[Senate Hearing 118-625, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
------
S. Hrg. 118-625, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND THE FUTURE YEARS
DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 2226
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 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
----------
APRIL 18, 26, 2023
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM--Part 4 AIRLAND
______
S. Hrg. 118-625, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND THE FUTURE YEARS
DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 2226
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENDSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
__________
PART 4
AIRLAND
__________
APRIL 18, 26, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-098 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York TOM COTTON, Arkansas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JONI ERNST, Iowa
TIM KAINE, Virginia DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts RICK SCOTT, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois TED BUDD, North Carolina
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri,
MARK KELLY, Arizona
Elizabeth L. King, Staff Director
John P. Keast, Minority Staff
Director
Subcommittee on Airland
MARK KELLY, Arizona, Chairman TOM COTTON, Arkansas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine JONI ERNST, Iowa
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
april 18, 2023
Page
Army Modernization............................................... 1
Member Statements
Statement of Senator Mark Kelly.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Tom Cotton.................................. 3
Witness Statements
Bush, The Honorable Douglas R., Assistant Secretary of the Army 5
for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology.
Rainey, General James E., Commanding General, United States Army 6
Futures Command.
Schmidt, Major General Michelle A., Director, Force Development, 8
G-8, United States Army.
Questions for the Record......................................... 35
april 26, 2023
2Air Force Modernization ........................................ 45
Member Statements
Statement of Senator Mark Kelly.................................. 45
Statement of Senator Tom Cotton.................................. 47
Witness Statements
Hunter, The Honorable Andrew P., Assistant Secretary of the Air 48
Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
Slife, Lieutenant General James C., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 51
for Operations.
Hinote, Lieutenant General S. Clinton, USAF, Deputy Chief of 52
Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements.
Moore, Lieutenant General Richard G., Jr., USAF, Deputy Chief of 53
Staff for Plans and Programs.
Questions for the Record......................................... 92
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023
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 232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Mark Kelly
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Kelly, Peters,
Duckworth, Cotton, Fischer, Ernst, and Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK KELLY
Senator Kelly. The Airland Subcommittee will come to order.
First, I would like to say how honored I am to have the
opportunity to chair this Subcommittee and its oversight
responsibilities of our Nation's primary land and air forces.
Not sure how a Navy guy got this job, but don't worry, I am
not going to start asking Army and Air Force pilots to land on
a ship. Luckily, I have got an Army guy next to me to partner
with.
Senator Cotton, I look forward to working with you and all
of the Committee Members as we continue the Subcommittee's
collaborative approach during this critical time. I know we can
find broad agreement within the Subcommittee and work jointly
to confront the issues facing our soldiers, our airmen, and
their families.
I would like to welcome our witnesses to the hearing this
afternoon, Mr. Douglas Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army
for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, General James Rainey,
Commanding General, Army Futures Command, and Major General
Michelle Schmidt, the Director of Force Development or Army G8.
I welcome each of you and thank you for your service, and
your willingness to appear before us today. As we meet to
review the Department of the Army's Investment and
Modernization Strategy as presented in the fiscal year 2024
budget request, I want to acknowledge the work soldiers are
doing all across the globe and express our gratitude to them
and their families for the vital role that they play.
Today's Army remains engaged in operations and training
events worldwide that build confidence and interoperability
with our allies and our partners, test and experiment with
equipment to identify needs, capabilities, and present combat
credible forces to deter our competitors.
Today, as Ukrainians battle to defend their homeland,
thousands of United States soldiers remain deployed to the
European continent to deter the expansion of Russian
aggression. I had the occasion to meet many members of the 10th
Mountain Division in Poland just last week. These missions
underscore both the complexity of contested logistics and the
importance of our pre-positioned stocks.
Operations in Ukraine also demonstrate how critical
effective multi-domain operations are for a ground force, as
well as the power that joint and coalition operations can have.
They also provide a stark contrast to the complexities the
Joint Force would face if compelled to conduct similar
operations in a contested maritime theater.
This is why the Army's focus on long range fires,
integrated air missile defense, deep sensing and contested
logistics is critical to the current and the future force. We
look forward to hearing about lessons learned over the past
year. As we begin work on the 2024 National Defense
Authorization Act, we recognize that the Army continues to
operate with a largely flat budget.
At the same time, the Army is providing significant
equipment and munitions in support of Ukraine. Mr. Bush, we
have had occasion to discuss this work before, and today I
would like to hear how the Army is using the replenishment of
these items to build future modernization in concert with the
organic industrial base modernization strategy, and your
assessment of any additional risks the Army may be incurring in
discussion of any additional resources or flexibilities that
would further improve munitions development and production.
In this budget submission, the Army continues to prioritize
its signature modernization efforts while slowing procurement
of enduring capabilities. This supports the current National
Defense Strategy that I think accurately ranks China as the
most consequential strategic competitor and the pacing
challenge for the Department.
As you all know, China has been investing heavily in its
military and in emerging technologies, and the best way to
deter them is not to just keep pace on the cutting edge, but
also to continue modernizing our forces to make clear to our
adversaries that they cannot beat us on the battlefield.
At the same time, Russia continues to demonstrate an
aggressive posture, and operations in Europe remind us that
enduring systems require modernization investments too. We
would like to better understand how the Army is balancing risk
between newer modernization priorities and supporting enduring
programs.
We are interested in the specific investments and
capabilities the Army included in the 2024 budget requests that
continue the implementation of the current National Defense
Strategy (NDS), including efforts across six modernization
priorities, which are long range precision fires, next
generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift, the Army
network, air and missile defense, soldier lethality, and its
rapid capability--capabilities' development efforts in
hypersonics, directed energy, indirect fire protection, and
mid-range capability.
We appreciate the Army's employment of more flexible
acquisition authorities and increased use of experimentation
and soldier touch points to better defined capabilities and
requirements. The Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona has been a
proud host for signature efforts like Project Convergence,
which continues to guide modernization activity.
These practices make more rapid fielding possible, and we
applaud the Army's progress in this area and are interested in
the Army's assessment of its current testing and training
facilities, that capability and that capacity to support the
modernization force.
The broader organic industrial base also remains critical
to the Army's overall modernization strategy. We would like to
better understand how the Army is ensuring that it is
identifying and maintaining critical industrial capacity. The
Army is now faced with competing pressures on its structure, a
significant shortfall in recruiting and a generational
modernization effort.
For the purpose of this Subcommittee, we are deeply
interested in how the Army is determining the structure, ops
concepts, and posture it requires to field these new
capabilities and best meet the threat environment.
Additionally, we must understand the impact of these decisions
on the modernization of the Army National Guard and Army
Reserves, and critical components of the total Army.
The Army continues to make significant progress in these
efforts, but difficult decisions lie ahead, and I have great
confidence in all of you and look forward to a productive year
here as we work to continue to field the world's best Army.
On that, I now recognize our Ranking Member, Senator
Cotton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
saying congratulations on your new role as chairman of the
Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Power. I look
forward to working with you.
I had a productive working relationship with your
predecessor, Senator Duckworth. I know that we will have one as
well, despite your suspect service in our Navy. I want to thank
our witnesses for being here as well. The subcommittee meets to
discuss the Army's modernization efforts with a focus on the
fiscal year 2024 budget submission from President Biden.
China is this Nation's chief threat, even as we face
continued threats from adversaries like Russia, Iran, North
Korea, and others. Ensuring that we can prevail in any conflict
with China will require a joint effort, and the U.S. Army will
play a key role in any such conflict.
Beginning in 2014, China undertook a force reorganization
and modernization plan that has resulted in key advantages,
including strategically located forces, mass and magazine
depth. If called upon to compete with this improved Chinese
force, the United States Army will need to be modernized and
ready to provide key capabilities such as command and control,
logistics, and long-range precision fires.
But I am still concerned that the plan for the Army of
2030, and now General Rainey's plan for the Army of 2040, may
be insufficient to produce the Army we need now and in the near
term to counter China. For instance, Russia's unprovoked war of
aggression against Ukraine has exposed severe weaknesses in the
Army's industrial base, as in the other services.
I want to commend Assistant Secretary Bush for his yeoman's
work in executing drawdown authorities and contracting new
equipment to support Ukraine. But the Army's World War II era
plants and depots cannot fully support the Army's munitions and
equipment needs, and the industrial base continues to be
undermanned and under-resourced.
Mr. Bush notes in the Army ammunition plant modernization
plan that ``several projects could be moved to the left if
additional resourcing becomes available.'' The Army's unfunded
priority list and also includes funding for planning and
design, as well as one project, the Radford Army Ammo Plant.
I look forward to hearing about these and other organic
industrial base projects ready for funding in fiscal year 2024.
For the past several years, the Army has focused its
modernization efforts on six critical areas, long range
precision fires, next generation combat vehicles, future
vertical lift network, air and missile defense, and soldier
lethality.
I am most encouraged by the progress made in long range
precision fires, specifically the fiscal year 2024 budget
support of the precision strike missile, mid-range capability,
and long-range hypersonic weapon. All three will play direct
roles in any future conflict in the Western Pacific. But as Mr.
Bush noted in a recent interview, important trades had to be
made in crafting this year's budget.
I believe the Biden administration did the Army a
disservice by forcing it to make these trades. When adjusted
for inflation, President Biden's budget proposes to cut the
Army's funding by 2 percent compared to last year's enacted
levels. As a result, the Army submitted almost $2 billion worth
gof unfunded priorities, including air defense, tanks,
helicopters, military construction, and training.
All of these priorities will help modernize the Army, and
this Subcommittee will look to include many of them in this
year's National Defense Authorization Act. Again, I thank the
witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Testifying today
are Hon. Doug Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology and Army Acquisitions
Executive, General Rainey, the Commanding General of the United
States Army Futures Command, and Major General Michelle
Schmidt, Director of Force Development, or G-8.
I know the witnesses together submitted a single joint
statement, but I want to start with Secretary Bush for an
individual statement and then we will go in that order.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS R. BUSH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bush. Sir, thank you. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member
Cotton, and distinguished Members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee on Airland, good afternoon. Thank you for the
invitation to appear before you to discuss the Army
modernization program and the resources requested in the
President's Budget for fiscal year 2024.
I am pleased to be joined by my teammates, General James
Rainey, Army Futures Command, and Major General Michelle
Schmidt, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8. We appreciate
your making our written statement a part of the record for
today's hearing.
With your support, the Army's fiscal year 2024 budget gives
us the opportunity to maintain critical momentum across the
board. The Army's budget request puts us on a sustainable path
to equip today's soldiers with modern equipment while we invest
in the technologies and systems necessary to build the Army of
2030.
It represents our sustained commitment to our key
modernization portfolios that both the distinguished Chairman
and Ranking Member outlined in their statements. It also
continues modernization and procurement of our enduring
platforms and equipment that will remain in the force for years
to come.
However, no budget proposal can be built without balancing
risks, and this one is no different. I believe that this budget
request reflects a thoughtful and balanced approach between
developing future capabilities and modernizing our enduring
systems. But at the end of the day, Members of Congress will
decide if we struck the appropriate balance, and I welcome that
dialog.
In that spirit, I would like to address a few specific
issues raised in the invitation for this hearing. First, the
hearing invitation asked us to address how the Army's budget
request supports requirements in the Indo-Pacific theater,
including long range fires, area missile defense, and sensing
capabilities.
I can say with confidence that this year's budget request
fully recognizes and funds the Army's role in the Pacific in
these areas. As you look at the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) overall, you will see significant new investments and
procurement dollars for the network, long range fires, air
missile defense, and deep sensing. All vital to the Army's
mission in the Indo-Pacific region.
Critically, to shift from doing just R&D [research and
development] to actual procurement is a major step for the Army
that gets us another step closer to fielding real capabilities
to real soldiers, not just doing R&D. Second, the hearing
invitation asked that we provide an update on the Army's
efforts to expand critical munitions production, including
opportunities to further expand production timelines--or reduce
production timelines.
As part of the Army's role in the overall United States
Government response to Ukraine, we are using the generous
funding from Congress and every authority at our disposal,
including those new ones we received in the Fiscal Year 2023
NDAA, while working closely with our industry partners to
dramatically increase production rates across the board.
We have here a generational opportunity working with
Congress to improve the quality and modernization of our
organic industrial base, as well as making capital investments
with our private sector industry partners to put the United
States Army in a better place in the long term.
Through your support, production rates in key areas such as
munitions replenishment are on the rise, and we are able to
address obsolescence issues with the machinery in our precision
munitions manufacturing as well, critical to deterring China.
Third, the hearing invitation requests an update on the
Army's efforts to adapt experimentation and testing to support
concept development and accelerate our modernization efforts.
As highlighted in our written statement, the Army is
modernizing our business practices by embracing industry best
practices. Such as the use of soldier-centered design and
rigorous experimentation.
General Rainey will elaborate further on the great work
Army Futures Command (AFC) is doing in this regard,
specifically in the areas of Project Convergence and the
Experimental Demonstration Gateway Event, otherwise known as
EDGE, and other efforts.
Last, the hearing invitation asked how the army is managing
risk in modernizing enduring capabilities while concurrently
prioritizing future programs. As Members are aware, in order to
protect the Army's highest priority modernization efforts, the
Army did accept some risk in other areas, and specifically the
pace of modernization of armored brigade combat teams.
However, in doing so, the Army sought to ensure that we
didn't go so low on any system that we put the industrial base
at risk to a degree that forecloses the ability of the Army to
ramp back up if the Army's priorities change. In short, we
sought to ensure we did not close off options for Army leaders
or Congress to adjust our plans in the future, if they judge
that is the right thing to do.
That is a careful balance to strike. I acknowledge we don't
always get it exactly right. There are often differences of
opinion with industry on the right balance between a production
line being viable and fully productive, but I look forward to
working with you and other Members on this issue of where you
think the Army got it right and where you think we got it
wrong.
A final issue I would mention is the Army is fully
utilizing the new acquisition authorities provided by Congress.
Such as the urgent need pathway, middle tier acquisition
pathway, and software acquisition pathway to make the Army's
acquisition system work much more quickly than in the past.
In closing, I want to say thank you for both the funding
and authorities we need to support our modernization efforts.
Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Secretary Bush. General Rainey.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES E. RAINEY, COMMANDING GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
General Rainey. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton,
distinguished Members of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee
on Airland, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify about how the Army's fiscal year 2024 budget request
supports the Army's comprehensive approach to modernization, as
we both deliver the Army of 2030 and design the Army of 2040.
Army Futures Command is accountable for transformation or
transforming the Army, and modernization is obviously an
essential part of that important mission. I am honored to be
here with great teammates, the Honorable Mr. Bush and Major
General Michelle Schmidt. I agree with Mr. Bush that Army
modernization is on track.
I think there are four primary reasons for that, that I
would offer. The first is very strong teamwork. AFC works very
closely with Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA) Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology (ALT). I respect Mr. Bush. We have a
very positive and professional working relationship, and I
think that transcends both of our organizations and is critical
to our success.
Putting new equipment and weapons into soldiers' hands to
increase lethality is what both of us work hard on every day.
Teamwork also includes integrating efforts across the whole
army, so Training and Doctrine Command, Army Materiel Command,
FORCECOM, our service component commanders.
Working closely with General Flynn and General Williams,
who are out on the edge in Europe and INDOPACOM are critical
partners in them because we don't fight as an Army, we fight as
a Joint Force.
Our teamwork with the rest of the Joint Force has been very
positive and is contributing to our success. The second thing
is consistency. We have gone on 5 years now where the Army has
stuck with the modernization priorities as previously
discussed, and that consistency is translating into success.
The third one is organizational changes. Five years ago, to
get after those six priorities, the Army came up with the idea
of cross-functional teams (CFT) that have been one of the
absolute success stories of the adjustments, not just of AFC,
of the way the Army has adjusted, and sustaining those where we
are capitalizing on that success by adding, as we announced
recently, a new contested logistics, CFT, to get after what is
absolutely one of the things we have to address as we modernize
the Army. Fourth is our commitment to continuous learning.
As asked in the invitation, Project Convergence is the
Army's campaign of persistent experimentation. So not a one-
time event, but a campaign of persistent experimentation.
Project Convergence includes linked learning events throughout
the year that inform each other.
For example, Balikatan, an annual bilateral exercise is
underway now in the Philippines. We have AFC teammates and
analysts participating with General Flynn in that critical
experiment. An Experimental Demonstration Gateway Event, also
known as EDGE, is scheduled to take place next month, 1 through
19 May in Yuma Proving Grounds, and I would be glad to talk
more about that.
All of these things work together to deliver the speed,
range, and convergence our Army needs as part of the Joint
Force to ensure overmatch against our adversaries. Material
modernization is absolutely essential part of transforming our
Army to ensure war winning future readiness.
Transforming turns material modernization into true
warfighting capability and lethality to make sure that we are
the dominant land force in the world now, in 2030, in 2040, and
every point in between. Transformation means thinking in terms
of formations, not just platforms.
We buy things, but we fight formations. It is absolutely
essential that we modernize our equipment in a holistic way,
but also address organizational changes, continue to develop
our people and develop our leaders, create the training
capacity for that equipment, make sure we have facilities that
enable us to utilize that equipment.
Transforming means thinking further out into the future
also, out to 2040 and beyond. We are reaching out to the best
experts we can find to think with us about the future of
warfare as we define the future operational environment,
develop future concepts, and experiment aggressively.
We need to approach 2040 with a sense of urgency now, over
the next 18 to 24 months. Transforming the Army to ensure we
are winning future readiness and doing that persistently and
urgently is the best guarantee that our successful material
modernization efforts will produce lethal formations that can
dominate the land domain.
Thank you for your support to the soldiers and civilians of
our organizations in the Army. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. Major General Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHELLE A. SCHMIDT, DIRECTOR, FORCE
DEVELOPMENT, G-8, UNITED STATES ARMY
Major General Schmidt. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman
Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton, and the distinguished Members of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland for the
opportunity to appear and testify regarding the Army's fiscal
year 2024 modernization efforts.
A special thank you to our Committee Members for your
enduring support of our soldiers, civilians, and our families
as they continue to play such a vital role in defense of our
Nation.
I am honored to be here today with Hon. Bush and General
Rainey, who are both incredible professionals and leaders. Our
modernization budget request for fiscal year 2024 reflects our
multiyear effort to accelerate focused modernization and place
transformational capabilities into the hands of our soldiers.
Our single focus is to make our soldiers and units more
lethal to fight and win our Nation's wars. These investments
will assist with building enduring advantages over our Nation's
adversaries, whether in the Indo-Pacific or European theaters,
or wherever threats may arise, and the transformation you are
assisting us with is being brought to bear.
We must modernize responsibly, maintaining readiness now,
while transforming at a pace informed by available resources.
Several years of difficult prioritization, eliminating,
reducing, and deferring lower priority and less necessary
modernization efforts, as well as divesting legacy
capabilities, affords little flexibility in our budget top
line, so every decision we make now is a difficult one.
These are hard choices, tough choices about the pace of
modernization and the balance we must achieve in integrating
new capabilities while maintaining our ability to deter and
respond to crisis. As such, we ask for your continued support
to maintain a sustainable modernization path for the Army.
In closing, I would like to thank your staffs and all those
who professionally facilitate the engagement necessary to
advance our shared commitment to the defense of our Nation.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of the Honorable Douglas R.
Bush, General James E. Rainey, and Major General Michelle A.
Schmidt follows:]
Prepared Statement by The Honorable Douglas R. Bush, General James E.
Rainey, and Major General Michelle A. Schmidt
introduction
Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for your continued support to our soldiers,
civilians, and families. On behalf of the Secretary of the Army, Hon.
Christine Wormuth, and the Army Chief of Staff, General James C.
McConville, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the Army's modernization program.
The Army's fiscal year 2024 budget reflects the Army's
comprehensive approach to modernization, so the Army can adapt to the
challenges of an unpredictable era marked by technological change and
great power competition. The budget request sustains momentum in our
modernization initiatives to build the Army of 2030, while
simultaneously prioritizing our role in the Indo-Pacific, improving our
Nation's industrial base, and continuing to support our allies. Most
importantly, this request will provide our soldiers the materiel
solutions needed to fight and win our Nation's wars as part of the
Joint Force.
the security environment
As highlighted in the 2022 National Defense Strategy and National
Security Strategy, the security environment is marked by efforts of the
People's Republic of China (PRC) and Russia to reshape the post-cold
war world and by rapid and disruptive technological change. The PRC is
our most consequential strategic competitor and the pacing challenge,
while Russia remains an acute threat. Both states are applying all
instruments of national power, including military modernization, as
they seek to challenge America, our allies, and our partners.
The PRC seeks decisive overmatch in emerging areas such as
artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and cyber. The convergence of
technologies such as quantum computing, AI, and robotics promises to
expand the fields of competition and the race to find comparative
advantage.
Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine demonstrates how the
character of war continues to change. The pace of technological
innovation and Ukraine's ability to leverage the skills of its citizen-
soldiers and integrate with its private sector are noteworthy, and we
are studying their implications closely. What we are seeing in Ukraine
validates our six modernization initiatives, particularly Long Range
Precision Fires, Air and Missile Defense, Next Generation Combat
Vehicle, and the Network.
modernizing and transforming our army
Materiel modernization is an essential part of the Army's broader
transformation effort. Transforming our Army to ensure war-winning
future readiness requires integrating materiel modernization with non-
materiel efforts. These include Doctrine, Organization, Training,
Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy.
Transforming our Army holistically, including modernizing it, puts the
capability and lethality we need into our formations and ensures that
our Army will continue tgo dominate the land domain.
modernizing the force
The fiscal year 2024 budget request puts the Army on a sustainable
path to equip today's soldiers with modern equipment while we invest in
the technologies and systems necessary to build the Army of 2030. We
have also ensured that our requested resources are synchronized with
the Secretary of the Army's six operational imperatives around which we
are building the Army of 2030:
First, to sense deeper and more persistently than our
enemies at all echelons.
Second, to concentrate combat forces from dispersed
locations to overwhelm our adversaries.
Third, to deliver long range precision fires as part of
the Joint Force.
Fourth, to deliver air and missile defense at echelon to
protect our forces.
Fifth, to reliably communicate amongst ourselves and our
joint and coalition partners and secure ourselves from enemy cyber and
electronic attack.
Last, to sustain the fight for whatever the duration.
Front and center in this effort is our sustained commitment to our
key modernization portfolios--Long Range Precision Fires, Next
Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, Network, Air and
Missile Defense, and Soldier Lethality--and we are grateful to Congress
for the stable funding provided to advance these initiatives.
Long Range Fires Programs:
The Army demonstrated the Precision Strike Missile's
(PrSM) capability to achieve ranges well beyond the legacy Army
Tactical Missile System and will begin production qualification testing
in 4th quarter fiscal year 2023.
We successfully tested the Land Based Anti-Ship Missile
seeker and the Extended Range Propulsion ramjet, setting conditions for
subsequent increments of the PrSM program.
The Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) program
continues improvements compared to conventional artillery technology to
deliver long-range cannon fires capability to the soldier. However,
technical challenges emerged during a test event in 1st quarter fiscal
year 2023, resulting in delay of our planned procurements in fiscal
year 2024. The ERCA program will continue to move through system
development and testing, and will execute extensive Soldier Touch
Points and learning events in fiscal year 2024.
The Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies
Office, in partnership with the Navy, is on track to deliver the first
hypersonics battery in fiscal year 2023.
We also delivered the Army's Mid-Range Capability (MRC)
initial hardware in 1st quarter fiscal year 2023 and are on track to
deliver the first operational prototype in 4th quarter fiscal year
2023. The MRC prototype effort leverages existing Service missiles,
launchers, software, and hardware to fill a critical capability gap
identified by the United States Indo-Pacific Command.
Next Generation Combat Vehicle Programs:
The Army remains fully committed to the Optionally
Manned Fighting Vehicle program, executing a multi-phased acquisition
approach to maximize competition. In 3rd quarter fiscal year 2023, the
Army will award the competitive contract to up to three vendors for the
Phase 3 (Detailed Design) and Phase 4 (Prototype and Test) portions of
program.
The Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) program continues to
make progress, informed by extensive experimentation with the RCV-Light
Full-System Prototype effort. By the end of fiscal year 2023, the Army
intends to award multiple contracts for demonstrator vehicles.
We are currently fielding Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicles to replace the 1960's-era M113 Family of Vehicles and
completed First Unit Equipped in 2nd quarter fiscal year 2023.
The Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program began low-
rate initial production this year, with first fielding of MPF planned
for fiscal year 2025.
We are also supporting the Army's Climate Strategy and
the administration's greenhouse gas policies with the Bradley Hybrid
Electric Vehicle, Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle, High Mobility
Multi-Purpose Hybrid Wheeled Vehicle, and Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
Hybrid Electric Vehicle projects.
Future Vertical Lift Programs:
The Army is committed to both the Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) and the Future Long Range Assault
Aircraft (FLRAA). They remain the highest aviation modernization
priorities.
FARA will provide the Army and Joint Force with
transformational battlefield reach, lethality, and survivability
critical to operating in the expanded battlespace envisioned in future
conflict.
FLRAA will provide effective assault and MEDEVAC
capabilities, with significantly increased speed, range, and endurance.
The Future Tactical Unmanned Aerial System is
leveraging a competitive rapid prototyping approach, informed by a
year-long Soldier Touch Point ``Buy, Try, Inform'' effort to replace
the RQ-7 Shadow in the Brigade Combat Teams with a runway-independent,
CH-47F-transportable, and weather-hardened system with a reduced
acoustics signature.
The Army continues development of Air Launched Effects,
a low-cost aerial capability launched from crewed and uncrewed
platforms to extend the tactical and operational reach, lethality, and
protection of the host platform. This will include loitering munitions,
additional sensors, and a vast array of small and large payloads of
varying mission requirements.
Network Programs:
The Army has delivered Capability Set 21 modernized
tactical network equipment to eight Brigade Combat Teams, six
Expeditionary Signal Battalions-Enhanced, and two Multi-Domain Task
Force units.
The Army is now delivering Capability Set 23, which
focuses on tactical edge communications for mounted formations and
division headquarters, supporting the pivot from the Brigade Combat
Team to the Division as the primary unit of action for large-scale
combat operations.
We have also fielded modernized network technology,
such as upgraded mission command and fires applications, mobile mission
command upgrades, resilient satellite communications equipment and
modernized cryptographic systems, while piloting expanded Low Earth
Orbit (LEO) commercial satellite service options.
In fiscal year 2024 the Army will focus on designing
Capability Set 25 to support the pivot from the Brigade Combat Team to
the Division as the primary unit of action for large-scale combat
operations.
The Army is leveraging Project Convergence and
regionally aligned operational exercises and experimentation to advance
technologies such as data fabric, zero trust security architecture, and
unified network management tools to provide commanders with data at the
point of need.
In total the Army anticipates fielding more than 300
Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard units with modernized
network capability in 2024.
Air and Missile Defense (AMD) Programs:
The Army is fielding the Initial Operational Capability
for the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS)
in 3rd quarter fiscal year 2023 and recently completed the Full Rate
Production decision for this critical Air and Missile Defense system
that will link Army and Joint sensors to shooters.
The Army is improving the Maneuver-Short Range Air
Defense capability, which was fielded to the first battalion, with the
second battalion planned to be fielded in 4th quarter fiscal year 2023.
The Army continues to make progress on its Directed
Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense effort, a 50 kilowatt-class
laser on a Stryker, including successful live-fire events at Yuma
Proving Grounds, Arizona.
We are advancing directed energy efforts for Indirect
Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) by pairing high-energy lasers (HEL)
with high-power microwaves (HPM) for a layered defense of fixed and
semi-fixed sites against an array of threats.
Six Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS)
prototypes have been manufactured and are in developmental testing,
with initial operating capability anticipated to be delivered in 1st
quarter fiscal year 2024.
We have accepted delivery of two batteries of Iron Dome
Defense System-Army from the Israeli Government and are incorporating
these systems into our exercises.
The Army received the first IFPC Increment 2 launcher
in 2nd quarter fiscal year 2023, with an additional 15 launchers
planned for delivery by 4th quarter fiscal year 2023.
Soldier Lethality Programs:
Based on results from Integrated Visual Augmentation
System (IVAS) fiscal year 2022 operational testing, the Army conducted
a program re-plan to address areas of improvement. The Army and
Microsoft have identified solutions to address these areas through
refinements driven by soldier-centered design, and the Army is on pace
to field IVAS 1.0 and 1.1 systems to selected training and doctrine
units (IVAS 1.0) and operational units (IVAS 1.1) in fiscal year 2024.
The Army intends to field IVAS 1.2, the full rate production goggle, to
the Close Combat Force as early as 4th quarter fiscal year 2025.
The Army has procured the majority of its Enhanced
Night Vision Goggle Binocular (ENVG-B) procurement objective.
Additional procurement funding in fiscal year 2023, along with
programmed funding in fiscal year 2024, facilitates the purchase of an
additional 10K ENVG-B systems and maintains ENVG-B production through
4th quarter fiscal year 2025.
Production of the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW)
Rifle, Automatic Rifle, Fire Control, and General Purpose Ammo began in
fiscal year 2022, and First Unit Equipped is expected in 2nd quarter
fiscal year 2024.
Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Programs:
STE Information System (STE-IS) and Reconfigurable
Virtual Collective Trainers (RVCT) will deliver initial prototype
capability in Fiscal Year 202023. One World Terrain, a key component of
STE-IS, is in the hands of soldiers now providing operational
battlefield visualization.
We continue progress on the Squad Immersive Virtual
Trainer which remains closely coupled with IVAS, with development
focused on hardware productization, cybersecurity, and other
enhancements.
The Army's Live Training System (LTS) to conduct force-
on-force and force-on-target live training will deliver initial
capability to the Joint Readiness Training Center in fiscal year 2024.
The Soldier Virtual Trainer (SVT) conducted its first
Soldier Touch Point in 1st quarter fiscal year 2023, with a second STP
scheduled for 3rd quarter fiscal year 2023. The program is on track to
deliver initial capability in 1st quarter fiscal year 2025.
Assured Positioning Timing and Navigation (PNT) and Space
Programs:
The Army transitioned to M-Code Global Positioning
System and alternative PNT beginning in fiscal year 2022, following the
first fielding of Dismounted Assured PNT Generation I Quick Reaction
Capability System, fulfilling the Directed Requirement.
The Mounted Assured PNT System Generation II Program of
Record, an M-Code GPS capable system, will initiate fielding in fiscal
year 2024.
The Army continues to invest in the ground segments of
space-based technologies that close operational gaps in deep sensing
and targeting activities. The Army prototyped and live-fire
demonstrated the first-ever use of Low-Earth Orbit Satellite-based
Alternative Navigation technology to guide a Precision Guided Munition
in a totally GPS-denied environment and successfully engage a target at
long range.
The Army's budget request also continues procurement and
modernization of our key systems for our operational aviation
platforms, Ground Combat Systems, Intelligence programs, Logistics,
Armaments and Ammunition. We carefully balanced the overall Research,
Development and Acquisition portfolio, including fine-tuning between
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding and Procurement
funding, as we transition from enduring systems to our new modernized
systems.
Our Aviation portfolio strikes a balance between prudent
investments to maintain the viability of current aircraft identified as
part of the enduring fleet, while also investing in future aircraft and
capabilities designed to provide reach, standoff, and overmatch against
peer competitors in Multi Domain Operations. Beyond investments in
Future Vertical Lift, we are making key investments in Apache and Black
Hawk modernization, munitions, and aircraft survivability.
Additionally, we are continuing to procure the MH-47G Block II Chinooks
for our Special Operations units. The Army remains committed to Joint
Air-to-Ground Missile production to replace the aging Hellfire missile
and investing in Aircraft Survivability Equipment, a suite of systems
that protect Army aircraft from threat infrared missiles, radar guided
missiles, and lasers through detection and defeat systems.
Armored Brigade Combat Team modernization and combat vehicle
protection remain a priority, as well. With this budget, the Army will
procure 34 Abrams M1A2SEPv3s Tanks, 85 Strykers, 24 Self-Propelled
Howitzer Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) vehicle sets, and 26 Joint
Assault Bridges.
Our intelligence portfolio contains the resources required to
provide intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities, support the
Army's implementation of the National Defense Strategy, and enable
``seeing and sensing farther.'' We continue to close capability gaps
with the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node, the Terrestrial
Layer System, the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare-Air Large, Top
Secret Communications, and investment in the Multi-Domain Sensing
System-High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System. The investments
in the High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System will modernize
our Aerial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance platforms by
providing the range, speed, and sensing required to meet our pacing
threat challenges.
The Air and Missile Defense portfolio invests in integrated command
and control, sensors, and shooters to provide 360-degree, tiered,
layered defensive fires against a wide range of air and missile
defense. It continues to invest in Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (C-sUAS), Lower Tier AMD Sensor prototypes, Patriot radar
upgrades, and procurement of critical AMD munitions, such as the
Patriot Missile Segment Enhanced. In fiscal year 2024, we will procure
C-sUAS for one Division set and 15 fixed sites to cover globally
prioritized critical sites. We will also work with Congress on options
to consider additional multi-year procurement contracts for critical
munitions, including the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System rockets
and Patriot PAC-3 missiles.
Our Command and Control portfolio is procuring Manpack and Leader
Radios and related equipment to support Division type formations; a Low
Cost Tactical Radio that will replace legacy Single Channel Ground and
Airborne Radio System and meet National Security Agency cryptographic
modernization requirements; and a Unified Network Operations prototype
to enable common planning, configuration, monitoring, provisioning,
management, and defense of the Network. It will also continue to
procure and develop improvements for the Joint Battle Command-Platform.
Finally, the Logistics portfolio continues the procurement of Joint
Light Tactical Vehicles, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
(HMMWVs) and HMMWV antilock braking system/electronic stability control
kits to improve our existing tactical wheeled vehicle fleet; invests in
Army Watercraft, a significant combat multiplier in support of Army
operational concepts and the Geographical Combatant Commander in large
scale combat operations; invests in contested logistics capabilities to
reduce demand and provide point of need production and sustainment; and
realigns funding to support critical ammunition program lines and Army
Training Strategies to ensure contractual requirements are met to
maintain Industrial Base Minimum Sustainment Rate capacities.
modernizing our business practices
The Army has embraced industry best practices, such as the use of
soldier-centered design and rigorous experimentation, to enable
feedback from soldiers and commanders earlier in the development
process. This is accomplished in phases--first by getting prototype
equipment into the hands of soldiers from the operational force early,
through Soldier Touch Points, to refine requirements before more
investments are made. In subsequent phases of experimenting with
prototypes in increasingly complex scenarios, we assess how we would
organize and fight using this technology. This provides the Army not
only valuable feedback on the technology itself, but we learn how we
need to train and integrate across all facets, from Doctrine,
Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel,
Facilities, to Policy.
The Army continues Project Convergence, a Joint and multi-national
experimentation campaign of learning that culminates in a major field
experiment. Working closely with our counterparts from the other
services, we identify Joint warfighting problems to solve.
Experimentation objectives, operational scenarios, and data collection
plans are managed by the Project Convergence Board of Directors, which
includes representatives from all the Services, the Joint Staff, and
coalition partners.
Project Convergence seeks to enable and collect insights from
exercises and experiments and apply them in future events. Project
Convergence 21 (PC21) and Project Convergence Capstone 3 (PC22)
incorporated Joint Partners to help inform the Army of 2030, the DoD
Joint All-Domain Command and Control initiative, and the Joint
Warfighting Concept. Project Convergence made it clear that we must
adapt to a system-of-systems approach that moves from ``interoperable
systems'' to ``integration of systems.'' Project Convergence has also
made it clear that we need to integrate our offensive and defensive
fires using a combined arms maneuver approach and develop data-centric
capabilities as part of the Joint Force. Lessons from PC22 will inform
persistent experimentation over the next year including the Joint
Warfighting Assessment (JWA), events such as the annual Balikatan
exercise with the Republic of the Philippines, and Capabilities
Development and Integration Directorate (CDID) events. Lessons from
those events will inform Capstone 4, currently scheduled for February
and March 2024.
The Army continues to implement and employ the reform initiatives
granted by Congress that were designed to streamline and gain
efficiencies in the acquisition process. For example, the Army is
judiciously using Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) rapid prototyping
authority to experiment with innovative, mature technologies to quickly
demonstrate new capabilities. The Army is using MTA rapid fielding
authority to quickly field production quantities of new or upgraded
systems with minimal development, potentially resulting in faster
capability delivery and lower costs. In all, the MTA pathway enables a
``try before we buy'' framework that reduces risk, reduces cost, and
accelerates capability development and deployment. The Army currently
has 30 programs executing MTA rapid prototyping or rapid fielding
efforts and is using these authorities to accelerate select Army
modernization priorities including LTAMDS, PrSM, NGSW, MPF and IFPC.
The Army also benefits from expanded use of Other Transaction
Authority (OTA), which can include follow-on production awards. OTAs
are simplified contractual mechanisms that lend themselves to working
with small companies and non-traditional contractors, two known sources
of technological innovation. The Army effectively uses OTAs to
streamline the acquisition of basic and advanced research activities,
prototype projects, and follow-on production efforts. In fiscal year
2022, the Army awarded more than 1,703 OTA agreements valued at $6.3
billion. In November 2021, the Army updated its OTA Policy and we
continue to review our procedures to promote consistency in practice
and increase transparency.
The Army also benefits from two additional authorities provided by
Congress. The Software Acquisition Pathway (SWP) is a new acquisition
pathway used to facilitate rapid and iterative delivery of custom
software capabilities to users, recognizing that technology development
cycles are more rapid in software systems. Programs using the SWP will
demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of the capability within 1
year. The Army currently has nine programs operating on the SWP.
Congress also made permanent the authority for Commercial Solutions
Opening (CSO). Since its establishment as a pilot program, the Army has
leveraged the CSO authority to obtain innovative commercial products
and solutions to fulfill requirements, close capability gaps, and
provide technological advances. The streamlined nature of the CSO
procedures also serves to lower barriers to entry and incentivize small
and non-traditional vendors who have not previously worked with the
Department. The Army used CSO authority extensively as part of its
pandemic response efforts.
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 Program Executive Officer level, when
appropriate. This delegation allows the Army to appropriately align
program oversight with risk, resulting in reduced bureaucracy and
increased efficiency.
All these initiatives, when used alone or in combination, allow for
better and faster modernization decisions and faster requirements
development.
conclusion
The Army is modernizing rapidly, building a force capable of
competing across the spectrum of competition and conflict to deter war
and, failing that, prevail in war. These capabilities give the Army the
speed, range, and convergence of actions that provide decision
dominance which gives us overmatch over our adversaries. Thanks to
stable funding, new authorities, and a rigorous experimentation regime,
we are further down the modernization path than envisioned a year ago.
Modernization is a central element of long-term Army transformation,
which translates materiel modernization into capability and lethality
for our soldiers. The nature of our adversaries' actions and intent,
amid rapid and disruptive technological change, demands that the Army
continue to modernize and transform, and, with your support, we are
committed to doing that.
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss Army Modernization
and for your strong support of our soldiers, civilians, and their
families.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, and I will start by recognizing
myself here for 5 minutes. Let me start with General Rainey.
You mentioned cross-functional teams in your opening
statement, and I understand that the maturity of efforts in the
original Army's Futures Command cross-functional teams, you
know, your focus, as you mentioned, is shifting to the Army of
2040 and you are considering adding, and you mentioned, new
cross-functional teams to tackle additional challenges like
contested logistics.
Can you please describe in more detail to the Committee how
you are shifting AFC's focus, and what requirements you may be
considering for our cross-functional team on this specific
issue of contested logistics.
General Rainey. Thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate
that question. If I may, when I talk about 2030 and 2040, so I
don't want to create the impression that I am shifting away
from 2030 to 2040. To be clear, Army modernization is going
well.
We need to stay laser-focused on delivering on the
modernization efforts we have going and start thinking about
the opportunities to out think and get ahead of our adversaries
as we start to think about what is going to change in this like
second and third depths of that time period, but not at the
expense of staying focused on delivering on our current
efforts.
The contested logistics CFT, working in partnership with
Army Materiel Command, who does the strategic and operational
level. The CFT initial operating capability, our Chief and
Secretary improved the stand up, so they have already started
with the small team. They will be fully operational, I would
say, by about October 1 of this year, and they are going to
focus at the tactical level of contested logistics.
To specifically answer your question, predictive logistics,
the technology absolutely exists today for us to do a better
job of understanding what the logistics requirements, because
one of the keyways to reduce our logistics burden is to be more
precise. So, we can't afford to push stuff just to push it.
We need to know what the maintenance status, fuel status,
and ammo status of our combat systems are. Autonomous and
robotic distribution, so how can we leverage technology to
minimize the amount of humans we are putting at risk to deliver
logistics and sustainment. Demand reduction, hybrid electric,
for example, that can start by lowering the amount of fuel we
require forward. Tactical power generation.
As we become more and more technology focused and for all
the great things that brings you, it also creates an increased
demand in terms of battery, which especially at the most
important level of the Army, the rifle squads, the soldiers who
are walking and carrying everything they have, every pound
matters, so I think there are opportunities there----
Senator Kelly. General, does that mean the ability to
generate power forward or carry more dense batteries?
General Rainey. Chairman, I think that the opportunity of
the CFT, the way it has been successful, is to clearly identify
a problem, put together the right talent from across the
organizations, and let them develop those things.
I wouldn't want to rule out any possibilities, but to
reduce the amount of energy consumed forward and reduce the
weight on the soldier would be two of the things that they
would start out pursuing.
Senator Kelly. Are you looking at any artificial
intelligence decisionmaking in the logistics decisions?
General Rainey. There are opportunities. We are employing
AI and machine learning now to manage the massive amounts of
data and analyze it. So predictive logistics has an
opportunity--well, now it is an opportunity to use AI to
analyze the amount of data. The opportunity to get into aided
decisionmaking in terms of predictive logistics, I have not
seen that yet, but I would not rule that out.
Senator Kelly. I had dinner with the V Corps Commander last
Thursday night in Poland. This is an area where we do really
well, logistics. He was stressing just how critical it is for
any large-scale Army operation is we have got to get the
logistics right.
I have got more questions about this for Secretary Bush,
when it comes back to me. For now, let me recognize Senator
Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Mr. Bush, I want to return to
what I said in my opening statement and commend you for your
work to try to accelerate timelines for production of
munitions.
I know you and a lot of others have really been rolling up
your sleeves and working long hours, but I think you would
agree that we are still not producing enough of what we need
fast enough. That is both in our Army ammunition plants and the
industrial base. I have dug into the tables behind the budget
request.
It is a shocking timeline, really, in some of these cases.
Basic munitions, not ones that are complicated or advanced,
like artillery shells can take up to 2 to 3 years to produce.
Can you give us a general sense of why that is? I mean, we
built the Pentagon in less time than it takes to make basic
artillery shells today. So, what is up with that?
Mr. Bush. Senator, the actual time, I believe--the timeline
is reflected in the formal budget documents are, I guess I
would say those are the traditional timelines that assume a
lengthy contracting process, followed by a staggered, sometimes
slow on purpose to maintain a level workload at the factory,
approach.
For conventional munitions, I can tell you that artillery
shells, for example, it takes about a month to get the steel
once it--now there is always a flow of steel, but about a month
to get the steel. That steel is only at Scranton Army
Ammunition Plant for about 3 days. Then it goes to Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant for load, assemble, pack, which also only
takes about a week. So, when we are going as fast as we can,
like we are right now, those timelines can be faster. However,
sir, right now, as you mentioned, the issue is capacity, not
timeline. On precision munitions, your point is very well taken
and still very much the case.
So advanced munitions, patriots, sometimes even GMLRS
[Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System], things with seekers or
advanced electronics, we are still, sir, in those, at times, 1-
or 2-year timelines, but trying to go faster right now.
Senator Cotton. Thank you for that, and I probably want to
continue that distinction. Another distinction I want to drill
down on is what you said about contracting processes or
timelines.
I view those as bureaucratic constraints. Those are Gordian
knots. I think in my opinion, Gordian knots exist to be cut, in
many cases a sword, or at least this Congress can be the sword.
Then there is actual real-world constraints on the availability
of certain inputs, whether it is steel, energetics, ships, what
have you.
Let's focus on that area first. What are the single worst
bottlenecks we face in the real-world constraints about these
munitions? Because again, we are not talking about an aircraft
carrier or stealth fighter.
We are talking about in what are most cases man portable
munitions. But what are the concrete real-world bottlenecks
that the Army is facing right now?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So, I think if we are talking about
precision munitions, often it is the sensitive electronic
components. Computer chips and everything behind that leads to
some of those timelines.
If you trace back to the original sources, that is where
some of that comes from. Also, of course, our systems, you have
sophisticated systems to make them safer than what the Russians
might produce or exportable. That also adds time.
But most often it is the electronic components that take
the most time, probably followed by solid rocket motors for a
lot of our munitions that are rockets or missiles. The other
elements are the explosives and such, sir, really are the
shorter holes in the tent.
Senator Cotton. Okay. What are the best ways this committee
and this Congress can provide the Army with ways to reduce
those timelines, to open up those bottlenecks?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. First of all, the most economically
efficient way to make a production line better is to buy more.
That way you let the market do its thing and downstream
suppliers get better and it helps the whole system, so that is
number one, and thank you for your support on all that. No. 2,
and thank you for the support last year, is multi-year
techniques like multiyear procurement and advanced procurement.
I think when we testified last year, we were exploring the
ideas of doing those things for munitions. They hadn't been
done before. We are doing them now, and making that normal, not
an exception, will be vital, sir.
We have to get that right. One other leg in a store would
be over time working on continued, for example, Defense
Production Act investments. So that is the tool the Department
has to go way down in the supply chain and directly invest in
companies, often small ones, at the third and fourth tier.
Congress provided very generous additional DPA, title 3 funding
last year.
I think we are putting it to great work. I think we did it
in the cold war on a much larger scale, and I think that is a
model for how with the right authorities and the right money in
the right place, we can be better prepared next time, sir.
Senator Cotton. To be clear on that, you are not talking
about up here at the primes or assembling things, but at the
subcontractor or maybe even the sub-subcontractor doing fairly
kind of basic inputs, let's call them valves or gaskets or what
have you, reaching down to that level with DPA authorities.
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir, and it is a big difference with DPA. So
really our normal input is at the top with the prime and you
hope that funding flows down and goodness of the production
line gets down to those suppliers.
DPA lets us go directly at some of those subs, which are
often actually the most weak points. It is not the bigs, it is
the sub-tier contractors.
Senator Cotton. Yes, and oftentimes those subcontractors,
one or two levels down, are providing those inputs for multiple
primes or multiple different weapon systems, so there is a
bottleneck there as well, right?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. In many cases, when--and we have got
this now. I think we have got a much better handle on mapping
our own supply chains--from the Government side. We see those
overlaps, and industry might not see it because they are
looking at their supply chain, not the national supply chains.
Senator Cotton. One final question about inputs drawing
from a partner. Are you aware of Nammo's challenges and
expanding in central Norway?
Mr. Bush. Not specifically, sir.
Senator Cotton. Their CEO [Chief Executive Officer] said a
couple of weeks ago that they would like to expand. Obviously,
they are producing a lot of munitions that are in very high
demand in Ukraine, but there is no electricity available in
central Norway because all of the excess capacity is going to
power servers for TikTok videos.
He said that they literally can't make more munition shells
because of cat videos. Are you aware of any constraints on
either our Army ammunition plants or in the defense industrial
base because of electricity or other power inputs?
Mr. Bush. I am not, sir. I believe we have other
challenges. Some of I have mentioned and others, but I have
definitely not heard that one--not in the United States.
Senator Cotton. The Nammo CEO said he wouldn't have even
put it past TikTok and the Chinese to specifically have sited
their cat videos next to Nammo's production facility in central
Norway. All right, I have more specific questions I will save
for a second round.
Senator Kelly. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Rainey, on
several occasions this Committee has expressed concerns about
how the Department of Defense is tasked and organized to
support electronic warfare operations in support of the Joint
Force or our newly established multi-domain task forces.
Although both cyber and electronic warfare personnel are
attached to the Army's cyber branch, electronic warfare lacks a
designated entity for cross-cutting electronic warfare attack,
for sensing and protection across all Army formations and
echelon.
My question for you, sir, is can you outline what entity
will own the manning, training, equipping, budgeting, and
capability deployment for electronic warfare operations in the
Army?
General Rainey. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I can. Major
General Paul Stanton is the Commander of the Cyber Center of
Excellence and is responsible for the force generation of
electronic warfare forces.
General Barrett is the Army Cyber Command, who is the
operational commander, who is the senior cyber and electronic
warfare officer we have. If I may, because I share your
interest. One, it is something we have been working on as part
of the Army 2030. The importance of electronic warfare is
blindingly obvious if you are an observer of what is going on
in Ukraine right now.
It is going to become more and more important as we go
forward. The Army modernization efforts address that, so, we
are adding new capabilities at every echelon. Technology wise,
the TLS, brigade combat team capability is an acknowledgment
that we need to put the ability to sense and strike into our
most forward formations and work in that at a higher echelon.
Also, organizationally, the Army is adding intelligence and
electronic warfare battalions back into our divisions, or at
least our Army 2030 priority modernization efforts. Those are a
couple examples.
Theater information advantage groups, the multi-domain task
force have a dedicated electronic warfare capability both in
humans and technology built into them, so absolutely critical.
Something we need to keep working on. But I believe it is a
matter of delivering and following through on our plans.
Senator Peters. All right. Absolutely. Well, thank you.
Thank you for that deeper dive. General Schmidt, outside of
Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) and National Training
Center (NTC), do you believe the Army would benefit from having
training locations with standing approvals from the necessary
DOD and non-DOD bodies to conduct electronic warfare operations
during large scale combat operation training exercises?
Major General Schmidt. Senator, thank you. I think our Army
is the best army in the world because we are committed to
training as we fight. And so, we try to replicate an
operational environment, a realistic operational environment
wherever we can.
That said, I know there are some challenges in conducting
electronic warfare operations in areas outside of the few
designated areas, and I welcome your support in overcoming some
of those challenges. If I may, you know, General Rainey, sir,
would you have more to offer on that one?
General Rainey. Well, thank you, Michelle. We absolutely
need to continue to add the capability to train with multi-
domain capabilities that keeps up with both the pace of war and
the capabilities that we are adding.
It would be tragic if all our material modernization,
Senator, resulted in real equipment showing up in formations
that we couldn't then train with. There are some clear
challenges. I would love the opportunity to followup and brief
you in great detail on this, but some examples.
If you think about what the National Training Center did,
standing that up and how that translated into the Army of
Desert Storm timeframe, that same opportunity is presenting us.
We are adding electronic warfare and multi-domain training
capabilities to both Polk and Fort Irwin.
But there is other great opportunities--Fox training range
at Fort Huachuca is uniquely postured to get in there and do
things with authorities, populations, and we are probably going
to need help from the entire Government because the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC), FCA, there some authorities and
challenges that will have to work their way up through the
Joint Staff to OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) obviously,
but I think we should be pursuing expanded capabilities very
aggressively.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that from both of you.
We have some ideas about how to do that in some locations, so
if we could followup with you offline and talk about that,
because I agree this is absolutely essential.
There are a limited number of places where you can do it,
and there are some places where we--I think in my home State,
where we can expand some of this, we would love to have that
conversation with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Mr. Bush and General, General. Thank you for being here. So, we
have witnessed the last year of the war in Ukraine, and it has
just made it extremely clear that we need a responsive
munitions industrial base.
Mr. Bush, we have talked this a number of times, and I do
commend the Army's investment in the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
and other munitions enterprises. So, thank you very much for
that. We know that this is a critical down payment for the
future needs of our Army.
There is still an acute vulnerability, though, that exists
out there in the munitions industrial base, and something that
the Ranking Member addressed just a bit ago, and that is our
energetics. These are the chemicals that are critical for our
explosives and propellants, and yet our supply chain for
energetics is decades old.
We have limited suppliers for energetics, and they have
created some very vulnerable points in our industrial base. We
all know that if we can't sustain this for our future fight, we
are going to lose--we are going to lose.
General Rainey, would you agree that advanced energetics
like CL-20 can provide improved munition range, lethality, and
size? Will this help U.S. forces end long range salvo exchanges
against our peer militaries? Or Mr. Bush. Whoever would like to
take that.
General Rainey. Well, Senator, yes, if I could, please. So,
the CL-20 issue, I am aware of some recent thoughtful articles
and some studies that have highlighted that potential of using
that different formulation to get improved range, for example,
out of the same size rockets and missiles.
When I asked my experts at Picatinny, they are doing
research on that. I think the questions come down to safety
standards and handling. We have very high standards for that,
probably the highest in the world.
But I think my first contact with them on that issue, they
said that where in the past it was kind of ruled out that there
might be additional potential. So, ma'am, that could be an area
of some additional R&D focus, could certainly potentially pay
dividends from that or something else like that.
Senator Ernst. Okay. No, that is important, that we don't
completely rule it out, but we continue to research that. I
appreciate that, and then Mr. Bush as well, what is the State
of energetics supply chain? Where are those risk? Where are the
vulnerabilities, and how can we shore that up?
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator. I have seen that our first pass is
the supply chains. What you often see is kind of what the most
economical version of that supply chain is, so you often go to
lowest price suppliers, which are often in countries, some of
which we really don't want to be dependent on. I think we are
taking a more fulsome look at that.
I think we are seeing that we need not just suppliers in
the right countries, so friend-shoring, or if it is not in the
United States, which is ideal, but if it is in like perhaps a
neighboring country or a strong ally, and we need more than one
for everything.
Critically, we have to spend the money in advance to
qualify those sources so that when we need to ramp up, and this
is advanced planning for a surge, you already have a qualified
vendor. Meaning all the safety and other standards have been
addressed to make sure that we get what we pay for. We are
doing that now.
But one of my lessons learned from this--in munitions
expansion is that that kind of work needs to be done in advance
and coordinated with allies. We have a lot of the capability
that we can also draw on, and so it is not just us doing it,
but using the whole Western world to do this together.
Senator Ernst. Absolutely, and as we look toward the fight
in Ukraine, obviously, what we do at the Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant is very important. If we look at other fights that may
occur around the globe, it may take different types of
munitions.
As we are in the planning with that, we want to know how we
can be very helpful there because we need to be able to sustain
peacetime, but then also be able to surge for any future fight
we might have.
So, thank you. Mr. Bush, would you agree that enterprise
level coordination would reduce risk in the energetics
industrial base?
Mr. Bush. Senator, I want to say, yes. Enterprise between--
--
Senator Ernst. Different industries, yes----
Mr. Bush. Well, I think definitely a Department of Defense
(DOD) approach would be more efficient than the services doing
it themselves because we wouldn't want to step on each other.
For example, we often go back, you know, the Navy is buying
missiles, we are buying missiles, we don't want to step on each
other's toes.
Certainly there are avenues for cooperation through, for
example, industry consortiums where you are able to get in the
room and really share information with the Government and among
the suppliers. That could pay benefits, yes, ma'am.
Senator Ernst. Yes. Appreciate that very much, and thanks
for the great work. I really do appreciate it. I know with
Ukraine and all the discussions that we have had, both in open
and closed sessions, has been extremely helpful to identifying
where some of our vulnerabilities are and where they exist. So,
thanks. Really appreciate your input. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Ernst. I will now take
another 5 minutes here. So back to the contested logistics,
Secretary Bush.
The Secretary of the Army describes the Army's role in the
Pacific, in part to sustain the Joint Force over vast distances
by providing secure communications, establishing an inter-
theater distribution network or networks, maintaining munitions
stockpiles in theater, as well as forward arming and refueling
points in the Western Pacific.
This all gets to the importance of contested logistics. I
saw not the contested part, but I saw the great job in Chechlo,
Poland that the Army is doing in getting the equipment needed
for the fight in Ukraine to the border essentially.
Uncontested and contested, but contested is much more
challenging--orders of magnitude more challenging situation. So
how does the fiscal year 2024 budget invest in this Army
contested logistic capabilities? Secretary Bush.
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator. So, I think we did start in 2024
for moving the dial on logistics investments. So, a couple of
areas I would mention, there is more funding than I think if
you compared to 2023 for maintaining our watercraft fleet, at
least keeping it viable, but also starting in 2024 production
of one of our first new vessels, the maneuver support vessel
light in many, many years that will replace some very old
platforms. So that is one.
We also put more funding back into things like just trucks
and wheeled vehicles. The Army has that title 10 role, as you
mentioned. That logistics force is vast and requires up to date
equipment, so we put more funding back there. Also ammunition
stocks, conventional ammunition stockpiles, was a third area of
investment.
Sir I think how that works though in a specific context is
where you get into the transport legs, the communications
networks, General Rainey mentioned having predictive logistics
and more accurate logistics, and also just needing less, so
demand reduction, be it ammunition or fuel.
The more efficient platforms we have, that is part of
solving a contested logistics problem.
Senator Kelly. Mr. Secretary, even though it is obviously a
different Army, different operations, different tactics, I
mean, the needing less is not a scenario that has played out
well in Ukraine.
Are there any lessons that were taken from operations in
Europe right now? How does that affect our thought here on
getting to the point where we could potentially need less ammo?
Because right now we are seeing in the first major land
conflict in Europe that it is exactly the opposite.
Mr. Bush. Senator, if I could start and ask General Rainey
to provide his thoughts, if that is okay. First off, I think,
you know, the U.S. Army, when we fight, we tend to fight with a
lot of precision.
We also have our Joint Force providing a lot of fires from
the air, again, with precision. Ukraine doesn't have that. For
the large part, they are fighting differently than we would.
Does not mean it is not a concern.
Sir, by needing less, I think I was speaking simply at the
individual platform level, which would make us more efficient
with the same logistics flow. You can sustain more forces if
they were more efficient.
I didn't mean to suggest that--overall, wars tend to
always, as you note, require vastly more resources than we
think. Beyond that, if I could have General Rainey talk a
little bit more about that.
General Rainey. Thank you, Mr. Bush, and thank you,
Senator. What we are observing is obviously horrific, what is
going on in Ukraine right now. But from a military standpoint,
we are observing attrition warfare.
Two armies frontally assaulting and using attrition as
opposed to maneuver warfare, which is the strength of the
United States Joint Force. You know, our really asymmetric
superpower is our people.
A close second to that is the fact that we practice
maneuver warfare, joint warfare that is underpinned by really
disciplined and tough training. Which is why things like being
able to train on these capabilities, like General Schmidt said,
is just as important as having the capabilities.
In terms of contested logistics, the two biggest
opportunities for our Army as we modernize is to increase the
lethality and survivability of our light formations. We have
very deployable formations. They just have a problem with
things like protection from counter Unmanned Aircraft System
(UAS) and the lethality.
We have tanks to kill tanks, but the technology absolutely
exists, as we have seen, to kill tanks with Javelin missiles,
for example. So, increase the lethality and survivability of
our light formations and do things to drive down the weight and
the logistics tail of our heavy formations.
Pursuing those, and those are--that can give you several
examples of how our modernization efforts do that, if you are
interested. Silent drive and silent watch, for example, is the
hybrid technology that lets our tanks not become dependent on
electricity, but it makes a better tank because it can be
silent, and both when it is standing still and limited
approach.
Those kind of requirements as we modernize our vehicles is
an opportunity to reduce our long tail and improve the
lethality of our formations.
Senator Kelly. Well, thank you. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, I want to return to one more
question about our opening conversation of the munitions issue
at a high level. You stressed demand and how high demand can
help keep lines going, you know, keep people employed in their
high skilled, specialized functions. I assume that means demand
not just from our military, but also allied and partner
military as well, right?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. Ideally, we don't have to provide all
that demand. It is very encouraging in that light that many
countries in Europe in particular are now committing to
spending more and buying some of our equipment. That is
enormously helpful to keeping healthy production lines.
Senator Cotton. So, it is good--it is not just good from a
military standpoint that we have friends in Europe and the
Middle East and the Western Pacific that are wanting to buy
more ammunition, but it is also good for our workers and our
companies here in the United States.
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Now, I want to get a little more
specific. The budget request includes investments to support
prototyping for the long-range hypersonic missile, flight test
for the midrange capability missile, and initial fielding of
the precision strike missile or PrSM.
As PrSM is one of the key long range fire capabilities
necessary and will be vital in a Pacific conflict, I just want
to dig a little bit deeper on this. The Army is requesting $273
million to work on future increments of PrSM, and $384 million
or 110, Increment 1, missiles, but I suspect that is likely
inadequate for the need.
What are the plans to expand production capacity of the
PrSM Increment 1 beyond 110 missiles per year?
Mr. Bush. Senator, I think that initial number reflects
mostly the fact that it is a new missile. We are just ramping
into production and transitioning away from Army Tactical
Advanced Conventional Munitions System (ATACMS) production to
PrSM. I think to the degree we can, I know there was great
support inside the Department for this capability.
I think there is an opportunity there for expanded
production, assuming current initial testing goes well. On the
R&D, for Increment 2 and Increment 4, improve future versions,
production for those are still a few years out, but if we set
conditions right with a healthy production line for Increment
1, that will put us in a better place.
Senator Cotton. Can you say a little more about your plan
for both Increment 2, and especially Increment 4?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So, Increment 2, we hope to be able to
give us an anti-ship capability that would provide anti-ship
capability out of a High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems
(HIMARS) launcher at significant range. Increment 4, we hope,
could more than double the range of Increment 1. That will
require a new propulsion system, but the science, technology is
underway on that.
Again, all launch out of HIMARS, which has proven highly
successful in Ukraine. Very difficult to locate, easy to move
around. This would be a dramatic increase in the Army's ability
to create problems for a potential fight with China, for
example, because we could station those everywhere.
Senator Cotton. Okay. What is the prospect for a multi-year
procurement for PrSM, as you have done for PAC-3 and GMLRS?
Mr. Bush. Senator, as soon as we have that production line
up and running, and the cost is well understood on Increment 1,
I think it could be a very good candidate for a multi-year
approach.
Senator Cotton. Okay. I also understand from your testimony
and statement that the operational evaluation of the extended
range cannon has revealed some engineering problems. Would you
please say a little bit more about those challenges and about
the Army's progress on the cannon?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So, the Extended Range Cannon Program,
I think we have been on a very aggressive timeline. We have
built seven or eight prototypes, and we took them immediately
into full testing. That testing has revealed challenges. I
would say there are more engineering and mechanical challenges,
but still, there they are.
While disappointing, I think it is good that we found them
now before we went into a full production for this system, for
example. We are still doing testing.
I believe we will know more over the summer about the
degree of the challenge and the extent to which we need to
adjust our budget request this year and in future years and
look at the portfolio overall and see where that capability
fits in terms of just overall improvement in Army range for
cannon systems.
I would mention there is great R&D work going on, for
example, on new munitions that can also provide very long range
out of existing cannons. So, a mix of those two approaches
might be warranted.
Senator Cotton. Okay.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. General, I want to move on to a
little bit of a different topic here, which is testing critical
capabilities.
General Rainey I am concerned that our ability to test
certain capabilities ranging from things like electronic
warfare to directed energy, to hypersonics, are constrained by
some current limitations that we have to conduct like open air
as well as hardware in the loop and simulated test environments
and experimentation, but also real world testing.
I come from a flight test background for a number of years.
We have some facilities around the country. Some really good
ones happen to be in Arizona. The electronic proving ground at
Fort Huachuca, the Yuma Proving Ground.
I think both of these facilities are crucial to the Army's
efforts. General Rainey, can you explain how the Army is
ensuring that it has sufficient capacity and capability to
proceed on its modernization requirements at the pace that our
National Defense Strategy demands?
General Rainey. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and to just
acknowledge the point there. The ability to test is absolutely
critical. That is not the pacing item. We currently aren't
waiting for the ability to test on any modernization efforts.
But as we continue to make progress, we have identified that as
a potential.
That is why we are continuing to invest heavily in places
like Yuma and Fort Huachuca and Camp Grayling and other places.
What we can't afford to do, from the modernization and
transformation standpoint, would be to continue to pay for test
capability and pay for training capability as separate things.
So, one of the very positive initiatives Army has, is to
bring those test and training capabilities together, so to make
sure we don't ask for resources, use it in a test, and then let
it go to waste. We need to use it for tests and then be able to
train.
That is why a place like the Fox training complex that
gives you the ability to both test effectively and train
effectively is one of our priorities.
Senator Kelly. So, at the same facility. I think for
Huachuca especially, when we look at issues we have that we are
facing with electronic warfare, and it offers a very unique
geography, let's say, to be able to transmit that relatively
high-power level without disrupting populations.
I don't think we do a lot of training there yet. My
understanding is I think we might do more in the Yuma area. But
I agree with you that the more we can integrate those two
facilities into one, it would certainly make sense to me. In
the Navy and the Air Force, we traditionally haven't done that.
Maybe more recently we have, but like the Pax River, you
know, Naval Air Station is really about, you know,
developmental tests. Edwards Air Force Base, you know, the same
for the Air Force. So, it is good to see the Army is doing
this. Beyond that, like, how do you leverage the full capacity
of an installation?
I have found, as I have traveled down to Fort Huachuca and
down to Yuma proving ground they often have the range--well,
what they tend to be missing is like an investment in the test
infrastructure.
It might be thedolites, it might be other equipment to
gather data. I think we often under invest in those systems. Is
that your sense, General?
General Rainey. On the specifics of our investment in that,
I will defer to Hon. Bush. But to your point about how do you
optimize them? Another thing is using all the tools you have,
so live, virtual, and constructed, and having the ability to
link those capabilities.
So, linking someplace like Yuma to the National Training
Center to Camp Pendleton, which is something that we do during
Project Convergence and need to continue to do that to find
efficiencies.
To your point about the joint, we need to not just be able
to do that in the Army, but we need to be able to train
together, experiment together as a Joint Force, and that is one
of the main efforts of the persistent experimentation we have
in Project Convergence.
You will see a lot of that, hopefully if you can come visit
us, at EDGE, when we do the--it is the biggest annual aviation
experiment we do out of Yuma next month.
Senator Kelly. If we have more time, I would like to talk
about EDGE maybe at the end of the hearing, Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, again, I want to go back to the
defense industrial base question. For the past few years,
Congress has shown a willingness to fund and accelerate needed
projects for the Army's organic industrial base.
To that end, what projects within the Army ammunition plant
modernization plan could be accelerated if Congress provides
you with the necessary funding? Could you also explain how
these projects would prepare the army for conflict with China?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. I think the great work done by my
predecessor and General Daly at Army Materiel Command (AMC) was
to develop a 15-year plan. And at the time, some questions,
like why have a 15-year plan? Well, sure enough, all of a
sudden there were more resources and we had a plan with shovel
ready projects ready to go.
We still have that. Sir, you mentioned one, I think it is
the unfunded priorities list (UPL) list that certainly would be
a strong candidate for Radford. There are others, and we can
provide a detailed list. One to and up to perhaps 10 or 15
projects as a followup, if I could. There is a limit of
absorption at some places because we, of course, have to keep
these plants running while we are modernizing them.
So, we can't just shut the whole place down and modernize
it. We are bumping up against that in a couple of places, but
there is--I think we found that there is always more work that
can be done. There are two types of projects. Some are really
directly tied to increasing production capacity or automating
systems or modernizing with regard to safety. Those are the
ones that usually get the most attention.
Others, though, that are equally as important is those
long-term investments in the infrastructure of these places.
Security, cyber investments, more resilient electricity,
generation onsite, better roads. Those things matter too, sir.
I think we are open to a dialog and a detailed level of
what projects could be accelerated where based on what members
might have in mind.
Senator Cotton. Okay. We have been talking a lot about how
to make these things. Let's talk about it now, where to put
them and how we would use them. General Rainey, could you talk
a little bit about how pre-positioned stocks could support the
Army's role in the Western Pacific to include the possibility
to pre-position stocks afloat?
General Rainey. Senator, thank you very much. It gets to
both the priority of the Indo-Pacific, the long lines of
communication and contested logistics. So absolutely, the pre-
position has kind of like the deferred term.]
Whether you are talking about Army prepositioned stock
(APS) traditionally, but absolutely, the ability to position
supplies forward in theater and INDOPACOM. I fully agree that
that is something we need to be doing. I know General Flynn is
pursuing that aggressively as the Army Commander out in the
Pacific.
If you look at one of the observations and lessons from
Ukraine. I think is if you look at how fast we were able as a
country to react and support Ukraine, it was underpinned by a
lot of things. One of which was the amount of capability that
we already had, forward position, the partnerships we had, the
training capabilities that we had in Europe at 7th ATC, and the
relationships we had with partners. Replicating that in the
priority theater, I fully support and I agree with, sir.
Senator Cotton. What about the prospects specifically of
floating pre-positioned stock?
General Rainey. There is a business case and ships at sea
with a lot of stuff on them, have some risks associated with
it. But I would defer to Mr. Bush on that.
Mr. Bush. Sir, we have our APS-3 set, which is our current
one afloat set. We did have to add funding for it in 2024 just
to maintain it due to some increased costs, for example, on
ship leases.
But that is a vital capability and the Army is committed to
maintaining it. Expansion of APS-4 beyond where it is today,
heavily relies on really work of the State Department and
others on getting access to these countries so we can build the
locations. There is, anywhere in the Philippines, Australia,
other Southeast Asian locations would be things that the Army I
know has looked at and planned against.
I believe the Department is working through getting to
good--so we can start that process. I can tell you in our
current, of course we are working on fiscal year 2025 already,
how to expand APS-4 is a critical issue the Army is still
working through.
Senator Cotton. If they are not floating, they have to be
on land somewhere, as you just alluded to. Just tell us in
plain language, like what is the plan or the concept for
preventing China from blowing all that stuff up in the early
stages of a conflict?
General Rainey. Yes, Senator. So, the ability to position
anything gets to the one thing that is an even bigger problem
than contested logistics, and that is the ability to protect
anything you forward position. There is a kinetic aspect, so
air and missile defense and integrated--that is never going to
be the total solution.
So, utilizing concealment, deception. One of the advantages
of land-based capabilities, whether it be sustainment or long-
range fires, is they are more agile and able to move them. So
good tactics and fighting.
We are not going to be able to put anything in range and
assume it is going to stay safe unless we fight to keep it
safe. So, it is a balancing act. How much you go forward, you
better be able to protect it. We are pursuing those efforts.
Senator Cotton. You just touch indirectly, so I will ask
you directly about something--I sometimes hear from other
Senators who are on the Committee or just normal Arkansans who
wonder about it, it is like, if we are going to be fighting
China one day, isn't it going to be all out in the sea and in
the air?
The Army is fighting on the ground. So, what is the Army
going to be up to out in the Western Pacific? Why does the Army
need to worry about that? Could you just here in public,
explain in plain language what the Army has to do with a fight
that, if you just look at the map, appears to be all on water
and in the air?
General Rainey. Well, thank you, Senator, and I will try
and do that. We fight as a Joint Force. There is not such a
thing as an air maritime theater any more than there is such a
thing as a land theater.
The strength of the Joint Force is everybody brings their
capabilities to bear. More specifically, the Army, as our
Secretary has said, has several responsibilities to enable the
Joint Force. Command and control, our title 10 responsibilities
for both protection and sustained logistics.
But we are absolutely going to be able and need to control
land. Whether it is to position Air Force assets to support the
Navy's operations, or they have to come and touch land, to
secure ammunition sustainment.
There is absolutely a role. We are going to always need the
ability, No. 1, to deter them first, because this is a war we
don't want to have, and that is underpinned by them believing
that they would lose in a ground war with us.
If we do transition to conflict, we are going to have to be
able to take land away from the enemy. And if they defend it,
that means taking it the old-fashioned way by killing them and
secure it and protect the Joint Force. So, there is absolutely
a role for our Army and every other service in what would be a
horrific war.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Followup on something Senator Cotton said
about China blowing the stuff up. If we forward position
things, as we should, and have the munitions, the fuel, the
equipment forward deployed, at some point in a conflict, we
might need to be moving fuel, munitions, equipment across, say
thousands of miles of ocean.
I want to see what your thought is about our ability to do
that. I mean, it is not specifically the job of the United
States Army, but it is your stuff. And right now, today, we
have in our Merchant Marine about 85 oceangoing merchant
vessels. This is beyond what Military Sealift Command has.
China has 5,500. Are you concerned about the ability, in a
conflict, after it starts, about a logistics chain that goes
across the Pacific Ocean, and our ability to sustain that?
General Rainey. Yes, Senator. I think everybody in the
Joint Forces is very concerned about that. I mean, you are
talking the longest lines of communication that you can
possibly imagine, and then fighting a really good enemy at the
end of those.
General Flynn is doing a lot of work, I know, to shorten
those lines of communications by improving the pre-positioning
of assets like we just previously discussed. But no, we are
going to have to fight for that, and there are challenges.
It will be contested at sea, and I am aware of the
limitations of the Merchant Marine, but I am not an expert on
it. But it is going to be a challenge, and we are going to have
to fight for it, and we are going to have to protect it.
Senator Kelly. I want to turn back in the last 3 minutes
here before I turn it back over to Senator Cotton, about back
over to Europe.
I was in Poland, went to Kyiv, met with President Zelensky,
spent over an hour with him, talking about a lot of the
challenges he has faced. Some of the lessons learned. Met with
his national security team.
There are a lot of lessons coming from this conflict,
lessons that they are learning, lessons I think that we should
be learning as well. So, General, from what you have been
briefed on so far, what have the operations in Ukraine exposed,
first about the value of heavy ground forces and how they areh
being deployed in Europe.
General Rainey. Thank you. One, I am very proud of the Army
and the Joint Force. We had our dedicated collection and lesson
learned teams in place before the Russians even invaded--
General Brito, the TRADOC Commander. And we have numerous
efforts ongoing.
We take it very seriously. We have at my level, chief of
staff at the level weekly conversations to pay attention to
make sure we are learning everything we can from this tragedy.
There are some things that haven't changed dramatically, if I
may start there--the importance of humans.
The war is fundamentally still a contest of will between
humans and you are seeing the value of people fighting for
something they believe in and inspirational leadership, and the
impacts of those.
So, some things don't change a lot about the nature of war,
the importance of land. I think armored formations are
absolutely relevant now and at any point in the future, but
specifically now.
Both, we are providing the Ukrainians are asking for them,
the Russians are trying to sustain them--the increasing
lethality of the war, especially the high explosive (HE)
artillery precision stuff matters and is really fascinating.
But HE artillery is still the number one killer. You have to be
able to protect your soldiers and that space would be another
example.
Urban warfare, right? Everybody knows it is not what--you
know, nobody wants to do it. It is the worst kind of attrition
and it is the hardest thing, but it is unavoidable. When the
people move to the cities, and urban areas sit astride your
lines of communication.
We are going to have to fight in urban areas and it is
impossible to do that without the ability to penetrate them,
and you can't do that unless you have mobile protected
firepower to do that. So those would be some observations.
Senator Kelly. One observation I had had to do with, and I
hadn't seen this before, it is the way we are helping the
maintenance and repair of systems, artillery systems, and
others. It reminded me of telemedicine. The 10th Mountain
Division Commander actually mentioned, and he used the word
tele-maintenance, and that is what we are doing.
I think that is something we need to try to capture is the
ability to repair things in the field in a way we never really
had before, where you can put the company's technical
representative for the piece of hardware. It might be BAE
systems, it might be Lockheed Martin.
You essentially can virtually put them right there on the
front lines when they need to repair something, not something I
expected to see. Ukrainians are manufacturing parts. They can't
make everything.
They can make parts out of titanium. Right now, that is a
complicated machining process that they don't have the
capability within the country to do. But there is a lot they
can do.
I never really expected--and it is us, with the assistance
the 10th Mountain Division is giving in trying to repair their
equipment in a way that I don't think we have done before. I
think that is a specific lesson that we need to capture and try
to expand on.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good
afternoon to our witnesses. General Rainey, thanks for the
discussion we had about Futures Command a few weeks ago. I
thought it was very illuminating.
Last month, we learned about another delay with the
improved turbine engine program, ITEP, and it won't be expected
now until 2024. These delays not only affect the new Future
Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) aircraft, but also the
already fielded 60s and 64s. Assistant Secretary Bush, in an
interview with Defense News, you characterized the source of
the delay as manufacturing challenges and not design challenges
for GE Aerospace.
I know the Army is briefing me next month on the finer
details of ITEP, and I look forward to getting to this issue
in-depth then. But broadly, can you talk about the supply chain
and component issues that are affecting ITEP? Is that what the
manufacturing issue is, supply chain, or what is going on here?
Mr. Bush. Senator, frankly, it is quality control further
down the supply chain. Not--I mean GE is responsible for all of
it, but of course, they have hundreds of subs that they deal
with.
A few very important ones have had trouble building some of
the new parts. For example, some of them are 3D printed. We are
using some new techniques here, making them at the quality
levels needed to get engines to go to test. The good news is we
did just last we laid off the second test engine. We are on a
path to a better situation, but that is my understanding of the
challenge.
GE leadership is fully aware of it. I have had many
conversations with myself. They know we are watching closely.
They know how vital the program is. They are committed to
getting it right. Right now, I am cautiously optimistic that
our updated timelines will hold, but this will require constant
attention, ma'am.
Senator Duckworth. Yes. I have been very impressed with the
Army and how they have developed the two new aircraft, and
actually has always moved the timeline to the left, and now we
are starting to slip right so, I am concerned about that.
Are these concerns something that would affect other Army
modernization programs like combat vehicle, the next generation
combat vehicles, the downstream supply chain manufacturing
tolerances? Is this something that is going to spread to other
areas?
Mr. Bush. I don't expect so, ma'am. Not--I mean, of course,
in aviation, we have the highest standards. It is the most
difficult things to produce. We have not seen anything like
that recently with any of our ground vehicle programs, either
of the new ones like mobile protective firepower, or the older
ones.
It is certainly a potential cause for concern. I would say
right now I don't believe so, but it is definitely worth
watching.
Senator Duckworth. Okay, thank you. General Rainey, in our
discussion last month, you described how Army Futures Command
was reevaluating cross-functional teams, and how the Command is
looking at the Army's new priorities and organizational
changes.
As you emphasized, the purpose of modernization is to drive
transformation across a Joint Force. I am interested in hearing
more about the integration across the total force, and your
75th Innovation Command in particular.
How does Futures Command integrate the experience of its
Reserve component members? Are there best practices for the
Army at large to incorporate into other Active Reserve units?
General Rainey. Thank you, Senator----
Senator Duckworth. I know--like tee ball, I just put the
ball right on top of the tee for you.
General Rainey. The 75th Innovation Command is a great
success story of the Total Army, right? It is not, you get this
from COMPO 1 and something less in COMPO 2 or 3. That is
absolutely not the case. When it comes to what I do, I am
trying to innovate, trying to find tech expertise without
paying a whole bunch of money or taking a lot of time.
The fact that the 75th Innovation Command and General Marty
Klein, I can call him and say, ``here is a problem'' or ``here
is what we think is a solution,'' ``we want somebody to
troubleshoot.''
His ability to reach out through his entire enterprise and
find people that are not just experts but the best people in
the military, a lot of them are the best people in the country
in academia and industry, and being able to leverage that
capability as we modernize the Army is kind of like a
superpower.
So absolutely, we should continue to expand it. As far as
integrating across the Joint Force, I would offer Project
Convergence as an example of that. It is our persistent
experimentation approach nested with exercises and then
periodically having capstone events.
We believe that Project Convergence is an Army hosted joint
experiment, and as for every year, as we do those capstone
events, they become more and more joint. We add more and more
partners, and that is another way that we are continuing to
apply a sense of urgency into our integration efforts.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am over time, but if you
could reply for the record. I would like to know what the
Army's plans are to a program and integrate Gray Eagle into the
National Guard and Reserve--or Active and Reserve components.
I want to make sure that the Army has a holistic view of
concurrent and proportional fielding of weapon systems to
achieve the total true force interoperability so that the
National Guard is also getting the Gray Eagle in a way that
they can actually also train up and operate them.
General Rainey. Yes, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kelly. You could take it. General, I am fine, if
Senator Cotton is. If you want to take that and if you could
talk about that briefly.
General Rainey. I can talk about modernization of the Total
Army and transformation of the Total Army. General McConville
has been clear and adamant, as I know, because he was formerly
his G-3.
There is no modernization effort we have that is COMPO 1
only. They are all spread and prioritized across, and I will
followup with you on the specifics of the Gray Eagle.
Senator Duckworth. Yes, probably General Schmidt would be
better positioned to answer that. I am sorry. Should have asked
her that.
Major General Schmidt. No, that is okay, ma'am. But I would
also just like to followup with you on that one afterwards.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Bush. Ma'am, I would add, if I could, Congress, we got
the message. Congress was very clear about that capability in
the Guard. We are in ``make it work, make it happen mode.''
With the Guard really in the lead in determining how they are
going to build units where what composition with the MQ1s that
Congress directed.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Just make sure you hang the right stuff on
it. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, I want to talk about the
integrated visual augmentation system, or IVAS. It began a new
stage of development recently in December 2022. After several
critical soldier touch points, the Army approved the purchase
of 5,000 IVAS 1.1 systems.
At the same time, Microsoft agreed to develop the new IVAS
1.2 system, which will, if successful, change the design of the
system and improve its performance.
Fiscal year 2022 appropriations included a $394 million
reduction in IVAS procurement, citing the original spending
request as ahead of need. In March 2021, the Army awarded
Microsoft a deal worth up to $22 billion over the next 10 years
to move the IVAS program from rapid prototyping to production.
Mr. Bush, why has the Army included some IVAS funding in
the base budget while shifting some funds to two different
projects on the Army's unfunded priority list?
Mr. Bush. Senator, I think what you are seeing there is the
Army trying to re-phase that program. We unfortunately we did a
very difficult test with it and found all the problems.
While that is good that we found the problems, still
disappointing and not the outcome we were looking for. One
thing I would say is our ability to restructure that program on
the fly here, very quickly to try to get to 1.2, is because of
the new authorities we are using. That would have been almost
impossible under a traditional system.
To your specific question, we laid in funding we thought
was sufficient to just get over the line to get 1.2 developed
in 2024. The UFR items would let us go a little faster into
actual production, if it proves successful this year, sir. I
think we are taking a deliberate approach. Whereas the first
time around was honestly very, very aggressive on timeline and
production ramp up, this time we are being more cautious.
We want to make sure Microsoft, they have to deliver. This
1.2 system needs to be exactly what the Army needs or we are
not going to produce it. I think, sir, that is one reason we
scaled the funding back that way.
Senator Cotton. Okay. General Rainey, Mr. Bush hinted at my
next question. How confident are you that the testing for 1.2
will be successful?
General Rainey. I am very confident. It is not just the
technical testing aspect. One of the successes of our
modernization effort is using soldier touch points.
Because we have 5,000 of them, we are going to continue--
not putting them into operational units where there would be a
potential impact, but we are going to not just let them sit in
a Conex somewhere.
We are moving them around to places like the Maneuver
Center of Excellence, for example, where we have some of our
experienced soldiers continue to do that. We are working with
Microsoft, so we have the users working hand in hand as we
develop the next thing. We are going to get it and we are going
to test it with real warfighters and get that soldier feedback.
I am confident both, that we will test it effectively
because we always do, the rigor that we put in the last one.
But I am really kind of--what I am going to wait and hear from
is the staff sergeants and the lieutenants and company
commanders providing user feedback.
Senator Cotton. Okay. If that testing does not go as well
as we had hoped, the Army is prepared to take a look at the
program?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. Institutionally for the Army, it is
always a very hard decision to admit we can't succeed
somewhere.
This is a potential area where, look, if the testing
doesn't prove out very quickly that it is capable and going to
get us what we need, the Army is absolutely prepared to end
that arrangement and seek a new competition.
Senator Cotton. Okay. I want to turn in the time remaining
to Abrams Tanks, Mr. Bush. The Army's fiscal year 2024 unfunded
priority list includes $533 million for Abrams set version 3
procurement to achieve a complete armored brigade combat team
set. Those additional tanks would decrease the estimated costs
per unit from $17 million, that is 34 tanks at current funding,
to $12.3 million, 87 tanks.
In resourcing this, this requirement would accelerate the
fielding of the M1A2 set version 3 tanks to one Active
component BCT by year. So, the Army included $533 million on
its unfunded priority list for the Abrams Tank procurement, but
that seems to have become something of an annual occurrence,
appearing on the unfunded priority list as opposed to the base
request.
Can you tell me why this seems to continue year after year
of this funding for tanks going on the unfunded list as opposed
to the base request?
Mr. Bush. So, Senator, of course, the Chief of Staff of the
Army, it is his list in terms of why it appears there, but your
question is a very fair one. I believe, as I mentioned, we have
accepted some risk there in the base budget request.
We don't think it is too low, but that is less funding than
as articulated in the UPL would be perhaps ideal. There is
another mitigating factor, however, and that is recent
increases in foreign military sales.
So, a very large order from Poland is going to end up being
more than 300 tanks worth of work. A recent order from Romania
will give us an excess of 50 or 60 or so additional tanks of
work.
There is, of course, potential for additional tanks for
Ukraine long term, so, we are always trying to balance between
foreign military sales and our production to keep a healthy
production line.
I think the Chief, as articulated in the UPL, believes that
was an important one. It is a very large amount of money, so I
think I would defer to him on his specific thoughts for why
that was so high on his list.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Similar to tanks, I want to move to
helicopters. Not something I have a ton of experience with,
though I did get to fly the Apache last year out of Boeing in
Phoenix, which was quite the experience.
The Army has placed a big focus and resources on its future
vertical lift priorities, the future long range assault
aircraft and the future attack reconnaissance aircraft. Neither
of these systems are projected to field until 2030 or beyond.
They are going to augment, not replace, the current Black Hawk
and Apache fleet. The Chinook remains the Army's only heavy
lift capability.
Yet in large part, the Army continues to defer investments
in the stuff we have in order to fund these longer term two
systems that are just going to augment what we have today. Does
the Army still consider a manned reconnaissance aircraft the
right solution here?
Can you just, in general, give me an update on the future
long range assault aircraft and the reconnaissance aircraft?
General Rainey. Thank you, Senator. The short answer is
yes, there is absolutely going to be a requirement for the
United States Army, as part of the Joint Force, to conduct
vertical envelopment in the future, now or at any point. So,
the ability to avoid that attrition warfare I was talking
earlier by maneuvering, by ground, and by air to dislocate our
enemies and envelop our enemies.
We absolutely need to maintain what is the strength of our
current Army, and that is Army aviation. If you look at your
specific question, there is always going to be a requirement
for human reconnaissance. Reconnaissance and security is an
essential of warfare. You have to not get surprised and you
want to make contact on your own terms.
How much of that can go unmanned versus manned is very much
at issue, and we should be paying attention to learning from
that. But the ability in an all-weather chaos, fighting the
Chinese who are very good at not only disrupting our technical
capabilities, but also injecting mis and disinformation, have
the ability to talk to a human that you know and train who is
looking at something and provide that back to the commander
will always be a requirement.
Where that falls out on our other requirements will be a
decision that we will make. But pursuing that capability, I
agree, sir, I believe is the right thing.
Senator Kelly. You know, Blackhawks moving people, the
Chinook, people and equipment, and the Apache putting ordinance
on target. Those are missions that we can't take our eye off
of.
General Rainey. Absolutely.
Senator Kelly. They are going to be around with these
platforms for a number of years. My concern is that we do have
to focus on the future and beyond 2030.
At the same time, we have got to make sure that we continue
to be able to support the warfighter with what he needs today,
too, and I think that is those three platforms. Senator Cotton,
you have any further questions?
Well, with that, General Rainey, Secretary Bush, General
Schmidt, thank you very much for being here today, and the
hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
black hawk modernization
1. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Bush, the Army has stated that the
Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) is not a 1:1 replacement for
the Black Hawk helicopter. Is this correct?
Secretary Bush. Correct. The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft
(FLRAA) is not projected as a 1:1 replacement for the Black Hawk. In
the near term, FLRAA will supplement the Black Hawk fleet and provide
transformational increases in capability. The Army is currently
executing an analysis to determine the FLRAA procurement quantity and
what the fleet mix of FLRAA and Black Hawk will be within the Aviation
Force Structure.
2. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Bush, the committee understands
that Black Hawk will remain in service in all Army divisions, in some
number, well into the 2070's. We have been told that 800 to 900 such
aircraft will remain in service. Is this accurate?
Secretary Bush. The Black Hawk helicopter provides a very capable
and necessary medium-lift capability which will continue to serve the
Army for several decades. As we enhance our medium-lift capability
through investment in the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA),
which is designated to augment our current capability, the Army's
continuous assessment and refinement of Force Structure requirements
will ultimately define the right quantity and mix of Black Hawks
necessary to support current and emerging long-term Department of
Defense mission requirements.
3. Senator Blumenthal. General Rainey, in addition to the Improved
Turbine Engine Program engine and Modular Open Systems Approach, I
would like to better understand the Army's plan to ensure the Black
Hawk is viable and capable in the Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO)
environment. What is the Army looking to do to recapture performance,
enhance survivability, improve safety and increase operational
readiness?
General Rainey. The Army will continue to modernize, equip, and
sustain the Army of 2030 to successfully conduct multi-domain
operations as part of an integrated Joint Force. We have initiated a
Modular Open Systems Approach on the Black Hawk fleet to rapidly
integrate new capabilities. We will continue to explore new
technologies to be able to operate the Black Hawk as new threats and
capability gaps arise.
4. Senator Blumenthal. General Rainey, as the Army continues to
operate and sustain the Black Hawk helicopter program well into the
2070's, what is the Army's plan to ensure that these aircraft remain
relevant and interoperable with FLRAA in the JADO environment?
General Rainey. The Black Hawk is definitively part of the enduring
fleet and will continue to serve the Army for several decades. Our
priority is to modernize the Army National Guard by replacing the aging
UH-60L models with the UH-60V and UH-60M. Additionally, the Army will
leverage targeted modernization efforts through a Modular Open Systems
Approach and by integrating stronger, more fuel-efficient engines
(Improved Turbine Engine), in order to sustain the Black Hawk's
relevance and interoperability with modernized Future Vertical Lift
Systems.
5. Senator Blumenthal. Major General Schmidt, is an acquisition
strategy currently being developed or at least planned modernize Black
Hawk?
Major General Schmidt. As the Army continues to assess the
structure of the utility helicopter fleet, we are considering
contracting strategies to both modernize our fleet and support our
allies. We believe it is vital to establish affordable contracts to
achieve our long-term national security objectives.
future attack reconnaissance aircraft (fara)
6. Senator Blumenthal. General Rainey, what transformational
characteristics is the Army seeking to give them leap ahead
capabilities in the JADO environment and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
(INDOPACOM) theater?
General Rainey. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA)
Ecosystem provides the Joint Force Commander multi-echelon effects and
options across multiple domains simultaneously to present the enemy
with multiple dilemmas and shorten the sensor to shooter and decision
cycle timelines.
FARA will serve as the stand-in sensor for the Corps and Division,
providing actionable target data through Deep Sensing at the tactical
level to enable long range precision fires from safe stand-off
distance. It will also provide the tactical commander options to delay,
disrupt, or destroy/penetrate enemy Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) and
integrated fires in order to create avenues of approach that will
enable conduct of air assault operations (e.g. Future Long Range
Assault Aircraft) and deployment of other Army modernization
capabilities.
Utilizing masking and clutter of the air, maritime, and land
domain, FARA will use simplistic and low workload Command and Control
(C2) to employ a family of Launched Effects with broad capabilities
spanning from detect / locate / identify / report, lethal and non-
lethal effects, to communications relay and protection functionality
enabling distributed C2 across vast distances in noncontiguous areas
and outside normal supporting ranges and distances. Automation and
Artificial Intelligence will enable collaborative behaviors across
these extensions of FARA in an ecosystem to provide target recognition
and enable precision fires at the time of need.
7. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Bush, can you confirm to the
Committee that FARA is, indeed, the Army's No. 1 aviation modernization
priority?
Secretary Bush. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) is
among the Army's top modernization efforts and is Army Aviation's No. 1
modernization priority. The clean-sheet, next-generation design and
Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) of FARA mitigates a critical armed
aerial reconnaissance gap for the Army, enables operations in highly
contested airspace, and set the conditions for mission success against
peer/near-peer enemies engaged in Large Scale Combat Operations.
8. Senator Blumenthal. General Rainey, why is FARA so important to
the Army in the JADO environment? How is it instrumental in INDOPACOM?
General Rainey. The projected Future Operational Environment of
Joint All Domain Operations (JADO) and INDOPACOM is characterized by
Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD), including Integrated Air Defense
Systems (IADS) and integrated mid-and long-range fires complexes that
will limit military maneuver.
National, Strategic, and Army-level Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) assets will be contested and challenged in timely
and sufficient quantity for targeting in the JADO/INCOPACOM operational
environment.
This ecosystem approach--paired with speed and range in the manned
platform and a Modular Open System Approach digital backbone--allows
for enhancements at the speed of technology, provides a level of
survivability that we have not seen within Army Aviation, and delivers
deep reach within a non-permissive environment in an augmentation to
5th generation fighter aircraft to penetrate and disintegrate the
strategic and theater strategic theater IADS.
Disintegration of this IADS allows freedom of maneuver and
engagement from 4th generation fighter aircraft and AH-64s to
disintegrate, isolate, dislocate, or destroy the enemy long-range fires
and allowing the division and corps freedom of maneuver.
Without the employment of the FARA Ecosystem and the capabilities
it will bring to bear, the Army will be unable to target deep to set
the conditions and exploit the relative advantage necessary to employ
many of the Army's key modernization programs that will expand
opportunities for the joint force and create more dilemmas for the
enemy.
9. Senator Blumenthal. General Rainey, what is the current schedule
and plan for development, test, and fielding for this program?
General Rainey. The Army is on track to complete Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) Competitive Prototype efforts prior to
the end of fiscal year 2025, with the Weapon System Development program
achieving Milestone B in 2d quarter, fiscal year 2026. The Army will
continue to refine the remainder of the schedule as the program gets
closer to Milestone B and transitions to a Major Capability Acquisition
pathway.
Questions Submitted by Senator Angus S. King, Jr.
active protection systems for bradley fighting vehicles and stryker
combat vehicles
10. Senator King. General Rainey, it's evident that the Army is
woefully behind our peers and allies in the development and fielding of
Active Protection Systems (APS) for our combat vehicles; we attached an
Israeli system to our tanks. While we seem to have a plan for the next-
generation vehicles, what about the vehicles that would go to war today
such as Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker combat vehicles? What is
your plan to rapidly field APS systems on those vehicles?
General Rainey. There are many ways to protect combat vehicles, and
APS systems are a likely element of a more comprehensive approach.
However, The Army is not yet at a point where rapid fielding of APS
solutions across the entire combat vehicle force is achievable for a
variety of reasons. However, the Army continues to invest in the
development and integration of platform protection enhancements for
Bradley, Stryker and other combat vehicles within our Vehicle
Protection Suite program ($79.25 million (M) Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation (RDTE) funding programmed in fiscal year 2024;
total of $400.9 million RTDE across the Future Years Defense Program).
11. Senator King. Secretary Bush, why is there no funding in your
new budget request to accommodate such plans?
Secretary Bush. The Army continues to invest in the development and
integration of platform protection enhancements for Bradley, Stryker
and other combat vehicles within our Vehicle Protection Suite program
($79.25 million (M) Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDTE)
funding programmed in fiscal year 2024 (FY24); total of $400.9 million
RTDE across the Future Years Defense Program). However, given limited
resources, at this time the Army is prioritizing other combat vehicle
upgrade efforts rather than investing more funding to accelerate APS
fielding.
supply chain vulnerability
12. Senator King. Secretary Bush, over the last few years Maine
producers of critical materials such as tungsten have seen a positive
and appreciated increase in the focus, commitment, and funding around
reducing United States industrial base supply chain vulnerabilities led
by the Department of Defense's Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment
team with strong support from the Army Combat Capabilities Development
Command Armaments Center. These efforts help reduce defense industrial
base risks and reliance on foreign sources such as China. How is the
DOD helping incent and train the large prime contractors to take a
similarly proactive approach to strengthen the critical material
industry base?
Secretary Bush. As part of a proactive approach, the Army is
currently developing a Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Directive
that will emphasize the Original Equipment Manufacturers' role in
system supply chain management and addressing risk. Additionally, the
Army directive will highlight the government's role in helping manage
supply chain risk and the SCRM guidebook will provide recommendations
for incentivizing vendors as part of the contract process during source
selection. The Army is also working closely with our Office of the
Secretary of Defense partners to address strengthening our industrial
base using the Defense Production Act (DPA). We have been using DPA
Title I to help reduce schedule time to speed up delivery of equipment
and DPA Title III to enable critical production nodes to accelerate and
expand delivery.
long-range hypersonic weapons
13. Senator King. Secretary Bush, how does the reported
cancellation of the Air Force's Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon
program impact the Army's commitment to boost-glide systems like Long-
Range Hypersonic Weapon that uses Common Hypersonic Glide Body?
Secretary Bush. The reported cancellation of the Air Force's Air-
Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) program has no impact on the
Army's continued commitment to the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW).
The ARRW program employs a boost glide system unique to the Air Force
and its platform, while the Army and Navy share a Common Hypersonic
Glide Body for their partnered hypersonic efforts (Army's LRHW and
Navy's Conventional Prompt Strike). Though different, the lessons
learned from ARRW's development benefit the overall hypersonic
enterprise, including the Army's efforts. Army remains on track to
deliver the first prototype LRHW system by the end of fiscal year 2023.
Questions Submitted by Senator Gary C. Peters
robotic combat vehicle
14. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush, since the Army chose a software
acquisition pathway approach successfully enabling the incorporation of
innovative commercial technology into the Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV)
program, will it consider a similar acquisition strategy for other
Programs of Record in the near future? If so, which programs?
Secretary Bush. Lessons Learned from the Robotic Combat Vehicle
(RCV) program and software baseline architecture will be applied for
future RCV upgrades. While the Army has not formally started similar
programs for other platforms at this time, we are considering this
pathway for developing next generation platforms like the Optionally
Manned Fighting Vehicle.
optionally manned fighting vehicle (omfv)
15. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush, the Next Generation Combat
Vehicles (NGCV) cross functional team is working to advance combat
vehicle technology to improve survivability and lethality on the
battlefield. The OMFV is a centerpiece of NGCV's work. Your budget
exhibits for the OMFV program took a significant reduction in fiscal
year 2024 (nearly $250 million less than forecasted last year). I
understand this has driven the program team to reduce prototypes from
11 to 7 per bidder. Are 7 prototypes enough to accomplish all the test
objectives for this phase of the program?
Secretary Bush. Seven Prototypes per bidder is sufficient to
accomplish the program's objectives while improving affordability. The
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program will be able to complete all
the test objectives for this phase with some adjustments to the test
schedule.
16. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush, will the Army still be able to
award three contracts to three competitors as you have expressed is
your intent for this phase, or do you intend to reduce to two
competitors?
Secretary Bush. The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program is
currently in Source Selection, so we cannot comment on that issue at
this time.
tactical wheeled vehicles (twv)
17. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush and General Rainey, tactical
wheeled vehicles modernization programs--like Family of Heavy Tactical
Vehicles, Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, and Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle (JLTV)--with the latest advancements in payload, safety, and
mobility are essential to supplying combat vehicles with fuel, ammo,
and spare parts to take and control ground. In other words, TWVs are a
critical backbone of the logistics needed to sustain and win a fight. I
also understand that the Army is developing a new Cross Functional Team
(CFT) focused on contested logistics. Will TWVs bea focus area of this
new CFT?
Secretary Bush and General Rainey. As we look toward the future,
multi-modal distribution is essential as well as reduction in supply
requirements within the tactical force. No single domain of transport
will meet the distribution requirements of the Joint Force. Another key
to this problem is human-machine integration that may allow for reduced
manning in multi-modal transport systems, providing reduced risk and
higher efficiency to meet the Army and Joint Force supply requirements.
The Contested Logistics (CL) Cross Functional Team (CFT) does not
yet have an approved portfolio, but we expect to have the portfolio
approved in the coming weeks. Army Futures Command will assign three to
five modernization efforts to the CL CFT, focused on tactical level
logistics. Multi-capable or multi-modal distribution platforms, which
includes tactical wheeled vehicles, is one area that is being
considered as an area of focus for the CL CFT.
18. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush and General Rainey, will future
Army budgets start to reflect TWVs role as critical and primary
enabling warfighting capabilities?
Secretary Bush and General Rainey. The Army is updating the
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) Strategy with expected completion next
year. In fiscal year 2024, the Army is investing $1.31 billion in the
TWV fleet including the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, Family of
Heavy Tactical Vehicles, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, Palletized Load System and the
development of the Common Tactical Truck. The Army will continue to
invest in a mix of vehicles within the TWV fleet in future budget
submissions as we build the Army of 2030 and design the Army of 2040.
Future Army budgets will continue to take a fiscally responsible
approach to procurement that minimizes risk while providing balanced
modernization to our units. We recognize the challenges of a contested
logistics environment, and we address that challenge in the fiscal year
2024 budget submission by continuing investment in Army watercraft,
modernized fuel and water storage and distribution systems, and
enhancing our aerial delivery capabilities.
high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (hmmwv)
19. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush, based on current Army budget
justification materials, the Army will retain an extensive HMMWV fleet
of approximately 55,000 vehicles, even after fielding 49,099 JLTVs, all
of which must continue to be modernized and sustained. Due to an
increase in near-peer competition from Russia and China, the Army
recently changed its operational focus and is currently studying ways
to modernize its tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. To date, the Army has
no shared a compelling light tactical wheeled vehicle strategy for
continued modernization of the HMMWV family of vehicles to meet
significant mobility needs over the remainder of the vehicle's planned
life. How is the Army assessing and managing risk in the light tactical
wheeled vehicle industrial base?
Secretary Bush. The Army exercises frequent and deliberate
engagements with Industry to identify and address risks and issues that
affect the industrial base with a focus on minimum sustaining rates,
potential production breaks and supply chain impacts. The Army is
balancing Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) modernization by prioritizing
among Light Tactical Vehicle investments, maintaining warm Heavy and
Medium Tactical Vehicle production bases, and by increasing competition
across the industrial base for programs such as Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle, Common Tactical Truck and electric Light Reconnaissance
Vehicle. A healthy and competitive TWV industrial base is key to
controlling costs, enhancing innovation and improving quality.
20. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush, what factors are you using to
evaluate the defense light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, specifically
HMMWVs?
Secretary Bush. The Army is currently updating the Tactical Wheeled
Vehicle (TWV) Strategy, which we expect to complete late next year. We
intend to develop a flexible strategy that will allow the Army to
adjust the TWV fleet as requirements change. Essential to establishing
TWV fleet requirements is the approval of an Army Force Structure
designed to meet the twin challenges of Multi-Domain Operations and
Contested Logistics, especially with regard to INDOPACOM. The Army
appreciates congressional support for High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle procurement and understands it will be an enduring
vehicle in the Army inventory. The Army will continue to invest in a
mix of vehicles within the TWV fleet in future budget submissions as we
build the Army of 2030 and design the Army of 2040.
infantry squad vehicle (isv)
21. Senator Peters. Secretary Bush, the benefits of commercial off-
the-shelf technology have proven to be undeniably important as we work
to achieve full Army modernization. The Infantry Squad Vehicle, which
just achieved full-rate production, is a new platform that clearly
demonstrates how leveraging Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products
leads to efficiency in schedule, procurement and cost. As the Army
looks to modernize several fleets of older and less agile vehicles,
including the HMMWV, is the Army considering taking the best of this
COTS platform and leveraging its different variants beyond the
traditional ISV-9 to procure one vehicle that can answer the call to
many missions?
Secretary Bush. Yes, the Army is considering other potential
configuration and mission options to leverage the commercial off-the-
shelf capability presented by the ISV-9 platform. These efforts are
currently in the development stages.
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Cotton
munitions
22. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, the Army's fiscal year 2024
budget request includes funds for 110 Precision Strike Missile
Increment 1 (PrSM). Can you expand on what factors led Army to this
number (production capacity, funding concerns, program status etc.)?
Secretary Bush. The Army's fiscal year 2024 budget request
increases production capacity by purchasing rate tooling and procures
110 Precision Strike Missiles. The quantity is derived as an estimate
based upon the Army Cost Position approved at Milestone B in fiscal
year 2021 and the expected missile unit cost in this phase of the
acquisition lifecycle.
23. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the current status of
PrSM Increment 1 testing?
Secretary Bush. Precision Strike Missile Increment 1 has completed
six system level flight tests and achieved Technology Readiness Level
six (TRL-6). The program is currently conducting hardware, software
qualification and safety testing. The program will start a series of
production qualification flight tests in 4th quarter, fiscal year 2023.
24. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the expected timeline
for testing completion?
Secretary Bush. Precision Strike Missile Increment 1 developmental
testing and subsystem (component) qualification is ongoing. This
testing was schedule to be completed in fiscal year 2022, but guidance
set and solid rocket motor qualification failures have delayed the
activity. Subsystem qualification is scheduled to be completed in 4th
quarter, fiscal year 2023, where the program will begin production
qualification flight tests thru 1st quarter, fiscal year 2025, followed
by Initial Operational Test and Evaluation to conclude in 3d quarter,
fiscal year 2025.
25. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the assessed date for
making initial and low rate as well as full rate production decisions?
Secretary Bush. We are producing Early Operational Capability (EOC)
Increment 1 missiles with delivery beginning in 4th quarter, fiscal
year 2023 (not low-rate initial production). There will be three more
EOC lots ending in fiscal year 2027. A Full Rate Production decision
review will occur after Milestone C in fiscal year 2025.
26. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what does DOD assess as the
risk of moving those points forward, and what factors contribute to
that assessment?
Secretary Bush. Accelerating the program is high risk. The current
program plan has accelerated production activities to deliver EOC
missiles concurrent with Production Qualification Testing (PQT) flight
testing. Results of PQT testing will inform design updates needed for
full rate production and achieve full materiel release. Known design
updates include fuze and guidance set obsolescence (M-Code compliance)
and fully incorporates cybersecurity/program protection requirements.
27. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the current status of
PrSM Increment 2 testing?
Secretary Bush. In 2021, the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)
Increment 2 program procured common long lead PrSM Increment 1 hardware
to stand up software, hardware, and model and simulation test
facilities. In 2022, the program awarded contracts to begin transition
and refactoring activities for sharing of Interface Control
Documentation between the Army and the prime contractor. In March 2023,
U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation and Missile
Center completed its final Science and Technology flight test effort of
the Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) seeker on a surrogate missile
(Tail-Controlled Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System) to prove out
seeker component technologies. The PrSM Increment 2 development effort
transitions and integrates the LBASM seeker into the PrSM form factor
creating the Increment 2 missile. Initial system-level prototype flight
testing begins late fiscal year 2024/2025 to support Technology
Readiness Level 6 (TRL-6) in fiscal year 2026.
28. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the expected timeline
for testing completion?
Secretary Bush. Precision Strike Missile Increment 2 anticipates
the Initial Operating Test and Evaluation to complete in fiscal year
2031.
29. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the assessed date for
making initial and low rate as well as full rate production decisions?
Secretary Bush. System level prototype flight test results will
inform an initial Early Operational Capability production decision to
meet the Army's July 2022 directed requirement to deliver Precision
Strike Missile Increment 2 missiles in fiscal year 2027. The Army
projects a Full Rate Production decision after a successful milestone C
and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation in the 2032 timeframe.
30. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what does DOD assess as the
risk of moving those points forward, and what factors contribute to
that assessment?
Secretary Bush. Seeker technology for Precision Strike Missile
(PrSM) Increment 2 needs to be matured, tested and qualified to ensure
components will survive the PrSM environment. Acceleration of schedule
greatly impacts confidence in the missile performance and reliability
to meet the warfighter's needs. Currently, the program is assuming risk
in rapidly delivering Increment 2 capability early by awarding an Early
Operational Capability production contract with less than three
prototype flight tests in the PrSM form-factor.
31. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, you mentioned a ramp up of
production for PrSM; what does the procurement plan look like over the
FYDP and what is the expected maximum production rate in the future?
Secretary Bush. The program is investing funds to increase
production rates to 300 missiles per year by fiscal year 2027. The
production facility shares floor space with the Army Tactical Missile
System (ATACMS) at the Camden, AR facility. An opportunity exists to
increase production to 400 missiles per year after sunsetting ATACMS.
Additional production beyond 400 missiles would require a new facility.
32. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, can industry produce more than
110 missiles in fiscal year 2024 if requested? If so, how many? If not,
what is the limiting factor?
Secretary Bush. Yes, production capacity is 120 missiles. The
delivery of missiles begins 30 months after production contract award.
33. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what if any tradeoffs does the
Department assess there are in increasing fiscal year 2024 production
and what is the Department's view on those tradeoffs?
Secretary Bush. The Army would accept more Early Operational
Capability missiles that do not meet all requirements. Production
Qualification Tests, safety tests, and operational tests will not be
completed prior to production award.
34. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, when considering future
development of PrSM increments, what factors is Army considering to
determine inventory requirements?
Secretary Bush. As future increments are developed the Army will
update the Total Munitions Requirement (TMR) dependent on the needs of
the Army at that time. Modeling and future operational needs will drive
the quantities needed. Currently, approval of the fiscal year 2029 TMR
is pending.
rdt&e
35. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, I remain concerned that DOD
wastes funds on duplicative research efforts that do not transition to
programs of record. Can you explain any currently implemented processes
and mechanisms to evaluate which research efforts get funded?
Secretary Bush. The Army's Science & Technology (S&T) program funds
priority research and development efforts guided by the Army's
Modernization Priorities and, ultimately, the National Defense
Strategy. We balance near-and mid-term efforts in support of the
Modernization Priorities with investments in the foundational science
which forms the backbones of the capabilities our soldiers will need in
the long term. The office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology provides oversight of the Army
S&T enterprise and through the budgeting process helps to ensure our
research programs address the highest priority Army needs, while
avoiding any duplication.
36. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, can you explain any currently
implemented processes and mechanisms to coordinate research efforts to
avoid duplicative or redundant efforts?
Secretary Bush. The Army, along with our sister Services,
coordinate research activities through a number of mechanisms. For
instance, the Department of Defense (DoD) Communities of Interest bring
together the Army Science and Technology executing commands, Army
Senior Research Scientists and Subject Matter Experts with their
colleagues in the other Services and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to ensure research in areas of interest across the department
are non-duplicative. Coordination is also carried out through the DOD
Innovation Steering Group.
37. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, can you explain any currently
implemented processes and mechanisms to track the Department's success
in transition of research and development efforts to fielded combat
capability?
Secretary Bush. We have developed and are using a number of
strategies to improve transition success, including identifying
transition pathways early in the Science and Technology (S&T) process.
This includes establishing stage gate reviews for S&T efforts where
acquisition Program Managers are involved and get a vote; and using
signed Transition Agreements between the S&T labs and Program Executive
Offices to help hold our leaders accountable for successful
transitions.
38. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, is there currently any tracking
and analytics of how many research project transition to fielded
capability and why certain projects failed to transition?
Secretary Bush. We have recently begun a new effort to categorize
and track transitions across three broad areas--transition of a
technology to programs of record; transition to industry or another
government agency; and transition of technical information to help
inform requirements or specifications. By looking at transitions in a
more holistic way like this, we are able to better quantify the value
our S&T community is providing to the soldier and gathering this data
has and will continue to help us refine our strategies for more
successful transition.
39. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, can you explain any currently
implemented processes and mechanisms to expedite development, testing,
and fielding timelines?
Secretary Bush. The Army feels that the use of rapid acquisition
authorities such as Urgent Capability Acquisition (UCA) and Middle Tier
of Acquisition (MTA) do expedite capability delivery to the warfighter.
The use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements is another
process the Army uses to accelerate the purchase of products and
services supporting capability delivery to the warfighter.
40. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, can you explain any currently
implemented processes and mechanisms to assess Department wide sources
of delays to capability development and fielding and any steps to
address such sources?
Secretary Bush. The Army has two primary tools to assess sources of
delays: integrated master schedules (IMS) and audits. First, each
program manages to an IMS that is a risk-informed schedule of events
intended to describe the program's path through development, testing
and fielding. A program's scheduler identifies current or future
irregularities or deviations from the baseline schedule that must be
investigated and addressed. Once understood, the impact of these
deviations can be forecasted. Second, the Army Audit Agency (AAA)
conducts numerous audits every year. Many of the AAA audits cover
portions of the Acquisition process that includes requirement
generation, acquisition, contracting, budget/finance, testing and
sustainment. AAA provides an independent assessment of Department
processes and identifies opportunities for improvement in their
reports. As process reengineering opportunities arise, working groups
are formed to identify courses of action.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Joni Ernst
energetics
41. Senator Ernst. Secretary Bush, what safety and handling
regulations contribute most to extended timelines in development and
deployment of energetics compounds?
Secretary Bush. A significant hurdle to development is meeting
Military Standard (MIL-STD) 882 System Safety Requirements and
achieving an ``Improbable'' risk level of one in one million.
Essentially, this means it can be assumed an occurrence of a mishap may
not be experienced in the life of an item. The Energetic Material
Qualification Board (EMQB) process is a long driver of developmental
timelines as it can take upwards of 2 years to qualify a new
propellant. Environmental regulations also impact the timelines for the
development and deployment of energetics compounds.
42. Senator Ernst. Secretary Bush, what revisions to these
regulations would reduce those timelines consistent with a level of
prudent risk?
Secretary Bush. We do not believe revisions to safety and handling
regulations are currently needed. The Army has the ability to accept a
higher risk. This has been leveraged as necessary, but the goal for
release of end items to U.S. Warfighters is an Improbable risk of one
in one million. Regarding safety regulations, we would recommend that
the DOD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) dedicate support to key
modernization efforts in the Industrial Base to facilitate discussions
on waivers to requirements that significantly drive costs and
schedules.
43. Senator Ernst. Secretary Bush, how would the energetics
enterprise benefit from Office of the Secretary of Defense coordination
of prototyping, regulation, assessment, resourcing, and related
responsibilities in developing energetics materials?
Secretary Bush. OSD's efforts are best focused on the advocacy for
energetics research and development within the Services, development of
policy that supports innovation in energetics research and production,
and resourcing energetics efforts at an appropriate level to ensure
that the U.S. has the appropriate capabilities to defend the Nation.
Decentralized efforts to identify and develop novel materials are
necessary to ensure the diversity of thought needed to identify the
best ideas and ensure focus on Service needs. OSD-level forums to share
work within the Services and National Laboratories would also serve to
align the broader community and facilitate collaboration.
44. Senator Ernst. General Rainey, would you agree that advanced
energetics like CL-20 can provide improved munition range, lethality,
and size?
General Rainey. It is true that the incorporation of advanced
energetics such as CL-20 can provide improved range, lethality, and
allow for Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) tradeoffs advantageous to the
design of more accurate and effective weapon systems. The weapon
designer's challenge is to optimize the system as a whole vice only
addressing energetic ingredients and formulations. Consideration must
be given to system redesign, qualification, and inherent insensitivity
required for safety of handling, supply vulnerabilities, and
manufacturing. CL-20 based formulations in warheads can help U.S.
forces in long range fires by enabling compact warheads that maintain
the performance of larger payloads, providing SWaP space for enhanced
propulsion. Investment in additional propulsion and dual-use
technologies is required to achieve true weapon system overmatch. It
has been calculated that CL-20 contains about 10 percent more explosive
power than High Melting Explosives, or HMX, which has been the state-
of-the-art solid energetic fills. However, broad use of CL-20 has been
significantly cost prohibitive to date and additional formulation work
is required to make it more producible in large quantities. Joint
efforts are ongoing to develop new synthesis routes for CL-20 that will
reduce the cost. In the near term, however, CL-20 is likely better
suited for integration into smaller sized weapon and munition system
applications that can take full advantage of its properties.
45. Senator Ernst. General Rainey, would advanced energetics like
CL-20 help United States forces in long-range salvo exchanges against
peer militaries?
General Rainey. Salvos against a near peer adversary requires the
U.S. to have a deep magazine of weapon systems to sustain an offensive,
which in turn, necessitates increases in production capacity at
affordable costs. Investments in advanced energetics like CL-20 can
provide improvement to the capabilities of U.S. Forces in terms of
long-range fires, but there must be corresponding developments in
energetics synthesis for production as well as for the weapons systems
holistically. Plans for `drop-in' replacement of existing energetic
ingredients in current munitions may not provide sufficient performance
improvement to justify the expected significant cost increases.
Additionally, inclusion of more powerful energetics such as CL-20 will
require modification of other formulations and overall system designs
required to offset the increased sensitivity, which in turn will drive
substantial changes to the handling, storage, and transportation of
U.S. munitions. Determining utilization of highly advanced energetic
materials will require upfront time and resources to develop models for
performance and risk characterization, develop holistic formulations
for production, and qualifymaterial enhancements in order to inform
munition configurations and Service acquisition decisions to support
salvo capability assessments.
46. Senator Ernst. Secretary Bush, what weapon systems are most
likely to receive enhanced performance and lethality from adoption of
CL-20 energetics compound as the foundational energetics source?
Secretary Bush. Despite the technical development and investment
still required, opportunities for leveraging CL-20's high energy and
sensitivity include small form factor weapon systems requiring higher
performance warheads and some small minimum signature rocket motors.
CL-20 based energetic formulations are effectively applied to weapons
where Size, Weight & Power (SWaP) is a key consideration (i.e.,
precision munitions). The use of CL-20 enables equivalent range and
lethality in smaller packages, enabling space for guidance, navigation,
and control (GNC) technologies to increase delivery accuracy and
precision. As demonstrated in Ukraine, the small form factor
Switchblade drone system effectively utilizes a CL-20 explosive warhead
where lethality vs weight constraint is critical.
The development and incorporation of explosive ink formulations
that leverage CL-20 to sustain detonation in advanced precision
initiation systems have been shown to dramatically improve warhead
performance. In addition, these unique initiation systems can enable
tailorable and selectable effects warheads for versatile multipurpose
munitions. EDF-11 is DOD qualified explosive ink for fuze safe-and-arm
devices. Another opportunity for leveraging CL-20 is in Combined
Effects Explosives (CEX) which are a unique category of Army
formulations that provide both blast and metal driving performance.
Current predictions for CL-20 are that it could provide roughly a
10 percent increase in CEX performance over the current HMX based
formulations for enhanced multi-purpose warheads. This is an example of
a nearer term application of CL-20 for which the high cost is less
restrictive to integrate the material within the system warhead design,
and the benefit to a smaller munition lethality is significant. Broad
utilization of CL-20 across larger weapon systems is currently limited
by costs required to synthesize and manufacture this material, as well
as the need to manage its high energetic sensitivity. This sensitivity
increases operational risks to soldiers, increases risk of sympathetic
detonation, and will drive additional logistics and transportation
related considerations. Critical safety measures will need to be
implemented as risk mitigation in integrated weapon systems design.
The energetics research community needs increased support for
improved predictive models to characterize new energetic materials and
structures, without which the Department can experience higher test
costs and risk acceptance for uncharacterized material conditions.
Introduction of higher energy materials without improved
characterization further increases this risk, while the potential
performance benefits support the need for continued research in
advanced energetics to overmatch competitor nations.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2026 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:26 p.m., in
room 232A, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Mark Kelly
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Kelly, Blumenthal,
Peters, Duckworth, Cotton, Fischer, Ernst, Scott, and Mullin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK KELLY
Senator Kelly. The hearing will come. Our witnesses today
are here to discuss Air Force modernization. They are Hon.
Andrew Hunter, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Lieutenant General James
Slife, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Lieutenant General
Clinton Hinote, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration
and Requirements, and Lieutenant General Richard Moore, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs.
I want to extend a warm welcome and thank each of our
witnesses for coming before the Subcommittee today and look
forward to hearing your testimony. Last week, this Subcommittee
heard from Army witnesses about the challenges in the Army
modernization portfolio.
Today, as we finish our scheduled hearings before we markup
the DOD [Department of Defense] authorization request, I look
forward to hearing from our Air Force leaders about the
challenges and the opportunities that we face in modernizing
the Air Force. All budgets require careful tradeoffs, and we
see that across the Air Force budget request.
The question before us today is how well the Air Force
strategy in this budget matches our national defense strategy
and related modernization imperatives. I am especially
interested in hearing from the witnesses how the Air Force
plans to manage its multiple modernization programs in ways
that deliver the capabilities that our warfighters need to
defeat our most capable adversaries in a timely manner.
We must do this while protecting our taxpayers' dollars and
avoiding too much risk to meeting our combatant commanders'
requirements. These should include the F-35 fighter, the B-21
bomber, KC-46 tanker, also a new program to procure the so-
called Wedgetail aircraft to replace some of the E-3 AWACS
[Airborne Warning and Control Systems] aircraft, and also the
Advanced Battle Management System, or ABMS, which seeks to
replace the J-8, or the E-8 JSTARS [Joint Surveillance and
Target Attack Radar System] capability, and is the Air Force
contribution to the Defense Department's joint all domain
command and control program, JADC2.
Prompt development and fielding of ABMS and JADC2 are all
the more important as the Air Force plans to divest of the E-3
and the E-8 JSTARS capabilities before we are able to field
replacement capability. Two other areas I want to draw
particular attention to are electronic warfare and combat
search and rescue capabilities.
The Air Force plans to replace the current fleet of 14
Compass Call electronic aircraft with ten newer and more
capable EC-37s. According to Air Force's plans, however, we
only need six of these aircraft delivered by the end of the
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), and the Air Force must
expedite the delivery of these critical assets, which gives us
the ability to suppress enemy air defense through electronic
warfare (EW), among other roles.
We also need to fully understand the role that Compass Call
and EW would play in a potential confrontation with near-peer
competitors like Russia and China, and whether the ten planned
aircraft will be sufficient, or is it going to be necessary to
expand that fleet as we continue to see the PRC [People's
Republic of China] investing in their own EW capabilities.
Also, I want to emphasize the importance of modernizing and
ensuring a robust combat search and rescue (CSAR) fleet of
aircraft. This is a capability that makes a difference,
literally the difference between life and death for downed
pilots, troops, and civilians in dire situations.
As the 563d Rescue Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in
Tucson says, they are in the business of making sure someone's
worst day isn't their last day. The Air Force's plan to
truncate the HH-60 Whiskey program after fiscal year 2023 would
leave the Air Force roughly 25 percent short of its original
plan to modernize the CSAR Fleet.
So, we need to hear how this reduction in the inventories,
you know, for these forces are going to affect the Air Force's
ability to conduct CSAR operations in future conflicts,
including how it might be impacted by new airframes like Armed
Overwatch. The Air Force has been particularly aggressive in
implementing accelerated acquisition authorities, including for
major defense acquisition programs.
Notably, the Air Force began the B-52 re-engineering
program under accelerated authorities but has agreed to shift
that program back to the normal acquisition process at the next
acquisition milestone review.
Congress has given DOD these new authorities but will
continue to oversee acquisition activities to ensure that the
Defense Department uses its authorities appropriately. We need
to ensure that these investments yield the capabilities our
Nation needs to compete in any future conflicts, such as with
hypersonic missiles, the next generation air dominance program,
and others.
We can't ignore needs to recapitalize other existing
capabilities that give our forces a competitive edge, such as
our tanker forces and the fighter squadrons in our Air Guard
and Reserve components that represent more than a third of the
Air Force's combat power.
We will also take into account lower visibility, but high
importance capabilities like the investments we need to ensure
we have adequate training ranges for our fifth-generation
fighters and forthcoming next generation systems.
These issues are a personal priority and I look forward to
working with the Air Force on the way forward. 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 over
our adversaries that is so critical to successful military
operations.
Specifically, our Air Force will bear a large share of the
burden of implementing the National Defense Strategy. Perhaps
that is part of the reason behind the Air Force's request of a
$12.4 billion budget increase this year--in this year's budget.
There is no ignoring the fact that strategic competition with
increasingly capable adversaries is a primary U.S. national
security concern.
We need to look no further than the war in Ukraine to see
that the world remains a dangerous place with actors who do not
always act rationally. While Russia may have showcased its
limitations, we must ensure our readiness to meet challenges
that a more capable force could present in the future.
There are a number of other issues that we need to discuss,
but in the interest of time, I am going to stop here and
followup during our discussion. Again, I thank our witnesses
for their service and for appearing before the Subcommittee. I
will now recognize our Ranking Member, Senator Cotton, for his
opening comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen,
welcome. Thank you for your appearance here this afternoon. I
am pleased to see that the Air Force has requested 72 tactical
fighter aircraft for fiscal year 2024 and each fiscal year for
the next 5 years.
Despite repeated underfunding by the current
administration, this is a good first step toward repairing and
modernizing our hollowed-out Air Force. But I am afraid it is
the bare minimum our military actually needs as we try to deter
a potential conflict with China. Our Air force, unfortunately,
has been characterized by shrinking inventories and an aging
fleet since the end of the cold war.
We should be producing F-35s at full rate production,
ramping up F-15EX production, and proceeding quickly to the
development of the E-7 aircraft. This is a matter of life and
death for many of our Nation's airmen and perhaps one day for
our Nation itself.
I look forward to hearing your plans to get all of these
essential programs to where we need them to be despite the
fiscal constraints you face.
Second, I would also like to understand how you are
maintaining the lethality of the Air Force while we wait to
field F-35s with Block 4 upgrades, along with the Next
Generation Air Dominance Aircraft, Advanced Battle Management
System, and collaborative combat aircraft.
I am concerned that while we are developing capabilities
for the far future, we are not making enough near-term upgrades
to aircraft that are currently in service and that will be in
service for decades to come, like the F-16 and our fielded
bomber fleet.
We are dangerously neglecting the upgrades that we need to
fight tonight, as the saying goes. I am also not confident that
we are prioritizing munitions production for the near or the
long-term fight.
Finally, the Air Force is already in danger of becoming
overextended in a period of peacetime. I would like to know how
you are planning to overcome existing gaps in capacity, while
preparing to deter China and Russia without exhausting
personnel and equipment.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say on these
topics and others. Thank you again for your appearance.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Senator Cotton. I will now
recognize our witnesses for some opening remarks. Secretary
Hunter.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW P. HUNTER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND
LOGISTICS
Mr. Hunter. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Kelly, and
Ranking Member Cotton, and Members of the Subcommittee for
having us here to provide testimony on our fiscal year 2024
budget request.
Our budget request very much reflects our attempt to align
our programs and our resourcing and our decisionmaking with
fulfilling the strategy, the national defense strategy. That
was absolutely our cornerstone in the fiscal year 2024 budget
process, and developing a threat informed future Air Force
equipped to win high and fight.
Last year, Secretary Kendall and General Brown outlined
their seven operational imperatives that we must meet to
succeed, and those operational imperatives absolutely drove
everything in our fiscal year 2024 POM [Program Objective
Memorandum] process.
They were the combined work of the entire Air and Space
Force teams, combining the best insights of our operators, our
analysts, and operational analysis teams in our acquisition
enterprise, working together to identify initiatives and
priorities. As a result of this analysis and work, we have over
$25 billion requested in fiscal year 2024 for OI related
investments.
So overall, our fiscal year 2024 request balances
investment in critically needed new capability with the
recapitalization and modernization of our existing platforms,
as you both identified as a priority. I am going to highlight
just a few key investments in my remarks, and my colleagues
will touch on several of the other issues you have raised.
Certainly, bomber modernization is a core of our investment
portfolio. It is a critical year in fiscal year 2024, in our
request for production of the B-21. We do have a substantial
investment in the largest modernization of the B-52 fleet in
the history of the fleet since it was first constructed and
built. We are focused on the parts of our bomber force that are
part of our enduring force.
I do want to say on E-7, we are working to field E-7 as
rapidly as possible, and we appreciate the support provided by
this Committee as well as others with resources and with
helping us with the reprograming request that allowed us to get
started early on that program in fiscal year 2023.
The ABMS program, part of our broader command Control
Communications Battle Management, or C3BM Initiative, where we
have established a new PEO [peace enforcement operation] to
bring focus to that effort, is a huge priority and we have a
substantial resource request for that in fiscal year 2024
budget. We ask for your support.
I think I will--if you would, be okay with you, sir, I will
probably touch on C-37 perhaps as we get into Q&A [questions
and answers]. In terms of our top modernization priorities,
obviously the F-35 is a cornerstone of our future fighter
fleet, and we fielded nearly 400 F-35As today. We are
prioritizing fielding the Block 4 capabilities, as was
mentioned, and affordability of sustainment is also critical.
We are continuing to make positive progress on our F135
engine module repairs with great work by the team at Tinker,
and with support from the Congress with resources. We have
significantly improved that item, which was degrading our
mission capable rates quite a bit.
We are establishing more realistic affordability targets
which will allow us to better prioritize where we focus our
resources to improve F-35 sustainment. While crude fighters
remain the core of our U.S. Air Force combat power, as well--
along with bombers, a centerpiece of our fiscal year 2024
budget is the Uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which
will provide new combat capabilities and bring cost effective
capacity or affordable mass to our force.
The CCA [Collaborative Combat Aircraft] is the single
largest operational imperative investment in our budget
request, and that is above where we were last year, with over
$6 billion requested across the FYDP. In fiscal year 2024, we
are investing more than $460 million to rapidly begin
development of the first CCA platform, and to leverage our
extensive work on autonomy that will underpin the CCA
capability.
We are establishing an operational experimentation unit to
work with existing platforms and capable partner nations to
prove out the concept of operations for CCA. As we modernize
the bulk of our F-22 fleet, and transition from F-22 to NGAD
[Next Generation Air Dominance], funds guarded from the
divestment of the F-22 Block 20's are being reinvested in NGAD
development across the FYDP, and the transition timeline is
dependent on the progress of NGAD development efforts.
The Air Force is ensuring cost control in NGAD by driving
continuous competition for air vehicles, mission systems,
software, and by mandating the use of a government-owned
reference architecture.
We are also changing the way we execute highly complex
acquisition programs by taking a hands-on approach to digital
engineering that accelerates prototyping, drives efficiencies
in manufacturing, and reduces cost in operations and
sustainment through the use of integrated digital environments
for the design and management and sustainment of our systems.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request funding for
aircraft design, development, test, integration of advance
mission systems, co-authored development of the government's
Agile Mission System Suite, Open Architecture, and Rapid
Software Development for the NGAD program.
Due to the updated threat environment that was highlighted
in both of the Chairman and Ranking Members opening statements,
we have made the decision this year to modify our approach to
tanker recapitalization, setting aside the three-phase approach
that was envisioned in the early 2000's, in favor of
prioritizing and accelerating the right capabilities to deliver
fuel to the joint force.
The next generation air refueling system, or NGAS, will be
an accelerated advanced air refueling system that meets the
future needs of the joint force and the anticipated future
contested battlespace. We will actively consider clean sheet
purpose-built designs for NGAS, potentially with aircraft
delivered in increments as part of the family of systems that
allows the Department of the Air Force to remain flexible and
responsive to the ever-changing threat.
The program is being designed to leverage continuous
competition, which is critical to our approach to the program.
We have begun preliminary work toward an NGAS analysis of
alternatives that will be completed in fiscal year 2024, and
inform NGAS requirements and development timelines, and
delivery is expected to begin into the mid to late 2030's.
That delivery timeline does mean that there will be a
period beyond the current F--KC-46 contracted deliveries and
the beginning of NGAS, and we are working through and have
included funding to request a tanker recapitalization effort
that will cover those years to ensure continuous delivery of
modernized and new tanker capability. Our work with the
operational imperatives as just begun.
As we begin to implement the recommendations borne out of
this work, we are continuing to examine other areas that are
cross-cutting operational enablers, such as mobility, and. Mr.
Chairman, to your point, also electronic warfare and EMSO,
electronic manning spectrum operations.
So, we want to remain in dialog with you on those
requirements, those emerging requirements, as we continue that
work. This work will leverage and complement our work on NGAS
and the next generation air mobility study as well to identify
priorities that enable our future operations.
More than ever, it is critical the Department avoid the
delays driven by a continuing resolution. The OIs include
multiple new start programs that must begin as soon as
possible. We cannot cede any more time on a critical moment in
the Air Force's transition to the future fight, and we look
forward to working with you on that.
I want to close by asking your support for a legislative
proposal that was recently transmitted by OMB to Congress that
creates a new authority for the military services to respond to
emergent technology advances and threats.
This authority will accelerate our ability to respond
rapidly to a changing security environment with effective
congressional oversight, and I think is directly responsive to
some of the concerns that the Committee has identified. I look
forward to working with you and thank you again for your
continued support.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Secretary Hunter. General Slife.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES C. SLIFE, USAF, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS
Lieutenant General Slife. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member
Cotton, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us
here today to provide testimony on Air Force modernization in
light of the budget request being considered by the
Subcommittee, Secretary Kendall and General Brown have
emphasized the need to make hard choices to modernize our Air
Force.
The Air Force's component of the Fiscal Year 2024
Presidential Budget Request reflects a delicate balance between
the requirements of the present and the modernization needed to
ensure our sustained comparative advantage vis-a-vis our pacing
challenges.
Over the last half century, our Air Force has faced four
strategic inflection points at which the strategic environment
or the threat changed rapidly and we had to adapt from the Air
Force we had to the Air Force we would need.
The first of these was in 1973, at the end of the Vietnam
War, and the accompanying need for modernization to face down
the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe. The second was at the end of
the cold war in 1991 and the rapid drawdown of the U.S.
Military in response to a diminished global threat environment.
The third was the attacks on our Homeland in 2001 and the
need to adapt to the needs for sustained counter insurgency,
counterterrorism, and counterviolence extremist operations. We
are in 2023 at a fourth strategic inflection point, one which
finds us facing unprecedented set of challenges.
These challenges include disruptive technologies which
don't fit neatly into our traditional views of armed conflict,
a landscape in which our pacing challengers employ irregular
warfare to counter our traditional strengths, the theft of our
most sensitive intellectual, personal--intellectual property
and personal data to be weaponized against us, and emerging
domains of warfare which require new doctrines and capabilities
to effectively leverage.
Just like the prior three strategic inflection points of
the past half century, the one at which we stand today requires
disruptive and uncomfortable change. But as hard as change may
be, losing would be substantially worse.
We must change. The budget request being considered by the
Congress represents positive change to address the security
environment we now face. I look forward to collaborating with
this Subcommittee as you work to discern a wise response to the
budget request before you today.
Thank you for your continued support and I stand ready to
answer your questions.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. General Hinote.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL S. CLINTON HINOTE, USAF, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGY, INTEGRATION, AND REQUIREMENTS
Lieutenant General Hinote. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member
Cotton, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting us here today to provide testimony on the Air
Force's modernization efforts.
I would also like to thank each of you for your continued
leadership and dedication to our national security. I am not
sure if the Subcommittee is aware, but I have five more duty
days in a career that spanned 35 years.
As you can imagine, that comes with many emotions. I feel
honored and proud to have served, but I also feel this sense of
urgency to push the changes that we need. I am thankful for the
opportunity to discuss those changes with you at this important
and timely hearing.
So, I just returned from the Air Force Academy, where I met
with the future leaders of our Air and Space Forces. I know
each of you has sent the best from your states to the
academies, and I could not be more impressed with the quality
of the young leaders getting ready to enter our Force. As I
spoke with them, I was reminded of why we do what we do.
Our mission at Air Force Futures is to be the voice of
tomorrow's airmen, to advocate for the capabilities and
concepts the next generation of leaders will need to be
successful. To do that, our Force will have to change, and
change is hard.
During my career, I have served in the Pentagon under three
very different administrations. Despite their differences, I
found it remarkable that they arrived at three common
conclusions.
First, China is the primary challenge. Second, we want to
deter, and you deter by being ready to fight and win. Third,
for too long, we have privileged current risk at the expense of
future risk. That last part is important. Sometimes we think of
the future risk as some sort of theoretical concept.
What it really means is that we are not handing off an Air
force that wins to the next generation. I am not okay with
that, and I know you aren't either. This budget helps us get to
the change that we need. It is not perfect. No budget is.
But due to the leadership of Secretary Kendall and General
Brown, we are seeing real progress in our operational
imperatives and Force Design. It is not just about increasing
capacity and divesting platforms that won't survive if we have
to fight.
There is real and transformational change in this budget.
We are shifting major resources to the new capabilities that
will be new used in new ways. For years, we have needed a
change-oriented budget. This is it. Thank you for the
invitation and I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General, and General Moore.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD G. MOORE, JR., USAF,
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Lieutenant General Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, I echo the thanks of my colleagues and appreciate
the opportunity to testify on this year's Defense authorization
request for fiscal year 2024, as well as the accompanying
Future Years Defense Program.
For over 70 years, we have provided air superiority to
American Joint Forces, and our allies and partners, and they
have rightly come to depend on it. Together, we survived and
won the cold war and we fought the war on terror. But times are
changing. While our attention was focused elsewhere, China was
watching and learning.
Today, we are in the midst of an important transition from
a legacy force built for counterinsurgency warfare to one built
to deter Chinese aggression and to win against any peer
competitor. As you heard from my colleagues, there is still
much to do as we continue to posture force for future conflict.
What they have described is possible, but time is not on
our side and we need your help. Fiscal year 2024 presents
another opportunity for the Department of the Air Force and the
Congress to work together so that we can remain the world's
preeminent power projection force.
Through the lens of the Department's seven operational
imperatives, we aligned our funding request to build a force
that will give our adversaries serious pause. The fiscal year
2024 budget request is a strong example of the significant
progress we are making toward closing key capability gaps, but
the hard choices are not behind us.
Today, and through this budget cycle, we ask for your
continued support as we seek to move away from several legacy
platforms. In the fiscal year 2024 budget, you will see that we
are once again requesting to divest our oldest F-22s, the Block
20's, which are not combat representative and never will be.
We proposed divesting our aging T-1 fleet as we move toward
new and advanced undergraduate pilot training programs, and
thanks to the support from Congress, we continue to progress on
our A-10 and F-15C divestment and transition plans.
Legacy platforms such as these have served us well, but we
must be disciplined in our decisions and focus our investments
on what we need most. Our most valuable resources, manpower,
money, and time, remain limited.
We cannot afford to stop short of achieving the force our
Nation needs. Looking critically at ways to reduce our excess
infrastructure to free people and resources for higher priority
mission remains a focus of the Air Force.
The resources, at least as importantly, manpower, freed in
these endeavors will directly contribute to bringing--to
helping us realize our operational imperatives and to deterring
aggression.
This, however, will take time, and as I have said, time is
not on our side. American lives and those of our allies and
partners rely on our ability to deliver air superiority, and we
cannot fail in this endeavor.
Finally, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of an on-
time budget. This is critical to keep modernization efforts on
track and further discouraging our adversaries. Time wasted
during a CR costs us a modernized future force.
We must act now to modernize in advance our capabilities,
and we look forward to once again working with Congress to
shape a lethal force that efficiently and affordably provides
the most capable air power for our Nation.
I am honored to sit here with Honorable Hunter, General
Hinote, and General Slife, and together, we look forward to
answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement by The Honorable Andrew P.
Hunter, Lieutenant General S. Clinton Hinote, Lieutenant
General Richard G. Moore Jr., Lieutenant General James C.
Slife, follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by The Honorable Andrew P. Hunter, Lieutenant
General S. Clinton Hinote, USAF, Lieutenant General Richard G. Moore
Jr., USAF, Lieutenant General James C. Slife, USAF
introduction
Chair Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for having us here today to provide
testimony on the Department of the Air Force's Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget (PB) request for Air Force modernization.
The United States Air Force is critical to our national defense.
Our capabilities underwrite the entirety of the Joint Force. This is
particularly true of the capabilities that are the purview of this
Subcommittee and that we will discuss today.
The Department of the Air Force's fiscal year 2024 President's
Budget Request is guided by the seven operational imperatives we must
meet to win in the future fight which Secretary Kendall and General
Brown outlined last year. Our budget request reflects our commitment to
developing a threat-informed, concept-driven future Air Force. We have
made significant progress in identifying the capabilities the Air Force
will need to develop and field to prevail against our adversaries.
The Air Force is grateful for congressional support in fiscal year
2023, which allowed us to continue our pursuit of the critical
warfighting capabilities needed to deter our adversaries and, if
needed, prevail in combat. As we continue to modernize or recapitalize
our force, we are eager for continued collaboration with Congress,
industry, and the communities that support our Air Bases to ensure our
Nation's security.
air force the nation needs
Global Force Management
The shift from 20 years of counterinsurgency operations in a
permissive environment to strategic competition in a contested
environment requires a cultural shift in how the Air Force organizes,
trains, and equips its forces. Years of low-intensity conflict resulted
in expeditionary taskings that came at the expense of long-term
preparedness for major combat operations. The shift to strategic
competition requires the Air Force to restore long-term sustainable
readiness, modernizing our force structure, and mature warfighting
concepts to posture the Air Force as a combat-credible and ready force
to meet the demands of great power competition.
As we transition to the force the Nation needs, continued
operational demand for Air Force capabilities combined with the
National Defense Strategy (NDS) modernization priorities are driving
difficult resource tradeoffs. To be ready and relevant for the
strategic environment, we will transform the force, train the force,
and retain the force all with the goal of achieving a task-organized
combat power to achieve the NDS demands. We will balance the risk and
demands of the current environment with the need to arrive in the
future with the capacity and capability we require. It is essential to
modernize and eliminate costly and less-capable legacy systems. These
actions 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.
Readiness
Our readiness posture has been flat for over 3 years, and
indicators suggest it will trend lower in the future as we continue to
invest in overdue modernization. This condition represents the
confluence of over 30 years of compounding issues. Continuous
contingency deployments, delayed modernization, and personnel cuts have
left the Air Force at a readiness deficit. This deficit cannot be
recovered overnight and must continue to be balanced against the
priority to modernize the force for the pacing challenge.
Building back readiness will take time and requires continued
congressional support to make tough choices, including divestment of
less relevant systems to maximize our resources for the Nation's
defense. Modernization efforts will yield greater capability, but will
also require investment in manpower, the sustainment enterprise,
training infrastructure, and a healthy flying hour program. These
investments will enable a force that is ready and capable of employing
and winning with the advanced capabilities we are acquiring.
Limitations in physical airspace, advances in blue capabilities and
tactics, challenges in developing realistic threat replication, and
live-fly OPSEC concerns drive high-end advanced training to a virtual
environment. Supplemental synthetic training allows the warfighter to
train to fight in a secure, multi-level security environment providing
relevant and realistic integrated training interactions for all
aviators. The Joint Simulation Environment (JSE), developed by the USN
and USAF, is the synthetic backbone integrating into the Virtual Test &
Training Center, shifting focus of electronic warfare and high-end
training and test to the synthetic environment.
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 modernize NTTR and JPARC
to enable warfighters to train for the peer fight in an all-domain
contested environment against relevant and realistic threats. These
ranges will contain training assets that can be continually upgraded at
the pace of our adversaries. With current and programmed funding, NTTR
and JPARC are projected to complete this modernization by fiscal year
2030. Additionally, by fiscal year 2032, we will upgrade six additional
Primary Training Ranges to replicate the environment of an adversary
that uses legacy aircraft and threat systems.
The Air Force is procuring the US Navy's Tactical Combat Training
System II (TCTS-II)/P6 Combat Training System (CTS) to modernize our
current P5 CTS capability. The TCTSII/P6 provides an ability to share
encrypted data for training, allowing 4th, 5th, and Next Generation
platforms to integrate in a way not currently achievable. The Air
Force's version, P6, will offer fighter pilots real-time, enhanced
assessments of training exercises, which will allow instructors to
focus on learning points and maximize time for debrief.
Rated Force Management
The Air Force remains focused on improving overall pilot inventory
and is committed to meeting the needs of both its airmen and the Air
Force through continuous improvements to production, absorption, and
retention of our Total Force pilots. In fiscal year 2022, the Total
Force manned pilot shortfall increased leaving the Total Force short
81,900 manned pilots. Most critical pilot shortages are in the Fighter
and Bomber communities. The fiscal year 2022 Undergraduate Pilot
Training (UPT) production decreased from fiscal year 2021 production
and remained below the required 1,500 pilots per year. T-38 engine
shortages, T-6, and T-38 CAD/PAD (ejection seat) inspection, and low
Civilian Simulator Instructor influenced the decreased production.
It will take 10 years of producing to the Company Grade Officers
(CGO) requirement to right-size the force while retaining Field Grade
Officers (FGO) to right-shape the force of the future. To close the
gap, we need to improve CGO manning through increased production
capacity and training innovation, coupled with increasing retention to
address pending FGO shortfalls due to past year-group underproduction.
To that end, efforts to close the gap include redesigning training
programs, improving simulator instructor manning, and integrating
technology, all with the goal of creating a healthy aircrew ecosystem.
The Air Force is employing a four-part strategy to improve the
pilot inventory by increasing production plant capacity to align with
requirements (size of the force), reducing risk within the production
plant, maximizing retention to meet FGO requirements and mitigate
previous underproduction (shape of the force), ensuring production &
retention efforts deliver right size/shape of the pilot force (closed
system).
AETC has several pilot training transformation initiatives to
improve the quantity and quality of pilots produced. Initiatives
include Accelerated Path to Wings, Helicopter Next, Civil Path to
Wings, Air Mobility Fundamentals-Sim, Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals,
Remote Sim Instruction. UPT now incorporates a spectrum of training
devices, leading to more productive time airborne. The Air Force offers
several incentives to recruit and retain including Direct Hire
Authority, Recruitment, Relocation and Retention incentives, Special
Salary Rates, Student Loan Repayment, Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
assistance, and Training and Development Programs.
Air Force Force Generation
In November 2019, the Air Force began efforts to revise the USAF
force generation model to more effectively present and subsequently
report readiness of forces and capabilities to support the National
Defense and National Security Strategies. The Air Force Force
Generation (AFFORGEN) model replaces the Air Expeditionary Force
construct with four, 6-month phases of readiness. The cycle includes:
``available to commit'' (a unit is deployed or ready to deploy at a
moment's notice), ``reset'' (airmen focus on family and individual
training), ``prepare'' (unit preparation for a possible future
deployment), and certify (focus on high-end, more intense, multi-unit
training).
AFFORGEN will provide more predictability enabling airmen to train
and deploy as a team. AFFORGEN is the Air Force's sustainable,
capacity-driven model for presenting forces to the Joint Force.
AFFORGEN allows the Air Force to clearly articulate the service's
finite capacity and sustainable force offering to our consumers. By
focusing on a capabilities-based sustainable force offering, our
service can better manage the balance between generating ready forces
and their consumption in support of global operations. The Air Force
will review and iteratively update the AFFORGEN model to facilitate
better readiness and performance in the high-end fight.
Agile Combat Employment
Changes to the modern operational environment and rapid
technological improvements require the Air Force to adjust its scheme
of maneuver. Our response to these challenges is to continue to refine
the Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concept. ACE is the ability to
quickly disperse and cluster tailorable force packages to a cooperative
security location and conduct operations across all domains, while
maintaining operational flexibility and increasing resiliency. The
operational unpredictability of ACE will present our adversaries with
multiple dilemmas and targeting challenges during both day-to-day
competition and potential future conflict. ACE requires a change in how
the Air Force thinks about and conducts operations within the modern
environment.
Agile Combat Employment (ACE) disperses operations from large bases
to smaller networks of locations to create dilemmas for the adversary's
targeting process. We are working on establishing enterprise-level
requirements for training and certifying ACE-capable force packages. We
are making construction investments in the European and Pacific
theaters to support this concept's development. DAF efforts with
resilient basing, sustainment, and communications set conditions to
achieve the Joint Warfighting Concept scheme of maneuver. DAF must
invest in additional capabilities and formalize training programs to
field an agile force that sets the theater and establishes distributed
command and control.
current capacity and capability
In line with the 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) guidance on
future force design, the Air Force seeks to invest in technologies and
field systems that are both lethal and survivable against tomorrow's
threats. Our greatest weapon system is the more than 333,000 airmen and
guardians who proudly wear our uniforms. A critical need in
transitioning to the high-end fight is assigning experienced pilots,
maintainers, munitions specialists and support personnel to receive and
operate the new platforms as they arrive at our bases. Ultimately, this
means transitioning away from many legacy capabilities to free up
manpower and resources to modernize and field more capable systems. We
must modernize to address the emerging threat, which requires pivoting
resources from our legacy platforms and weapons systems that are
decreasing in relevance. If deterrence fails, our airmen must have the
training, tools, platforms, and operating systems required to win.
Bomber Force Structure
Our budget request supports the NDS call for continued
modernization of the nuclear triad, to ensure a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear deterrent to backstop our integrated deterrence
approach. Air Force bombers anchor the air leg of the Nation's Nuclear
Triad. They are also the essential element of the Nation's capability
for conventional long-range strike, as well as the only strategic
bomber among all U.S. Allies and partners, a key national security
priority. As a unique national security capability, the B-21 represents
the future of this bomber force along both dimensions. As modernization
continues, the Air Force will gradually transition 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.
B-21
The B-21 Raider will form the backbone of our future bomber force
and is the centerpiece of the Secretary of the Air Force's sixth
Operational Imperative. The B-21 underscores our national security as
the most flexible leg of the Nuclear Triad and supports Combatant
Commanders across the range of military objectives as both a nuclear
and conventional bomber. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget
Request includes $2.985 billion in Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation (RDT&E) funding that continues to fund Engineering and
Manufacturing Development. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget Request includes modernization activities focused on
nuclear certification, Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon integration
and other activities. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request
also includes $2.332 billion in procurement funding to continue support
to the program's transition toward low rate initial production. All EMD
test aircraft are in various stages of assembly on the production line,
which uses the same tooling processes and technicians who will build
the production aircraft. The first B-21, unveiled in December 2022, was
successfully powered-on and initial system tests of the aircraft are
being conducted in preparation for first flight. The Air Force, in
partnership with industry, has invested heavily in software integration
labs, a flying test bed, digital tools and other risk reduction efforts
to shift discovery early on in the program and will accelerate issue
resolution as the program enters the flight test phase. First flight
will be informed by events and data, and we anticipate it will occur in
2023.
In parallel, beddown preparations at Ellsworth Air Force Base
(AFB), South Dakota, remain on-track. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's
Budget Requests $395 million to support one follow-on increment and two
new military construction projects at Ellsworth AFB, and initiate
planning and design for MILCON projects at Dyess AFB, Texas and
Whiteman AFB, Missouri in support of beddown activities. The first B-
21s are projected to arrive at Ellsworth AFB in the mid-2020's with
base infrastructure ready to support. A second Environmental Impact
Study continues with an estimated completion in fiscal year 2024 to
assess the final two basing locations.
The Air Force is committed and on track with respect to its key
performance parameter of building B-21s with an average procurement
unit cost of no more than $550 million (Base Year 2010) / $692 million
(Base Year 2022), assuming a minimum fleet of 100 aircraft.
B-52
While the last B-52 Stratofortress entered service in the Air Force
in 1962, we expect to continue operating the B-52 beyond 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), the Radar Modernization
Program (RMP), integration of LRSO nuclear air-launched cruise missile,
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 enables us to achieve this
goal. CERP will replace legacy engines (TF33-PW-103) with new military-
derivative commercial Rolls Royce F-130 engines. It is important to
note that CERP is more complex than just a standard commercial engine
refit. CERP includes new engines, flight systems, and cockpit throttles
and displays. In September 2023, the CERP program will seek a Milestone
B decision, which will authorize the program to enter the Engineering
and Manufacturing Development phase and set the acquisition program
baseline.
The RMP is also necessary to ensure viability through 2050 and
modernize the current Strategic Radar (AN/APQ-166), which is based on
1960's technology modified in the 1980's. In 2024, the RMP will began
aircraft modifications to support development testing and a Milestone C
decision. Overall, the RMP program will upgrade all 76 B-52 aircraft
with new radar systems to perform mission-essential navigation and
weather avoidance functions.
Finally, integration of the LRSO weapon and AEHF terminals will
bolster the B-52's role in the airborne leg of the Nuclear Triad. AEHF
integration is on-track for an early fiscal year 2024 Milestone B
decision, which will establish the program's baseline supporting secure
nuclear communications on the B-52 platform.
B-1
The Fiscal Year 2024 President' Budget Request focuses resources on
sustaining and modernizing the remaining combat-coded B-1s, after
retirement of 17 B-1s as authorized in fiscal year 2021. We will ensure
the B-1s remain lethal and viable until B-21s are operational in
sufficient numbers.
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.
Last, the B-1 will serve as a test platform for hypersonic weapons
through additional congressional funding in fiscal year 2022 and fiscal
year 2023.
B-2
In fiscal year 2024, the Air Force will continue work to ensure the
B-2 remains effective until the B-21 is operational. The Air Force has
de-scoped the Defensive Management System modernization program because
delays in the effort would have limited the operational utility of the
system by the time it would have fielded. Instead, we are replacing the
B-2's unsustainable cathode ray tube displays with modern sustainable
displays as part of the B-2 Displays Modernization program.
In fiscal year 2024, we are continuing B-2 modernization programs
including Adaptive Communication Suite upgrades, enhancement of the
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, integration of hardware
upgrades for employment of the B61-12 nuclear weapon, software upgrades
to allow the B-2 to carry the extended range variant of the Joint Air-
to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER), and the Radar Aided Targeting
System (RATS) software upgrade to improve the navigational handoff to
the B61-12 nuclear weapon in a GPS-degraded environment. Finally, the
B-2 will continue sustainment efforts for the Low Observable Signature
and Supportability Modification effort to improve aircraft
maintainability and availability and ensure the aircrew and maintenance
training systems remain aligned with the aircraft.
Fighter Force Structure
The Air Force must continue to evolve its fighter force to meet the
pacing challenge posed by China and the acute threat posed by Russia
and ensure the capability and capacity to meet worldwide demands today.
Extensive wargaming and analysis show that TACAIR modernization is
critical to provide the Joint Force with the capability and capacity
needed to deter and prevail against future aggression. The threat will
not allow the Air Force to pause in place. We have critical investments
across the 4th, 5th, and 6th generation fleet to meet the pacing
challenge.
In realistic budget projections, we must balance the need for high
end technology with affordable capacity. To attain a fighter fleet that
matches capability and capacity of platforms and weapons to mission
requirements, the Air Force is transitioning our fighter fleet from
seven platforms (F-35, F-22, F-16, F-15EX, F-15E, F-15C, A-10) to four
platforms (NGAD, F-35, F-15EX, F-16). Next Generation Air Dominance
(NGAD) & F-35 Block 4 are required to address the most challenging
missions assigned to the fighter force
On the path to achieving the desired future fighter fleet, the
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget procures 72 fighter aircraft in
fiscal year 2024, the largest single year fighter procurement since
1991. Divestment of legacy systems is critical to building a relevant
future force capable of addressing the Department's pacing challenge.
Resourcing those future capabilities and modernizing our remaining
force demands both money and manpower currently tied up in our legacy
systems and platforms. To transition fighter resources to a modernized,
lethal force, the fiscal year 2024 budget proposes a net change of
minus 89 fighter aircraft in fiscal year 2024, and a total FYDP net
change of minus 425 fighter aircraft.
Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
The NGAD Family of Systems is vital for securing air superiority
for the U.S. Air Force. The NGAD Family of Systems will replace the F-
22 in the Air Force Future Fighter Force Structure. Funds garnered from
the divestment of F-22 Block-20's have been reinvested in NGAD
development across the FYDP. The transition timeline from F-22 to NGAD
is dependent on the progress of NGAD development efforts. The NGAD
Family of Systems consists of the NGAD crewed platform, uncrewed
Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the Agile Mission Suite open
architecture, and advanced mission systems. Analyses, development, and
prototyping within the NGAD program leads to enhancements in
survivability, lethality, persistence, and interoperability. The NGAD
crewed fighter platform enables counter-air missions in highly
contested environments, thwarting advances in enemy anti-access
capabilities, and allowing the joint force to seize and exploit the
initiative. This new fighter will field novel technologies that could
change the way we fight but, more importantly, it will have the ability
to rapidly adapt to emerging technologies and threats to keep pace with
our adversaries. The Air Force ensures cost control on NGAD by driving
continuous competition for air vehicles, mission systems, software, and
by mandating the use of a government-owned reference architecture. We
are also changing the way we execute highly complex acquisition
programs by taking a hands-on approach to digital engineering that
accelerates prototyping, drives efficiencies in manufacturing, and
reduces costs in operations and sustainment. The Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget requests $1.93 billion in fiscal year 2024 to fund
aircraft design, development, test, and integration of advanced mission
systems, cooperative development of the government's Agile Mission
Suite open architecture, and rapid software development to enable
cutting-edge electronic warfare and communications techniques.
Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA)
While the NGAD crewed fighter will give us an exquisite edge, it
will be unaffordable to purchase these in sufficient quantities to
provide the necessary mass on a threat-relevant timeline. CCA provide
affordable and capable mass by teaming with the NGAD crewed platform as
well as numerous other current and future generation platforms across
the joint force. CCA development unites the parallel disciplines of
autonomy and low-cost air vehicle construction previously funded under
Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) Skyborg Vanguard program. We
have learned a great deal through analysis and experimentation in the
Skyborg program, and in our ongoing concept refinement studies. The
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests $392 million for
competitive concept refinement, design, and development of a first-
generation CCA. Additionally, we request $119 million to fund
supporting activities that will accelerate platform-agnostic autonomy
development, and explore the optimal operations, maintenance, and
sustainment concepts for these novel platforms. Our extensive analyses
show that CCA are a force multiplier that will allow us to achieve air
superiority affordably and at scale. Continued investment in the NGAD
Family of Systems will ensure our ability to secure the air against
proliferating threats to support future joint operations anytime,
anywhere.
F-35
The F-35 is the cornerstone of our future fighter fleet and we have
fielded nearly 400 F-35As to date. 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, the Air Force
must confront key development, interoperability, sustainability, and
affordability challenges to acquire, upgrade, and retrofit the F-35A
fleet to obtain the minimum required capability and capacity as quickly
as possible within projected resource constraints. First flight in a
Technical Refresh-3 (TR-3) configuration occurred earlier this year and
is the foundation for Block 4. Block 4 modernization with TR-3 hardware
ensures F-35 relevance in the high-end fight against China or Russia in
2025 and beyond.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests 48 F-35A aircraft,
an increase of five aircraft from the fiscal year 2023 enacted
position. The Air Force is prioritizing investments in the F-35 fleet,
seeking modernization, infrastructure, and advanced weapons in this
budget request. Commitments include $6.0 billion in procurement, $1.3
billion in development and $2.3 billion to fund necessary sustainment.
This increased investment ensures maximum future viability of the
fleet. Propulsion and cooling development investments contained in the
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request will help ensure capability
enhancements will continue to be viable for the platform while also
reducing lifetime sustainment costs. In addition, the fiscal year 2024
President's Budget funds progress toward on-time nuclear operational
certification of the F-35, which will ensure the continued credibility
of our extended deterrence commitments to our NATO and Indo-Pacific
allies.
The Air Force continues to make progress in addressing readiness
challenges with the F-35A and stand-up depot capacity to improve future
sustainment. We are recovering from the F-135 MICAP issue with today
only five aircraft awaiting engines, power modules, or fan modules. The
two largest sustainment cost drivers the Air Force controls are the
number of aircraft possessed and programmed flying hours, and the major
cost categories are parts, people, energy, and consumables. We are
establishing more realistic affordability targets which will allow us
to better prioritize Air Force resources. The Air Force is continuing
work with the F-35 Joint Program Office, Navy, and industry to identify
and evaluate opportunities to increase depot repair capacity and
further reduce the cost of materiel and manpower.
The Air Force is committed to reducing F-35 costs for both
production and sustainment as well as improving mission readiness.
Additionally, the F-35 program is moving toward a supply chain, demand
reduction Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract at the end of 2023
to prioritize availability and affordability outcomes across the F-35
enterprise. In response to the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA Section 142, the
Air Force is working with OSD, the Department of Navy, and the F-35
Joint Program Office (JPO) to assume greater management, planning and
execution roles of the F-35 sustainment functions to further reduce
sustainment costs.
Advanced Engine Development
The Air Force is working with the JPO to implement the F-35
enterprise decision to move forward with the F135 Engine Core Upgrade
and accompanying Power and Thermal Management System upgrade. While
Operational Analysis determined that the AETP three stream adaptive
cycle engines provide substantial F-35A operational performance
advantages, the JPO-led BCA determined that the F135 Engine Core
Upgrade will restore engine life and prevent degradation for all three
F-35 variants and partner nations at the lowest cost. Data from testing
of the AETP prototype adaptive cycle engines is informing design
activities for the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program
as are the validated advanced engine technologies. NGAP engines
leverage the AETP technology suite and deliver capability enabling
propulsion options for the most highly contested environments.
Competitive NGAP prototyping, funded in this budget request, preserves
key advanced engine design and manufacturing skills required to
maintain U.S. strategic advantages in propulsion over competitors.
F-15
Our F-15C fleet is aging, with two-thirds of the fleet past its
designed service life. The 179 F-15C/Ds in the Air Force inventory will
reach the end of their design service life in the next five to 7 years,
and our analysis shows additional service life extension programs are
not cost effective. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request
divests 57 F-15C/Ds from the active fleet in fiscal year 2024. We have
already started to replace this fleet with a modernized successor by
purchasing the F-15EX. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request
procures 24 F-15EX aircraft and funds weapon system investment at $2.9
billion. Notably, the Air Force remains fully committed to developing
advanced 5th and next generation capabilities and the F-35. 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 Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests $406.5 million in
fiscal year 2024 to continue modernization efforts to ensure the F-15E
Strike Eagle remains viable to the 2030's. 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
Our more than 600 post 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 49 planned through
fiscal year 2025. We will continue to modernize the late block F-16s we
keep as our ``affordable capacity'' fighter into the 2040's. 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 2024 President's Budget requests $405.32
million in fiscal year 2024 to continue these modernization efforts.
This includes continuing the Service Life Extension Program comprising
12 structural modifications, affecting 450 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 (JEON) of 72 radar systems is complete
and fielded. The underway Phase 3 will install a total of 443 radar
systems across the Combat Air Force (CAF), Air Force Reserve Command
(AFRC), and Air National Guard (ANG), bringing critical capabilities to
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 2024.
F-22
F-22 Block-20's are now in their third decade and have the highest
operating costs of any Air Force fighter. They are not combat
representative, meaning they do not possess the combat capabilities
resident in the F-22 Block-30/35. Remaining committed to ensuring air
superiority for the Joint Force in the highly contested environment
against a peer adversary, it is imperative to modernize the F-22 to
preserve its advantages while concurrently developing NGAD. To resource
both F-22 modernization and NGAD, the Air Force maintains our fiscal
year 2023 position to divest the oldest and least capable F-22s (32 F-
22 Block-20's) in fiscal year 2024. In the near term, three heavily
modified F-22 Block-20's will be kept for testing. Additionally, the
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request includes $1.62 billion in
fiscal year 2024 for modernization efforts essential to gain and
maintain air superiority against evolving threats. The Rapid
Prototyping and Rapid Fielding efforts follow an agile acquisition
construct and combine former TacLink16 and Tactical Mandates (TACMAN),
Low Drag Tanks & Pylons, Electronic Protection, and GPS M-code programs
to deliver slices of each capability on an annual release cadence for
capabilities as they mature. Future modernizations will continue to
leverage the agile construct 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. Funds garnered from the
divestment of F-22 Block-20's have been reinvested in NGAD development
across the FYDP. The transition timeline from F-22 to NGAD is dependent
on the progress of NGAD development efforts.
A-10
In the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request the Air Force
seeks to continue the drawdown of the A-10 fleet by divesting a total
of 42 A-10's in fiscal year 2024. Aircraft will come from Davis-Monthan
AFB (-36) and Moody AFB (-6). A controlled drawdown will allow the Air
Force to continue transitioning its fighter fleet and maintenance
personnel to an advanced force capable of defeating the threats
outlined in the National Defense Strategy and National Security
Strategy. Failure to execute the A-10 divestment as planned will inject
unacceptable risk to the Air Force's ability to deter or defeat a peer
adversary.
Trainers
T-7A
The T-7A Advanced Pilot Trainer replaces AETC's existing fleet of
422 T-38C aircraft with 351 aircraft and associated simulators, ground
equipment, spares, and support equipment. The T-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 T-7A program was designed for the Air Force using a digital
engineering approach, which offers significant benefits particularly
during the design and build phases. Digital engineering reduces
development times, lowers production costs, and allows greater
collaboration between the Air Force and industry in the development and
production of the initial T-7 prototypes. Embracing modern digital
engineering practices reduced design costs, reduced production support
manpower, improved first time quality by 75 percent, and reduced
assembly hours by 80 percent through task reduction. The Fiscal Year
2024 President's Budget request continues the program's Engineering and
Manufacturing Development (EMD) and early aircraft flight test efforts,
ensuring we meet the 2027 Initial Operational Capability and 2036 Full
Operational Capability milestones. Rollout of the first EMD T-7A
occurred in April 2022 and First Flight is anticipated in 2023. The Air
Force is working with Boeing to enable the T-7A program to achieve
Milestone C in the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2025. While these dates
are later than the initially proposed milestones for T-7, they
represent realistic and achievable timelines which can sustain our
training capability through the T-38 to the T-7 transition.
T-1, T-6, and T-38
The Air Force is continuing investment efforts in its trainer
platforms, including critical modernization programs for the T-6 and T-
38 fleets. The T-1A fleet is scheduled for divestment between fiscal
year 2023 and fiscal year 2026. Training of future Mobility pilots,
currently being conducted in the T-1A aircraft, will be accomplished in
the T-1A simulators using procedures developed from the Pilot Training
Next Innovation Cell at Air Education and Training Command (AETC). The
T-6 continues mitigation efforts for the aircraft with the On-Board
Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) to improve the safety of pilot
training and address Unexplained Physiological Events (UPEs). To date,
mitigation efforts have resulted in an 82 percent reduction in UPEs.
Expected completion of Enhanced OBOGS mitigation efforts is mid-fiscal
year 2024. In fiscal year 2023, the T-6 will start a major Avionics
Replacement Program (ARP) to address Diminishing Manufacturing Sources
and Material Shortages (DMSMS) for critical avionics issues. For the T-
38, 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. The fiscal year 2024 PB requests $14.3 million, $39.7
million, and $129.8 million for the T-1, T-6, and T-38 fleets,
respectively.
Munitions
Extensive wargaming and analysis demonstrate that the Air Force
requires an affordable mix of both air-to-air and air-to-surface
weapons that can deliver the capacity and capability needed to maintain
a competitive advantage over the pacing challenge. The Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget request modernizes munitions and directly supports
and influences the DAF's seven Operational Imperatives.
The Air Force shaped its investments based on the optimal mix of
munitions, aligned with current OSD and Joint Staff planning guidance.
In fiscal year 2024, the Air Force is focused on critical high
performance, standoff, and precision strike weapons to deliver
munitions with increased range and precision effects in contested
environments against high-value targets. The Air Force made investments
to expand production capacity, procure munitions at favorable economic
rates, and strengthen the industrial base. The munitions portfolio
includes three new multi-year procurement programs, which aim to
maximize weapon production efficiency with a buy-to-budget procurement
approach. The Air Force will continue to collaborate with partner
nations and the Navy to share cost and technology; this partnership is
critical in countering naval air defense threats. The Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget request for Norway's Joint Strike Missile represents
such a partnership to procure an operational long range, air-to-
surface, precision guided survivable system that enables the U.S. to
hold maritime targets at risk in contested environments and increases
our maritime strike capacity. The Air Force continues to respond to
current operational demands and ensuring we are prepared to defend
against more advanced threats. Doing so requires advanced weapons
capabilities and the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request
reflects the Air Force's plan to continue investing in those areas,
specifically with the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM),
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), and the Advanced Medium Range
Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). These weapons provide unique and necessary
capabilities for the highly contested environment.
JASSM
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. Through the use of
multi-year procurement authority, the Air Force requests $1.6 billion
in fiscal year 2024 that includes an economic order quantity to
increase inventory and ramp up to maximize production rates.
Additionally, the President's Budget requests $77 million in
facilitization funding, which increases the JASSM production line from
550 to a capability to produce 810 missiles per year in fiscal year
2026.
LRASM
LRASM, produced in the same facility as JASSM, is a Navy developed
purpose-built anti-ship missile particularly critical for the future
fight in a maritime environment. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's
Budget requests $188 million to procure 27 missiles and increases LRASM
procurement in the future years defense program by utilizing Multi-year
procurement authority. Included in the Navy's Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget request is a $53 million facilitization request to
increase LRASM production from 120 to a capability to produce 240
missiles per year in fiscal year 2026.
AMRAAM
The Air Force also leverages Multi-year procurement authority in
its Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request for AMRAAM as we
continue to invest in the next generation medium and long-range air-to-
air missiles. AMRAAM continues to be the Air Force's premier beyond
visual range, all weather, launch and leave medium range air-to-air
missile. The Air Force is requesting $701 million for 457 missiles,
which includes an economic order quantity that supports the Multi-year
procurement strategy to maximize production capacity through the future
years defense program.
Stand-In Attack Weapon (SiAW)
The Air Force continues to invest in technology to counter future
peer threats. Continued development of the Stand-in Attack Weapon
(SiAW) delivers 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 Joint Force. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's
Budget requests $298 million for SiAW development and prototyping,
along with $42 million in procurement funding to field Advanced Anti-
Radiation Guided Missile Extended Range (AARGM-ER) on the F-35 as an
interim capability.
Hypersonic Weapons
Hypersonics are being designed to rapidly overcome the tyranny of
distance in the Pacific and enable the U.S. to hold high value, time-
sensitive targets at risk in contested environments from standoff
distances within the region. When integrated with the broader munitions
portfolio, their cost and complexity make hypersonic weapons a high-
end, low volume capability, which, in concert with a wider weapon force
mixture, are key to providing a war-winning force.
HACM
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request of $382 million for
the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) development allows the Air
Force to mature HACM to critical design, continue model-based
engineering activities, and mature the digital ecosystem to complete
critical design analysis. It also allows for design verification
testing, execution of initial qualification testing, procurement and
building of initial flight test hardware and aircraft integration
assets, and maturation of Weapon Open Systems Architecture (WOSA)
compliance evaluations. All of this is in preparation for flight test
in fiscal year 2025, which enables production article procurement by
fiscal year 2027.
ARRW (AGM-183A)
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests $150.3 million of
RDT&E funding to complete the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)
AGM-183A rapid prototyping program and flight testing. It is important
that we continue to test in order demonstrate that the system can meet
the requirements for which it was designed so we can consider
procurement options, including our overall munitions mix, in the
future.
Tanker Fleet
Near-peer competitors have made significant advancements that
threaten today's tanker fleet and potentially forces them to operate
farther away from their area of responsibility. The stacked demand of
global operations requires a set number of air refueling tankers with
specific connectivity, survivability, and agility capabilities,
generating at mission capable rates to meet timelines and win the
fight. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request modifies the Air
Force's tanker recapitalization approach from the three-phase approach
envisioned in the early 2000's (i.e., KC-X, which later became KC-46A,
KC-Y, and KC-Z) to a more agile, threat-informed approach prioritizing
and accelerating the right capabilities to deliver fuel to the fight.
Accelerating to Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS)
The Air Force is establishing and accelerating the Next Generation
Air-refueling System (NGAS) to meet the future needs of the joint force
and continue uninterrupted tanker recapitalization during the gap
period between the end of the KC-46A production contract and delivery
of the first NGAS aircraft.
NGAS will be an accelerated, advanced air refueling system that
meets the future needs of the joint force. It will deploy advanced
technologies and permit air refueling in the anticipated future
contested battlespace. We are considering clean sheet, purpose-built
designs that address projected future threats and delivers upgraded
capabilities in multiple tankers, delivered in increments. The program
is being designed to leverage continuous competition.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests $7.9 million for
an NGAS Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), led by Air Mobility Command,
which will shape requirements and determine the technology development
timeline. This analysis will be informed by a wide array of industry
capability providers. The results of the NGAS AoA may indicate a need
for more than one type of aerial refueling platform, matching
capabilities to scenarios and using a family of systems approach, which
allows us to remain flexible and responsive to the ever-changing
threat. We plan to build substantial vendor pools to assist us in
developing a future aerial refueling family of systems leveraging
competition throughout the effort.
Delivery of the first NGAS increment is expected in the mid-to-late
2030's. That will leave a gap period between the delivery of the final
KC-46A under the current production contract and delivery of the first
NGAS aircraft. During this gap period, we must continue to modernize
our tanker fleet through continued recapitalization with a limited
number of air refuelable, commercial derivative, limited development
tankers. The tankers procured during this gap period will have
capabilities similar to the KC-46A with Pegasus Advanced Communications
Suite (PACS) also referred to as Block 1, plus potentially a digital
backbone capable of Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS)/Joint All-
Domain Command and Control (JADC2) integration, with minimal
connectivity, survivability, and agility capabilities.
Continuous tanker recapitalization until NGAS delivers is critical
to the warfighter because the KC-135 has inherent operational
limitations. It is less survivable because it lacks the connectivity
capability of the KC-46A. Further, it is not air refuelable and can
only refuel either boom or drogue operations on a mission, lacking the
flexibility of a KC-46A. It is not cost effective to add these
capabilities to the aging KC-135 fleet in order to raise the mission
capable rates required to compete in a contested environment. Under the
previous tanker recapitalization strategy, the Air Force planned on
procuring a fleet of 140-160 commercial-derivative aircraft following
the completion of the KC-46A program. With NGAS accelerating from the
2050's to the mid/late 2030's, the Air Force will likely procure fewer
recapitalization tankers before NGAS. Our goal is to use tanker
recapitalization prior to NGAS to replace 15 KC-135s per year as they
retire with tankers that have similar capabilities to the KC-46A.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Requests $4.97 billion over
the Future Years Defense Program for tanker recapitalization. This
includes $526 million for RDT&E, $136.2 million for initial spares, and
$4.3 billion for procurement of aircraft beyond the current KC-46A
production contract, with deliveries in the fiscal year 2029 to fiscal
year 2030 timeframe. It is estimated we will have final Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated requirements in the 3rd
quarter of fiscal year 2023. Upon final Business Case Analysis (BCA)
completion based on the JROC validated requirements, the Air Force will
determine its acquisition strategy for tanker recapitalization, which
is likely later this year.
KC-46A
The KC-46A continues to deliver greater operational readiness,
flexibility, connectivity, and survivability to the Global Reach
mission. One hundred twenty-four production aircraft are on contract,
with 15 more planned in fiscal year 2024.
Since January 2019, 68 KC-46As have been delivered among five Main
Operating Bases (MOBs): McConnell AFB, Kansas, Altus AFB, Oklahoma
(Formal Training Unit), Pease Air National Guard Base, New Hampshire,
Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst, New Jersey. Travis AFB, California, is expecting its first
delivery in 2023.
The Air Force continues to work with Boeing to correct deficiencies
with the Remote Vision System (RVS) and stiff air refueling boom. We
are committed to ensuring these deficiencies are properly addressed
without undue burden on taxpayers or warfighters. The RVS 2.0 solution
and start of fleet retrofit are now scheduled in the 1st quarter of
fiscal year 2026. The design solution to resolve the stiff boom
deficiency is expected to complete in the 2nd quarter of fiscal year
2025 with fielding start in mid-fiscal year 2026.
Despite its current deficiencies, the KC-46A is safe to operate
(adhering to flight manual cautions provided to our operators). Since
Summer of 2021, through its Interim Capability Release Process and
associated rigorous assessment, AMC has made KC-46As available for
training and worldwide operational employment and taskings to alleviate
pressure on legacy tanker fleets and potentially allow legacy tanker
retirements. AMC has cleared KC-46As to carry out operational refueling
on nearly all required aircraft, except for the A-10 and any receiver
aircraft without an approved technical compatibility assessment. Since
January 2019, KC-46As have delivered over 95 million pounds of fuel
through over 70,000 safe and effective aerial refueling contacts.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Requests $124.7 million in
RDT&E to support the ongoing KC-46A Engineering and Manufacturing
Development and post-production modification efforts, to include the
boom telescope actuator redesign that resolves the stiff boom
deficiency, continued test and receiver aircraft certifications,
development for training system required updates, and increased effort
on the KC-46A Block 1 program. Additionally, the budget requests $3.1
billion to fund procurement of 15 aircraft in Production Lot 10 and the
associated support costs, along with increased depot standup and
transition to organic sustainment efforts.
KC-10 and KC-135
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request will continue KC-
135 modernization efforts to extend its capability into the 2040's,
including the Block 45 program, the Rudder Position Indicator program,
the Aero-I Satellite Communications (SATCOM) program, Real-Time
Information in the Cockpit program, Mobile User Objective System
program, Comm 2 Crypto and Data program, High Frequency Modernization
program, and the Center Console Refresh program.
This is the final year of operations for the KC-10 with all
aircraft planned to retire at the end of fiscal year 2024. Service
bulletin funding is necessary to ensure FAA certification.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Request supports the Fiscal
Year 2023 NDAA air refueling minimum inventory of 466 tanker aircraft.
In fiscal year 2024, the Air Force is retiring the remaining 24 KC-10's
as they are replaced by the KC-46A. These retirements are critical in
providing the flexibility to free up resources and manpower to
modernize and fund the Air Force's future tanker fleet.
Executive 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. 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, a mission communication system, an executive
interior, military avionics, a self-defense system, autonomous
enplaning and deplaning, and autonomous baggage loading.
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests $490.7 million to
continue Engineering and Manufacturing Development, aircraft
modifications, developmental test and evaluation, and other product
support activities.
C-40
The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget reflects $8.9 million in
procurement funding to address satellite communications system
upgrades, cryptographic modernization, and low-cost modifications and
service bulletins in order to provide secure and reliable government
air transportation.
Strategic and Tactical Airlift
C-5
Current C-5 Super Galaxy investment programs focus on fleet
obsolescence, maintainability, and safety of flight. The Fiscal Year
2024 President's Budget requests $24.4 million in procurement funding,
predominantly for communications, navigation, surveillance/air traffic
management (CNS/ATM) and core mission computer/weather radar (CMC/WxR)
system equipment. CNS/ATM upgrades include modifications to Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out required for global
airspace compliance. The CMC/WxR effort replaces an antiquated radar
system and upgrades the core mission computer processor to meet the
demands of future software modifications. Production funding also
includes procurement of training systems.
Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests
$26.5 million RDT&E funding to support replacement of the
Multifunctional Controls 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. There is an additional $3.0 million to
begin initial capability studies for a concept preliminarily termed the
Next Generation Airlift (NGAL) that will determine requirements and
technologies available to support a next generation airlift family of
systems.
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 2024 President's Budget requests $140.6 million in
procurement funding to continue critical modifications to the C-17
fleet. The majority of this is allocated to procuring Beyond Line of
Site (BLOS) communication equipment, but also includes a filter fire
mitigation for the On-Board Inert Gas Generating System, Large Aircraft
Infrared Countermeasures defensive systems, and Replacement Heads-Up
Display (RHUD). The BLOS program integrates aircraft avionics as well
as back-end mission communications to utilize both military and
commercial satellite systems, extend communication ranges, and ensure
aircraft complies with air space mandates. The RHUD modification effort
addresses obsolescence of the current C-17 heads-up display and
improves the system's availability, reliability, and maintainability.
Production funding also includes procurement of training systems.
Fiscal year 2024 RDT&E funding will finish testing of the BLOS
program and begin the Flight Deck Replacement program. The Flight Deck
Replacement program will develop, integrate, and retrofit the C-17
cockpit to replace four obsolete parts and provide an open systems
architecture that enables future modular ``plug and play'' expansion of
capability.
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-130's). 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 to ensure
aircraft safety, airspace compliance, and aircraft systems
modernization. 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 2 improves the C-130H fleet
maintainability and reliability by providing a new digital avionics
suite and mitigating obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source
challenges. In addition, the Air Force plans to upgrade the C-130H
fleets with a Mobile User Objective System. The Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget requests $5.4 million in RDT&E and $71.9 million in
procurement funding to support the C-130H fleet.
C-130J
The Air Force has partially recapitalized the C-130H fleet with C-
130Js, which also support 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 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, communications
upgrades, and Block 8.1. 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
the 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 2024 President's Budget Requests $19.1 million for
C-130J RDT&E and $156.2 million for C-130J procurement and modification
efforts. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget also requests funding
for HC/MC-130J RDT&E and HC/MC-130J procurement and modification
efforts.
Rotorcraft
CV-22
The CV-22 is the Air Force variant of the joint V-22 tilt-rotor
aircraft. It allows for long-distance, terrain following, vertical lift
operations with increased survivability and is the only high-speed
vertical lift platform in the Air Force inventory. The Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget requests $175.1 million to continue modifications to
increase CV-22 fleet reliability, capability, and survivability.
Investments in these areas will ensure the CV-22 fleet remains ready,
reliable, and relevant in the future.
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.
The HH-60W will replace the SH-60F in this role. To date, Congress has
provided resources to procure 85 HH-60W, which is sufficient capacity
for the missions envisioned for this force. No additional HH-60
aircraft were requested in the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget. The
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget requests $4.2 million and $330.8
million for the HH-60G and HH-60W programs, respectively.
MH-139A
The MH-139A program is a critical 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 2024
President's Budget requests $274.9 million for the MH-139 program,
which will fund Low-Rate Initial Production for seven aircraft,
training devices, and support equipment. It also funds the MH-139A
Performance Enhancements and Product Improvements Program, which is the
development of solutions to provide capability issues identified during
the development and test of the MH-139A. This includes solving
communication and weapon systems challenges, improving mission planning
compatibility, resolving usability concerns, and other critical
capabilities. The first six aircraft continue to be used to finalize
test and development, while producing the first Low-Rate Initial
Production lot of 13 aircraft procured in fiscal year 2023.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
The Air Force is focusing Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) resources on systems that provide high quality
tracking and target coordinates, establish meaningful data nodes to
give tactical direction, and optimize weapon systems with information
that matters in the most useful formats, at speed and scale. 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. 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.
The ability to win future high-end conflicts requires accelerating
investment to transition our ISR force structure into a connected,
persistent, and survivable force. To achieve this, we must move away
from expensive legacy systems that offer limited capability against
future competitors. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request
takes further steps toward 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 2024 President's Budget request of $178.7 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 over three million hours, with the vast majority of those
hours supporting combat operations. This level of warfighter support is
facilitated by an agile acquisition strategy, creating flexibility to
quickly add new requirements.
The Air Force continues to right-size the fleet for current
requirements, while focusing on future priorities. In fiscal year 2024,
the remaining 48 MQ-9 Block 1 aircraft will be divested from the fleet
and finalize transfer of 10 aircraft to the Marine Corps. The Air Force
will begin to remove high time Block 5 aircraft toward the end of the
FYDP; however, the remaining fleet will continue to meet the required
force offering.
MQ-9 modernization efforts include the continued development of MQ-
9 Multi-Domain Operations (M2DO) capability upgrades that will keep the
fleet relevant. Upgrades in the M2DO configuration include Anti-jam
GPS, Command and Control Resiliency, Enhanced Power, Link-16, and an
effective and reliable open systems architecture.
RQ-4
The RQ-4 Global Hawk remotely piloted aircraft system provides high
altitude, long endurance, all weather, wide area reconnaissance and
surveillance. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request of $1
million will maximize Block 40 utility through the remainder of the
Global Hawk service life and maintain its ISR capabilities.
The Air Force plans to divest Block 40 in fiscal year 2027, as we
continue to develop space-based Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI)
to meet Combatant Commander's needs in accordance with the NDS. The
reduced investment in the RQ-4 also enables the Department to better
align resources with the NDS.
EC-37B COMPASS CALL
COMPASS CALL is the Air Force's only wide-area, standoff, Airborne
Electromagnetic Attack (AEA) Command and Control Warfare/Information
Operations weapon system. The COMPASS CALL program is currently
undergoing a re-host effort to transition the capability from the EC-
130H to the EC-37B in order to maintain U.S. Electromagnetic Spectrum
(EMS) Superiority in future conflicts. Ten EC-37B aircraft have been
procured, to date, and are at various stages of modification, with
limited fielding for training only in fiscal year 2025, and initial
operational fielding in fiscal year 2026.
With the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget, the Air Force will be
focused on continuing Developmental and Operational Test for the
rehosted EC-37B capability, as well as continuing development of the
mission system upgrade for the fielding of System Wide Open
Reconfigurable Dynamic Architecture (SWORD-A) capabilities. The open
and agile architecture of SWORD-A will enable a more rapid response
capability against emerging threats and will be included on aircraft
number six through ten initially and then to the first five aircraft as
an upgrade modification.
E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System
Despite modernization efforts, the aging E-3 Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS) offers limited operational utility in contested
conflicts. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget includes a resourced
plan to replace the E-3 expeditiously to address this capability gap.
Pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2023 NDAA, the Air Force begins divesting
the first 13 E-3 AWACS aircraft in fiscal year 2023. This fleet
reduction allows the Air Force to concentrate resources and improve E-3
aircraft availability rates, while efforts to procure E-7A are
underway. Full fleet divestment is currently scheduled to occur by
fiscal year 2029; therefore, most E-3 modernization programs are being
terminated except mandated requirements for crypto and communication
systems as well as safety of flight efforts. Keeping any number of the
E-3s beyond the current DAF plan will not change the capability to
address the ``bathtub'' because of the increasing sustainment and
readiness challenges. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request
divests two E-3s in fiscal year 2024 reducing the fleet from 18 E-3s in
fiscal year 2023 to 16 E-3s by the end of fiscal year 2024. The Fiscal
Year 2024 President's Budget request of $849 million funds these
efforts to maintain existing AWACS Battle Management and Command and
Control capabilities.
E-7A
The E-7A program replaces the E-3 AWACS. It will enable the long
range kill chain by delivering the ability to detect and track highly
maneuverable, small radar cross-section airborne targets (modern and
emerging threats); enabling greater airborne battlespace awareness with
its precise, real-time air picture of sufficient quality to control and
direct individual aircraft under a wide range of environmental and
operational conditions. It will also mitigate reliability, operational
availability, maintainability, and sustainability issues. These
enhancements are made possible by state-of-the-art radar capabilities
including beam steering, sector staring, and much faster target revisit
rates that translate into better target detection and tracking of
modern threats, as well as more robust Electronic Protection not
possible with the mechanically scanned radar on the E-3 AWACS. The
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget Requests funds to continue the
rapid prototyping of the E-7A weapon system. Rapid prototyping includes
development efforts to ensure compliance with U.S. cyber security and
program protection standards; development efforts to ensure navigation
and communication systems comply with GPS M-Code and Narrowband SATCOM
mandates; design and build-out of contractor and government System
Integration Laboratories supporting development, integration, and test
activities, and provide analysis and products supporting future
requirements and airworthiness certification. The Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget request of $681 million funds these continued
efforts to develop the first two E-7A aircraft.
Connecting the Joint Force
The Air Force continues to work closely with the other services,
the Joint Staff, and OSD to drive implementation of Joint All-Domain
Command and Control (JADC2). The Department of the Air Force
established a new PEO for Command, Control, Communications, and Battle
Management (C3BM), which is leading the integration of command and
control and battle management functions across the Department of the
Air Force to ensure our planned capabilities deliver the C2
capabilities supporting the joint force. The cornerstone of this effort
is the DAF Battle Network, including the Advanced Battle Management
System (ABMS), which creates decision advantage by delivering critical
information and capabilities to warfighters and operators at multiple
echelons.
Operationally optimized ABMS/JADC2 is one of the Secretary of the
Air Force's operational imperatives and is foundational to many other
operational imperatives. Within the ABMS portfolio, DAF PEO C3BM is
pursuing multiple interconnected investments: digital infrastructure,
aerial networking, software and applications, and architecture and
systems engineering focusing on closing the right kill chains and
delivering near-term operational capability. The Architecture and
Systems Engineering (ASE) team within DAF PEO C3BM drives mission
integration to enable warfighter capabilities for resilient decision
advantage. Its primary product is engineering data to drive decisions
on effective and efficient integration of the DAF Battle Network across
the Joint Force. DAF PEO C3BM is working as the Integrating PEO to
ensure Air Force and Space Force systems have seamless interoperability
and compatibility to meet the JADC2 concept.
Driven by strategic requirements approved by the Chief of Staff of
the United States Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations, DAF PEO
C3BM has identified DAF Battle Network core and connected programs
across the acquisition community, while also continuing to execute the
ABMS portfolio. The Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget request of
$500.6 million will enable ABMS to remain on track to deliver initial
capabilities such as the Cloud-Based Command and Control (CBC2)
tactical C2 software to multiple Air Defense Sectors, as well as
multiple digital infrastructure efforts for software-defined wide area
networking and deployable edge solutions for battle management teams at
multiple echelons.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
working with this Subcommittee to ensure the Department of the Air
Force maintains the necessary military advantage to secure our vital
national interests and support our allies and partners in fiscal year
2024 and beyond.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. I am going to turn it
over to Ranking Member Senator Cotton for his questions first,
and I will be back.
Senator Cotton. But I will be in charge until then----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. General Moore, with the Air Force being
plagued by underfunding, shrinking inventories, and aging
aircraft, can you explain a little bit how the situation has
impacted your ability to focus on both modernization and also
the current requirements to fight tonight?
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, Senator. As you rightly
point out, there is certainly a balance between current risk
and future risk. We have endeavored to balance what needs to be
done to provide a modern force, as well as what it takes to
remain ready today.
We have received over the last several budget cycles great
support from this committee and others to move past the kinds
of legacy force structure that aren't supporting our current
operations needs.
It isn't just the dollars that are freed up by moving away
from legacy platforms. One must divest an entire squadron of F-
16s to buy a single F-35, or an entire squadron of KC-135s to
buy a single KC-46. It isn't an issue of economics.
Every bit as important as the dollars, is the manpower that
is involved in maintaining and flying legacy force structure.
We need to transition that to, as you mentioned in your opening
statement, the force structure that you see in procurement in
this FYDP.
There will be some manageable risk to near-term ability for
capacity, we will say. But there is no zero-risk solution.
There is no way to make any kind of transition without taking
risk. We have to balance near-term risk and future risk, and we
think we have done that in our budget submission.
Senator Cotton. General Hinote, would you like to speak to
that question? I saw you nodding vigorously on a few occasions.
Lieutenant General Hinote. Yes, sir. Ranking Member Cotton,
thanks for the question. One of the things I think I can say
about this budget that makes me feel more confident than ever
is I think we have actually started to move the big money to
the future.
I would have told you before, I felt like we had not had
been able to do that for lots of different reasons. So, I think
you are seeing quite a big change in the 1924 budget going
toward the future capabilities, and that has me thinking we got
that balanced much more correct.
Senator Cotton. Okay. General Slife, if I did not see you
nodding vigorously, but I didn't see you rolling your eyes or
expressing any other opinion. Would you like to express one
verbally?
Lieutenant General Slife. Well, Senator, thank you. What I
would offer--I spend the bulk of my days working these current
operations issues, and the demand from the combatant commands
is insatiable. They all want more Air Force.
But the problem is that unless we can articulate the risk
and capacity of our Air Force to the joint force, we will
always, as General Hinote said, privilege present risk at the
expense of future risk.
I am excited about the progress we have made in our service
force generation model, which is allowing us to articulate risk
and capacity a little better, which in turn preserves the
force's readiness, so that as we modernize, we have the force
as ready as possible for today.
Senator Cotton. All right, and, Mr. Hunter, anything to
add? Batting cleanup?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, I would just I agree with my colleagues
and I would say I think the key enabler for us in the
Department of the Air Force in arriving at what I think was a
balanced solution, a way to balance that risk was the fact that
it was done as an enterprise.
That we had all of the various aspects, the operational
community and the major Combatant Commands, with the Chief, and
with the Secretary, and with the Secretariat, and with the
acquisition, the expertise that all these elements bring,
including my own acquisition organization, to bear on saying,
how do--you know, what is the reasonable risk we can take in
current ops?
What is a reasonable program we can put forward to buy down
future risk that we can resource and that is realistic, and
drive that a solution that everyone could sign up to.
Senator Cotton. All right. Thank you. I know that you have
done the best you can under very difficult circumstances, but I
think the Air Force requires close attention by the committee
this year in the defense bill. I want to dig a little bit
further now in my time left and in the next rounds on some of
these programs.
The Air Force has stated that collaborative combat
aircraft, also referred to as CCA, are a key component of
future force designed to counterbalance the rising costs of new
fighter aircraft, allowing the Department to procure a large
fleet at a lower cost, unmanned wingmen to offset our
adversaries' growing arsenals and increased survivability of
manned tactical fighter fleets. It has been explained that
these unmanned systems will be controlled by manned aircraft.
I would like to know if the Department is coordinating the
required mechanisms for that control across the manned aircraft
fleet, and what is the status of that coordination? Mr. Hunter,
would you like to start.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, we are working very closely with Air
Combat Command, the major command, as we formulate our
acquisition strategy for the CCA, and of course the
requirements that exist and sponsors that General Hinote
validates for the Air Force. So, critical to that is looking at
what aircraft it will interoperate with and how we achieve that
interoperability, and that ability to share, you know, C2.
A lot of analysis has been done on that. We think we have a
good process for how that should work. There is work to be done
in making and demonstrating how it actually will work. So, we
have this operational experimentation unit that has been
established where we will work closely with the Australians who
have a flyable platform that they are using today.
It is not quite exactly--would necessarily meet our
requirements, but it is a very good proxy that we can use to
develop the CONOPS for that. But General Hinote could probably
speak more to exactly how that is going to work.
Senator Cotton. Yes.
Lieutenant General Hinote. Yes, sir, and thanks for the
question. Sir, you are right in that CCAs will allow us to do
something that is fundamentally different. We are going to be
able to manipulate risk and impose cost, especially in some
sort of great power competition and conflict. What I can tell
you is that a lot of analysis has been done, but we are still
learning and will continue to learn.
So, where I think we are today is we have a good plan and
we have a good opportunity for the operators and the
acquisition professionals to be able to work together to figure
out what it looks like when manned, unmanned teaming becomes
real.
That is something that has not been totally figured out
yet, and that is why I am really happy about this operational
experimentation unit that can take what we have learned so far
and push it into the future with our tacticians.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Up next, Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Cotton. General Moore,
the vast distances that our forces need to operate over the
INDOPACOM AOR, I think certainly helped to highlight the
importance of having a very robust and reliable refueling
capability to go through those distances.
I remain concerned that the Air Force challenges with
modernizing the refueling tanker fleet, as well as the lack of
clarity concerning how that will progress, leaving our forces
potentially vulnerable. So, my question for you is, can you
speak to the importance of aerial refueling fleet and how the
Air Force is working to recapitalize existing refueling
squadrons?
Particularly you mentioned in somewhere in your opening
comments the cost of the KC-46 versus the current aircraft, and
particularly how that might be based in the Reserve or Air
National Guard squadrons around the country, this
recapitalization.
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, I can, Senator. Thank you. I
started my career as a tanker pilot and enjoyed every minute of
it. I remain concerned, as you do, about the future of that
fleet. The youngest KC-135 we own was built in 1964, and in all
likelihood, it will remain on the ramp in 2050.
So, the number one priority in this portfolio is to ensure
continuous recapitalization of the KC-135. We have through 2029
for the last deliveries on the current KC-46 contract, and Mr.
Hunter and his acquisition organization are working to ensure
that we have the ability to continue procuring tankers until we
are ready to get to the next gen aerial refueling system, or
NGAS.
So, we are also, in addition to procuring new tankers, we
are continuing to modernize the KC-135. The fuel panel and the
associated navigation equipment in the center pedestal have
reached end of life, and we will be replacing those over the
next couple of years to ensure that the KC-135s remain viable.
I have flown the KC-46.
It is a fantastic airplane. It has some things that need to
be worked at. It has some deficiencies that Boeing is on
contract to fix, and they are doing that and we are going to
hold them to it.
So, we believe we have a viable plan going forward, but it
will require continuous supervision and active management,
because, as you say, the air refueling capability is one that
we can't fight a war without.
Senator Peters. The KC-46 is coming into reserve. You know,
it is our National Guard where some of those legacy platforms
are right now. What do you see a timeline for that?
Lieutenant General Moore. So, they are coming in as we
speak. There are both Guard and Reserve aircrews flying KC-46s
today. There are still two basing decisions yet to be made in
the KC-46 enterprise. Both of those are slated to go to the Air
National Guard.
The percentage of Guard and Reserve forces in the tanker
community will remain essentially unchanged. That actually in
the Guard grows just a little bit across the future years'
defense plan, but it essentially will remain unchanged.
Senator Peters. Okay, General Slife, the Air Force recently
stood up the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing in Pensacola, Florida.
Based on lessons learned in Ukraine and emerging requirements
to support the joint force with cyber, as well as electronic
warfare from increased distances that we are going to be
facing, do you feel as though the Air Force has the appropriate
budget and the strategy for employing next generation cyber and
electronic warfare capabilities?
Lieutenant General Slife. Senator, I do. With investments
in things like active, electronically scanned radars,
investments in the E-7, the E-10.
These platforms are going to give us the spectrum dominance
capability that our crews are going to need to be able to fight
and win in the most contested environments.
The other thing that the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing will
allow us to do is make sure that we are updating and
modernizing the data files that underpin many of our electronic
attack programs at the pace that our adversaries are changing.
As the threat environment becomes more lethal, our
adversaries are changing the techniques that they use against
us rapidly. We need the ability to stay one step ahead of them,
and that is what the 350th will do for us, senator.
Senator Peters. Thank you, and finally, Mr. Hunter, the
fiscal year 2024 Air Force budget request includes funding for
the procurement of 24 F-15EXs in fiscal year 2024, and advanced
procurement funding for 24 F-15EXs in fiscal year 2025.
Given that the Air Force initially planned to purchase 144
of these aircraft but has since walked that back to 80 and is
now seems to be adjusting to 104, how many F-15EXs does the Air
Force actually intend to purchase, and what need is that
aircraft filling?
As of today, it is our plan to complete the purchase of the
F-15EX in fiscal year 2025. So, that would be the number, the
analysis has been done to determine that that would be a
sufficient force for the purpose for which the F-15EX is being
acquired, which is largely to backfill and replace the F-15Cs
that are rapidly divesting from the force.
So, I think we will have enough when we get to fiscal year
2025. The decision really was though, to accelerate that
purchase, to acquire those aircraft as quickly as possible, and
that is a case where a decision was made to do that in order to
buy down, to the extent that we can, some of the current risk
more rapidly.
Then we will transition resources once we complete F-15EX
procurement into some of the more future focused modernization
investments that we have in the portfolio.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Senator Mullin.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, sir. Secretary Hunter, having
actually the honor to represent Tinker Air Force Base, you can
imagine I am very much invested in the progress of the E-3 to
the E-7, AWACS transition. Last year's NDAA included the Air
Force $300 million unfunded priority request to accelerate the
transition. Can you kind of elaborate a little bit more on how
that money was spent? I know you spoke about it earlier, but
more specifically to this.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, absolutely, and we very much appreciate
the Committee's support.
So, we were able to, due to the committees approving our
reprogramming request, in fiscal year 2023, got the program
office stood up and running, in 1923, in the same year in which
we made the decision to purchase E-7, which was a huge benefit
and allows us to avoid some of the delays that could have been
caused by a CR last year.
Then we worked very rapidly to, once the program office was
established, to get on contract with Boeing so that we could
start to accelerate as much of the program activity, the
engineering work, on the E-7 that we need to carry out as
quickly as possible.
So, the resources that Congress provided really helped us
to accelerate some of the engineering work. The kinds of things
that we have, worked with Boeing to get underway as quickly as
possible is--we have begun from the very beginning and talked
to them about the technical data that we will need to acquire
for the U.S. Air Force to be able to not only sustain the
platform but to upgrade and modernize it, to stay current with
the threat, which is especially critical for the E-7, although
it is critical for everything, but it is especially critical
for the E-7.
We will have to work very closely with our colleagues at
the FAA on certification of the E-7. We wanted to accelerate
the work, the engineering work required to get after aircraft
certification as early as possible. It has been certified
previously by other countries that are flying the platform, but
not for the U.S.
So, we wanted to get after that as quickly as possible, and
we wanted to get after the software work that will put the E-7
aircraft that we are purchasing in a configuration that works
in the U.S. Air Force context with our OMS approach to our
software builds. We were able to accelerate that work thanks to
the resources that Congress provided.
Senator Mullin. Well, the concern that I have is the lag
between when we phaseout the E-3s to the E-7s. The timeframe
continues to be pushed, but yet we are still staying similar to
the same phaseout period.
Now there seems to be about a 3-year lag between where the
E-3s leave Tinker, to when the E-4s are supposed to start being
delivered--or E-7s are supposed to be--start being delivered.
Are we concerned about that, especially about some of the
emerging threats that are taking place today and that there is
going to be such a lag between?
Mr. Hunter. So, the balance that we are striking there is
the E-3s that we are retiring are not in a good position to
really engage in the most significant fight that we are
posturing to be ready for, which is the INDOPACOM, the
potential conflict----
Senator Mullin. But do we have to take the place between
that 4-year lag, because it seems to be--continue to grow. We
haven't delivered. General, if you want to----
Mr. Hunter. Well, let me just make one point, which is
critical to fielding the E-7 as quickly as possible is having
those E-3 crews engaged with us in the acquisition system as we
work with Boeing to nail down the configuration.
But also, they are going to Australia and working with the
E-7 community that is flying in Australia. I, myself had the
opportunity to fly on the Australian E-7 and it is very
impressive, and they have learned a lot in operating that
platform. So, having those crews available is a huge accelerant
to fielding the E-7.
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, Senator. We have held the E-
3 divestiture schedule constant since we laid it in, so it has
not changed. So far, the E-7 delivery schedule has stayed
constant as well. So, that gap was programed in on purpose.
We have preserved enough capacity in the airborne battle
managers, the ABMers in the back to see to the E-7 so that it
is ready to go. As Mr. Hunter mentioned, we are even sending
them to Australia for training. But there are capability gaps
in the airborne early warning portfolio that the E-3 will never
fill.
So, there is an issue of capacity, but really what we are
getting at is capability, and we have to get to the E-7 to get
that capability gap filled, and the way to get there as quickly
as possible was for us to draw down the E-3 fleet in the
meantime.
Senator Mullin. From when that plan first came through to
where we are at today, the threat has obviously increased. Are
we trying to really ramp up the delivery time to get the E-7s--
you know, in operable conditions?
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, sir, we are, and you will
notice on the Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities list, the
number one item is further acceleration of the E-7.
Senator Mullin. I saw that. Right.
Lieutenant General Moore. What that does is buy a center
fuselage section, which is where the radar sits. That is the
long lead item for another aircraft as well as early
acquisition or advance procurement for two of the radars.
So, we are--we believe that there is some acceleration
possible. The first airplane can't come any sooner than fiscal
year 2027, but they can come in greater quantity when they do
start to come in, and that is what you see is the number one
item on the Chief of Staff's.
Senator Mullin. I know Tinker is getting ready for it, and
they are prepping for it. They are getting hangars ready for
it. You know, it is impressive, and so I appreciate the
investment that is being made in Tinker and we want to be
helpful. So, any way our office can be of assistance in this,
please utilize us.
Lieutenant General Moore. Sir, thank you.
Senator Mullin. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly.
Thanks for yielding to me. I am very concerned about the combat
rescue helicopter.
We went back and forth about this platform for some time
over the past few years, and I am particularly concerned that
the additional ten combat rescue helicopters that we added last
year have been put in backup inventory. I know you have
difficult budget decisions.
You have decided to terminate the program. We only have 75
out of the 108 that are thought to be necessary. So, maybe you
can tell me what your thinking is about terminating that
program, when I think we all believe we have an obligation to
leave nobody behind.
Mr. Hunter. You know, let me just touch briefly on program
status, but turn to my colleagues to speak through how we
intend to CSAR with the fleet that we are fielding. But
appreciate the resources Congress has provided for acquiring
HH-60. We still have resources for 20 aircraft not yet on
contract.
So, we are not terminating, you know--as a, you know,
acquisition term of art matter, the program. We are working
through getting those 20 that have been appropriated on
contract with Sikorsky. So, that is a decision being made just,
you know, imminently in the next several days. So, we will, you
know, fully execute with the resources Congress has provided.
Senator Blumenthal. Where will that bring us in terms of
the number of aircraft?
Mr. Hunter. So that will be at 85 total inventory, and I
know--I don't know if you want to talk, Rick, to the inventory
question.
Senator Blumenthal. 85 out of 108?
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, sir, and we believe that is
more than sufficient to do combat search and rescue. There is a
big distinction in this portfolio between combat search and
rescue and personnel recovery. There are literally thousands of
platforms in the Department of Defense that can do personnel
recovery.
This fleet is for something very specific. It was purchased
for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not particularly helpful in the
Chinese AOR, and with that, I will pass to my colleague,
General Slife.
Lieutenant General Slife. Senator, we recognize the moral
imperative, as you describe it, to leave nobody behind. The
challenges that much like the infamous attempted rescue of Bat
21 in Vietnam, no matter how dedicated you are, if you are not
in a platform that is survivable to the threat environment, you
end up losing more people trying to recover somebody than the
person you lost to begin with.
So, the challenge we are facing is really how to address
the question of how will we do personnel recovery in a
contested environment. We are actively looking at
nontraditional ways in order to fulfill that moral imperative
of leaving nobody behind.
But until we can come to a definitive answer on that, I
think the one thing we can say is that helicopters--and I have
3,000 hours as a helicopter pilot. Helicopters that fly 150
knots, refueled by C-130's with a pair of rescue men that ride
a hoist up and down is probably not the answer in our most
pressing scenarios.
So, I share your concern about this mission area, Senator,
and we believe that the force that we have programed bridges
the gap until we can develop a more suitable solution for a
contested environment.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I assume the nontraditional or
more suitable means would be unmanned?
Lieutenant General Slife. Senator, that is one of several
options that we are looking at.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I would like to followup on what
the other options would be, and whether they would be equally
cost effective. Since my time is limited, I want to go on to F-
35s.
You know, the numbers of F-35, I think are 48 per year over
the next 5 years as compared to the full production rate, which
would be 80 aircraft per year. We have been buying F-35s for 18
years now--18, will be the 18th year.
The production line is stable, but the Air Force is
planning fewer than the 60 that would keep the production line
stable. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that issue.
Mr. Hunter. Yes. We have been working closely with Lockheed
Martin, the prime, on production capacity. The most recent
Block award is 3 lot block by contract with Lockheed Martin.
Essentially keeps them at a production rate of 156 aircraft
per year. That is for the entire F-35 enterprise, including
allies and partners, as well as Air Force and Department of the
Navy, and right now, they would be very stressed to produce at
a rate beyond that.
So, the Air Force purchases that we have planned today will
fill--will largely fill the production capacity that Lockheed
has. If we wanted to go to a higher production rate, we would
probably have to tool, increase tooling, and one of the
significant limiters there is the center body piece--the
center----
Senator Blumenthal. So, you are saying that the current
rate of buy, it will keep the production line fully at work?
Mr. Hunter. What we have in our budget request across the
POM, combined with the Navy and the allied purchases----
Senator Blumenthal. So, the allied purchases must be making
up for some of the----
Mr. Hunter. They are. They are a huge component of the
program, and we see that, you know, since the conflict in
Ukraine was initiated by Russia, we have had many additional
partners and allies make the decision to purchase the F-35.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator. Secretary Hunter, I want
to talk a little bit about the collaborative combat aircraft
program that the Air Force is intended to begin.
You know, I understand that the Air Force intends that the
CCA program would not replace any current capability or
platforms but would be an additional capability. It is intended
to provide, you know, the additional missile carrying capacity
and firing capability for our fighter forces.
Essentially a wingman with no person in the aircraft. So,
could you explain how the Air Force can afford to buy
additional platforms to carry missiles and carry weapons when
right now the budget doesn't really afford the ability to buy
enough missiles to--and weapons to outfit the fighters that we
currently own?
Mr. Hunter. So, we do have substantial investments in our
munitions portfolio and including multiyear production for
AMRAAM and the JASSM, LRASM platform. So, we are at an
increasing production rates of those munitions as well as JDAM,
which by the time that we are fielding CCAs, will be entering
our inventory.
So, we have looked hard at how do we ramp up production of
munitions, recognizing that that will be critical to our
ability to deter and to succeed. The CCA in particular, as you
see, it brings affordable mass on the platform side. We are
also looking hard at our mix of munitions investment and trying
to understand how do we have affordable mass for our munitions.
So, some of our munitions will get cheaper as we ramp up
production and we get more economies of scale in that
production. Some of them are so high end that, you know, they
probably won't ever be affordable mass. But we do have in our
plan munitions that will be at a, you know, unit rate, unit
cost that will allow us to scale up production of those
weapons.
Senator Kelly. Well, Mr. Secretary, that is good to hear.
What I also thought I might hear is it is not just about the
number of missiles we have.
You did mention that this increases the number of platforms
and the tactical advantage that you could gain from being able
to, you know, put another platform in a strike package, doesn't
have an individual in there that addresses the limited ability
to recruit, retain experienced pilots.
So, it touches on that problem that we are--we have to
address in recruiting in general. But to have additional
capability, especially with someone like AMRAAM coming from a
different angle, could be an advantage on the battlefield and
help us get air superiority.
Can you also give just a quick update on how the
development and testing, recognizing that this is not a
classified setting, but the development and testing of this,
what you are comfortable in saying, and how the warfighter
perspectives are being considered and integrated into the
program?
Mr. Hunter. So, with CCA, we have the benefit that there
has been ongoing work for some time with industry to understand
what capabilities that they can provide and what timeframe in
which they could provide those capabilities.
So, we feel like we have a very good understanding of the
state of industry, lots of U.S. industry, but also understand
there is capability available from partner nations as well. The
CCA program is going to be a fully competitive program.
So, we will invite those that have been working with us in
the concept definition phase of CCA to aggressively compete for
our initial platform that we expect to field, and we will work
to do some prototyping and do test of those aircraft.
So, I think you will see a program structure that is very--
it is rapid. I think you will credit that it is rapid when you
see the details and, but at the same time gives us that
opportunity to really test out what industry is offering in a
competitive environment.
The last thing I wanted to mention is we are also
leveraging the Skyward program from the Air Force Research Lab,
which really is focusing on the autonomy end of this, and that
will be continuously worked throughout the lifecycle of the CCA
from the initial platform, through every one of its iterations.
I don't know if----
Senator Kelly. General.
Lieutenant General Hinote. Chairman Kelly, as one of the
warfighters who has been working with the acquirers in this
program, one of the things that I think that Secretary Kendall
and Secretary Hunter has done is we are working more closely
with requirements programing and acquisition than I have ever
seen.
What that allows us to do is iterate in ways that are, I
think, very beneficial. This program is going to be an
iterative program. We do not know everything we need to know
about this, and I can't require what CCAs are going to look
like in 10 years.
I think the technology is moving faster than we can keep up
in certain areas. What I am very excited about is we have a
plan to incorporate the tactics and the logistics concerns so
that we can learn what an organization looks like to fly these,
and I really want to complement our acquirers for that.
Senator Kelly. Were you iterating on the level 1
requirements for this platform, or is it just a----
Mr. Hunter. So, we have--Sorry, that is your line--yes----
Lieutenant General Hinote. We have set the first tranche
requirements.
Senator Kelly. Okay, and----
Lieutenant General Hinote. We do have a threshold and
objective, and so, there is a gap between the threshold
requirement and the objective requirement, but we have set
those.
Senator Kelly. You know, it seems like one of these
programs where we have got to invent, not just innovate, you
know, invent things. You know, somebody recently mentioned the
B-2 being in that category of aircraft whereas we developed it,
a lot of the technologies weren't currently available.
Because of that, we wound up with significant delays, cost
overruns. They get rather expensive. I hope in this case, you
know, we are aware of it and still try to--and I see the
benefit in this capability. But I also am concerned that some
of these technologies might be a little bit big of a leap, and
we have got to be--we just have to be aware of it.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, and so, our strategy is very much, we are
being very disciplined on our initial requirements set, really
scoping based on our work with industry, what we believe is
achievable on the timeframe on which we are proposing to field.
Then we will--there will be future increments and that is
very much baked into our acquisition strategy, that--and that
is true for the competitors, that those who may not be the
lucky winners for initial increments are still very much in the
game for later increments.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I humped over
here as quickly as I could from that vote. Good afternoon to
our witnesses. General Hinote, thank you for your years of
service, and obviously to your family as well. In this--
gentlemen, in this Subcommittee's last hearing, we heard from
the Army about its modernization efforts for weapons systems
and organizations.
I believe that the purpose of DOD modernization is to drive
transformation across the joint force. General Hinote, the
Marine Corps Force Design 2030 provides a detailed roadmap and
vision for what its future force will look like.
The document describes methodology for the study,
identifies capability, identify capacity, and detail of the
gaps, and details of the actual numbers of weapons systems and
formations required to achieve the envisioned force design.
I know the Air Force just unveiled your future operating
concept document last month, which does list key airpower
fights. But does the Air Force have a force design 2030
comparable document to share with Congress?
If not, what is informing the service's RTD&E investments,
or shaping its recruiting and retention goals? How does the
service measure modernization success if it doesn't have an
explicit modernization roadmap?
Lieutenant General Hinote. Senator Duckworth, thank you for
that question. It is a question that comes up all the time when
we talk about force design. So, I will start with, we have
unveiled the future operating concept. You might consider that
to be a part of the future force design. We also have other
things that we are doing.
I believe the operational imperatives that Secretary
Kendall has us working on are very much a part of force design.
They are closing gaps that we need. To get after your question,
yes and no. So, we have a process--and force design is not a
2030 or 2032 one-time thing.
What we believe is we have a process, and ours goes out to
beyond 2040, and we are constantly updating what the force
should look like at any one point in time. Now, you absolutely
can snap a chalk line and say in 2030 or 2032, this is what we
think it is going to look like.
We have that, and we would be happy to share. We don't have
it in a paper form right now. What it is, though, is it is a
series of concepts that we can show you and show you the
analysis behind them. Unfortunately, that tends to go at a
pretty high classification level, and so we would need to be
able to show you in a classified setting.
Mainly that is because these technologies that we are
trying to incorporate into our force design are quite new and
we don't want to give our playbook to China. So, and I actually
do believe that they could derive some important insights if we
were to publish something that--in an unclassified setting, but
we would be more than happy to share what we have with you.
Senator Duckworth. I am just concerned that the Air Force
has some way of measuring modernization success, right, even if
it is benchmarked as opposed to a timeline base. But there is
got to be some way that you can measure that success and there
is got to be some way that I can do my job here in Congress to
make sure that we are keeping track of that.
What Air Force efforts are underway to redesign Air Force
formations or manning? General Slife and General Hinote, I
think you can both take this. How is new technology affecting
how the service organizes its personnel, right?
This is followed on to that last question, is you have got
to have some sort of a roadmap or plan, and we have got to be
able to figure out how your successes are. But then how are you
looking at your formation and person organization into the
future?
Lieutenant General Hinote. Senator Duckworth, you are
exactly right. So, I will go very short and then hand off to
General Slife. So, as we look and we see the pacing challenge
is China, we know that we have to present a force that is
different than the one that we have right now.
A key component of that is the infrastructure, and we have
huge investments in this budget to get after a Pacific
infrastructure that allows us to present that force in the way
that we need to.
With that, I will hand over the General Slife, because the
idea of a new way of presenting the force that is compatible
with our pacing challenge and then a new way of generating the
force is something that he is leading and making great progress
in.
Senator Duckworth. General Slife. Sorry I missed pronounce
your name earlier.
Lieutenant General Slife. No problem. Well, thank you.
Senator Duckworth. You have your finger on a question that I
spend many hours every week working on. To General Hinote's
point about force presentation, just to be plain about what we
are talking about, it is what is the element that the Air Force
provides, the squadron, a group, a wing--what is the thing that
the Air Force generates and provides.
You know, the model that we have used for force
presentation over the last 20 plus years since 9/11 has been a
very ad hoc model. We deploy portions of units and aggregate
them in a large main operating base someplace in the Mid-East
and project air power from a largely secure, largely fixed main
operating base.
We have been able to get away with that because our
adversary hasn't pressured us in the way that we think future
adversaries can and will. So, as we look at the future
operating environment, we recognize that we have to be much
more agile.
We have to be much more focused on those--what the rest of
the Joint Force would call combat support and combat service
support elements and how those things are packaged and
generated in order to provide the platform from which we can
project air power.
So that--developing that force presentation model for the
future is an enormous part of what I am working on right now.
What I can tell you is that, and General Moore may be able to
provide some of the programmatic detail underpinning this, is
we have made significant investment in the budget before the
Subcommittee today, significant investment in the capabilities
we will need to support those agile combat employment type
operations.
You know, we have unit equipped ourselves to operate out of
main fixed operating bases. You know, we may not need the 1.21-
gigawatt generator. We may need some, you know, 50 horsepower
Honda generators that are much more mobile and enabled to be
used in much smaller formations, and so, we are well ahead on
that.
Senator Duckworth. That leads to--I am over time but can--I
have more questions here. Let me keep going till you cut me
off. Thank you. General, did you want to add something to that?
Lieutenant General Moore. Ma'am, I would just say in our
operational imperative, in the U.S. Air Force's operational
imperative portfolio, you will see that what General Slife was
talking about is the number two investment.
Collaborative combat aircraft is number one, and there is
over $5 billion, of course, across the future years defense
plan for pre-positioned equipment, repair of runways and fields
that we haven't used since World War II, camouflage,
concealment, and deception, and then the continuing sustainment
tail that provides all of that into the future.
Senator Duckworth. This is exactly what I am deeply
concerned about, right, especially going into the Indo-Pacific.
It is a very different way that we are going to be projecting
our force into that region as opposed to EUCOM, you know,
European command.
I mean, I understand the AFFORGEN is supposed to provide a
balanced and predictable fourth generation model, especially if
you are looking at the geographic combatant commands.
But does the fourth-generation model work for all Air Force
units? Also, how do you balance the demands--the difference
between what you need in Europe versus Indo-Pacific?
Lieutenant General Slife. Senator, the Air Force's force
generation model conceptually is a good model for all of us to
think about, but it applies unevenly across the Air Force. The
reason for that is because some forces have been assigned to
combatant commanders, and the Air Force doesn't generate those
forces. They are assigned on a day-to-day basis to the
combatant commander.
So, you can imagine we have an F-16 squadron in
Spangdahlem, in Germany, for example, and, you know, if General
Cavoli, the EUCOM Commander, wants to employ that F-16
squadron, I don't have the ability to tell them, hey, sorry,
they are in force generation right now, we will be back in 18
months when they are available. I mean, that is an unacceptable
answer.
So those combatant command assigned forces are going to be
employed by the combatant commander as they see fit. The F4 gen
model that you are talking about is really for those forces
that the institutional United States Air Force generates and
deploys in support of those emergent requirements where
combatant commanders ask for and need a fighter squadron over
here--I need a tanker over here. Those are the forces that we
generate.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. So, moving on to the
equipment, right, as we are looking at INDOPACOM and some of
the new challenges--Secretary Hunter and General Moore, I think
this probably comes to you.
Secretary Kendall submitted a legislative proposal that
provides a service rep acquisition funding authorities. I
absolutely understand you need to be agile. We have new stuff
coming out. and we need to be able get to it quickly. The
funding authorities is to initiate new start development
activities of emergent technological advancements up to $300
million.
Both NGAD and the next gen air refueling system, NGAS,
require significant technological advances in order to become
successful. How does this proposal from Secretary Kendall
reduce the risk for development of NGAD and NGAS? Are there
other areas in which these proposed authorities would be
helpful?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, I think there are absolutely other areas
where it would be helpful, and I think we could use, you know,
NGAD or NGAS as an exemplar. As we sit today, those programs
are underway, and they are at a--well, at least NGAD is at a
stage beyond what our legislative proposal would apply.
So, I don't see us using it necessarily with NGAD because
of the fact that it is already, you know, well on its way to--
as a program. But in principle, right, a similar idea applies
in that those programs came out of a recognition of a change in
the threat environment.
In order to respond to that change in a threat environment,
we understand that we have work to do, engineering work and
technological work to find a solution and then field it as
rapidly as possible.
So, what the legislative proposal is designed to do is
allow us to engage in early stage engineering in the year of
execution, with congressional oversight and approval, without
having to wait for a full year appropriation bill, which may be
months or even in some cases years away, that we would then
have to wait until we receive those funds.
Senator Kelly. Secretary, I am going to ask you to pause
there for a second. Senator Duckworth, I am going to turn it
over to Senator Cotton, and then we will come back.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Hunter, I would like to talk about
logistics. The only way we can help to deter aggression and win
any potential conflict in the Western Pacific in particular is
by ensuring our logistics are second to none.
That includes not just our munitions and fuel, but also the
spare parts that are necessary to keep our aircraft flying. But
reports from the GAO paint a pretty bleak picture of aircraft
logistics, with the Air Force missing their mission capable
rights for almost every aircraft every year, meaning that our
aircraft aren't available to fly their required missions for a
significant portion of time.
This includes the F-35, which only had a 38 percent for
mission capable rate in 2021, and the C-5, which has, according
to a report, exhibited increasingly low aircraft availability
and mission capable rates over time.
A major contributor to this issue was identified as spare
parts. If this is the state of our logistics in peacetime, I am
troubled what it would look like in wartime when logistics are
truly stressed by our own demands and by enemy action.
Do these logistics challenges delay our ability to rapidly
modernize our fleet, Mr. Hunter, since we have aircraft unable
to fly and test new systems? Also do the challenges impact
pilot production and training?
Mr. Hunter. Senator, they absolutely do impact pilot
production and training. In fact, that our current challenge
with pilot production is very much tied to the challenges with
sustaining the T-38 platform, which is one of the linchpins of
our pilot production approach.
A lot of that is driven by the age of our platform. A lot
of it is driven by the engine which we are engaged in
substantial work to help us manage through the current spare
parts shortages, finding new sources of supply and second
suppliers for those that may have shut down production in order
to keep that engine operating until the T-7 is fielded, which
will have a modern engine and we won't have quite the same
challenge.
So, it is absolutely an impact on pilot production. Impact
on fielding of capability is a little bit dependent on the
platform. In some platforms, our test capacity is very
constrained and is a constraint on how quickly we can move. In
some cases, that is where we are doing our greatest degree of
modernization.
So, for example, the B-52 is one where the extent of
modernization on the B-52 is so large that it is, you know, it
is a challenge to the capacity of the test fleet for that
platform. When it comes to the F-35, it is a slightly different
challenge. Right here, we don't have really old stuff. This is
new stuff.
In fact, one of the things that challenges there is, we
were slow to stand up depot capacity, initial depot capacity
for the F-35. That meant that when a part broke, instead of
going to depot and getting fixed and coming back, we had to buy
a new part.
We can actually, you know, we can repair parts, generally
speaking, faster than we can buy new unless--you know, unless
they are off the shelf. So, that has been a big constraint and
has driven a lot of our non-mission capable for supply dynamics
on the F-35.
But starting about a year ago, the Department committed to
stick to the plan on depot stand up, and instead of diverting
resources from depots into new aircraft production, we held the
line, and with the help of Congress because you obviously
provided funds for additional aircraft purchases, which made it
easier to continue our depot stand up activities.
So, we are actually now starting to burn down some of that
challenge on parts for the F-35, but it is going to take us
time to get there.
Senator Cotton. Okay, General Slife.
Lieutenant General Slife. Senator, thanks. I would just
point out, much of what you are describing as what we call
weapon system sustainment funding, which funds many of our
repairable depot activities.
A lot of the modernization, for example. This budget that
is before you today is the highest in terms of the percentage
of our WSS requirement that is funded since 2009. So, this
issue that you have highlighted is absolutely an issue.
It absolutely affects pilot production. It affects the
number of hours that crews are flying in our operational units.
We recognize the need to get over it. So, I think you will see
a stair step approach to improving our weapon system
sustainment funding over time.
Senator Cotton. Yes, and the F-35 is moving to a so-called
performance-based contract soon, is that correct?
Mr. Hunter. So that is in work. Notionally, the current
sustainment contract would finish around the end of this year,
and we would put in place that next contract structure. We are
working hard to have it be the case that that next contract
structure is a performance-based logistics contract.
But as you probably know, there is a congressional mandate
that says we have to be able to certify that that PBL approach
would meet certain benchmarks in terms of cost and performance.
We obviously, we have to get there, working with the
supplier. So, my hope and my expectation is we will get there.
But if we can't get there, then we will not bring a PBL
contract back that doesn't meet the requirement.
Senator Cotton. Would you expect to extend that approach to
any other aircraft?
Mr. Hunter. Well, we do have performance-based logistics
contracts on several of our platforms. I would say across the
Air Force, we are probably not the largest user across the
Department of Defense compared to some of the other services,
but it does work in certain cases.
You know, we obviously have to meet our statutory
requirement for the organic industrial base, and most of our
platforms that we are currently bringing on board, we are
planning for organic sustainment.
So, KC-46, B-21. So, most of my focus, honestly, is on
making sure that that we stand up the organic depots, and we
haven't been going after a lot of new PBLs in the Air Force.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Right. Secretary Hunter, I want to talk a
little bit about the Compass Call aircraft. We have been
pursuing a program to replace these EC-130's with the new EC-
37. This program is slated to replace 14 EC-130 aircraft with
10 brand new EC-37s.
In budget justification, Materiel indicates that we will
only have 6 EC-37s from the program by the end of the future
years defense program. This is only because that--I was able to
push for fund procurement of four additional airplanes last
year.
Secretary Hunter, what steps could we take to accelerate
recapitalization of this important capability? Are there ways
to shorten the timeline in a responsible manner on this? If
there is, by how much could we shorten the timeline?
Mr. Hunter. Well, Senator, I appreciate the support that
Congress has provided on this. There is a little bit of an
issue of where the window applies when it comes to future years
defense program.
So, the four aircraft that Congress has appropriated
dollars for that--in addition to the six that you saw that we
will deliver within the FYDP, there is one that is right on the
dividing line. So, the number seven is right on the dividing
line of where the FYDP ends and the next FYDP begins.
Then the other three are just after that window. So, all
ten will deliver. Some of them are coming, you know, some
months after the kind of end date of the current FYDP. So, I
didn't want you to think that those aircraft are not happening.
They are absolutely happening and will deliver. Just so happens
they are just outside the FYDP.
That is a long fuse from when you have appropriated the
funding to us to when those aircraft will deliver.
So, I will have to look into why that timeline is that
long. You know, this is one case where we are going and
acquiring used aircraft because the production line had closed.
That does add some time and complexity versus an aircraft that
you can just buy off the line.
Senator Kelly. So, what is the risk--and maybe the General
Hinote, or General Slife, or even General Moore could comment
on what is the risk of conducting the mission with fewer
aircraft?
Lieutenant General Hinote. Chairman Kelly, right now,
Secretary Kendall has us looking at the--what are we going to
do about electronic warfare in the future. This is one of the
questions that we are asking ourselves, is how many do you
really need?
Where I think, we are going to go from a design point of
view is we are going to use the EC-37 as a pathfinder for the
open mission systems that we will proliferate throughout our
platforms. That will include platforms we could talk about in
here and some that we can't. Those will be distributed in the
battle space.
The things that we are able to develop through the EC-37
and the Spectrum Warfare Wing that we talked about before,
because we are going to be using software defined apertures, we
are going to be able to distribute out the electronic attack
capabilities, or not.
We will have to make some choices about where we will have
to go. If that doesn't work, then I think we should go back and
reassess where we are with the EC-37.
If it does work, it can be incredibly powerful by
distributing all of those electronic attack capabilities in a
way that I think would be very difficult for any adversary to
counter. So, we have got some.
Senator Kelly. Is there a timeline to make that decision?
Lieutenant General Hinote. Yes, sir. We need to get some
EC-37s in the air and see how they are working. We also need to
do a very solid threat analysis as we get them in the air
versus the waveforms that we are going to field. That hasn't
been done yet.
We are--in fact, we are working on those with the new group
that is studying the holistic electronic attack across the Air
Force.
Senator Kelly. When I joined the Armed Services committee,
one of the big surprises that I experienced was when I found
out the Air Force only had initially 14 EC-130's, you know,
doing this mission.
When you look at the Navy and even the Marine Corps, you
know, had--the Marine Corps had probably a squadron and or two
and the Navy had one in every air wing. So, it seems like a
more substantial capability. Obviously, the way we operate the
Air Force and the Navy are different.
But this is a capability that I believe we all recognize
that our main adversaries are--they do well and have been
making some significant advancements in. So, I think it is
important that we pay really close attention to this.
I find the distributed EW capability an interesting idea,
but we are going to have to see if we can actually implement
that. Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I am
going to continue on my joint--my joint force train of thought.
I know that the ranking member earlier asked a question about
the CCA, the collaborative combat aircraft and its operability
across the Air Force.
At this month's Sea, Air, and Space Conference, the Navy
actually highlighted its cooperation with Air Force in CCA
development and even previewed the ability of the Navy to
control Air Force CCAs and vice versa.
Secretary Hunter, how closely are you working with your
counterparts in the Department of the Navy to build
interoperable weapons systems while not creating a whole bunch
of new requirements that result in program delays or cost
overruns?
Also, how do you balance that interoperability with the
speed necessary to field new technology? Importantly, how and
when will you demonstrate to Congress to progress that--in
these truly joint service CCAs? So, it is sort of a three-part
question there.
Mr. Hunter. Well, I would like to believe that we are
demonstrating it today in terms of the work that we have done
on the front end to plan the integration of our approaches.
That is very much the case.
So, the reference architectures that are the foundation of
the underpinning of all our programmatic efforts tied to CCA,
the Navy has indicated in testimony to me directly, but in
testimony to Congress, that they are adopting the same
approach, the same reference architecture.
So that will dramatically improve our efforts, right. There
is efficiency in it, but there is also power in it,
particularly with industry, because it--for all of those
capability providers out there who have innovative technology
to bring, right, the market space has just doubled for them, so
it becomes an even more attractive target for investment. I am
seeing that response from industry.
Their engagement level has been exceptionally high because
they see that we are working closely together and giving them
common approaches. Maybe not exactly common requirements, but
very common approaches to how they can leverage technology. So,
we are doing that on the front end.
We are also leveraging each other. So, the Navy--it is not
all. They are using our stuff, right. The Navy has quite a bit
of work put in, particularly on things like comms and secure
communications, that we can leverage and intend to leverage and
are leveraging in our CCA approach.
Also because of their work on the MQ-25, you know, they are
going to have some systems that could potentially, you know,
contribute information about how do we operate some of these
uncrewed systems in a reasonable way.
Then in other programs, I would say across the whole swath
of our programs, we are trying, working hard to integrate our
approach, and I think it is a very good news story.
Lieutenant General Hinote. Senator Duckworth, can I add for
the----
Senator Duckworth. Please----
General Hinote.--from the warfighter side. So, I have
definitely been in contact with my counterparts throughout the
Joint Force. One of the things that is quite different right
now is that we have a joint warfighting concept that we can all
reference, wargame together, learn from, and require to.
That is just fundamentally a different thing, and there is
a real momentum behind this joint warfighting concept. So, one
of the ways that we have been able to work together in this CCA
environment is to agree upon whether it is we want to do with
them, at least at first.
So, the Joint Staff sponsored a major war game last summer,
I had the chance to participate, and one, I could say without
giving too much away, one of the star players was the CCA, not
only for the Joint Force, but also for the combined force,
because the Australians participated in that war game as well,
as well as the UK, and both of them brought their concepts for
CCAs in.
I think the idea that they have to be interoperable, you
mentioned that the Navy could control our CCAs and vice versa--
we all agree on that, 100 percent. Because, and as the
Secretary Hunter talked about, we were able to adopt
communications standards between us, that is going to be so
much easier to do.
But what--I don't know that I have seen a capability that
converged as fast across the joint force as what the CCAs have
under the joint warfighting concept. So, we feel very good
about investing as much as we have, and we are investing quite
a bit.
Senator Duckworth. Is it slowing down the speed for
fielding new technology? I just want to make sure that we are
balancing things out.
I just think back to the days of the F-35, right, where we
develop an aircraft that then actually couldn't land on a
carrier, right, because the tailhook was not in the--was, you
know, that the distance from the landing gear, the tail was not
appropriate, right, so that slowed everything down.
I am all for interoperability. I think it is great. I just
want to make sure that we are handling that balance, that we
can still field the new technology as rapidly as possible, but
also maintaining that interoperability part.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, I would say it is central to our approach
to CCA, both with partner services but also with partners and
allies, that we are not envisioning this where we all have to
buy the same thing, or all from the same manufacturer.
So, the power of these government reference architectures
is they are, by design, able to integrate and interoperate,
even if they come from different manufacturers, produced in
different countries, bought by different services, and have
slightly different mission roles.
But the integration of the architecture, reference
architecture level, and in the standards that are, you know,
that support that architecture will enable the kind of
interoperability and the efficiency.
As I said, from the industry side, it creates a much bigger
market space for them to compete for, which helps us drive that
continuous competition, which is fundamental to our strategy to
get there rapidly and to innovate over time.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I just want to ask the
ranking member, I know we are waiting--the chairman went off to
vote and he is going to come back. I have another question, if
you are--I don't know if you wanted to ask additional
questions.
Okay, thank you. This is now, I am going to go up to a very
macro level. How does the Secretary of the Air Force's
operational imperatives support the joint force?
You know, can you comment on the efforts in your budgets
where you can--where those efforts are supporting the joint
force? Give some examples.
Lieutenant General Hinote. Yes, Senator Duckworth. In fact,
I believe the operational imperatives are truly imperative for
supporting the joint force. I don't think the joint force wins
if we don't close the gaps represented in the operational
imperatives.
I will start with the first operational imperative, which
is space. I have never seen a scenario where the joint force is
able to win if we lose access to space. It is that important.
It is a prerequisite for victory.
So, what you see is that we are investing in resilience in
ways that we have not invested before, and we are able to
proliferate the capability across different orbital structures
as well as just across things like low-Earth orbit and the
ability to use both commercial and military satellites as well.
But that is just one of many. So, when you look at
operational imperatives two, three, and four, we are really
talking about our kill chains and how our kill chains come
together. I don't mean Air Force kill chains, I mean joint kill
chains.
The core of the joint kill chains are represented in
operational imperatives two, three, and four, as is the keys
capability. It is, again, not an Air Force capability, a joint
capability to establish air superiority, even just for windows
of time. Because we know that China has invested well, they are
worthy adversary, and we are going to have to fight very hard.
That being said, two, three, and four can really help us
when it comes to bringing the joint force together, aggregating
to do the job, and the job that we are preparing for is to stop
aggression from China.
So operational imperative five gets after the
infrastructure that we were talking about and the ability to
operate off of these airfields. So, not only does it include
things like refurbishing runways and proliferating the amount
of bases that we can use, it also talks about pre-positioning
and deception and other areas that help us in that.
So, for many, many years, we have been the source for the
Joint Force for Deep Strike and operational Imperative six gets
after a new way of doing Deep Strike around the B-21 but making
the B-21 better. Unfortunately, that is about all I can say
here, but happy to go into it in another forum.
Then operational imperative seven gets after the fact now
that no matter where we are, we might be in your home State
getting ready to deploy, or we might be on a Pacific Island
somewhere, but anywhere in between, we are going to be
resisted. Some of that resistance will be non-kinetic.
We will have cyber-attacks. There will be--they will use
space in a way that will make it very hard for us to move our
logistics, what we expect to do, and they will try to slow us
down in communication, being able to talk to each other. But as
we get closer, they will start using everything in their
portfolio and that will include kinetics as well.
So, what operational imperative seven does is it examines
our across the board ability to go to war and identifies the
vulnerabilities. Now, the first step in closing of our ability
is realizing they exist. We are finding a bunch, as you can
imagine, but we are prioritizing them and knocking them out
through operational imperative seven.
So, to go back, where I think the Joint Force benefits from
the operational imperatives is that with the joint warfighting
concept that I referred to earlier is doable. You can achieve
it if we close those operational imperatives.
What I think that means is that even in the most difficult
scenario, if you might think of a South China Sea scenario or a
Taiwan defense scenario or helping Japan defend against China,
those are tough scenarios.
You have to go a long way to win those scenarios. But even
in those scenarios, if we can close the gaps in the operational
imperatives, it allows the joint force to come together. It is
almost like we are the glue of the joint force.
We bring it together to accomplish the mission, and one of
the reasons why I am more optimistic than I have been in a long
time is because we are actually investing in getting after
these gaps.
Senator Duckworth. Expand that to the combined force. You
know, especially if you are looking at the Indo-Pacific region,
right. You mentioned cyber, for example, and also space, where
the disruptions are going to come from.
We need to be sure, I would think that our allies are able
to maintain cyber, and not just allies and partners, but also
commercial partners that we are going to be relying on,
especially when it comes to logistics in a contested
environment. What are you doing there, and expand your
discussion to the combined----
Lieutenant General Hinote. Yes, ma'am. So, certainly, from
the combined point of view, we see the ability for us to fight
together, to be integrated as being the key. It is something we
bring that China won't have.
We have great allies and partners, and one of the things
that has been a real joy for me is working with my counterparts
in places like Australia, the UK, Japan, coming together and
figuring this out. I will tell you, one of the things I have
noticed recently is how serious Japan is about its defense. I
think there is a major change there. It is a positive change
for us.
We have always had a very close relationship with the
Japanese Self-Defense Forces, but now it is just going to that
next level. Very happy about that. That allows us to plan
together and it allows us to understand how they are going to
fight and how we can communicate with them, command and
control, in a way that is fully integrated, so we are truly a
team.
To get after the commercial side, that is a tough
challenge. As you know, a lot of the computer systems that we
have in our industrial base are unclassified and they may or
may not be updated with the best software and things like that.
So, as we look across that vulnerability, we see that there
are key gaps we have to close and we are working with the
companies to close those. But also, we know there is more to be
done, and it is not just a military effort, it is a whole-of-
nation effort, and we know that China is going to test us in
this area.
I think we need to get ready for it, and I believe that
people are waking up to the seriousness of that threat and they
are asking for help.
Senator Duckworth. I think the commercial side is where we
have some real potential challenges. You know, I remember I was
touring, when I was in Congress, a civilian contractor that had
the contract to make lights more energy efficient on a major
maneuver command in the Army, and I went to visit.
They were very proud because they got this contract, small
company, engineers and everything, and they are like, look, let
me show you how I can turn the lights on and off at this major
maneuver command in Texas. They were showing me how they were
lowering it on this laptop.
I said, is that a secure laptop? Because we just walked
into this room and it was just left sitting there. They are
like, oh, no, no, our chief engineer has a TS/SCI so it is
okay. But the laptop is sitting there and they are very proudly
showing me how they could, like, dim the lights and brighten
the lights to save energy, but do you understand the
implications of what you are talking--and they, you know, they
were--they just cared about energy efficiency.
So, there are--I think, the commercial sector is where we
are going to have some real challenges. I also think, on top of
that, you could also address, you know, you talk about Japan
and UK and Australia, but, you know, there are other nations we
have to deal with that may not be quite there, Indonesia,
Philippines, you know, Thailand. I think that part of cyber, it
is equally important to bring both those friends and allies
along.
Mr. Hunter. Well, I am going to talk mostly to the
commercial part of the question, and I will just say, you know,
things are moving fast.
So, on the Philippines, I am now roughly 1 year in office,
and that has been a huge shift in that--just in that 1 year of
my current service. But on the commercial side, I would say we
have forged very strong relationships that you might not have
predicted three or 4 years ago with a lot of our commercial
partners.
That is true in commercial space. It is very much true in
commercial networking and advanced compute capabilities,
including folks helping us substantially to field robust,
secure, cloud-based networking capabilities, which will enable
us to do the kinds of things you were talking about, but
securely for those kinds of critical capabilities, of which we
have many.
Senator Duckworth. Mr. Hunter, do you want to speak to some
of our other partners out there or some of the nations where
perhaps they need a little help moving their cybersecurity
along? You can always get back to me on it.
Mr. Hunter. We can get back to you----
Senator Duckworth. Okay, thank you. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. General Moore, anything else in your
purview that you would like to share with us today?
Lieutenant General Moore. No, Senator. I think we touched
on everything we wanted to make sure we talked about. Thank
you.
Senator Cotton. General Hinote, you have got 5 days left.
What do you want to get off your chest?
Lieutenant General Hinote. Well----
Senator Cotton. Unburdened by concerns about the future----
General Hinote:--everybody in the Pentagon is excited to
hear--in all honesty, I have watched--for whatever reason, I
have been in the Pentagon for a while now and know many of you
in the room. I have watched this narrative unfold, this story
unfolds.
We have known we have needed change for many, many years,
and it feels like we are finally maybe getting to a pivot point
right now.
That is exciting, but it is also scary because it could
come off the rails right away and we don't want that. So, I am
cautiously optimistic and I will be cheering from the
sidelines.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Hunter, General Slife, anything from
you to close out?
Mr. Hunter. I did want to mention. So, I think you raised
it, sir, in your opening statement and I didn't touch on it as
much as would have maybe been judicious on, the importance of
our C3 battle management and ABMS related investments.
So, all of the OIs, you know, you think how the OIs
operate, they are all fundamentally trying to solve the same
problem, which is the operational problem, the pacing
challenge. There are sort of different frameworks for
understanding and decomposing that problem. They all recompose
when you look at OI two and ABMS and C3BM.
To make progress on all of the different OI's, we have to
be able to deliver that. We have got a pretty substantial
investment resource increase in our budget for that and we very
much ask your support for that.
I think we have worked very hard to, with the new PEO, to
bring a lot of acquisition rigor and engineering insight, and a
lot of a richer set of program activities that you can see when
they will deliver results that will be meaningful. So, I think
we have come a long way and we ask for your support for that
request.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator.
Lieutenant General Slife. Senator, we have talked a fair
bit today about things like electronic attack, and apertures,
and the need to be able to close long range kill chains at
scale. One of the things that underpins all of that is the
electromagnetic spectrum.
So, as I believe you are tracking, there are considerations
about selling access to the electromagnetic spectrum. There is
a study going on right now that should be finished, I believe,
in September, that will kind of inform the Defense Department's
position on this.
I don't know what that study is going to say, but I would
just encourage the Subcommittee to remain witting to the
potential national security impacts of the loss of spectrum for
some of our key capabilities. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cotton. Okay, all right, gentlemen. Thank you all
for your appearance today. Thank you for your service to our
Nation. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Cotton
collaborative combat aircraft (cca)
1. Senator Cotton. Lieutenant General Moore, it was stated that the
Department is leveraging things like Artificial Intelligence and
Autonomy to underpin the development of Collaborative Combat Aircraft.
Is Artificial Intelligence and/or Autonomy a requirement for
Collaborative Combat Aircrafts?
Lieutenant General Moore. The goal of Collaborative Combat Aircraft
is to allow the Air Force to generate sufficient deployable combat
power, credible and affordable mass, and enhanced forward force posture
while minimizing human exposure to risk. To field this capability,
initial variants will follow deterministic autonomy logic with more
sophisticated AI-derived behaviors being integrated as technology
matures. As CCAs will be required to meet mission objectives without
direct command from human operators when operating in highly contested
environments where communication may be difficult. The Air Force is
exploring options to include an appropriate level of human involvement
in kill chain decisions to use lethal force.
2. Senator Cotton. Lieutenant General Moore, is the Department of
the Air Force committed to fielding these unmanned systems as
expeditiously as possible without letting the development of Artificial
Intelligence and Autonomy technologies slow things down?
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes--the CCA acquisition strategy
requires an incremental approach with an open architecture. This will
allow the Department to field available, proven technologies quickly
while investing in autonomy maturation to support future fielding. The
incremental approach enables us to leverage a broader industry base and
bring in small, software-first businesses that have niche capabilities
in autonomy or AI. Parallel to this acquisition strategy, we will
concurrently research and validate autonomy through Project VENOM and
explore non-materiel aspects of autonomous capability with an
Experimental Operations Unit.
3. Senator Cotton. Lieutenant General Moore, with one of the
missions of Collaborative Combat Aircraft being electronic warfare--has
there been any consideration to upgrading and more widely deploying low
cost, currently available items like the miniature air launched decoy-
jammer to meet this mission set in the near-term? Or putting jamming
pods on aircraft already fielded?
Lieutenant General Moore. The Air Force is focusing our initial
Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) efforts on augmenting our shooters
by increasing our weapons delivery capacity. We are currently procuring
10x EC-37B Compass Call aircraft to replace the EC-130H Compass Call,
as our premier Airborne Electromagnetic Attack Offensive Counter
Information weapon system; the first five aircraft are scheduled to
deliver in fiscal year 2025. Our investment in the EC-37 System-Wide
Open Reconfigurable Dynamic Architecture (SWORD-A) will deliver
capability in a software-defined open architecture, enabling faster
system updates and delivery of advanced applications needed to counter
rapidly evolving threats. Additionally, our most modern platforms are
equipped with integrated, highly survivable electromagnetic warfare
capabilities.
logistics
4. Senator Cotton. Secretary Hunter, what steps are we taking now
to train and evaluate our logistics systems for operations in a great
power conflict where logistics will be heavily contested?
Mr. Hunter. To achieve resilient basing, the DAF has developed a
new concept, Agile Combat Employment (ACE), that uses a hub and spoke
system of alternative bases that are resilient to attack. This concept
is sound, but a cost-effective mix of investments is necessary to make
ACE effective. The fiscal year 2024 budget request includes funding to
mature Agile Combat Employment operations, which enables mission
execution in a contested environment. The fiscal year 2024 budget
request demonstrates our commitment to distributed, resilient basing by
prepositioning key support equipment and providing training that will
allow combat sorties to launch and recover at expeditionary airfields.
These investments sustain support to the joint force, our hardware, and
our most important asset--our airmen.
system development
A Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency study on Capability
Fielding showed that development times for new military aircraft have
increased dramatically since the 1970's with recent systems like the F-
35 taking over 20 years to go from project initiation to Initial
Operational Capability. A significant component of that increase was
test and evaluation which has increased 1000 percent since the 1970's.
This increase in development time can obviously lead to having obsolete
technology at fielding and aggravate a need to ``gold-plate''
requirements that drives up cost and risk to programs.
5. Senator Cotton. Secretary Hunter, with test and evaluation as a
leading contributor of expanding acquisition times; what if any steps
are being taken to safely accelerate test and evaluation execution?
Mr. Hunter. Data has shown that delays to program timelines
identified within the test phase are rarely attributable to problems in
test execution. Most test delays are caused by problems with hardware
or software. Modern challenges like robust cross-system integration and
the cyber domain have drastically increased the complexity of Test.
Faced with the need to reevaluate how we view and execute Test, the Air
Force has begun an initiative termed ``Accelerate Test or Lose.''
(ATOL). In close collaboration with the acquisition community, ATOL
will leverage best practices in acquisition/test policy, digital
engineering, modeling and simulation, and digital ranges to address and
mitigate sources of delays with the goal to accelerate development and
delivery of safe, reliable, and sustainable capabilities to the
warfighter. While currently still in progress, ATOL has uncovered
several potential changes with high impacts to fielding capabilities
faster. The Air Force will begin implementation of easy change/high-
impact options as early as late fiscal year 2023.
6. Senator Cotton. Secretary Hunter, what investments are you
making into the test infrastructure, and what is the expected impacts
of those investments?
Mr. Hunter. The Air Force is actively working to sustain, renovate
and modernize our test infrastructure in alignment with the strategic
initiatives laid out by the Department of Defense. Test infrastructure
within the Air Force, and DOD, is the foundation of the Nation's
ability to develop, mature, and field our most critical defense
systems. Our aging test infrastructure is highly specialized and must
be modernized in both capability and throughput to confidently defeat
near-peer adversaries. Key areas of our test infrastructure
modernization efforts include electronic warfare (kill chains),
hypersonics, and nuclear modernization with active investments
including $111 million in new facilities for the Joint Simulation
Environment (JSE) at Nellis AFB (NV), Edwards AFB (CA), and the Eglin
Cyberspace Facility (FL). These new facilities/capabilities enable the
Air Force and DOD to conduct joint, multi-domain, high-fidelity virtual
test and training events, in a secure, adaptable, and scalable
environment which replicates robust open air test and training,
increasing aircrew proficiency and lethality. Additionally, the Air
Force is leveraging hypersonic technology through various congressional
adds and service investments to upgrade arc heater facilities, wind
tunnels, and sled tracks, to bring hypersonic capabilities to the
warfighter sooner. These updates, amongst others, are vital to the
Nation's ability to fight and win wars of the 21st century.
7. Senator Cotton. What lessons from the F-35 are being applied to
accelerate Next Generation Air D and Collaborative Combat Aircraft
fielding?
Lessons learned from the F-35 program are an integral part of the
strategy and planning for the NGAD Family of Systems (FoS) acquisition.
NGAD FoS are structured to ensure a much higher degree of design
maturity than F-35 before start of production. They are built on the
foundation of a government reference architecture that both avoids
vendor lock and ensures the adoption of mature mission systems early in
the program's life cycle. NGAD will ensure continuous competition.
Unlike the F-35 development, the NGAD FoS approach, which includes
Collaborative Combat Aircraft and the NGAD Platform, will employ
digital engineering, digital sustainment, agile software development,
and government-owned open system architectures.
datalinks
8. Senator Cotton. Lieutenant General Hinote, Secretary Hunter
mentioned previously that the ability for systems to work together is
essential, and it is imperative to create data linkages between
platforms in order to ensure those systems can work together. These
linkages presumably, are also a pre-requisite for control of the
Department's Collaborative Combat Aircraft. With platforms like the F-
35, F-15EX, and F-22 all having different datalinks, are there steps
being taken to coordinate common datalinks across weapon systems and
across the military services? With the KC-46 stated to be a critical
network node, are there any concerns with creating a single point of
failure or that the KC-46 will be too far from forward systems to be
effective?
Lieutenant General Hinote. The Air Force, in conjunction with the
Navy, is pursuing development and integration of next-generation line
of sight (LOS) and beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) data link capabilities.
These new capabilities align with the Department of the Air Force
Operational Imperatives and are informed by the future threat
environment. Primary design objectives for these new capabilities
include interoperability across all platforms required to enable long-
range kill chains, as well as interconnectivity with future aerial and
space-based network architectures. Although the KC-46 is envisioned as
operating outside the contested environment and thus will not
necessarily require the exquisite data link features of forward
platforms, connectivity for command and control (C2) and general
situational awareness is still needed. The Air Force is actively
working to modernize current Link 16 capabilities to improve
connectivity and survivability, ensuring communications resilience
across key platforms such as the KC-46.