forward a stingy DOD budget, which he did, I would appreciate
hearing that. I know it is difficult to make that statement,
but we need to know.
General?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Senator, thank you for that
question.
Sir, you are absolutely right, you know, flying hours are
absolutely crucial to our readiness. The biggest issue that you
brought forward points to one very important thing and that is
the age of our fleet. You know, at 28 years, average age, it is
really hard to generate the sorties, the rates, and the
aircraft availability needed to get after the training.
Senator Sullivan. Well, let me push back a little bit here
just to get down to what, the flying hours in this budget are
down by about 87,000 is what I am reading. So, again, is that
driven by the age of the fleet, as you just mentioned, or is
that driven by a stingy budget that doesn't allow us to have
enough flying hours? Which one is it?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, we program flying hours
based on several things and first and foremost is what can our
maintenance, what is our ability to generate? That is a big
driver. We also have peacetime training requirements and also
forecast combatant command requirements.
Our goal is to try to get the most out of every sortie that
we can, and while there is no substitute to flying, it is, you
know, the crown jewel of training, there is also a balance of
how much we do in a simulation environment, because I will be
honest with you, these fifth-generation and soon-to-be sixth-
generation aircraft, very expensive flying hours. In simulation
events, we can accomplish training at a much lower cost, very
little cost, that is very available, weighs in, and so that is
a balance that we----
Senator Sullivan. So, what is the driving the 87,000-hour
reduction?
Lieutenant General Guastella. I would say probably----
Senator Sullivan. Does the Air Force support that?
I can't imagine you three gentlemen, I am looking at all of
your bios. You all have thousands of hours of flying,
yourselves. I can't imagine that you are happy about announcing
87,000 hours of reduced flying time.
Lieutenant General Nahom. Sir, I will expand on what
General Guastella said about the aging aircraft, and it is
discussing your other point at the beginning, sir, was WSS, the
Weapons Systems Sustainment.
Right now, WSS is going up, well in excess of inflation.
There are two main drivers of that. Number one is the aging
airplanes.
Senator Sullivan. You mean the cost?
Lieutenant General Nahom. The cost, yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. I see.
Lieutenant General Nahom. In fact, it is actually
approaching almost a billion dollars a year, just in increased
costs.
In this year, in 2022, we are not able to fund that
increase and that is concerning, because that brings our
funded--right now, we are going into this year, we are funded
approaching 87 percent of our WSS and that is going to go down
closer to 80 percent, and that is a concern.
What is driving that is the aging airplanes, that is number
one, and number two, is a lot of our new platforms are coming
on with a CLS, Contract Logistics Support, and many of these
contracts are expensive and it is driving these increases to
costs. The one way we are getting after this in our budget, I
believe, is this concentration on recapitalizing our fleets to
more modern aircraft that, as General Guastella said, that we
can fly at a higher rate so we can generate those flying hours
for our pilots. Because as you said, they badly need flying
experience. The synthetic is good, the virtual environment, and
we have to do that, as well, but getting them in the air is--
Senator Sullivan. If we were able to plus-up this budget,
and I am sitting here with two senators who are aviators who
know this issue better than anybody, is that an unfunded
request if we put it in? You know, I am not talking about the
President, but I am talking about, you know, the Congress
ultimately has a say here.
Is this something that the Air Force would want to use
budget money over what has been requested by the President to
close that gap? Again, I can't imagine 87,000 hours of reduced
flying time is something that all of you or Members of this
Committee want. Is that something that you would want to help
address if we got you more money? Ask.
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, I think without a doubt,
the funding of Weapons Systems Sustainment is something the Air
Force would value a great deal.
Senator Sullivan. How about the flying hours?
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, those are hand-in-hand.
If we can fund the Weapons Systems Sustainment, that generates
aircraft availability that we can turn around and lay in the
flying hours for. So, those are interconnected.
I can tell you, that would be greatly valued. You know, air
crews right now today out there are flying the absolute minimum
number of hours they need every month to stay ready. We are
offsetting that with simulation events, but we are at the
lowest we can be. We want to turn that corner, and so we would
value that investment in sustainment, which will enable the
increased flying hours.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Lieutenant General Guastella. Sir, for what it is worth
right now, the team is doing fantastic out there. Despite
COVID, we are flying, we are at 96 percent of executing what
was laid in our budget in our flying hours this year. So, we
are working really hard, but those aging aircraft just make it
harder and harder.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. The GAO report makes it sound like
you are not hitting any of your readiness numbers.
But Madam Chair, thank you.
I have an additional question that I will submit for the
record on the E-3s. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Without objection.
Now to a man who has flown more hours, more distance around
the Earth than any of us combined, Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
A lot of miles, certainly, and a lot of time, and I think
to just follow-up on Senator Sullivan's comments, you know, one
of the things we do really well as a Nation is we understand
how to use the equipment that we build. We build great systems,
great airplanes, great ships, great weapons systems, great
helicopters, and then we train really well, and those flight
hours do matter. They matter a lot.
Of the experienced I have had, you know, talking to some
foreign air force, we have in the Space Program, we have a
relationship with the Russians. When you talk to them about the
number of hours they spend in the cockpit, not the same, which
is good for us. That is true for a lot of our adversaries.
We do well in the air and with these systems because we
train, so I think that is something we should follow-up on,
Senator.
General, I had the opportunity to go out and see NGAD [Next
Generation Air Dominance] in April. Very impressive. I think
the NGAD efforts will help us outpace our adversaries who are
also trying to invest in advanced technologies. I don't want
you to go into anything that could possibly be, you know, we
should be doing in another room, so let's not go there.
I am really pleased to see the non-traditional approach
being taken with this program, leveraging digital engineering,
agile development processes, digital design to make sure we can
develop and test and field these aircraft at a faster pace. But
I am also interested to find out what your thought is on what
impact that this non-traditional approach will have on
acquisition and life cycle sustainment costs.
Lieutenant General Richardson. Senator, great question.
It is going to have a profound impact across the entire
life cycle. I will answer it two ways. The first way is just
specific to NGAD. Because of the way that we are doing it,
using the digital acquisition that you mentioned, once we get
into the product-support phase, which we always talk about that
being 70 percent of the life-cycle cost is in product support,
what if we could change that figure? What if it wasn't 70
percent? What if we owned the technical baseline such that we
could actually compete more of that work out in that 70
percent, such as less.
One thing I have learned in all my time doing this work is
competition is your friend, and so we would like to be able to
push that. So, there is a lot of effort or a lot of benefits,
digital acquisition from design, to actually building the
aircraft, to testing it, as you mentioned, because we don't
have to do as much live-flight testing, to the sustainment
part.
So, we believe, we have been talking a lot about budgets
today, we believe that how we build future systems is going to
help us get more out of the dollar that we do get. So, I just
gave you an answer specific to NGAD. But what I will tell you
also, the second aspect of the answer is that we are seeing a
change in the workforce. Folks are seeing, hey, what is this
all about?
So, another program, Stand and Attack Weapon, that program
is doing some revolutionary work in how it is going about doing
its business. So, we are starting to see this thing hit a
tipping point where everybody wants to do their program using
some of these techniques. I think, in fact, I think we are past
that tipping point out, and so it is going to have a profound
effect all across the Department of the Air Force. So, we have
a bunch of guidance on how to actually get after that.
NGAD is a great example. GBSD [ground based strategic
deterrent] is another one, and, SAW, Stand and Attack Weapon,
it is doing the same exact thing. We are just going to kind of
grow that ecosystem of digital acquisition, if you will.
Senator Kelly. Do you have any goals in mind for reducing
development and acquisition costs?
Lieutenant General Richardson. I think that kind of depends
on the specific program. Each program will apply these tools to
a different level.
I think if you look at the T-7, you know, an idea to flight
in 3 years is pretty remarkable. Another aspect about T-7 is
just the fact that because you end up pushing a lot more of the
technical data to build the airplane out into the suppliers,
the assembly time on the airplane was reduced to 75 percent.
So, each of the phases, the design phase, the build phase, the
test phase, and then the sustainment phase, we expect to get
savings out of all of those.
To answer your question, we haven't come up with a goal
necessarily, but each program will be a little bit different in
terms of how it applies it.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Well, we are a little bit over time, but I want to thank
each of you for participating today and I think we have some
follow-up questions. But I really appreciate you being here and
answering our questions.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator James Inhofe
virtual training methods
1. Senator Inhofe. Lieutenant General Richardson, from the recent
INDOPACOM report to this Committee, we understand there is a need for
more realistic air combat training environments to prepare our
warfighters to win decisively in a peer/near-peer fight. Fielding a
Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) training solution at the JPARC and
other range facilities that enables our aviation, land and maritime
forces to conduct training that is secure and interoperable across DOD
and with Coalition partners seems to be a priority. Undoubtedly, we
need this capability now to train our operators in a realistic threat
representative environment.
What is the Air Force's plan to accelerate the fielding of a LVC
air combat training capability at the JPARC to meet the need clearly
establish by the Commander of INDOPACOM?
Lieutenant General Richardson. The Air Force currently provides
distributed mission operations networks in JPARC and throughout the
Pacific region and is resourcing efforts to achieve a complete,
relevant, and realistic peer/near-peer synthetic training capability
across the Air Force Combat Air Forces (CAF). While the Air Force P6
Combat Training System program does not have LVC requirements, any Navy
LVC efforts implemented into their Tactical Combat Training System
(TCTS)-II will be included in the P6 system, as both services will
maintain the same baseline for P6/TCTS II to ensure interoperability.
TCTS-II will be an LVC-capable system able to implement future LVC
capabilities for AF airframes.
Air Combat Command (ACC) is tracking the upcoming Navy
led Secure LVC Advanced Training Environment (SLATE) demonstration and
is eager to observe the advancements achieved over the past three
years. ACC maintains regular contact with Navy counterparts on the
TCTS-II program and is tracking progress on this effort, but until the
F-35 LVC fusion study concludes with positive results, Air Force LVC
requirement development will remain ``on hold''.
Combat Air Force and Mobility Air Force Distributed
Missions Operations networks currently connect and provide readiness
training to warfighters at seven Pacific bases with training centers
that support A-10, C-17, E-3, F-15C, F-16, F-22, KC-135, Joint Terminal
Attack Controller, and Air Operations Center airmen. This includes F-22
and C-17 aircrews at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Future additions
to these networks are currently projected for F-35s at Eielson AFB (in
direct support of JPARC), as well as C-130Js at Yokota AB, and KC-135s
at Kadena AB.
To complement these distributed training efforts, live
training at JPARC, and training for other units in the Pacific Region,
the U.S. Air Force is developing a complete, relevant, and realistic
peer/near-peer Common Synthetic Training Environment (CSTE) to link
simulator training devices and facilitate high fidelity training in a
continuously connected virtual world. This effort is initially focused
on 5th generation platforms, but could eventually cross multiple
generations of aircraft and associated training systems. While live
training will always be a cornerstone of Air Force readiness, our
capabilities and those of our adversaries have advanced at a rate that
requires us to move our most advanced training indoors. Emerging
technology amplifies our inability to train for the high-end ``First
Night'' fight. The CSTE effort offers the best opportunity to date for
the Air Force to achieve a scalable and interoperable synthetic
training capability.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
jparc modernization
2. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Nahom, in response to a
question for the record concerning the interdependence of range
modernization and readiness, the USINDOPACOM commander, Admiral
Aquilino, stated, ``[m]odernizing our ranges . . . will allow the joint
force to train against an evolving threat and technologically advanced
opponent with our allies and partners.'' I could not agree more. In
March of 2020, the Department of the Air Force submitted a report to
the congressional defense committees concerning range modernization for
the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) and the Nevada Test and
Training Range (NTTR). The report identified JPARC and NTTR as the only
two major training ranges the Air Force would modernize to Threat
Matrix Level 4--or near-peer--capability. The report also stated it
would complete such modernization efforts by fiscal year 2026. However,
your joint statement for the record indicates current Air Force
planning now extends this much-needed modernization into fiscal year
2032. I would like you to explain and justify this deviation from the
Air Force range modernization plan. Why are we delaying--by nearly a
decade--capability that is needed today to ensure our 5th-generation
fighters can train for a high-end fight?
Lieutenant General Nahom. The Air Force continues efforts to
resource and modernize JPARC and NTTR to a Threat Matrix Level 4 (near-
peer) training capability. Most of the infrastructure required for
Level 4, including versions 1 and 2 of the Advanced Radar Threat System
(ARTS), will be in place at these two ranges by FY26. The final step to
achieving Level 4 is fielding the ARTS v3. This is a reprioritization
from the original plan which was based on the ARTS v4. While the ARTS
v3 will provide significantly greater capability, the current schedule
projects fielding at JPARC from FY28 thru FY30. This fielding date is
driven by both the acquisition process and available funding.
3. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Nahom, during the
Department of the Air Force posture hearing, I asked General Brown for
his commitment to ``prioritize and accelerate the investments'' in the
Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) and the Nevada Test and
Training Range (NTTR) to achieve Threat Matrix Level 4. General Brown
responded in the affirmative. In a question for the record, soon-to-be
Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall stated, ``I would continue
efforts to modernize JPARC and NTTR to a Threat Matrix Level 4
capability as rapidly as feasible to facilitate the training needed to
support the National Defense Strategy.'' How does the U.S. Air Force
reconcile the protracted fiscal year 2032 timeline, advertised in your
joint statement for the record, with the commitments to prioritize and
accelerate JPARC and NTTR modernization made by its current service
chief and soon-to-be service secretary?
Lieutenant General Nahom. The Air Force continues efforts to
resource and modernize JPARC and NTTR to a Threat Matrix Level 4 (near-
peer) training capability. Most of the infrastructure required for
Level 4, including versions 1 and 2 of the Advanced Radar Threat System
(ARTS), will be in place at these two ranges by FY26. The final step to
achieving Level 4 is fielding the ARTS v3. This is a reprioritization
from the original plan which was based on the ARTS v4. While the ARTS
v3 will provide significantly greater capability, the current schedule
projects fielding at JPARC from FY28 thru FY30 This fielding date is
driven by both the acquisition process and available funding.
e-3 (awacs) modernization
4. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Nahom, Lieutenant General
Guastella, and Lieutenant General Richardson, the E-3 Airborne Early
Warning and Control (AWACs) aircraft is a vital piece of air combat
command and control, serving as the long-range eyes and ears for our
air forces. In fact, the E-3 supported the North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD) in intercepting over 60 aircraft off the coast
of Alaska last year--the most since the Cold War. This aircraft uses
early 1970s technology and an airframe designed in the late 1950s. In
February 2021, the PACAF Commander, General Wilsbach, spoke at the
Aerospace Warfare Symposium and advocated for the Air Force to procure
the E-7 Wedgetail to replace the E-3, which is getting ``harder and
harder to get airborne.'' How does the Air Force plan to modernize the
E-3 to keep it effective against near-peer competitors into the 2030s
and beyond?
Lieutenant General Nahom, Lieutenant General Guastella, and
Lieutenant General Richardson. The E-3 platform does not provide the
capabilities that enable the aircraft to keep up with next generation
airborne moving target indication (``AMTI'') and battle management
requirements. The future AMTI platform must be able to sense and share
data both on and off board systems across multiple frequency spectrums.
Although there is promising future AMTI technologies that could someday
potentially operate without a hosted airborne platform, these future
concepts will not be ready before the end of service of the E-3
platform. A very near term decision is needed for a bridging capability
for an AMTI platform moving forward.
There are no significant Air Force efforts with regard to
modernizing the E-3 fleet. All E-3 funded modifications are to meet
mandates or address DMS/sustainability issues. Main capabilities
modifications were defunded when the TACS bridge strategy funding was
removed. Subsequent efforts to POM for replacement funds have not been
successful.
Short list of remaining funded programs:
Finish 40/45 conversions (5 left)
Dragon--flight deck modification
CNU--Link 16 enhancements to meet crypto and frequency
mandates. Follow-on enhancements in the hopper as well
SATURN--Son of Have Quick--mandated
MUOS--New Narrow-band SATCOM--mandated
5th Generation to 4th Generation via link 16
EP against modern threat
CID
Partially funded programs:
Global Lightning--high bandwidth communications pipe
using commercial satellites. Risk reduction only for now
Programs not currently funded:
Link 22, from N/NC
Wideband SATCOM
Out of Band Sensor
Adjunct Sensor
Multi-level security--OMS
5. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Nahom, Lieutenant General
Guastella, and Lieutenant General Richardson, does the President's FY22
budget submission do anything to advance the E-3 modernization effort?
Lieutenant General Nahom, Lieutenant General Guastella, and
Lieutenant General Richardson. The President's FY22 budget submission
includes enhancements to E-3G sensors, Comm/Networking, and Mission
Computing to maintain cutting edge Battle Management, Command and
Control capability. The budget submission also continues efforts to
address Diminishing Manufacturing Sources. However, the E-3 platform
does not provide the capabilities that enable the aircraft to keep up
with next generation AMTI and battle management requirements. The Air
Force continues to look into future AMTI solutions that can sense and
share data both on and off board systems across multiple frequency
spectrums.
6. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Nahom, Lieutenant General
Guastella, and Lieutenant General Richardson, what consideration is the
Air Force giving to procure the E-7 Wedgetail, flown and operated by
the Royal Australian Air Force, as a potential E-3 replacement?
Lieutenant General Nahom, Lieutenant General Guastella, and
Lieutenant General Richardson. The Air Force is exploring the viability
of acquiring the E-7 which is used by both the Royal Australian Air
Force and the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force. At the forefront of the
Service's evaluation is the E-7's enhanced capability(s) and assessing
the aircraft's suitability to meet existing and future Air Moving
Target Indicator (AMTI) and Battle Management requirements. In
comparison to the E-3, the E-7 offers a superior radar capability with
a modern Multirole Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar capable of
staring at sectors of interest and closing the kill chain on small and
fast targets. Based upon early assessments, the E-7 could provide
capability closing both near and mid-range AMTI gaps while also
providing wide-area surveillance and integrated fire control at the
tactical edge. Additionally, the E-7 also presents a potential
opportunity for cost savings in operations, maintenance, and fuel
costs.
cyber survivability
7. Senator Sullivan. Lieutenant General Richardson, in a Readiness
Subcommittee hearing earlier this year, Dr. Raymond O'Toole, the Acting
Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, highlighted in his
statement for the record that, ``virtually none of the programs
assessed in FY20 were survivable against relevant cyber threats.'' This
is deeply concerning to me given the role of cyber in today's and
tomorrow's strategic environment. Immediately, I can recall several
recent high-profile cyberattacks such as SolarWinds, Microsoft
Exchange, the Florida Water System, and Colonial Pipeline, to name a
few. As the Air Force continues to undergo critical modernization
efforts across major weapons platforms, what steps is it taking to
ensure cyber survivability of those systems now and into the future?
Lieutenant General Richardson. The Air Force created a holistic,
integrative strategy to incorporate cyber security in three key areas--
Weapon Systems, Industrial Control Systems and Networks/Computer
Systems. In addition, we have appointed a Principal Cyber Advisor for
the Air Force to coordinate all cyber aspects across the enterprise.
Each of these entities works closely with the intelligence communities
to ensure that resources are allocated against known threat actors with
the capability to do harm to our ability to conduct operations. We use
this intelligence lens in order to be fiscally prudent and ensure we
have prioritized our vulnerabilities appropriately. Additionally, under
NDAA 1647 and NDAA 1650, we conducted assessments against a prioritized
set of mission sets to identify and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities.
Further, working with NSA on the Strategic Cyberspace Program, we are
continuing the efforts to identify, prioritize and mitigate
vulnerabilities against our capabilities. As the Air Force modernizes
our weapon systems and upgrades our ICS systems and networks, we are
leveraging the work of the Cyber Resiliency Office for Weapon Systems
(CROWS) System Security Engineering Guidebook (identified as a best
practice by the GAO) to ensure that appropriate cyber language is
incorporated into our solicitation documentation. Finally, in March
2021, the Acting Secretary of the Air Force and all MAJCOM Commanders
endorsed the Department of the Air Force Strategic Plan for Control
Systems which identifies the following: ``Installations are power
projection platforms--the foundation from which the Department of the
Air Force launches critical missions and ensures readiness to execute
combat operations in air, space, and cyberspace. The Air and Space
Forces cannot fly, fight, and win without effective, sustainable,
cyber-secure infrastructure.''
[all]