[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 118-60]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED
PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES HEARING
ON
AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES
AVIATION PROGRAMS AND
CAPABILITIES RELATED TO THE
PRESIDENT'S 2025 BUDGET REQUEST
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 12, 2024
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-192 WASHINGTON : 2025
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SARA JACOBS, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia Pennsylvania
MARK ALFORD, Missouri JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
NICK LaLOTA, New York JIMMY PANETTA, California
Kelly Goggin, Professional Staff Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
Ethan Pelissier, Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces......... 2
Kelly, Hon. Trent, a Representative from Mississippi, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................. 1
WITNESSES
Hunter, Andrew P., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Moore Jr., Lt
Gen Richard G., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and
Programs, Department of the Air Force...................... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Courtney, Hon. Joe........................................... 31
Hunter, Andrew P.; and Moore Jr., Lt Gen Richard G........... 34
Kelly, Hon. Trent............................................ 29
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 53
Mr. Gallagher................................................ 53
AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES AVIATION PROGRAMS
AND CAPABILITIES RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S
2025 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 12, 2024.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trent Kelly
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE FROM MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Kelly. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
Good afternoon. This subcommittee covers Seapower and
Projection Forces. Today we will hear about the projection part
of the portfolio.
Before we do, I would like to welcome--who is not here and
already, like, starting out bad--Mr. Nick LaLota from New
York's 1st District.
Our witnesses this afternoon are no strangers to this
subcommittee, and I want to take a moment to thank you and your
staffs for the hard work and your service to this Nation.
Although we don't agree about everything, you have gone out of
your way to make yourselves available to this subcommittee, and
I appreciate it.
More than ever, projection forces play an important part in
the growing threats around the world. I know saying that has
become somewhat of a cliche, but I have never seen a threat as
great as it is today. In the last year, I have literally been
around the world, and I am more concerned than ever.
This subcommittee has two legs of the nuclear triad, and
the air portion with our bombers and tankers has been, and will
continue to be, an unprecedented era of modernization. I would
like to hear from the witnesses how we are going to balance the
retirements of the B-1 and B-2 with the extensive modernization
of the B-52 and the procurement of the B-21.
Also, as you know, the recent Mobility Guardian exercise
identified the lack of secure communication links with the Air
Force's airlift and air refueling fleet. I know we always ask
commanders to tell us what they need, and in this case AMC [Air
Mobility Command] took a lot of equipment to Mobility Garden--
Guardian, and identified what worked and what didn't, and what
would get at the problem set the fastest. I would like to hear
your thoughts on the lessons learned from that exercise.
Finally, I would like to hear your thoughts on increasing
air refueling capacity. Admiral Paparo, in his nomination
hearing last month, said, ``I do have concerns about the
ability of the Joint Force to refuel what will be a dynamic
force operating within the AOR [area of responsibility] from
bases on land.
Before we introduce the witnesses, I would like to turn to
my friend, Mr. Courtney, and the ranking member, for his
opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you, Chairman Kelly.
And thank you again to both witnesses for being here today.
This is the first budget hearing of our subcommittee after the
release yesterday. And I think you know we are on a very
truncated schedule for NDAA [National Defense Authorization
Act] this year, so, you know, we are pleased that you are here
and early, and, you know, hope that we can again use time
efficiently as possible to make sure that we have a good mark
later in the--in the congressional calendar.
You know, I would just, you know, say that, you know, that
as we have done in past budgets, we will make some adjustments
on a bipartisan basis. That is sort of the DNA of this
subcommittee.
And in terms of just some of the concerns that I would like
to at least leave with you here today, you don't have to
necessarily answer all of them this minute, but the order by
DoD [Department of Defense] to lift the grounding order for the
B-22 Ospreys and return to operations after the three-month
grounding is I think still an issue of great concern and
highest interest on the subcommittee.
And, you know, we, again, really want to get a strong
message and feedback back from, you know, all the services that
use Osprey in terms of just, you know, what is the precise,
explicit plan in terms of trying to reduce risk for that--for
that platform.
Trent mentioned the bomber program, which, again, I am not
going to belabor that. I think he articulated well, you know,
what I think we are going to be looking for. And then, on the
air refueling mission, pretty much the same thing, that we are
going to make--you know, continue to track the remote vision
system, which, you know, we think we made progress. I think the
subcommittee drove some of that progress over the years when
Mr. Wittman was chairman back in the day.
And, lastly, the VC-25B program, the Air Force One, you
know, which is just sort of continuing to be an ongoing saga,
and, you know, we really want to see that hopefully get a real
sort of, you know, end date goal that we can sort of talk to
our constituents about, and, you know, hopefully put to bed a
platform that is way past its shelf life.
So, again, I have written remarks, which I would ask, Mr.
Chairman, be entered for the record. And with that, I will
yield back.
Mr. Kelly. Without objection. Thank you, Ranking Member
Courtney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
Introducing our witnesses, Mr. Andrew Hunter is the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics; and Lieutenant General Rick Moore is
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs.
I understand, Mr. Hunter, Secretary Hunter, you are going
to give one statement, so the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW P. HUNTER, AS-
SISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION,
TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL
RICHARD G. MOORE, JR., DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
PLANS AND PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Hunter. All right. Thank you very much, Chairman
Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee. And thanks for having us here today to
provide testimony on the Air Force's fiscal year 2025
President's budget request for our projection forces aviation
programs and capabilities.
As you know, the Air Force plays an integral role in many
priorities in the national defense strategy, including
defending the homeland, deterring strategic attack, deterring
aggression, and building a resilient Joint Force. Our Air Force
capabilities underwrite the capabilities of the entire Joint
Force, and we are uniquely suited to provide this element of
the nation's defense. It is particularly true for long-range
strike and power projection capabilities of the purview for
this subcommittee.
The Department of the Air Force is ready to deter and
prevail against today's threats. However, to maintain our
advantage and improve our operational posture, we must continue
immediate and significant capability modernization to keep pace
with the growing military capabilities of the People's Republic
of China.
The Secretary of the Air Force has made clear that we are
out of time. While this budget request continues to focus and
build upon the modernization called for by the operational
imperatives and cross-cutting operational enablers the Air
Force identified last year, our resources have been limited by
the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act. The Fiscal Responsibility
Act spending caps increase our risk and force difficult
tradeoffs. Funding through continuing resolutions and
restrictions on the retirement of outdated weapons systems also
divert the focus from our military's ability to deliver
decisive combat power.
To achieve a more competitive posture for the great power
competition that we currently face, the Air Force has
undertaken several initiatives to implement important changes
centered on how we develop people, how we generate readiness,
how we project power, and how we develop integrated
capabilities. These changes follow up on our operational
imperatives work, which highlighted the challenges of
integration and the importance of tight partnerships between
the operational budget and acquisition communities.
The organizational changes we are making at the
Secretariat, and with our major commands, and at Air Force
Materiel Command, institutionalize our lessons learned from
operational imperatives and other key efforts. And we look
forward to working with Congress as we organize into a more
agile and integrated acquisition system that delivers
capabilities quickly and at scale.
Let me turn to the request in our fiscal year 2025
modernization portfolio. As our modernization continues, the
Air Force is gradually transitioning the current three-bomber
fleet to a two-bomber fleet of next generation B-21s and
modernized B-52s to provide nuclear and conventional global
strike options for decades to come.
Since I testified to you last year, the B-21 program has
made significant progress. We are executing the flight test
campaign, and there are several aircraft in various stages of
build on the final assembly line. Our fiscal year 2025 budget
request also advances modernization for the B-52. It is the
most extensive modernization on the platform's history.
The commercial engine replacement program, the radar
modernization program, will ensure the B-52 fleet's viability
and improve its operational availability through the year 2050.
Last fall, the B-52 CERP [commercial engine replacement
program] program transitioned from the middle tier of
acquisition pathway, the rapid prototyping process, into a
major capability acquisition or major capability--or MCA
program. We are working to accomplish Milestone B for the
program in 2024.
The demand of global operations, as both the chairman and
the ranking member pointed out, require a critical mass of air
refueling tankers with specific connectivity, survivability,
and agility capabilities, generating at mission capable rates
to meet timelines of the Joint Force and win the fight.
Our fiscal year 2025 budget requests RDT&E [research,
development, test and evaluation] and procurement funding to
continue uninterrupted tanker recapitalization. The KC-46A
continues to provide operational readiness, flexibility,
connectivity, and survivability to the global reach mission. To
date, 139 production aircraft are on contract and 81 have been
delivered to the warfighter.
The Air Force continues to work with Boeing to correct
deficiencies for the remote vision system and the stiff air
refueling boom. We are committed to ensuring these deficiencies
are properly addressed and without undue burden on taxpayer or
on the operators.
This budget requests funding for the procurement of 15 KC-
46 and Lot 11 and associated support costs, along with the
increased depot standup and the transition to organic
sustainment that the Air Force requires.
Our goal is to get to our required future tanker
capability, NGAS [Next Generation Air Refueling System], as
soon as possible. Our tanker recapitalization effort is
designed to ensure continuous tanker recapitalization between
the delivery of the last KC-46 and the first deliveries of
NGAS.
With the decision not to pursue the KC-Y last year, we
returned to industry with a new and modified requirement in
order to get after KC-135 replacement with the requirement
necessary for that aircraft. We have received responses from
Boeing and from Airbus, and we are beginning to determine the
acquisition strategy of the tanker capitalization program which
will be decided later this year based on the information we
receive from industry.
When we get to NGAS, it will deliver adaptive and agile
platforms and emissions systems as part of a tanker family of
systems by the mid-2030s. The NGAS AOA [analysis of
alternatives] is considering a wide range of designs, including
clean sheet designs and purpose-built aircraft to address
projected threats and needed capabilities and leverage the
benefits of full and open competition.
The NGAS AOA should complete in October 2024, and it will
shape requirements and determine the technology development
timeline for the path ahead. We are also standing up a future
tanker program office to execute both NGAS and tanker
recapitalization effort.
Our global operations also require strategic and tactical
aircraft with specific connectivity, survivability, and
agility, generating at mission-capable rates necessary to meet
our timelines. Our 2025 budget request includes funds to
continue modernization and sustainment of our airlift fleets,
including both the C-17 and the C-5 and also the C-130.
Regarding executive airlift, the VC-25A program and Boeing
successfully delivered the most recent aircraft to the
Presidential airlift group on January 25, approximately 2
months ahead of schedule, in support of flight operations in
2024. So we are having good success with the VC-25A.
Ranking Member Courtney, as you indicated, VC-25B, we are
continuing to execute and work with Boeing to execute that
program. The structure of our arrangement with Boeing, as you
know, essentially prioritizes cost over all other
considerations, and that has had an impact on our schedule. But
we continue to work with Boeing to deliver that important
capability later this decade.
Sadly, last fall the Air Force lost eight airmen in a CV-22
Osprey mishap off the shore of Japan. As you indicated, safety
and aircraft investigation boards have determined that a
material failure of a component led to this mishap, and we need
to do additional maintenance and procedural controls to
mitigate that risk.
We are committed to doing a resumption of flight operations
in a way that ensures a safe return to flight with the
appropriate training for qualification of proficiency for the
air crews and the right maintenance and procedural controls.
Our fiscal year 2025 budget request continues development of
modifications to increase CV-22 fleet reliability, capability,
and survivability.
And since time is of the essence in capability development,
I did want to say a personal thank you to the committee for
providing the Department of Defense with Section 229 of last
year's NDAA, what we call the ``quick start provision'' and the
fiscal year 2024 NDAA. And we look forward to coming to you
soon with information on specific initiatives that we will be
seeking for the Department of the Air Force under this
authority.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and we look
forward to working with Congress and our many Air Force
communities that support us to maintain our necessary military
advantage to secure our vital national interests.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Hunter and General
Moore can be found in the Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. Kelly. And with that, Mr. Nick LaLota of the 1st
District of New York has now joined us, the newest member of
our subcommittee. Although you--he may have an accent, so we
may need an interpreter, I will let him ask the first round of
questions there.
Mr. LaLota, you have got my time.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. I see which way this
committee is going to go with me. Appreciate that. Not only do
I get the front seat, but I get the ridicule from the gentleman
without the accent behind me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaLota. Special thanks to our witnesses for being here
today and for allowing us to discuss the Air Force's projection
forces program. The insights that you provide to our committee
will be invaluable as we make our decisions on policy and on
budgets.
Today I am eager to delve into discussions on how the
President's fiscal year 2025 budget will affect our operational
readiness, especially as it relates to China and Russia, how it
will impact our local defense industrial base, and how it will
ensure the Air Force's continued dominance in the skies.
Mr. Hunter, good to be here. Good to see you here, sir. You
are the Air Force's top civilian for acquisition, technology,
and logistics. Is that correct?
Secretary Hunter. That is correct.
Mr. LaLota. Excellent. Given your position and expertise,
how will the Air Force's focus on competition with China and
Russia impact its procurement of bombers, tankers, and airlift
capabilities, sir?
Secretary Hunter. Well, all of those capabilities are
central to our ability to perform our missions in the Indo-
Pacific Region. So they are highly prioritized.
We are working in the acquisition community closely with
our operational community. That is one of the key insights of
the operational imperatives work that we did last year that we
are seeking to make a permanent part of our process as part of
re-optimizing for Great Power competition.
We are working very closely with the parts of the Air Force
staff that are working on our force design, and they are in
effect developing the concept for a new Integrated Capabilities
Command that will help ensure that we appropriately prioritize
our requirements for that part of our force, that we do the
right modernization and upgrades, and that we field the right
systems in the future for air refueling and for airlift.
And so we are working very closely with that community on
the standup of the Integrated Capabilities Command, have a
complementary set of organizations within Air Force Materiel
Command, to support that work, and then ultimately to build the
systems that will fill out that part of our force design.
And I don't know, General, if you want to speak to that as
well.
General Moore. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, and thank for
the question, Mr. LaLota. So from the programmatic perspective,
I would say all of these things are of great importance to the
fight on China, as you have rightly pointed out. They sit,
though, in balance with all of the other capabilities that it
takes to prosecute war against a peer competitor.
And so we have a lot of analysis in the past two years that
lets us move beyond a discussion of platforms to a discussion
of end-to-end creation of effects. And we can see clearly where
we have advantage and where we don't. And so where we have
placed our investment in this budget cycle is in the places
where we may not have the best advantage, and we have not
sought to overinvest in places where we already gain an
advantage. So all things in balance and all things along an
entire chain of activities that allow us to create effects.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you. And, General, I am going to stick
with you on this. My understanding is that you spearhead much
of the Air Force's plans and programs. Is that correct?
General Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaLota. And does your portfolio include the Air Force's
LC-130?
General Moore. It does.
Mr. LaLota. Thinking about Russia and China specifically, I
am concerned because the United States relies solely, as I
understand it, on the LC-130s operated by the New York Air
National Guard, and the unique ability for transporting
personnel, equipment, and supplies to remote locations in the
polar regions.
And to accomplish this, I understand the LC-130s are
specifically modified to operate in extreme cold and snow-
covered environments. There are ski sleds from what I
understand on these aircraft, making them the only large
strategic aircraft capable of landing on ice and snow year-
round in the world.
So thinking about that part of the world and what that
might be used for in strategic competition, at least with China
and Russia, but certainly in kinetic operations, I am worried
about an overreliance on the LC-130 while concurrently that
fleet is being allowed to deteriorate.
So I was wondering if you can comment, General, how does
that current deterioration of the LC-130 fleet comport with our
nation's strategic focus on conflict possibly with China and
Russia, knowing that that conflict may extend to where this LC-
130 is used mostly?
General Moore. Yes, sir. So it is a great question. Not to
mince words, but I think they do matter. The LC-130 is aging,
as is the rest of our fleet. Forty-four percent of the Air
Force's fleets are past their design life, and the average age
of our fighter fleet is nearly 30 years.
I don't believe that the LC-130 fleet is deteriorating.
Aging, I would think that that is reasonable. I don't believe
that that fleet is deteriorating. In fact, there has been a
substantial investment thanks to the committees in new engine
mods, new propellers, to give them more ability to function,
particularly in the ice mission.
So I think there also is an upgrade, by the way, for new
skis or modified skis to keep the airplanes relevant and to
keep them current. They have something like 15, 20 years of
life left in them. So we have--thank you to the committee for a
small amount of money to start an analysis of alternatives to
look at what the replacement may be. But we don't view this as
an urgent or emergent requirement.
The aircraft, as I mentioned, are aging, but they are aging
gracefully along with the rest of our fleets. And all things in
balance, as I mentioned, this is not a place where we would
view the need for urgent investment, but we are conducting an
analysis of alternatives to see what it is that might be able
to come next.
Mr. LaLota. Yeah. We would appreciate if good, smart,
strategic folks like you continue to keep your eye on it.
Understand it is not urgent right now, but my experience in
this town specifically is we should plan a little more ahead.
And if 10 or 15 years is your horizon, that is good news, but I
hope that you, your predecessor, and his or her predecessor
does anticipate that need in time.
General Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaLota. Great. I yield, Chairman.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
I now recognize the ranking member, my friend, Mr.
Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Chairman Kelly, again. And like
you, I want to welcome Mr. LaLota to the subcommittee. I don't
know what took him so long to get over here, but, you know,
those Yankee fans, you know, they are kind of slow learners
sometimes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Courtney. So, anyway, thank you again to the witnesses.
I just want to go back, Mr. Hunter, to the comments you made
regarding Osprey where, again, in your written testimony also
you describe the fact that, you know, some new sort of
maintenance and tracking, you know, program is going to be put
into place there. And I realize it is probably summer before
they really are operational on sort of a regular basis again.
Has the Air Force or the Navy, who obviously is a big
consumer of Ospreys, has this all been sort of put down in a
document, in a reg? I mean, I really feel that that would be a
useful and helpful thing in the wake of that terrible accident.
And, obviously, it has not been the first time that is there.
I mean, when McCain and Fitzgerald had the terrible
collisions, I mean, the Navy, you know, really, you know, put
out a very explicit, you know, document that we actually
codified, you know, an NDAA that sort of, you know, just
changed the whole system in terms of, you know, releasing ships
for duty. And if there was readiness issues that didn't comply
with that, then, you know, basically you hit the safety brake.
And so, I mean, personally, I just feel like that, you
know, the services really need to follow a similar model in
terms of just, again, getting, you know, the public as well as
families, you know, the pilots and the crews, to understand
that something is different now.
Secretary Hunter. Agreed, Congressman. And we do have very
rigorous processes in place for what we do after an aviation
accident. And, you know, the Safety Board recently concluded.
It is about safe operation of the platform. We also have the
Accident Investigation Board, which is a similar but separate
process, that comes up with long-term recommendations, both
engineering and relating to the, you know, CONOPS [Concept of
Operations] methods of operation and maintenance that will, I
am confident, will have recommendations for us that we will
absolutely implement over the longer term.
I know that since all of the services operate the platform
in a slightly different fashion and manner based on our
different mission sets, each service has its own path to carry
forward about how to resume operations and do that in the
safest way, tailored to our mission set. And I know General
Bauernfeind and his team are 100 percent focused on this.
And I agree with you. I think we are very committed to
communicating with the families of those incredible service
members that we lost to ensure that they understand what
happened, but also how we are doing to make sure it doesn't
happen to others, put them in the same situation.
Mr. Courtney. And I just want to say for the record, and I
think Trent would agree, I mean, General Bauernfeind was
extremely accessible. I mean, we talked to him within days of
the incident, and we had another briefing. So, again, my
comment is really just about, you know, again, we just need to
see something that, you know, is explicit and public to really
show, like you said, that, you know, something is different and
something has changed. And, you know, people really took it to
heart.
And I think that is what happened with McCain and
Fitzgerald, and I think it has really--you know, really shown
impressive results.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Kelly. I now recognize the former chairman of this
subcommittee, who is my mentor and always is full of advice,
Mr. Wittman from Virginia.
Mr. Wittman. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks so much
for your leadership and for that of Ranking Member Courtney.
You certainly have done an incredible job, and I want to thank
our witnesses for joining us today.
Mr. Hunter, I want to begin with you. As we look at where
we go to counter the threat from China, you talk about next
generation air dominance as a system that has to be put in
place for us to be able to operate in the highly contested
environment we are going to find ourselves in. Part of that,
too, is next generation air refueling systems, because,
remember, we are going to be operating in at the very least a
contested space, probably a highly contested space, so we have
to make sure we have tanking that can also survive in that
environment. You know, logistics becomes very important in that
highly contested environment.
I wanted to get your perspective and ask where you see next
generation air refueling systems going. Are you learning
anything with what is being developed in NGAD? And I understand
a lot of that is classified, but hopefully one is informing the
other. And I want to make sure, too, that we understand
operationally how those two programs are going to intertwine,
and how do we make sure that we don't get one out in front of
the other, because I think one is intimately tied to the other.
If you are going to operate with a next generation air
dominant system, you had better be able to refuel in that same
environment and support that aircraft. We know how important
tanking is.
So what options are you considering to be able to hopefully
get some of that capacity in place as quickly as possible?
Obviously, 2027 is the metric. And are there options that we
have to maybe pull NGAS to the left? I know we have looked at
what we can do to pull a lot of those platforms and programs to
the left because of the growing threat from China.
Secretary Hunter. Well, thank you, Congressman. Really
excited to talk to you about this, and I agree with your
sentiments exactly. These programs are closely related, both in
their concept, how they operate within the force design, and
also I am going to be pleased to tell you that--in the way that
they are functioning and the way that they are working
together.
I did want to note that the PB25 [President's Budget 2025]
includes $7 million for NGAS in order to complete the AOA, do
some of the early stage modeling and simulation work that will
support the AOA, and also standup future tanker program office
that will manage both NGAS and the tanker recapitalization
effort. So we do have funds in the budget. We looked to add to
that as part of our next budget cycle process to complete the
work throughout the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program].
The NGAS program is leveraging our NGAD program efforts. We
want to leverage the government reference architecture for
advanced mission systems developed by NGAD, which we intend to
leverage across the Air Force force design, but in particular
with NGAS, and they are also leveraging expertise from the
agile development office to help them get started and take what
I call the next gen approach to our acquisition programs, with
large vendor pools, continuous competition, and iterations of
capability that we can deploy on a relatively good timeframe.
So subject to our ability to identify the right resources
for NGAS, I would certainly favor, if we can't accelerate the
entire NGAS program, certainly getting after some of the
mission system elements, such as connectivity that the chairman
referenced in his comments, into today's force on the earliest
timeline that we can.
Mr. Wittman. What is your vision concerning autonomy in
those systems? You know, as we look at what the future battle
space is going to entail, there are great opportunities I think
to get humans out of the risk missions where, actually,
autonomy can perform probably even better. And, you know, our
most important asset are human beings, so our men and women in
the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Army, the Coast
Guard. You name it. That is our true asset.
So give me your long-term visions about how NGAS is looking
at autonomy, because to me that is one of the areas where it
makes sense. You know, if we are using ISR [Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance], if we are using logistics
like tanking, it makes sense that that be one of the first
places that we look at autonomy. So give me your perspective on
where NGAS is looking to incorporate autonomy as part of the
future vision.
Secretary Hunter. Yeah. I actually recently had the
opportunity to fly on a KC-46 and observe how the crew
operates, both in the flying of the aircraft and also with the
boom operations. And I think there is a substantial opportunity
to leverage autonomy in both areas of the airplane.
Interestingly enough, one of my takeaways was that the RVS
[Remote Vision System] 2.0 is a key enabler for a potentially
greater degree of autonomy in the refueling operation itself
and the boom operations, because the greater clarity of the
camera system will support a higher degree of high-fidelity
automation in that process.
And it was noteworthy to me in the cockpit, you know, there
are times when, you know, the pilots are--you know, it is not
that hard to fly the airplane, and then there is moments where
it is really hard, and they are task-saturated. And those
moments are areas where I think we could definitely leverage
autonomy to reduce that burden on them, particularly when it
comes to the dicier aspects of refueling operation.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
This wasn't going to be a refueling hearing, but I am going
to continue it and--because Rob has certainly touched on a
number of those issues. And I understand the environment we are
speaking of, but can you, Mr. Hunter, give us a better view on
the current thinking for stealth technology. I know Rob asked a
question of additional capabilities, but stealth for NGAS,
where do you see that going?
Secretary Hunter. Well, I think it is a huge element of the
analysis of alternatives to look at, what are the different
technologies that can help us do refueling in a contested
environment? And what are the different ways to solve that very
challenging operational problem? So it is a huge focus. We are
leveraging, obviously, the expertise of our force. We are
leveraging modeling and simulation to help us think through
what might work to help us enable that and then what doesn't
work.
One thing that is a clear lesson that I do want to hit on
again is a core foundation for all of it is situational
awareness and the connectivity that is required to give the
crew situational awareness in order to engage in higher risk
operations and higher risk environments. And so that is
something that we already understand, and our AOA will help us
get after more questions such as the one you reference about
what other technologies can be bring to bear to help us operate
better in that environment.
Mr. Norcross. We certainly have a number of platforms that
currently we have and have to be fueled. But looking to the
future, there can be many types. And I am not sure one size
fits all, and that is one of the challenges.
Can you tell me currently, for the KC-46, if this was two
years ago I would say, what can it refuel? I think we are on
the other end. What can't it refuel currently?
Secretary Hunter. There is a very small number of
limitations. The most notable one is the A-10, and that--it
just relates--you know, it is an engineering issue between the
boom and that aircraft, and its power of the engines. It is not
impossible to do it. It is just not--it is not a particularly
good idea to do it on a routine basis, and, therefore, we
don't. And that is a decision made by General Minihan and his
team at AMC, and that is working. We have enough KC-135s to
ensure that we can safely operate A-10s wherever we need to.
Mr. Norcross. And certainly the number of those is
diminishing each year that we go through.
The remote visual system, I am not looking back, but we
were--where we are currently, the system that they are building
right now has been approved--its design concept--by the Air
Force, correct?
Secretary Hunter. Yeah. We are well along, so, you know,
the final--the nature of the KC-46 FAA airworthiness
certification. So we are still working with the FAA [Federal
Aviation Administration] to completely nail down airworthiness
certification, which will completely close approval of the
design, but we are--we have made a ton of progress towards
that, and we are close.
Mr. Norcross. We certainly have. The good news is we will
have the greatest system the world has ever seen. The bad news
is it took us a long time to get here. But looking forward the
question is, are we where we expected to be as of the final
design that we are looking at? Are we still looking at a late
2025 implementation?
Secretary Hunter. There is some schedule pressure there.
And depending on completion of the FAA airworthiness
certification process, I cannot guarantee you that we would be
in a position to field in 2025. It may be 2026, and that is
actually likely. I think it probably will field in 2026, but I
can get back to you with a more detailed timeline for where we
see the state of play of fielding.
Mr. Norcross. Certainly, we appreciate that. And
considering what we have gone through on this tanker program, I
think all of us can say is we are glad we are on this side of
the hill and it is going much better now.
And with that, I will yield back to the chairman.
Mr. Kelly. I now recognize Dr. Jackson.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to ask a real quick question. I know we hit on
this already. Just kind of the importance of the CV-22 program
and what is going on there. And we kind of, you know, it was
highlighted based on the recent groundings that we had on how
important that aircraft is overall to all branches of the
service.
But I just wanted to ask a question. The CV-22 is the Air
Force's only high-speed vertical lift platform in the
inventory. It allows for long distance vertical lift operations
with increased survivability. When we talk about operations in
the Indo-Pacific, and really across the globe, speed and range
are perhaps the two most important factors. And the CV-22
aircraft provides the capability that is nearly impossible at
this particular to replace in that regard.
I know the Department of the Air Force has invested in the
CV-22 and Nacelle improvement program, and it has greatly
improved the readiness of the aircraft and increased aircraft
availability by over 5 percent from what I have been told.
Lieutenant General Moore, how has the Nacelle improvement
benefitted aircraft readiness? And have you seen an increase in
mission-capable rates? Further, is it your assessment that you
have seen a decrease in the maintenance man-hours and costs per
flight hour within the CV-22 fleet thanks to the Nacelle
improvement program?
General Moore. So we have absolutely seen a decrease in
maintenance man-hours. Largely, that comes from increased
engine time on the wing. Engine changes in the CV-22 are
complex, as you certainly know, and so we have seen an
improvement.
This is paired with a companion mod that replaces a wiring
harness in the same area as the nacelle screen which is
actually the part that we are talking about. That has helped as
well. Nevertheless, the MC [Mission Capable] rates remain below
what we would like, the maintenance man-hours per flight hour
remain higher than we would like, and we now have a fairly
healthy task ahead of us to get our pilots back up to full
mission status, and that will happen along a very deliberate
pathway.
But the CV-22 is still a part of our force. We intend to
use it that way. We wish that the mods that we had put in place
could have maybe potentially had more impact. I think we could
have hoped for more, but we are seeing the improvements that
you are talking about, maybe not quite to the extent that we
would have hoped.
Dr. Jackson. Great. Yeah. I have been out there in a
helicopter, and I have seen the before and after, and it is
pretty impressive, the change, and I can only imagine the
impact it is having. I hope that we continue to do that on all
of our B-22s across the services.
My second question, real quickly, is during my time in
Congress I have spent a lot of time focusing on our vertical
lift capabilities across services and what that will look for--
what that will look like moving forward.
Many of you have heard me say this before. You know, when
you were talking about Indo-Pacific, I think--and one of the
reasons why, you know, the V-280 program, Bell has got that
right now, is basically based on speed and range. And those are
going to be really important in a future conflict, especially
in a conflict in the Indo-Pacific where those are going to be
exaggerated.
During my recent meetings and briefings, I have heard that
while we have great capabilities now, we need to make a next
generation leap with regards to speed, range, and
survivability. Development of the high-speed VTOL [Vertical
Takeoff and Landing], the vertical lift takeoff and landing
aircraft, is well underway right now to meet the critical needs
of tomorrow. That is the plan at least.
But, in my opinion, we need to quickly move into the next
phase of this program. I understand that DARPA [Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency] intends to move from four
potential proposals to two or three in the near future, and I
would urge that decision to happen sooner than later, so that
we can accelerate this program. I think that, you know, time is
of the essence here.
This new high-speed VTOL aircraft will need to have
advanced features like runway independence, improved
survivability, variable payload configurations, to allow for
increased mission flexibility and superior performance over the
legacy platforms to say the least.
Lieutenant General Moore, can you speak to the importance
of speed and range for our projection forces capability and how
this new high-speed VTOL aircraft will be part of that?
And, Assistant Secretary Hunter, I know this program lives
currently in DARPA at the moment, but I have heard from many
leaders and operators about how great this aircraft will be. So
is there anything in terms of resources or authorities that
this committee can do to--or provide to accelerate the fielding
of this aircraft?
General Moore. So we certainly value speed and range above
most of the other attributes of a fighting force in the
Pacific. You are certainly well aware of this when you fly from
D.C. to Hawaii. You get very happy not because you are in
Hawaii, but because you are no longer in D.C. Yet you are only
halfway to Guam. This is an enormous area to fight in.
Certainly, speed and range are attributes that we value. We
also, however, have to ensure that if we are going to bring on
a new weapons system that we have the headspace in the budget
to account for that. And I think we are challenged to see
something like future vertical lift come in until after the
nuclear bow wave peaks sometime--we thought it would 2027. I
think now it is probably 2028 or 2029. Before that, I don't see
that we have a way to bring a new weapons system into the
portfolio.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Hunter. I would say, from an acquisition
perspective, we do talk to DARPA and are in discussions with
DARPA on how their high-speed VTOL program--you know, they are
looking for a service to take that program on when it reaches
the completion of the work that they are doing. You know, they
work it up to a certain point, and then they expect someone
else to carry the program forward.
So no resolution as of yet in those conversations, but this
is an area where we are working very intentionally with the
force design that is directly tied to our vision for Great
Power competition. And so this capability would be in the mix
to understand, how does our force design meet the needs of the
fight and the things that substantially improve our
capabilities. To reference what the General said earlier,
right, that balance, reinforcing our--an advantage or
strengthening an area of weakness. Then they are going to be
prioritized in our force design.
So we are really looking to our colleagues today in the A-
57 on the half-staff, but in the future an Integrated
Capabilities Command to help us work through these
prioritization questions.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you, both. My time is up, and I just
want to say that with the Army's vertical lift program I
understand these new proposed capabilities are a leap, a big
leap, so----
Mr. Kelly. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Garamendi. I am sorry. I am sorry. Ms.
McClellan. I am so sorry.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
you and the ranking member for having this hearing today. I do
appreciate hearing from our witnesses on the ways that we can
continue to ensure that the Air Force has what it needs to
remain a truly global force.
With that, I want to start with a follow up from Mr.
LaLota's questions, and that is how the Air Force projection
forces are ensuring that it maintains its nimbler counter-
insurgency and counter-terrorism capabilities if they are
needed.
General Moore. So, ma'am, I will certainly say that we have
not given up on counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism.
However, China is the pacing threat, and we are focusing on
what it takes to execute an end-to-end operation that can
create effects against a peer adversary.
Low in-fighting is something that we have become very good
at over the last 30 years, but it is a very different kind of
requirement than confronting a peer adversary. Confronting a
peer adversary is much, much more complex. It is much more
intensive in terms of data and the ability to move it, as well
as airmen, to make command and control decisions. And if we are
going to be successful in that arena, we have to focus on that.
There are still parts of the Air Force Special Operations
Command in particular will still focus on counter-insurgency
and counter-terrorism. In fact, Special Operations Command is
the global integrator for that fight. Air Force Special
Operations Command is their component, will continue to focus
on that, but the majority of what we have, we will need to
pivot away from that and it will have to pivot towards high-end
competition or conflict if called upon, or we won't be able to
pull this off.
Secretary Hunter. The one area that I would highlight that
we are doing some work on that is directly relevant is on the
counter-UAS [Unmanned Aerial System], which is a huge priority
across the Department. No single service has all of the tools
required to really effectively perform that mission and all of
the different scenarios that you see that we require that
capability in the Middle East.
So that is a joint, multi-service effort that the Air Force
is participating with, and with our service counterparts. And
we bring certain technologies to the fight, the capabilities of
the Air Force Research Lab and that we have got some things
that we can bring to that fight as well.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. And we are over five months
operating under a continuing resolution, and I wonder if you
could share how that has affected the Air Force's acquisitions,
your ability to maintain your programs, and if there have been
any delays as a result.
Secretary Hunter. I am going to let the General answer this
one. But I can't resist the opportunity to just start on our
collaborative combat aircraft program, with the advantage that
that program was already underway, and so we have been able to
execute a good portion of it. But we have not been able to
execute the Experimental Operations Unit, which will be helping
us figure out the concept of operations for CCA [Collaborative
Combat Aircraft].
So we have lost time on a critical element of the program,
which is really getting after the CONOPS, and there is a range
of other impacts.
Rick, if you would like to----
General Moore. Yeah. We have absolutely lost time, and we
have lost buying power, and we are not going to get either one
of those back. It is imperative--I know that it is not the
direct work of this committee, but it is imperative that we
have a budget and that we have it on time. By far, the salient
feature of our ability to progress is the ability to have
predictable funding that arrives on time.
The Experimental Operations Unit is a great example of one
of the things that hasn't been able to start. It sits in a
basket of capabilities represented by the Secretary's
operational imperatives. The Secretary has been working on
operational imperatives since he arrived, and yet nothing has
yet been appropriated for it. We are still waiting for the
first of those dollars to arrive, and we are--we are giving
time to our adversaries. Quite frankly, they don't have this
problem.
Ms. McClellan. And my last question, I don't know if you
will have time to answer fully, so, if not, you can submit it
for the record later. But, Lieutenant General Moore, with
Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine, increased cooperation
and support of our European allies remains a top priority. And
what has the Air Force done in 2024 to develop new operational
concepts, deploy capabilities, and plan to bolster deterrence,
and maintain its competitive advantage against Russia, and what
can we expect in 2025?
General Moore. So we certainly--we would stop short of
saying that we have participated in the conflict, but we
certainly have followed the guidance of the Administration and
the Congress and provided assistance where we can.
I would characterize our impact as having helped Ukraine
devise new ways of fighting. Quite frankly, they are moving
very quickly. That battlefield changes about every 90 days, and
they are moving very quickly. We have provided all of the
assistance that we are authorized to provide without getting
directly involved.
And so largely this is a policy issue, and we are complying
with both the policy and the public law that comes from the
Congress.
Secretary Hunter. And I would just add in terms of defense
of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], the air policing
mission, U.S. Air Force is--with F-35s and other platforms, but
working in close cooperation with the European nations, also
operating F-35As, that cooperation has really been excellent.
We see the value of the connectivity of that platform in those
operations.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. I now recognize my friend, General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to everybody for being here. I would like to focus a
little bit on the Air National Guard for a minute here. Since
the Gulf War, the Air National Guard has lost 24 fighter
squadrons. And of the 81 squadrons in the Air Combat Command
fielded as of January 1, 2023, only 25 were allocated to the
Air National Guard.
In Michigan, we are seeing this firsthand as Selfridge Air
National Guard Base will be losing it's a-10 mission. That is
just a fact of life. We know these are tough decisions that
have to be made.
The fiscal year 2024 NDAA included a provision encouraging
the Air Force to commit additional procurement of the F-15EX
above the program of record for the purpose full
recapitalization of the Air National Guard. The Air National
Guard A-10 squadrons currently planned on losing, you know,
their A-10 mission.
So does the Air Force disagree with the Armed Services
Committee's assessment and our committee's commitment to
ensuring a robust National Guard? How do you--I hate to say,
how do you feel? But, you know, what is the--what are you
thinking about the future of the Air Guard?
General Moore. So we are committed--the Air Force is
committed, along with the committee, to a robust Air National
Guard. If you look at the percentage of squadrons at the
beginning of Desert Storm that were allocated to the Air
National Guard, particularly in the fighter world, and you look
at the percentage at the end of this fight-up, they are roughly
the same.
So there has been a concurrent drawdown of the combat
forces in the Air Force over those several years. At the
beginning of Desert Storm, as you well know, the Air Force had
about 150 fighter squadrons, and we were nearly 600,000 people.
That is nothing like the Air Force that we have today.
So it is not a lack of commitment to the Guard. It is that
the Air Force over the last 30 years has simply gotten smaller.
I would also say that in terms of the F-15EX, you mentioned
Selfridge specifically, if F-15EXs were to go to Selfridge,
they needed to have been bought at least three years ago, and
maybe four. And our ability to add aircraft beyond what we have
procured right now, the program of record, as you know, is 144,
and we are simply not able to reach that. In fact, you will see
in our 2025 budget a reduction of six aircraft in the budget
year.
So we have no complaint about the Fiscal Responsibility
Act, but the fact of the matter is it reduced our top line, and
so it would not be likely that we would see the ability to add
additional procurement, and F-15EX is about $3 billion per
squadron to procure and bed down. And I think it unlikely that
we will see additional F-15EXs in the Air Force's budget in
the----
Mr. Bergman. So let me ask you a question. Does that mean
there is the potential for further reduction in the number of
fighter missions for the Air Guard?
General Moore. We don't see that. We have looked--we have
looked very carefully. In the A-10 enterprise in particular, we
replaced fighter missions with fighter missions where we could.
When we ran out of fighter tails, we replaced fighter missions
with flying missions, which is what happened at Selfridge. And
if we weren't able to do that, then we replaced fighter
missions with a relevant high-end future force mission that
would result in a transition we would not have to talk about
again in our lifetimes.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. On a different subject, the President's
budget calls for the Air Force to divest 250 aircraft, which
will, my understanding is, put the Air Force total below 5,000
total airframes. Is that a correct statement?
General Moore. The first number I am familiar with. I am
not sure about 5,000, but it sounds about right. I am not
familiar with that number, though.
Mr. Bergman. Anyway, the budget also falls below the Air
Force's stated goal of at least 72 new fighter jets annually by
about a dozen jets, so about from 72 to 60. Why the disconnect?
And what is the plan to--are we going to ramp up procurement so
we can get up to the number that was originally requested? Or
why the difference?
General Moore. We would like to do that. Our top line was
simply lower than it was in 2024. And consider that when we
open the books, whether the top line changes or not, because of
workforce supply chain inflation, there is about a $10 or $12
billion bill across the fight-up that we have to handle.
And we are still committed to those airplanes. We believed
in them last year. We believe in them this year. But they don't
fit in the top line--they don't fit in the top line anymore.
Unfortunately, it is that simple. I wish that it were
different, but it is not.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. If they don't want those KC-46s in Michigan, we
will definitely take them in Mississippi.
With that, I yield my--I yield questions to Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow. This is an
extraordinary hearing. We need this. We need that. We need
vertical lift. We need aerial tankers, F-15EXs. We need $3
billion a copy. Hypersonic--I just left the hypersonic missile
hearing in the other hearing room. F-35s, I think Special
Operations came up here.
Joe reminded me that his two subs are now one sub, and so
Two Sub Joe is now One Sub Joe.
My question really is for you, General. You recently made a
statement, when asked about the Sentinel, you said, ``The
Sentinel will be funded. We will make the trades that it takes
to make that happen.'' General Moore said at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.
Can you explain the trade that you will--that you, the
Pentagon, we will make, so that the $130 billion Sentinel
program over the next 10, 15 years, will be built? What is that
trade? What are you trading off?
General Moore. Sir, I don't know that we know the answer to
that yet. But what we do know is that Sentinel is a national
imperative. There have been multiple nuclear posture reviews
over the last 20 years across a range of Administrations and
across a range----
Mr. Garamendi. Stop. Stop. We have heard that. So you are
not going to tell us what you are trading for the Sentinel?
General Moore. Sir, we don't know the magnitude of that
trade yet, so I couldn't tell you what the trade would be.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, basically, it is $130 billion over the
next 15 years. That is basically what we are going to spend on
the Sentinel.
Secretary Hunter. So, Congressman, this is----
Mr. Garamendi. How do you know what the trade is? Your
colleague doesn't know what the trade is, although he is
willing to spend $130 billion on the Sentinel.
Secretary Hunter. This is part of the Nunn-McCurdy review
process----
Mr. Garamendi. That is correct.
Secretary Hunter. --to do exactly what you are describing.
So that process is underway. And, obviously, the first
determination is, does Sentinel continue or not? That is a
question that Dr. LaPlante will decide.
Mr. Garamendi. No. That is not the first question. That is
the end question. First question is, what is it going to cost?
Secretary Hunter. There are five aspects of the review, and
they----
Mr. Garamendi. That is correct.
Secretary Hunter. --ultimately come together to the
question of whether the program terminates or is continued. And
so that--we in the Air Force are--obviously, we are
contributing to the discussion with our understanding of the
program.
Mr. Garamendi. You are central to the discussion. It is
your program.
Secretary Hunter. But OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense] runs the Nunn-McCurdy review process, and so they are
leading that, and we will take their decision and then execute
that when it is made.
Mr. Garamendi. No. You will be--no. Listen, I have reviewed
this rather extensively. I know the process. The process starts
with the Air Force and the justification of the cost issues.
All right? That is where it starts. And then from there it
moves on to, what is the--what is the alternatives to spending
the money on this? Is it hypersonic or is it something else? I
know the process. It begins in your wheelhouse, and
specifically with you.
And, General Moore, you have been bold enough to say you
are going to do the Sentinel regardless, and you will make
tradeoffs. I want to know what your tradeoffs are. Which one of
the programs that have been discussed here by the members of
this committee are you not going to do, so that you can do the
Sentinel?
General Moore. Sir, we don't know that yet because we don't
know the magnitude of the trade, and we don't know the shape of
the bill.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, you have--you know it is $130 billion.
That is the current number.
General Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Hunter?
General Moore. We don't know how much of that is within the
FYDP, or how much of it comes in the out-years. It is a 30-year
number actually that you are talking about.
Mr. Garamendi. In fact, you do know most of that.
Mr. Hunter, how are you going to go about giving us an
honest, complete answer to the Nunn-McCurdy, or are you going
to take what the General just said, regardless, we are going to
do it because it has been said for 20 years that it is--
actually, it is 40 years, excuse me, 50--53 years that we have
had to have a trial. Period. And it is in fact a religious
issue, having very little to do with the world in which we are
now living.
So there are going to be tradeoffs, Mr. Hunter.
Secretary Hunter. There are. And----
Mr. Garamendi. And there would be, first, an understanding
of the cost, and then an understanding of the tradeoffs, and
then ultimately, yes, it will be in the Secretary's--but I will
tell this--share with my colleagues here that this is
ultimately a question for the Congress. How are we going to
spend the precious resources that we allocate to the military?
Are we going to spend it on the Sentinel, or are we going to
spend it on vertical lift, or any of the other things that this
committee has raised today?
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. Well, thank you, Chairman Kelly and Ranking
Member Courtney. I am honored to represent the only B-2 bomber
base in the nation with Whiteman Air Force Base in our
district, the future home of the B-21.
Last year, the chairman and I visited Palmdale, California,
to see the B-21 firsthand, an incredible visit to learn more
about our next strategic bomber and how it will project
American air power across the globe.
B-21 is a critical piece of our effort to deter China and
will be the backbone of our bomber force. This program has
stayed on target, and I remain committed to working with my
colleagues on this very committee, the appropriators, and both
of you to ensure that it does stay on track.
I have also been in constant contact with General Bussiere.
We are excited about the rater coming to Whiteman Air Force
Base.
Considering China's rapid military buildup, we cannot
afford delays to programs like the B-21. We need the B-21, as
you know, to counter China and bolster our bomber force.
Secretary of Defense has prioritized China as DoD's number
1 pacing challenge and called for development of new
capabilities and plans to bolster deterrence. How will the B-
21's role do this by deterring Communist China? Let's start
with you, Mr. Hunter, and then go to the General.
Secretary Hunter. Well, Congressman, you said it well. The
B-21 is the backbone of our bomber force, and, in particular,
it brings both the strategic deterrence and the conventional
long-range strike capability that we need in our future force
design.
And, in particular, it is the combination of range, access,
payload, and the weapons capability that is--that constitutes
that payload. That allows us to go anywhere, perform the
missions the nation needs against anti-access threats today and
the ones that we project in the near future and in the midterm
future and in the far future. That the B-21 has the capability
to give us the access that we need in all of those
environments, so it is absolutely core to maintaining our--both
our strategic and our conventional strike--long-range strike
capabilities going forward.
Mr. Alford. General, let me ask you a separate question.
Head of Strategic Command, General Cotton, recently said during
testimony he would love more than 100 B-21s. Can you talk about
what that means? What does--how many do we actually need to
deter China?
General Moore. Yes, sir. So how many we need to deter China
is an interesting question. But the fact of the matter is, the
100 aircraft threshold, the decision point, with lead time
accounted for, to go past 100 is not until the mid-to-late
2030s. So the commitment right now is to 100 aircraft. That
takes us for procurement into the late 2030s. The decision
whether or not to go past that may very well not be based on
China because it will be made at a time when we don't foresee
the security environment, and we don't need to.
This is not a decision that needs to be made now, but it is
one that we need to continue to think about. General Cotton has
probably the best insight of anybody on this, and certainly on
active duty he has the most experience both in depth and
breadth. So his counsel is well taken. We just haven't come
quite to the point that we need to make this decision yet.
Mr. Alford. I want to switch gears, since General Bergman
brought up the A-10s. You know, we have the 442nd at Whiteman
Air Force Base, proud fighting men and women who love this
mission, love a fighter mission. It does not look good that
they are going to have another fighter mission there. Everyone
I ask won't give me a straight answer. You have kind of
answered a little bit about that today. What is the odds of
442nd ended up flying the B-21?
General Moore. I think the odds that the 442nd winds up in
a global strike mission are very high. I think the odds that
that includes the B-21, I think if we were given odds, we would
say that that probably is something reasonable to have a
thought on.
I don't want to get in front of the Secretary. Basing
decisions are made by the Secretary. But I believe that we will
be able to have a flying mission to replace the A-10s at
Whiteman as long as long as we are able to keep our current
procurement on track, I think the odds of that--I think the
odds of that are pretty good.
We have a view of the 2026 top line, and it does not look
any better than 2025. So we will have to be cognizant of what
the procurement profiles look like going forward.
Mr. Alford. In relation to that, staying on track, how
concerned about you about the inflationary pressures, the
disruptions that would impact the ability to make the necessary
investments and meet the production ramp that we are currently
on?
Secretary Hunter. I am very confident we can meet the
production ramp that we are on for B-21. There are inflationary
impacts, and you have seen evidence of that. The government has
cost control in the near years, and so that is an element of
why I am so confident in our ability to do the production ramp
that we have planned.
But those inflationary costs do have an impact. Where they
don't come to us, that means they affect the industrial base,
and that has longer term implications for the health of the
industrial base, and those problems often turn up on other
programs.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, both. I am out of time.
I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. I know recognize myself. Even though you showed
up late there, Mr. Alford, I still let you get in.
Mr. Hunter, in your written testimony, you write, ``Near-
peer competitors have made significant advancements that
threaten today's tanker fleet and potentially forces them to
operate further away from the area of responsibility. The
stacked demand of global operations requires a set number of
air refueling tankers with specific connectivity, Nunn-McCurdy
review process survivability, and agility capabilities.
How would the KC-135 recapitalization program and next
generation air refueling system, or NGAS, get to these
requirements, and what is the timeline for each program?
Secretary Hunter. So our KC-135 recapitalization effort is
really focused on ensuring we have continuous tanker
production. That is the objective. And so, in effect, speed to
ramp is core to that program, because the necessity to begin
production to ensure the right delivery timeframe for those
systems is relatively near term.
Having said that, we are interested in having connectivity
as part of the KC-135 recapitalization effort, and that is part
of the requirement that we have been in dialogue with industry
to understand what can be done. And, in fact, we can do much
better than we have in today's fleet as part of that effort.
NGAS--connectivity is core to the NGAS concept among other
things, but it is absolutely one of the core elements. So, and
we are able, as I talked about a little bit earlier, to
leverage the work that we have done on advanced mission systems
architecture to help us ensure that that connectivity can be
baked into the design.
And, again, our approach will be to work with a large
number of vendors, many of whom will specialize in mission
systems, including connectivity and communications.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And, Lieutenant General Moore, this committee has heard
from numerous stakeholders that there are not enough air
refueling tankers. How would you respond to them? And I also
want you to include, we have the Washington Air National Guard,
which has the mission but no planes. I would think with the
shortage of fuelers that we could get some KC-135s to our
friends in the Washington Air National Guard, so they are not
using someone else's tankers.
So if you would respond, how do we respond that we don't
have enough refueling tankers?
General Moore. Yes, sir. So I think refueling capacity is
something that in any fight will be enormously valued. It is
part of how we have built our overall fleet structure.
I don't believe that this shortage is more important than
some of the others that are addressed. What you see in our 2025
budget are investments in the long-range kill chain. We can see
from analysis we can move beyond platforms and weapons to a
look at what it takes to create effects from end to end.
And of the most pressing shortfalls that are in that end-
to-end creation of effects, tankers are not--are not amongst
the highest priorities. They are absolutely a priority.
I would also--not to mince words, but they are important.
The Washington Air National Guard does have tankers. They are
part of a wing that has tankers. It is not that they are using
someone else's. It is that they have a group of tankers that
are apportioned to both parts of a total force wing. So I don't
think it is any more realistic to say the Washington Air
National Guard doesn't have tankers than to say that the 92nd
Air Refueling Wing doesn't have tankers. They both do.
We would oppose any increase in this fleet based on the
prioritization that we see in other mission areas, but we would
strongly oppose growing the tanker fleet in order to support a
single unit, so that they can have their own airplanes. That
would not be a priority for us.
Mr. Kelly. I would just argue--I have heard this fleet
management crap a whole lot in my life, and I am just going to
tell you it doesn't work. Number 1, we don't manage aircraft
well that we don't own. And I would just--I truly mean that. A
unit should own its aircraft--maintenance, flying, and all of
those things. We do well what we own. We don't pay attention to
things that are fleet managed or otherwise.
And with that--and I appreciate your response, General
Moore. I really do.
Mr. Hunter, I want to recognize you for any--I keep going
back between Mr. and Secretary. I don't think either offends
you, but if you have additional comments, now is the time to
make them.
Secretary Hunter. Sir, neither do offend me. I did want to
reiterate thanks for the support for the committee for the
quick start initiative. I think it really gets after how we--
when we identify new priorities, and they do emerge on a
regular basis, right, the threat is a fast, rapidly-moving
element of the security environment, and so we need the
capability to respond quickly.
The committee's work with us to create that authority is
absolutely essential to us having the ability to do that. We
intend to come to you shortly with some of the initial
initiatives there. And I think you will see that it is what we
described to you as our need, and I hope you will be able to
support us on this.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you. And, General Moore, I wasn't trying
to be rude, but I have seen AMC and other people try to do the
fleet management. And I can just tell you when that happens
what happens is the National Guard and Reserve get the short
end of the stick, and they get the broke or old stuff, and the
active duty gets the new and shiny stuff, whether that is
through utilization that is measured by different metrics. And
so it is something that I hope you all will consider.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 12, 2024
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 12, 2024
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 12, 2024
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. Garamendi. The FY23 NDAA issued language directing the
Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy to develop and implement
processes and procedures to leverage used, overhauled, reconditioned,
and remanufactured commercial dual-use parts for commercial derivative
aircraft and engines.
Secretary Hunter. [No answer was available at the time of
publication.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLAGHER
Mr. Gallagher. How is the Air Force not just thinking, but planning
for next generation airlift and contested logistics, specifically
palletizing munitions and rocket cargo? How realistic is their
employment and what considerations are you making for unmanned mass-
resupply?
General Moore. As the DAF modernizes for the future fight in a
contested environment, we incorporated multiple analysis paths to
better understand the characteristics of this changed environment and
the technology that will enable success. The 25 PB incorporates
exploratory work for the Next Generation Airlifter (NGAL) specifically
focused on what are the key attributes we will need to enable joint
maneuver and address contested logistics needs. Our proposed investment
provides preliminary analysis on less mature concepts while
accelerating palletized solutions that could employ mass effects. NGAL
and Rocket Cargo concepts are in the very preliminary planning phase.
For both of these, DAF is investing some basic funding which will allow
proper analysis of the future problem sets. DAF has witnessed notable
success in employing palletized effects prototype systems from airlift
platforms. This concept shows great promise for complicating our
adversaries strategy.
[all]