[Senate Hearing 118-741, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-741, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 4638
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 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
----------
MAY 8, 15, 2024
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-232 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COTTON, Arkansas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
TIM KAINE, Virginia JONI K. ERNST, Iowa
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada TED BUDD, North Carolina
MARK KELLY, Arizona ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri
Elizabeth L. King, Staff Director
John P. Keast, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Airland
MARK KELLY, Arizona, Chairman
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COTTON, Arkansas
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan JONI ERNST, Iowa
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia RICK SCOTT, Florida
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
may 8, 2024
Page
Air Force Modernization.......................................... 1
Members Statements
Statement of Senator Mark Kelly.................................. 1
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Cotton......................... 23
Witness Statements
Spain, Lieutenant General Adrian L., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 3
for Operations.
Hunter, The Honorable Andrew P., Assistant Secretary of the Air 4
Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
Harris, Lieutenant General David A., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 6
for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements.
Moore, Lieutenant General Richard G., Jr., USAF, Deputy Chief of 7
Staff for Plans and Programs.
Questions for the Record......................................... 44
may 15, 2024
Army Modernization............................................... 47
Members Statements
Statement of Senator Mark Kelly.................................. 47
Statement of Senator Tom Cotton.................................. 49
Witness Statements
Bush, The Honorable Douglas R., Assistant Secretary of the Army 50
for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
Rainey, General James E., USA, Commanding General, United States 52
Army Futures Command.
Gingrich, Lieutenant General Karl H., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, 54
G-8, United States Army.
Questions for the Record......................................... 80
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2024
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4 p.m. in room
SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Mark Kelly
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Kelly, Blumenthal, Peters,
Duckworth, Cotton, Ernst, Scott, and Mullin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK KELLY
Senator Kelly. This hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome our witnesses and give you our thanks for
testifying in front of this subcommittee today. General Spain,
General Harris, welcome. Secretary Hunter, General Moore,
welcome back.
The budget request in front of us today was developed under
the tight constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Some of
your sister services were pushed into even more painful
decisions than the Air Force has had to make, but we should not
underState the difficultly of the tradeoffs that have been made
as you seek to modernize our forces to maintain our competitive
edge with our most advanced adversaries, while also maintaining
necessary capabilities to respond to the threats that we face
today.
Perhaps most notable is that the Air Force has proposed to
divest 250 aircraft in fiscal year 2025. Now, each of these
proposed divestments has their own arguments for and against,
but the broader picture is an Air Force that is shrinking. It
is an Air Force that is forgoing the modernization of some
legacy platforms, including F-15, F-16, and F-22, and directly
divesting of others, in order to invest in fielding a highly
capable future force. The details of that highly capable future
force, and the threat that is driving you there, are difficult
to talk about in an unclassified setting. What we can say is it
will be a smaller but better force that is betting on future
programs like Collaborative Combat Aircraft to reach the
capacity we will need.
In addition to risks in these modernization plans
themselves we need to be upfront about the risks we are taking
to get there. This year's budget request proposes to retire 190
fighters and attack aircraft and procure only 60. That would be
130 fewer tactical aircraft for pilots to maintain proficiency
and 130 fewer aircraft across which to spread those flight
hours. That would mean 130 fewer tactical aircraft to provide
forces to meet the combatant commander's needs, and I see no
reason to believe that these demands will fall for the
foreseeable future.
The merits of each proposed divestment must be considered
separately. Not all aircraft are created equal, and those
disparities only grow over decades of service life.
We do understand the pressures the Air Force is under in
the procurement account and elsewhere. Two of the three legs of
the nuclear triad are under your umbrella, presenting an
enormous, fixed wedge in your plans, and of course, the other
side does get a vote. The most stressing threats do not lend
themselves to incremental improvements, let alone standing
still.
Finally, the Air Force is embarking on a significant
structure overhaul to optimize itself for great power
competition. The ambition is laudable, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony on your vision for these efforts.
I look forward to hearing from our Air Force witnesses
about the challenges and opportunities they face in modernizing
the Air Force, as we finish our scheduled hearings before we
mark up the DOD authorization request.
Anywhere we look in the Air Force program we can see
tradeoffs that are being made in this request between strategy
and budget. That includes with the Compass Call aircraft, where
we are replacing the current fleet with a smaller number of
upgraded aircraft that will not be delivered until 2029.
It also includes the Air Force's plan that would have
truncated the HH-60 Whiskey program after fiscal year 2023. We
need to hear how this reduction in the inventory objective for
these forces would affect the Air Force's ability to rescue
downed pilots and aircrews in future conflicts.
I am especially interested in hearing from the witnesses
how the Air Force plans to manage its multiple modernization
programs in ways that expeditiously deliver the capabilities
our warfighters need, while protecting taxpayer dollars and
avoiding too much risk to supporting combatant commander
requirements. These should include the F-35 fighter, the B-21
bomber, the KC-46 tanker, and a new program to procure
``Wedgetail'' aircraft to replace some of the E-3 Airborne
Warning and Control Systems (AWACS), aircraft, also the
Advanced Air Battle Management System (ABMS), which seeks to
replace the E-8 JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System] capability, and is the Air Force's contribution to the
Defense Department's Joint All Domain Command and Control
program.
The F-35, the core of the tactical air forces for the next
few decades, has very real availability, affordability, and
modernization challenges. It seems the Air Force has recently
made some hard decisions when it comes to the F-35 upgrade
efforts, accepting a diminished capability in order to
hopefully regain at least some momentum and avoid parking a
large number of jets while the TR-3 software matures.
It also sounds like the Air Force is doing some hard
prioritization on Block 4 capabilities to bring the schedule
back to where it needs to be, but whatever that capability set
is going to be, it needs to be locked in soon so we understand
what the demands are going to be on the engine and cooling
systems of the aircraft.
Finally, we need to ensure that subsequent Air Force
investments yield the capabilities necessary to compete in any
future conflicts, such as hypersonic missiles, the Next
Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter program, and others. We
cannot ignore needs to recapitalize other existing capabilities
that give our forces a competitive edge, such as our tanker
forces. We will also take into account such lower visibility,
but very important capabilities such as the investments we need
to make to ensure adequacy of training ranges for our fifth-
generation fighters and other next generation systems.
I am going to stop there and get to our questions, but I
want to thank our witnesses again for their service and for
appearing before the committee.
Yes, we will go to opening statements. Thank you very much,
and then when Senator Cotton arrives we will give him the
opportunity for an opening statement. So let me start with
General Spain.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ADRIAN L. SPAIN, USAF, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS
Lieutenant General Spain. Great. Thanks, Chairman Kelly,
Ranking Member Cotton is not here at this time, but Senator
Ernst, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
Air Force modernization in review of the Department of the Air
Force's Fiscal Year 2025 Presidential Budget.
As the Air Force continues to evolve to meet the needs of
the current and future strategic environment, we must optimize
how we organize, train, and equip Air Force forces, and we must
do so in light of increasing global demands on the Joint Force.
We have made great strides in our journey to transform the
service and to task organize units of action with clearly
defined force elements capable of meeting the worldwide demands
of this strategic environment and its associated threats, but
there is more to be done.
Clarity in the structure of our force presentation and
force generation models has allowed us to better articulate
capability, capacity, operational readiness, and risks to both
ourselves and to the Joint Force. As we continue on this path,
fiscal reality means we must take measured risk, even as we
transform and modernize to meet those needs.
The Air Force Force Generation Model (AFFORGEN), in
conjunction with a definable force presentation construct, has
been successful in providing predictability for our service-
retained forces, and continued improvement in this model is
allowing our airmen to deploy as a team. As our force
presentation model continues to evolve from the Air
Expeditionary Wing constructive, effective for the past couple
of decades, to Expeditionary Air Bases, to Air Task Forces, and
soon Combat Wings, we are shifting focus back to warfighting in
a peer competitor environment. We will carefully balance the
risk in our garrison functions in order to prioritize focus on
the combat mission and warfighting effectiveness.
While we are in the midst of this important transition the
Air Force must continue to make deliberate and measured risk in
current operational readiness in order to modernize our forces
in line with the Department's Strategic Readiness Framework
mentioned in the National Defense Strategy (NDS). We have had
to make tough choices to order to prioritize investments in
manpower, training infrastructure, Flying Hour Program (FHP),
and Weapons System Sustainment (WSS), all aspects critical to
enabling a ready force.
DOD capabilities and those of peer, near-peer, and
potential adversaries are advancing at a rate that challenges
our ability to provide relevant and realistic training. In
order to maintain a qualitative advantage in multi-domain,
full-spectrum employment, we are modernizing our training
ranges and legacy airspace, and we have increased investments
in virtual and synthetic training, acknowledging that while not
a replacement for flying, certain factors will demand high-end
training be accomplished in a synthetic or augmented
environment.
The Air Force remains committed to meeting the needs of the
service and its airmen through continuous, data-driven
feedback. We have instituted multiple meaningful initiatives
over the years regarding pilot production. Although it remains
constrained we are taking a holistic, ecosystem-wide approach
to operational readiness and data accountability. which in turn
has refined our pilot reporting information, awareness, and
trust in the information to shape future initiatives, and we
are starting to see positive indicators on those results.
We appreciate the support the committee on additional
efforts to improve rated force management and pilot production
to include improved retention initiatives. I thank you for your
support and for the opportunity to testify today, and look
forward to the questions and future collaboration with the
committee.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. Secretary Hunter.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW P. HUNTER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND
LOGISTICS
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Chairman Kelly, and also thanks to
Ranking Member Cotton for having us here today to provide
testimony on our Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget Request
for Air Force modernization.
As we testified last year, our operational imperatives work
highlighted the challenges of integration and the importance of
tight partnerships between the operational and acquisition
communities in the Department of the Air Force and developing
the necessary capabilities to deter and win in future
conflicts.
Insights from that work directly informed, and I would say
shaped and enabled, our ability to make the challenging
tradeoffs that we had to make in our 2025 budget request that
you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement. While
not all of those choices were ones that we would have
necessarily preferred to have to make, it was really essential
that had the analytical work and the underpinning of our
operational imperative to inform those choices, and it will
continue to be so in future year budget requests, which are
likely to be equally challenging, based on the current budget
environment.
It is also essential, as you alluded to, that we organize
ourselves to do that work repeatedly as a normal functioning of
the Air Force enterprise, and that really informed our effort
to reoptimize for great power competition and make
organizational changes so that the work that we did under
operational imperatives is something that we do on a daily
basis and not something that is done by exception, as it was
when we undertook initially to study the operational
imperatives. We ask for your support for our budget request,
which really continues to focus and buildupon the modernization
required to meet our operational needs in the future.
We remain steadfast in resourcing these top priorities as
well as other, as well as nuclear modernization, but our
resources, as you noted, were limited by the 2023 Fiscal
Responsibility Act. The impacts of the FRA, combined with
funding through continuing resolutions, which were extended
this year, and restrictions on our ability to retire older
weapons systems divert our ability to focus on delivering
decisive combat power and put that capability at risk. Nothing
could be more imperative than our need to receive timely
authorization and appropriations of our fiscal year 2025 budget
request.
As I noted, this request continues our modernization
efforts, such as the development of the Collaborative Combat
Aircraft, the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems,
KC-46, continuation of uninterrupted tanker recapitalization,
our T-7 training aircraft, the E-7 Wedgetail, and the critical
munitions that are essential to our future operations. It also
allows us to continue fielding platforms like the F-15EX, the
F-15 EPAWSS, upgrades to the F-22 fighter, F-35 Block 4
capability, as well as sustaining our current fleet.
I particularly want to highlight the CCA [Collaborative
Combat Aircraft] program as the exemplar of our efforts to
develop and field new capabilities rapidly, affordably, and at
scale. In April 2024, the DAF exercised two option-award
contracts for CCA Increment 1 to Anduril and General Atomics to
conduct detailed design, build, and test of production-
representative test articles. In fiscal year 2025, we will
begin concept refinement for the next CCA increment, as we also
continue to explore international partnership participation
with us on the CCA program.
All of the work that you see happening in our CCA program
has essentially been initiated and taken forward in the last 2
years. So this is a program that is going from initiation to
moving toward production on the most rapid time scale I have
ever seen for a system of this complexity.
Since time is of the essence in capable development, we
also want to thank the Congress, and particularly the Members
of this Subcommittee, who are critical to the effort, for
providing the Department with Quick Start authority in Section
229 of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
Secretary Kendall, when he testified to the committee,
highlighted a program that was just approved through this Quick
Start authority, which will initiate work on providing C-3
battle management for moving target indication at scale, that
we are initiating and have initiated this year. This effort is
an element of the operational imperatives funding request in
fiscal year 2025, and is included in the budget request that
you will be considering this year. The Quick Start authority
allowed us to begin that work in this year and not wait for
next year's appropriation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and we look
forward to working with Congress, industry, and the communities
that support us to defend the Nation.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Harris.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID A. HARRIS, USAF, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGY, INTEGRATION, AND REQUIREMENTS
Lieutenant General Harris. Chairman Kelly and Ranking
Member Cotton, I really do appreciate the opportunity to come
and talk to you about our modernization efforts in the Air
Force. We know that your support is vital to not only our Air
Force but our airmen as we go forward and develop concepts and
capabilities to confront our toughest challenges.
Our current warfighting advantages are actively being
tested in both traditional and non-traditional ways, and also
our adversaries are determined to contest our activities in all
domains of warfare. Success in the future operating environment
will require some different capabilities. Perhaps more
importantly, winning will require a new level of integration
across the Air Force and the Joint Force as advantages are
becoming more relative and increasingly transient.
We are demonstrating the resolve to rapidly adapt and
effectively compete, and we see that today in PACAP, USAFE, as
well as CENTCOM. We are transforming concepts, capabilities,
and organizational design to evolve the Air Force at a rate
that will ensure our warfighting advantage .
However, today our Air Force is out of balance. Our
operational imperative efforts and future force design analysis
highlight several strategic areas of modernization that must be
addressed, a modernization that moves away from platform-
centric views to a threat-informed and systems-focused approach
to deliver the right effects. I am really referring to the
Integrated Capabilities Command of our GPC effort.
The threat environment is as complex and dynamic as it has
ever been. What worked well before may not work well in the
future. This is why the United States Air Force must continue
to aggressively modernize. We cannot scale with our adversaries
in terms of capacity alone. Instead, we must develop the right
balance of integrated capabilities to maintain an operational
advantage to deter adversaries. This requires us to transition
to a force that can generate effects from longer range, with
sufficient mass, through a tailored mix of new and existing,
and maybe even modified, capabilities, to shape the battle
space for the Joint Force.
Our investments in the fiscal year 2025 budget continue to
build on the work to modernize and rebalance the force, as I
have mentioned. We are making considerable progress across
areas such as kill chains, multi-domain sensing grids, unmanned
systems, but there is significantly more work to be done. We
need your support now more than ever to rebalance that force
for a credible deterrence, and if needed to win in future
conflict.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today,
and I look forward to answering any of the questions you may
have.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. General Moore.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD G. MOORE, JR., USAF,
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS
Lieutenant General Moore. Thank you, Chairman Kelly,
Ranking Member Cotton, and distinguished Members of this
Subcommittee. It is an honor to be able to testify today on the
Air Force's defense authorization request for fiscal year 2025.
On behalf of the Department, thank you both, as well as the
members of the committee, for your continued leadership and
your unwavering support of the United States military.
Today we are in the midst of a difficult transition from a
legacy force to one built to deter Chinese aggression and win
against any peer competitor. Fiscal year 2025 presents another
opportunity for the Department of the Air Force and the
Congress to work together to remain the world's preeminent
power projection force.
Through this partnership we have made substantial steps
toward achieving the force the Nation needs, but we have much
more work to do. Our most valuable resources--manpower, money,
and time--remain limited. We must be disciplined in our
decisions and focus our investments on what we need most.
The Air Force strategy is not to divest. The Air Force
strategy is to modernize. But this strategy requires us to make
some difficult choices. We do not want to get rid of airplanes,
but in order to invest in modernized capabilities, and most
importantly pivot our airmen from the past to the future, we
have to stop funding things that do not measurably bring us
closer to the goal. In our fiscal year 2025 request, the Air
Force remains focused on achieving a fighter force mix that
provides a capable, sustainable, survivable, and affordable
force that can operate across a range of mission sets.
Most notably, our fiscal year 2025 request seeks to
preserve our advances in modernization while shaping future
investments around long-range kill chains and the elements that
support them. This contribution to the Joint Force is central
to our ability to deter, and if necessary, defeat aggression.
We continue to make significant progress toward closing key
capability gaps, but the hard choices are not all behind us. We
must consolidate the things we need that are relevant to the
future fight and make them the most relevant that we can. We
must remain united as a Department and as a Nation to
successfully overcome barrier to change. We cannot fail in this
endeavor.
Can we keep more legacy aircraft? Yes. Can we increase
today's readiness? Yes. Can we get after tomorrow's
modernization? Yes. But we cannot do all of these things at
once, particularly in light of reduced buying power as a result
of the Fiscal Responsibility Act plus the workforce, supply
chain, and inflation issues which remain as a relic of COVID.
We have to strategically spread risk over time. We have chosen
a strategy that allows us to move past what is holding us back
from being able to compete.
But our adversaries are watching. We must act now to make
difficult choices and show them our commitment, and time is not
on our side. American lives and those of our allies and
partners rely on our ability to deliver airpower. We look
forward to once again working with Congress to shape a lethal
force that does exactly that and also efficiently and
affordably provides the most capable airpower for our Nation.
I am honored to sit here today with Mr. Hunter, General
Harris, and General Spain, and we look forward to answering
your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of The Honorable Andrew P.
Hunter, Lieutenant General Richard G. Moore, Jr., Lieutenant
General David A. Harris, and Lieutenant General Adrian L. Spain
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by The Honorable Andrew P. Hunter, Lieutenant
General Richard G. Moore, Jr., Lieutenant General David A. Harris, and
Lieutenant General Adrian L. Spain]
introduction
Chairman 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 (DAF) Fiscal Year 2025
President's Budget Request for Air Force modernization.
The Department of the Air Force is critical to our national
defense. Our capabilities underwrite those of the Joint Force and we
are uniquely suited to provide this cornerstone of the Nation's
defense. This is particularly true of the long-range strike and power
projection capabilities that are the purview of this subcommittee and
that we will discuss today.
The Department of the Air Force's Fiscal Year 2025 President's
Budget Request reflects our commitment to developing a threat-informed,
concept-driven future Air Force as framed by the National Defense
Strategy (NDS), but resources have been limited by the 2023 Fiscal
Responsibility Act (FRA). The FRA spending caps increase risk and force
difficult tradeoffs. We have made significant progress in identifying
the capabilities the DAF will need to develop and field to prevail
against our adversaries. However, the DAF is facing a significant,
dangerous shift in the strategic security environment where our
historical dominance in military operations will be challenged by
adversaries intent on denying us previously assumed advantage in the
air and space domains. The DAF has historically adapted to key
inflection points to best compete in emerging security landscapes and
our current efforts to achieve greater organizational agility by
reoptimizing for Great Power Competition (GPC) once again illustrate
this key trait.
The Secretary of the Air Force has made clear we are out of time
and must reoptimize now. We seek to anticipate and develop the
capabilities to dominate emerging military competitions before would-be
adversaries can master the ability to threaten our vital interests. To
achieve a more competitive posture, the DAF is implementing major
changes centered on how we Develop People, Generate Readiness, Project
Power, and Develop Integrated Capabilities. The Operational Imperatives
work highlighted the challenges of integration and the importance of
tight partnerships between the operational and acquisition communities.
The capability development-related GPC organizational changes we are
making at the Secretariat and Major Command levels institutionalize
these lessons learned. The DAF is establishing a single, authoritative
entity focused on identifying and prioritizing future operational
capabilities, driving cross-platform mission systems integration and
capability development, establishing focused acquisition Systems
Centers for effective portfolio and lifecycle management, and standing
up relevant Secretariat offices to inform senior leaders on enterprise-
wide decisions. This will result in a more agile and integrated
acquisition system that delivers capabilities--quickly and at scale--
while demonstrating to adversaries our resolve to rapidly adapt our
organization to effectively compete today and win decisively in any
future conflict.
Since time is of the essence in capability development, we are
thankful for Congress providing the Section 229 ``Quick Start''
provision in the fiscal year 2024 NDAA and we look forward to providing
information on the specific initiatives using this authority in the
near future. While grateful for the support, we continue to be hampered
by funding through Continuing Resolutions and restrictions on the
retirement of outdated fighter, tanker, cargo, and command and control
aircraft. Compromises that divert focus from our operational
imperatives put our military's ability to deliver decisive combat power
at great risk. These short-term tradeoffs could prevent us from scaling
a future force up to the numbers required to provide us with the
military capabilities we need. We are conscious of the difficulties
associated with these changes and are eager for continued collaboration
with Congress, industry, and the communities that support our Air Bases
to ensure our Nation's security.
continuing the evolution
Global Force Generation
In line with our sister services, the Air Force has a history of
evolving to meet the demands of the time. As we continue to evolve to
meet the needs of the current and future strategic environment, we must
optimize how we organize, train, and equip Air Force Forces and we must
do so in an environment where the demands on the Joint Force continue
to increase globally. We have made great strides on our journey to
transform the service into task-organized units of action, with clearly
defined force elements, capable of meeting the worldwide demands of
this strategic environment and its associated threats--but there is
more work to be done. Clarity in the structure of our force
presentation and force generation models have allowed us to better
articulate capability, capacity, operational readiness, and risk to
ourselves and to the Joint Force. As we continue on this path, fiscal
reality means we must continue to take measured risk even as we
transform and modernize to meet these needs.
The Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) model, in conjunction
with a definable force presentation construct, has been successful in
providing predictability for our service-retained forces and continued
improvement in this model is allowing our Airmen to train and deploy as
a team. As our force presentation model continues to evolve from the
Air Expeditionary Wing construct, which was effective for the past
couple of decades, to Expeditionary Air Bases (XABs), Air Task Forces
(ATFs), and soon Combat Wings, we are shifting focus back to
warfighting in a peer competitor environment. We will carefully balance
the risk in our garrison missions, in order to prioritize installation
and Airmen focus on the combat mission and warfighting effectiveness.
Readiness
While we are in the midst of this important transition from a
legacy force presentation model optimized for operations with extreme
overmatch from uncontested airfields, to one modernized to deter major
power aggression and defeat any peer competitor, the Air Force must
continue to take measured risk in current operational readiness in
order to modernize our forces in line with the Department's Strategic
Readiness Framework mentioned in the National Defense Strategy (NDS).
We've had to make tough choices to include divestment of older systems,
less relevant for the high-end fight, and we must prioritize
investments in manpower, training infrastructure, Flying Hour Program
(FHP), and Weapons System Sustainment (WSS), aspects critical to
enabling a ready force.
DOD capabilities and those of peer, near-peer, and potential
adversaries are advancing at a rate that challenges our ability to
provide relevant and realistic training. In order to maintain a
qualitative advantage through superior training in multi-domain, full-
spectrum employment, we are modernizing our training ranges and legacy
airspace to enable warfighters to train for the peer fight in an all-
domain, contested environment against relevant and realistic threats.
The Air Force has substantial, planned investments during the next FYDP
to sustain, modernize, and add training infrastructure to achieve this
capability in the 2030 timeframe. We are similarly increasing
investments in virtual and synthetic training environments for the
future, acknowledging that while not a replacement for flying, factors
such as OPSEC, threat replication, emitters and tactics, techniques and
procedures will demand more high-end training be accomplished in a
synthetic or augmented environment.
Rated Force Management
The Air Force remains committed to meeting the needs of the service
and its Airmen through experimentation and continuous, data-driven
feedback and we appreciate all the support the committee continues to
provide for our Airmen. Despite multiple meaningful initiatives and the
efforts of thousands of Airmen at multiple locations, pilot production
continues to remain constrained. Fiscal Year 2023 Undergraduate Pilot
Training (UPT) production graduated 1,315 pilots, which was an increase
from fiscal year 2022, but still below the required 1,500 pilots we
need to produce each year. We have taken a holistic, ecosystem-wide
approach to operational readiness and data accountability, which in
turn has refined our pilot reporting information, awareness, and trust
in the information to shape future initiatives. Additional efforts to
improve rated force management and pilot production include the Air
Mobility Fundamentals--Simulator (AMF-S) program, and improved
retention initiatives supported by the committee. Until production
improves, we will continue to prioritize operations, test, and training
units and take risk in staffs; if that position becomes untenable, we
will be forced to shift risk to those historically protected units.
current capacity and capability
Following NDS guidance, the DAF seeks to invest in technologies and
field systems that are both lethal and survivable against tomorrow's
threats. Our adversaries continue to erode our historically superior
military advantages with ever-advancing capabilities specifically
designed to counter traditional air power. This ultimately means
transitioning away from legacy platforms to free up manpower and
resources to modernize and field more credible systems. If we are to
modernize to address the emerging threat, we must use resources tied to
our legacy platforms and weapons systems that are decreasing in
relevance today and will be irrelevant in a future peer conflict.
Retaining systems that have either limited contributions, or are simply
not relevant in the future fight, delays modernization and exacerbates
future capability gaps while adversary advancements in the air and
space domains only increase annually. If deterrence fails, our Airmen
must have the training, tools, munitions, and platforms required to
win. We must recognize the inherent tension between near-term and
future risk to strike the right balance.
Bomber Force Structure
Our budget request supports the NDS's 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. As a unique national security capability, the B-21 represents
the future of this bomber force. As modernization continues, the Air
Force will gradually transition to 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 is a Special Access Program (SAP). Budget year requests at
the appropriation level are unclassified, but most supporting details
are classified and provided to Congress in appropriate classified
forums. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget includes $2.8 billion
in Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) for the continuation
of Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), and also includes
modernization activities. Modernization includes, but is not limited
to, Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) integration, new conventional
weapons integration, air vehicle provisioning for future capabilities,
sensors, and continued nuclear certification activities. The Fiscal
Year 2025 President's Budget includes $2.7 billion in Procurement
funding for the execution toward Lot 3 of Low Rate Initial Production
(LRIP). In addition to aircraft costs, which includes Advance
Procurement, this also provides funding for producibility improvements,
approved LRIP Active Management strategies, initial spares, support
equipment, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages
(DMSMS) or obsolescence issues, and depot standup. The Fiscal Year 2025
President's Budget includes $220.3 million in Main Operating Bases
(MOB) Military Construction (MILCON) funding for three projects at
Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB), SD, the Addition and Alteration (ADAL)
Squadron Ops facility, Environmental Protection Shelters (EPS), and
Alert Apron, as well as continued Planning & Design. The Fiscal Year
2025 President's Budget also supports funding for two MILCON projects
at Dyess AFB, TX, Refueler Parking and Fuels Admin Lab, as well as
continued Planning & Design.
B-52 Squadrons
The Air Force is transitioning to a two-bomber force: B-21 and
modernized B-52 aircraft. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget
request for all B-52 modifications is $1.046 billion RDT&E and $215.013
million procurement. This funding enables the Air Force to advance the
most comprehensive modernization in the platform's history, executing
numerous on-going modernization programs in various acquisition phases
from early development phase through production and fielding phase.
Major B-52 modernization efforts include the Commercial Engine
Replacement Program (CERP) and the Radar Modernization Program (RMP).
The B-52J CERP has a Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of
$785.0 million RDT&E and $2.1 million for advance procurement of Common
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) cards for the display and sensor system
processor (DASSP). B-52J CERP initiated as a Middle Tier Acquisition
(MTA) program, selected Boeing as integrator (March 2018), selected
Rolls-Royce as engine provider (September 2021), completed Preliminary
Design Review (PDR) (October 2022), and delivered a virtual System
Prototype (vSP) that provided residual operational capability to Air
Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) (October 2023). B-52J CERP has
completed MTA requirements by delivering a digital prototype and has
transitioned to a Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) (November 2023).
The program continues to mature cost and schedule to set a program
baseline at Milestone B targeted for September 2024. In fiscal year
2025 the program will be in the EMD phase, and will be integrating the
electronics controls, displays, electrical systems, engine support
components, and advanced engine testing required for conversion to B-
52J.
B-52H Radar Modernization Program (RMP) has a Fiscal Year 2025
President's Budget request of $179.8 million RDT&E and $129.5 million
in procurement. B-52H RMP replaced the first B-52 EMD aircraft's 1980's
radar system with Raytheon's advanced, modern, off-the-shelf APG-79
radar system in September 2023. The program entered EMD on June 10,
2021 and awarded a development contract to Boeing Defense on June 14,
2021. B-52H RMP completed system-level Critical Design Review (CDR) in
February 2022. Boeing started modifying the first B-52H RMP test
aircraft in May 2023 and USAF will begin developmental flight tests in
November 2024 at Edwards AFB. Milestone C Decision Point #1 is
scheduled for 2nd quarter fiscal year 2025, and Milestone C Decision
Point #2 is scheduled for 4th quarter fiscal year 2025.
B-2
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $41.2 million in
RDT&E for B-2 to continue development and flight testing to modernize
avionics, communications systems, cockpit displays, armament systems,
low-observable components, aircraft supportability improvements, and
support equipment development. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget
also requests $101.5 million in procurement to allow the Air Force to
purchase and install equipment for modernized avionics, communications
systems, cockpit displays, low-observable components, and training
systems, as well as to provide maintenance and repair capabilities for
B-2 systems.
B-1
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $17.9 million in
RDT&E to complete development and flight testing to modernize the B-1's
secure communications systems. All of this is in preparation for
transition to production in fiscal year 2025, which enables fleet
installations to be completed by fiscal year 2027. Also, the Fiscal
Year 2025 President's Budget requests $13.4 million for B-1 procurement
to allow the Air Force to begin installation of secure communication
kits and procure external Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylons. The
external pylon integration maximizes carriage of standoff munitions on
the B-1 and allows the Air Force to increase volume of fires from
standoff ranges.
Fighter Force Structure
The Air Force must continue to evolve its fighter force structure
to meet the pacing challenge posed by the People's Republic of China
(PRC) and the acute threat posed by Russia and ensure the capability
and capacity to meet worldwide demands today. Extensive gaming and
analysis (using the most difficult problem-sets and scenarios) show
that the Air Force must adjust the future fighter force structure mix
by adjusting investment priorities to provide the capability, capacity,
and affordability required to defeat any peer threat. The threat will
not allow the Air Force to just retain and modernize our current
fleets. Modernization programs cannot transform our current fourth-
generation fighters into fifth-generation fighters, or our current
fifth-generation fighters into Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD).
In realistic budget projections, we must balance the need for high-
end technology with affordable capacity. To attain this desired fighter
fleet, the Air Force must continue to right size current aircraft
inventories to expedite the transition away from less capable, aging
aircraft and emphasize investment in future capabilities such as NGAD
and F-35 modernization. The desired Air Force fighter fleet should
match capability and capacity of both platforms and weapons to mission
requirements. As part of its force structure change, the Air Force must
transition its fighter fleet from seven platforms (i.e., F-35, F-22, F-
16, F-15E/EX, F-15C, A-10) to four (i.e., NGAD, F-35, F-15E/EX, F-16),
plus Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).
On the path to achieving the desired future fighter fleet, the
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget continues to seek opportunities to
divest systems that are not consistent with pacing challenges and focus
on the key capabilities required to execute the NDS. Moving away from
outdated and less capable legacy platforms allows us to redirect
manpower to our newest aircraft/platforms, many of which require both
experienced maintainers and pilots to maintain our competitive edge.
These divestitures are critical to building a relevant future force
capable of meeting the 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.
Fighter Force Structure Studies
Our fighters are becoming significantly more expensive to sustain
as they age. The average age of the Air Force fleet is 26 years, which
is significantly higher than all other Services. Weapons System
Sustainment (WSS) costs have increased approximately 40 percent above
inflation over fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2027. We need new
platforms and weapons to replace an aging force, but also must invest
in cutting edge technology needed to confront and outpace threats.
Both internally and alongside the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), the Air Force has performed a Tactical Aircraft (TACAIR)
analysis to evaluate how efficiently different force mixes meet future
warfighting challenges in the 2035-2040 timeframe. Specifically, this
study focused on fighter force mixes and quantities that were both
affordable and militarily effective. The Air Force TACAIR Study was an
initial step in creating a long-term plan for our future fighter force.
While this study was not published, it was used internally by the Air
Force to inform both fiscal year 2025 and future year programming
efforts.
Fighters
F-35
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget prioritizes investments in
F-35 modernization, infrastructure, and advanced weapons, and commits
$5.9 billion to procurement, $1.2 billion to development and $2.8
billion to sustainment. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request
for 42 F-35A aircraft represents a decrease of 6 aircraft from the
Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget position. Decreasing F-35A
procurement was not an arbitrary decision. Reducing aircraft quantities
enables the Air Force to fund unplanned increases to F-35 support costs
without significant increases to the F-35 budget. Additionally, slowing
the pace of procurement allows added flexibility for Lockheed Martin to
work through the issues related to Block 4 development and integration.
Propulsion and power-thermal-management-systems-development
investments help ensure capability enhancements continue to be viable
for the platform as demands increase, while also reducing lifetime
sustainment costs. Development funds also address a critical shortfall
of F-35A flight test aircraft, which alongside System Integration Lab
(SIL) resources are major F-35 modernization enablers.
The F-35 is the cornerstone of our future fighter fleet, and as of
April 2024, 409 F-35As are fielded. Although a formidable platform
today, the Air Force must continue to smartly modernize the F-35A fleet
to keep pace with potential adversaries on relevant timelines. The
current program-wide focus remains on Tech Refresh-3 (TR-3)
certification and maintainability, which are the foundations for Block
4 capability upgrades and are designed specifically to compete in the
highly contested fight in INDOPACOM and EUCOM.
The Air Force committees commit to controlling F-35 costs for both
production and sustainment, as well as maximizing mission readiness.
The Lighting Sustainment Center delivers global support to U.S.
Services, F-35 Partners, and Foreign Military Sales customers around
the world. In response to the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA Section 142
mandate, the Air Force is working with the OSD, the Department of Navy
(DoN), and the Joint Program Office (JPO) to assume greater management,
planning, and execution roles of sustainment functions, both to improve
aircraft availability and further reduce sustainment costs.
F-22
The F-22 is the Joint Force's preeminent air superiority fighter
and the only operational weapon system capable of countering pacing air
threats at scale into the 2030's. To date, its combination of stealth,
super-cruise, maneuverability, and integrated avionics have given it
``First Look, First Shot, First Kill'' capabilities against adversary
platforms. However, it requires an aggressive modernization strategy to
ensure continued advantage against emerging threats in highly contested
environments. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request furthers
F-22 modernization with continued development and integration of sensor
enhancements (SeE), communication systems (Link-16 and Mode 5 Challenge
and Reply), navigation systems (EGI-M--an advanced navigation
technology, known as Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS) /
Inertial Navigation System (INS) Modernization, or EGI-M, and
Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna-CRPA), and other performance
upgrades.
The fiscal year 2025 RDT&E request of $768.6 million greatly
expands survivability by beginning the Infra-Red Defensive Suite (IRDS)
Gen III integration effort, while maintaining continued developments
across the entire F-22 modernization portfolio. The fiscal year 2025
procurement request of $934.2 million ramps up production of Mode 5 and
Low-Drag Tanks and Pylons (LDT/P) kits that are essential to reduce
fratricide potential and extend maximum combat sortie ranges and
durations.
To resource these F-22 modernization efforts and invest in sixth-
generation platforms (NGAD), the Air Force has sought to divest F-22
Block-20 Formal Training Unit (FTU) and Test aircraft in the Fiscal
Year 2023 President's Budget, Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget, and
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget. However, the 2023 NDAA prohibits
divestment of F-22 aircraft through fiscal year 2027. F-22 Block-20
aircraft are currently in their third decade of operations, with the
highest operating costs of any Air Force fighter, and do not possess
the combat capabilities resident in the F-22 Block-30/35. The Air Force
remains committed to delivering air superiority to the Joint Force in
the highly contested environment.
F-16
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget reduces the F-16 Total
Aircraft Inventory (TAI) by 11 aircraft, to 830, and continues
modernizing the post block fleet (i.e., Block 40/42/50/52) to improve
survivability and offensive viability into the 2040's, filling mission
roles in conjunction with fifth-and sixth-generation fighters.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $107 million in
RDT&E to continue Operational Flight Program (OFP) software updates to
integrate new mission capabilities, weapons, targeting pods, and
improved avionics in support of NDS priorities.
Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests
$231.9 million for procurement efforts to upgrade core mission computer
sub-systems to realize full Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
radar capabilities, replace or repair aircraft-life-limiting
components, upgrade the Communications Suite to meet crypto mandates,
and continue AESA radar installations. Fiscal Year 2025 President's
Budget F-16 investments align with Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget
priorities and support the DAF fighter roadmap.
F-15 Divestments
In fiscal year 2025, F-15C/D fleet recapitalization continues, and
the Air Force plans to divest 65 F-15C/D aircraft, many of which are
beyond their service life and have serious structural risks, wire
chafing issues, and obsolete parts. The Air Force will also begin
divesting part of the F-15E fleet, retiring 26 of the older aircraft
which possess the less capable, Pratt & Whitney 220-engines. F-15
divestments make way for Air Force modernization, which includes F-15EX
procurement to replace the aged F-15C/D aircraft, as well as F-15 Eagle
Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS) procurement,
to increase the F-15 fleet's capability and operational readiness.
F-15EX
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget includes $1.8 billion to
procure 18 Lot 6 aircraft and 6 pairs of Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT).
The funds also support requirements for a sixth operational location,
which requires investment in spare parts, support equipment, training,
and other support requirements. Finally, the procurement request
includes funds to stand up organic, depot-maintenance repair
capabilities. This request supports a total F-15EX fleet of 98 aircraft
(6 fewer than in the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget) and would
bring total CFT inventory to 18 pairs (12 pairs funded in fiscal year
2024), enough for one squadron.
As of January 2024, the Air Force accepted six F-15EX test
aircraft, located at Eglin AFB. The Air Force expects to begin Lot 2
aircraft acceptance by the end of 2024 and grow F-15EX inventory to 29
aircraft by the end of fiscal year 2025.
The fiscal year 2025 budget contains $56.2 million in RDT&E funds
to continue F-15EX Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) and integration
development efforts, including incremental funding for the Automatic
Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS) and new Flight Control
Computer (FCC).
Forward Fuselage Redesign. Forward fuselage redesign
challenges delayed six Lot 1 aircraft deliveries. The final two Lot 1
aircraft are projected to deliver by June 2024, 8 months later than
projected during the Fiscal Year 2024 President's Budget rollout, but
still within the program baseline threshold.
Cartridge/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PADs)
Shortages. Issues have been mitigated through Lot 3 delivery (November
2025). The Air Force and industry remain engaged to mitigate CAD/PAD
risks to Lot 4 and beyond.
Gun System Shortages. DAF, Boeing, and the General
Dynamics have collaborated to resolve the issue. All operational
aircraft will deliver with their gun system installed.
F-15 Modernization (Including F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and
Survivability System (EPAWSS))
The Air Force continues investments in the F-15 fleet to improve
survivability and lethality within highly contested areas. The future
F-15E/EX fleet will bring substantial capacity for over-sized long-
range fires, sensors, and electronic warfare capabilities to complement
fifth-and sixth-generation aircraft and defend critical locations.
The fiscal year 2025 budget includes $357.6 million in procurement
funds to order F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability
System (EPAWSS) kits for 21 F-15E aircraft, install EPAWSS on 14 F-15E
aircraft, procure initial spares, provide for interim contractor
support (repair capabilities), and support other program requirements.
The procurement request also supports other F-15E system modernization,
many of which are necessary to comply with National Security Agency and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates. Specifically, the
request funds hardware, installation, and/or interim contractor support
for new or improved subsystems, which include a mission computer,
tactical datalink system, radio for satellite communications, and data
transfer module.
The fiscal year 2025 budget includes $178.6 million in RDT&E to
support F-15 annual software releases and flight test infrastructure
for developmental and operational test requirements of the F-15
platform and various defense weapon systems. The annual OFP software
updates integrate new hardware and weapons, counter emerging threats,
and react to emerging safety of flight issues, preserving the F-15's
survivability and lethality.
A-10
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget does not include
development or procurement requests, in accordance with the Air Force
plan to divest the entire A-10 fleet by fiscal year 2028 and
constraints imposed by the ``Sunset Clause'' (10 USC Sec 2244a)
prohibiting the bulk of A-10 modernization and associated procurement.
Although the A-10 has limited applications to higher-tier NDS
priorities and limited survivability in the evolving global threat
environment, the fleet is sufficiently modernized to meet operational
needs over the next 5 years and to operate safely through platform
divestment.
NGAD Family of Systems--Platform and CCA
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests approximately $3.3
billion to fund the development, testing, and experimentation of both
NGAD and CCA, as well as CCA integration with fifth-generation crewed
platforms. The CCA program will begin concept refinement for the next
CCA Increment (CCA Inc 2) and explore international participation.
In April 2024, the DAF exercised two option-award contracts for CCA
Increment 1 to Anduril and General Atomics to conduct detailed design,
build, and test of production-representative test articles. In 2024 the
Air Force plans to award an EMD contract for the NGAD crewed platform.
These activities, guided by a family of-systems acquisition approach,
will continue into fiscal year 2025.
Advanced Engine Development
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request includes $562.3
million in RDT&E for development of Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion
(NGAP) prototype engines. The NGAP program builds on Adaptive Engine
Transition Program prototyping to further advance adaptive cycle engine
performance and size scalability key to enabling future air dominance
capabilities. NGAP funding supports production and test of a prototype
engine by each of two contractors, preserving competition and key
engine design and manufacturing skills. The program is also driving
digital transformation of the propulsion industrial base to reduce
future integration risks while shortening development timelines. This
continued investment in the advanced propulsion and digital
transformation of the industrial base are key factors in maintaining
the U.S. strategic advantages in propulsion technology and development
capability over competitors and adversaries.
Munitions
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request for AMRAAM
continues investment 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 that can defend against more advanced threats in a highly
contested environment. The Air Force is requesting $447 million for 462
AMRAAMs to maximize production capacity through the future years
defense program.
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request for JASSM continues
investment in the long-range conventional air-to-surface missiles.
JASSM continues to be the Air Force's premier autonomous precision
guided standoff cruise missile; able to attack fixed or relocatable
targets. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $825 million
of missile procurement funding for 550 missiles that supports the
continued multi-year procurement strategy, initiated in fiscal year
2024. In the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget the Air Force also
requests $184 million of RDT&E to support the development of the B-3
and D variants of the JASSM. This funding supports Software
development, Weapon Data Link (WDL) development for the JASSM-D, and
weapon test and evaluation. These RDT&E efforts support fielding the B-
3 and the D variants in fiscal year 2027. The Air Force will continue
the purchase of the M-code enabled B-3 variant, and the post-launch
retargetable D variant for all future lots.
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request for LRASM continues
investment in the long-range conventional air-to-surface missiles
against high-threat maritime targets. LRASM is highly leveraged on the
design of JASSM-ER with over 70 percent hardware commonality and shares
the same production assembly line. The Air Force requests $354 million
of missile procurement funding for 64 C-1 and 51 C-3 missiles that
supports LRASM MYP (starting with lot 9 procurement) of AGM-158C and
AGM-158C-3 variants. The Air Force will continue to purchase the C-3
variant in fiscal year 2026 lot 10. The LRASM AGM-158C-3 variant will
be a forward fit Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to the AGM-158C, to
enhance long-range strike and existing Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare
(OASuW) capability. Beginning in fiscal year 2026 through the outyears,
the Air Force will be procuring LRASM C-3 only, until the missile
inventory objective is met. The DoN has oversight and primary
management authority for the LRASM program, to include system
development, with interest from the DAF as the lead for weapons
procurement and contracting.
Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW)
The Air Force continues to invest in technology to counter future
peer threats and continues development of the SiAW to deliver a strike
capability to defeat rapidly relocatable targets, a hallmark of the
highly contested environment. SiAW is the munition that gives the F-35
unique air-to-surface capabilities in the high-end fight for the Joint
Force. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $376 million
for SiAW development and prototyping, along with $173 million in
procurement funding to field Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
Extended Range (AARGM-ER) on the F-35 as an interim capability.
Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget does not include a request
for ARRW RDT&E or procurement funding. ARRW recently completed the
final test of its All-Up Round executed under rapid prototyping
authorities in March 2024. While future ARRW decisions are pending
final analysis of all flight test data, the service is pleased to
report that the ARRW rapid prototyping program is a categorical
success.
Though specific test objectives cannot be provided in an
unclassified forum, the test acquired valuable, unique data, and was
intended to further a range of programs such as ARRW and Hypersonic
Attack Cruise Missile (HACM). It also validated and improved the Air
Force's test and evaluation capabilities for continued development of
advanced hypersonic systems.
Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM)
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of $517.0 million
in RDT&E for the HACM development allows the Air Force to mature HACM
through ground and flight testing, continue model-based engineering and
digital ecosystem, complete critical design, and increase production
readiness. Funding will support finalization of design verification
testing, execution of initial qualification testing, and aircraft
integration activities required for the HACM flight test campaign in
fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2027 and enable production article
procurement by fiscal year 2027.
Aerial Refueling
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 2025 President's Budget requests $3.2 billion in
RDT&E and procurement to continue uninterrupted tanker
recapitalization.
KC-46A
The KC-46A continues to provide increased operational readiness,
flexibility, connectivity, and survivability to the Global Reach
mission. To date, 139 production aircraft are on contract and 82 KC-
46As have been delivered to the warfighter.
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 the taxpayers or warfighters. The RVS 2.0
solution and start of fleet retrofit is now scheduled in fiscal year
2026. In addition, the stiff boom deficiency design solution is
expected to start fielding in fiscal year 2026.
While the KC-46A program is addressing these challenges, Air
Mobility Command (AMC) has accepted a certain level of risk and cleared
the KC-46A for worldwide operations, using existing approved
restrictions, operational guidance, and risk assessments for all
Mobility aircraft. KC-46As must fill rotational deployments to ensure
KC-135 units remain within deploy-to-dwell redlines and are afforded
training opportunities to meet operational readiness requirements. The
Air Force will utilize the capability the KC-46A can provide today, in
order to support global operations and continue the KC-46A transition
while we divest KC-10's and KC-135s. The A-10 is not cleared for
operational refueling; the E-2D, C-32B, and B-21 are awaiting receiver
certification. All other Joint aircraft have been cleared for
operational air refueling.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $93.6 million in
RDT&E funds to support the ongoing KC-46A EMD 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 Pegasus Advanced
Communications Suite (PACS) Block 1 program. In addition to PACS Block
1, AMC will accelerate the means to connect the Mobility Air Forces
(MAF) via the fiscal year 2025 new start MAF Connectivity to optimize
operations and close logistics and kill chains. These connectivity
initiatives will provide the KC-46A with increased communications
reliability using high-bandwidth, multi-waveform, multi-orbit,
constellation systems of systems, including accelerating commercial
satellite-based internet services. Additionally, the budget requests
$3.1 billion to fund procurement of 15 aircraft in Production Lot 11
and the associated support costs, along with increased depot standup
and transition to organic sustainment efforts. The DAF is increasing
the number of KC-46A programmed aircraft from 179 to 183 aircraft,
which procures 4 additional aircraft in fiscal year 2027 Production Lot
13.
Tanker Recapitalization
Accelerating future tanker capability and recapitalizing the aging
tanker fleet is a top priority for the DAF. Tanker Recapitalization is
the second phase in replacing legacy tanker aircraft, following the KC-
46A program that ensures continuous, uninterrupted tanker
recapitalization. The DAF's goal is to use the Tanker Recapitalization
program to replace up to 15 KC-135s per year as they retire between the
completion of the KC-46A contract and an accelerated Next Generation
Air-refueling System (NGAS). The program received Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) validated requirements and released a draft
System Requirements Document (SRD) to industry in 2023. Market research
and the Business Case Analysis (BCA) re-look is complete, the DAF is
using the data to inform the program's acquisition strategy, scheduled
to occur in June 2024.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of $13.7 million in
RDT&E funding will support fiscal year 2025 acquisition activities
including the Future Tanker program office stand up, release of the
program's Request for Proposal (RFP) to industry, Engineering Support,
and Cost Analysis.
Next Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS)
NGAS will deliver adaptive and agile platform(s) and mission
systems as part of a tanker Family of Systems by the mid -2030's. The
NGAS Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) will consider a wide range of
designs including clean sheet design(s) and purpose-built aircraft to
address projected threats and needed capabilities and leverage benefits
of full and open competition. NGAS held its Materiel Development
Decision (MDD) milestone in January 2024 and was approved entrance into
the Material Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase. In addition, the OSD Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation approved the AoA study plan, and the
9-month AoA. It is currently underway, and will be completed in October
2024. The AoA will shape requirements and determine the technology
development timeline. Finally, the DAF is standing up a Future Tanker
program office to execute both the NGAS and Tanker Recapitalization
programs.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of $7.0 million in
RDT&E funds draft requirements development efforts, prep for the
acquisition strategy for the Technology, Maturation, and Risk Reduction
phase and Milestone A prep, and post AoA studies, updates to tanker
models and run high-fidelity modeling and simulation to further
exercise Joint warfighting concepts and plans. The DAF is constantly
evaluating technology acceleration opportunities for the program and is
awaiting the AoA results and post-AoA modeling and simulation data.
KC-10 and KC-135
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $32.0 million in
RDT&E to continue KC-135 fleet communications suite modernization to
enable digital and secure communications across the fleet. These
modernization efforts include Aero-I SATCOM, Comm 2 Crypto and Data,
High-Frequency Modernization, and Mobile User Objective System (MUOS).
The funding will also be used for drag reduction initiatives to support
DAF Climate Action Plan (CAP) initiatives in an effort to reduce fleet
emissions. This funding will address critical DMSMS issues through the
Center Console Refresh (CCR) program. This effort replaces the
integrated fuel management panel, fuel management panel, tanker
interface unit, multi-function display, and the control display unit
which are all out of production and no longer able to be serviced.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget also requests $161.6
million in procurement to continue installation of Real-Time
Information in the Cockpit (RTIC), Comm 2 Crypto and Data, High-
Frequency Modernization, and the safety of flight Rudder Position
Indicator (RPI) modifications. These modifications will allow the KC-
135 to meet NSA-crypto mandates. The RPI modifications will allow crews
enhanced situational awareness into the actual rudder position, versus
what is commanded, and provide advanced visuals so crews can avoid
safety of flight situations. The KC-135 will also begin the
installation of MAF Connectivity enhancement; allowing the tanker to
close logistics and kill chains. The KC-135 fleet completed all Block
45 installs in fiscal year 2024. The KC-10 fleet will fully divest by
the end of fiscal year 2024.
Executive Airlift
The Executive Airlift fleet supports the President of the United
States through VC-25 and the Vice President of the United States, First
Spouse of the United States, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff through five different
aircraft types. Modernization and recapitalization efforts of these
aircraft will continue to provide reliable operational support and keep
passengers globally connected while airborne.
VC-25A
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of $11.4 million in
procurement is for Block Upgrade efforts (low-latency worldwide data
connections, aggregated throughput bandwidth, and Multi-Role Tactical
Common Data Link (MRTCDL) on one aircraft, low-cost modifications, and
service bulletins.
VC-25B
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $433.9 million in
RDT&E to continue EMD, aircraft modifications, developmental test and
evaluation, and other product support activities.
C-32 / C-40
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $338.7 million in
procurement funding to purchase one aircraft that will augment the
current C-32A executive airlift fleet. The acquisition will modify a
new-production, industry standard, business aircraft by integrating the
military-specific modifications and Senior Leader Communications
System-Airborne (SLCS-A) suite already present on the executive airlift
fleet. The C-32A fleet supports the Top Five (Vice President of the
United States, First Spouse of the United States, Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). This
fleet augmentation will alleviate pressure on the C-40B and C-40C
fleets that currently support combatant commanders, the Cabinet, and
Congress.
Strategic and Tactical Airlift
The stacked demand of global operations requires a set number of
strategic and tactical airlift aircraft with specific connectivity,
survivability, and agility capabilities now, generating at mission-
capable rates to meet timelines and win the fight.
C-5M
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $55.0 million in
procurement, predominately for Crown Skins, as well as Communications,
Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM), C-5 Core
Mission Computer/Weather Radar (CMC/WxR) system equipment, and Mission
Systems Equipment Lavatories (MSEL). Crown Skins replacement and
lavatory modifications address corrosion issues decreasing availability
of aircraft and causing grounding. CNS/ATM complies with civil airspace
mandates for US National Airspace System and international civil
airspace. CMC/WxR upgrades computer processor modules and addresses
obsolescence issues.
Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests
$33.0 million in RDT&E to support Replacement of the Multi-functional
Controls and Display (RMCD), which mitigates the obsolescence of the
current control and display units and increases capacity for future
technology integration into the cockpit.
C-17A
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $113.7 million in
procurement funding to continue critical modifications to the C-17
fleet to address obsolescence and flight safety issues. These include
Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS), Replacement Heads-Up Display (RHUD), and
Filter Fire Mitigation (FFM) for Onboard Inert Gas Generating System
(OBIGGS), and Aircraft Connectivity. The BLOS communication system
effort modernizes multi-channel voice and data communication subsystems
to address obsolescence issues and enables compliance with FAA and NSA
mandates. The RHUD modification addresses obsolescence issues with the
current HUD that will become unsupportable in fiscal year 2026 and
could cause grounding of aircraft if the current scheduled is delayed.
FFM includes a redesigned shut off valve that eliminates potential
filter fires, improves fuel efficiency, and incorporates a Master
Caution annunciation to warn aircrews of potential filter fire risk.
MAF Connectivity is a new start program that will provide capability
for increased aircrew situational awareness, real-time secure command
and control of forces, and close logistics and kill chains.
Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $17.4
million in RDT&E funding to address obsolescence issues. Flight Deck
Replacement prevents obsolescence in 16 existing C-17 flight deck
parts. Four parts will significantly impact aircraft availability in
fiscal year 2029 and deplete assets worldwide by fiscal year 2031.
C-130H
The fiscal year 2025 President's budget requests $102.5 million in
procurement funding to support the C-130H fleet. 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
more frequently flown aircraft, enabling them to continue to safely
operate well into the future. The Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
Increment 2 program improves the C-130H fleet maintainability and
reliability by providing a new digital avionics suite, mitigating
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source challenges, and
provides Crypto Modification I capabilities to include MUOS/SATURN
upgrades.
C-130J
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $34.4 million in
RDT&E and $209.3 million for procurement and modification efforts. The
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget also requests $24.9 million in
RDT&E for HC/MC-130J and $231.9 million for procurement and
modification efforts for HC/MC-130J.
The Air Force has partially recapitalized the C-130H fleet with C-
130Js, which also supports our Special Operations missions by providing
Special Forces with extra weight carrying capacity, longer range, and
better fuel efficiency. These special mission variants of the C-130J
conduct 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
both our C-130H and C-130J fleets with a MUOS 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.
Rotary
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 planned fleet of 96 HH-60W will replace the HH-60G in this role.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $2.1 million in
procurement for the HH-60G and $52.3 million in RDT&E and $193.5
million in procurement for the HH-60W program.
MH-139A
In April, the Air Force notified Congress of a critical Average
Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) breach of at least 31.3 percent and a
Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) breach of at least 43.1 percent.
The breach is largely due to the reduction of 38 air vehicles in the
fiscal year 2025 PB. The DAF intends to continue the orderly
performance of the MH-139A program while we work with OUSD (A&S) to
complete the Critical Nunn-McCurdy process and report to Congress on
the Department of Defense's decision to certify or terminate the MH-
139A program by mid-October, the timeline required by statute.
The MH-139A program will deliver 42 replacement helicopters,
training devices, and associated support equipment to replace the
legacy UH-1Ns for AFGSC. Air Force District of Washington, Fairchild
AFB, WA, Kirtland AFB, NM, and Duke Field, FL, will continue to fly the
UH-1Ns. The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $333.5 million
in procurement for the MH-139 program, which will fund LRIP for eight
aircraft, training devices, and support equipment. The first six
aircraft continue to be used to finalize test and development. The
first LRIP lot will deliver 13 aircraft in fiscal year 2025 and the
second LRIP lot will deliver 7 aircraft in fiscal year 2026.
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 Air Force lost
eight Airmen in a CV-22 Osprey mishap on November 29, 2023, off the
shore of Yakushima, Japan. In response, Lieutenant General Tony
Bauernfeind, Air Force Special Operations Commander, convened safety
and aircraft investigation boards to determine the cause of the mishap
and the tragic loss of life. On December 6, 2023, Lieutenant General
Bauernfeind directed an operational stand-down of the Air Force CV-22
aircraft to mitigate risk during the mishap investigation. It has been
determined that a materiel failure of a component led to the mishap.
Furthermore, information from the Air Force Safety Investigation Board
and an evaluation of historical data from over 750,000 V-22 flight
hours identified the need for additional maintenance and procedural
controls to mitigate risk. Institution of these controls and a safety
focused, multi-phased approach for maintainers, aircrew, and aircraft
enabled a return to flight authorization on March 8, 2024. Full
operational capability of the CV-22 is expected in summer 2024. The
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $84.8 million to continue
development and 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.
Notable investments include the Block 20 Mission Computer Obsolescence
Initiative to replace older mission computers and upgrades several
avionics systems. Additionally, investments in Nacelle Improvement
include redesigned wiring and structural improvements of the nacelles
designed to increase aircraft availability by over 5 percent.
Trainers
T-1, T-6, and T-38
The Air Force is continuing investment efforts in its legacy
trainer platforms, including critical modernization programs for the T-
6 and T-38 fleets. The T-1A Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request
of $0.133 million in procurement funds low-cost modification efforts of
the T-1A. The divestment of the T-1A fleet resumed on April 15, 2024,
following SecAF certification of the Pilot Training curriculum in
accordance with the fiscal year 2024 NDAA. Training of future Mobility
pilots and Combat System Operators, currently being conducted in the T-
1A Aircraft, will be accomplished in simulators.
The T-6 Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of $130.2
million in procurement and $38.6 million in RDT&E supports the
procurement of Crash Survivable Recorders and the continued development
of Avionics Replacement Program (ARP). In fiscal year 2025, the T-6
will begin a major ARP to address DMSMS for critical avionics issues.
Continued investments are also required for the modification and
sustainment of the T-38 fleet until the T-7A becomes operational.
Programs include avionics updates, and structural life extension
programs such as Pacer Classic III, and the Talon Repair, Inspections,
Maintenance program. The T-38 Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget
requests $115.5 million in procurement to support the procurement of
kits that will update the T-38 avionics and extend the structural life
of the T-38.
T-7A
The T-7A aircraft and simulators will fill training capability gaps
for fourth-and fifth-generation fighter aircraft by replacing T-38C
aircraft and simulators used in the advanced fighter/bomber track of
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training, Introduction to Fighter
Fundamentals, Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training, and Pilot Instructor
Training. On September 27, 2018, a $9.2 billion fixed price contract
was awarded to the Boeing Company, providing for the anticipated
delivery of 351 aircraft, 46 associated training devices, and other
ancillary supplies and service. The first T-7A aircraft and simulators
are scheduled to arrive at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph (JBSAR) in
2025. All undergraduate pilot training bases will eventually transition
from the T-38 to the T-7A. The combination of digital engineering and
early prototyping enabled the T-7A program to identify and resolve
unfavorable control and handling characteristics at the early stages of
development. The utilization of Boeing owned T-7 prototypes has
supported the Advanced Pilot Training acquisition schedule.
The Air Force and Boeing have made significant progress in
resolving the egress system and flight control law issues that led to
the delay of Milestone C from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2025.
Numerous studies and redesign have led to the increased safety of the
egress system and refinement of the flight control software. The
program will validate the design changes by conducting a total of 22
test shots. The Air Force and Boeing will continue to work together to
ensure the timely resolution of issues as the T-7A progresses through
the EMD phase.
First Flight of the T-7A occurred on June 28, 2023 at the Boeing
facility in St Louis, Missouri. The Air Force accepted its first EMD
aircraft (APT002) on September 15, 2023 and conducted its first flight
test on December 20, 2023 at Edwards AFB. Since its first flight tests,
APT002 has conducted multiple flutter flight tests. Additionally,
APT003 has completed initial climatic tests at Eglin AFB. Boeing has
also delivered APT001 and it will conduct loads test at Edwards AFB.
Finally, in mid fiscal year 2024, the program will conduct critical
High Angle of Attack (HAA) flight tests using Boeing-owned prototypes
to validate design refinements to its flight control software. Boeing
is expected to deliver the final two EMD aircraft by the end of the
second quarter of fiscal year 2024.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request of $83.8 million in
RDT&E funds the testing and development of the EMD aircrafts and Ground
Based Training Systems (GBTS). Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2025
President's Budget request of $277.8 million in procurement funds the
first seven LRIP aircraft, associated spares and GBTS devices. The Air
Force remains focused on working with Boeing to enable the T-7A program
to achieve Milestone C.
Command and Control
E-7A Wedgetail
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget includes $418.5 million to
continue rapid prototyping of the first 2 E-7 aircraft in support of a
production decision in fiscal year 2026. To support Joint and coalition
forces, the Air Force must provide a mix of space and airborne sensors
and decision support capabilities for Command and Control (C2) and
Airborne Moving Target Indicator (AMTI) in the air domain. AMTI
investment is essential to countering advanced and emerging air threats
fielded or in development by adversaries. While the E-3 lacks the
capability to support high end operations and cannot be modified to
close existing Airborne C2 and AMTI capability gaps, the Air Force is
committed to sustaining and maintaining the remaining 16 AWACS to be
operationally ready.
Boeing's proposal for the Rapid Prototyping Program (RPP) was much
higher than expected, so the Air Force is evaluating courses of action
to determine the best way forward. At this time, Air Force's primary
focus is working with Boeing to get the E-7 platform to a level of
affordability the Service can prudently pursue and to successfully
demonstrate the Rapid Prototyping phase of the program. OSD and the Air
Force have worked to rephase planned production decisions and funding
to support RPP contract negotiations and definitization efforts.
The United States Air Force, the Royal Air Force, and the Royal
Australian Air Force are committed to collaborating on E-7 programs for
mutual benefit through cooperative capability development, evaluation
and testing, interoperability, sustainment, operations, training, and
safety.
E-3 AWACS
The E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft
continues to be a worldwide integrated battle management command and
control (BMC2) surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform.
The aircraft has been in service since the mid-1970's. Due to its age
and sustainability issues, the E-3 AWACS has become increasingly
expensive to support. It also lacks sufficient capability and capacity
to operate in a near-peer conflict to meet Combatant Commander needs.
Divesting part of the fleet will temporarily improve sustainability by
adding high demand-low availability parts back into the supply chain.
As part of the previous Fiscal Year 2023 and Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budgets, the Air Force divested a total of 15 AWACS
aircraft, leaving a total of 16 aircraft to remain operational until
its replacement, the E-7 Wedgetail, is delivered to the warfighter.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $68.2 million in
procurement to complete final modifications necessary to meet system
operational mandates and address diminishing manufacturing sources as
part of our commitment to ensuring E-3 AWACS mission readiness.
Electronic Warfare
EA-37B Compass Call
Compass Call is the DAF'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 EA-37B in order to maintain U.S. Electromagnetic Spectrum
(EMS) superiority in future conflicts. The EC-37B was redesignated to
become the EA-37B, which better identifies the platform's mission of
offensive electromagnetic attack. The Air Force greatly appreciates the
ongoing congressional support to the Compass Call program. To date, ten
EA-37B aircraft have been procured and are at various stages of
modification, with limited fielding for training only in mid-fiscal
year 2025, and initial operational fielding in late fiscal year 2025.
With the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget, the Air Force will be
focused on completing Developmental and Operational Test for the
rehosted EA-37B capability, as well as furthering development of the
mission system upgrade for fielding 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 the foundation for future baseline
upgrades.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
MQ-9
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget of $19.5 million aimed at
providing needed capabilities to the Combatant Commands. To date, the
MQ-9 fleet has flown over 3 million hours, with the vast majority of
those hours supporting combat operations.
The Air Force will finalize the transfer of the remaining 6 of 10
Block 5 aircraft to the Marine Corps. The Air Force will remove high
time Block 5 aircraft in fiscal year 2027. The AF has enough Block 5
aircraft to maintain current operations through the end of the FYDP.
RQ-4 Global Hawk
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request focuses on maintaining
the nine-airplane fleet, Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion
Program (MP-RTIP) sensor, and ground systems at a minimum viable level
until divestment. The Global Hawk will divest when replacement
capabilities are available, a change from the Fiscal Year 2024
President's Budget request in which divestiture was scheduled for
fiscal year 2027.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $9.5 million in
RDT&E to support ongoing engineering and logistics effort for all
Global Hawk projects required for sustainment.
daf battle network
DAF Program Executive Officer for Command, Control, Communications,
and Battle Management (DAF PEO C3BM) is the acquisition lead alongside
the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) Cross-Functional Team
which is the operational lead for the development of the DAF BATTLE
NETWORK, which aligns USAF and USSF command, control, and
communications (C3) capabilities across 50+ core programs to fuse
sensors, effectors, and sustainment grids for decisional advantage. The
Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) is the budget Program Element
which funds key architecture development, software and applications,
digital infrastructure, and aerial networking capabilities to the
integration of C2 capabilities as part of DAF BATTLE NETWORK.
The Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget requests $743.8 million
within the ABMS PE to support the continued development of the DAF
BATTLE NETWORK architecture and enabling infrastructure. It allows for
the additional development of a DAF architecture and analysis for
relevant contested air, space and maritime mission threads. It also
enables the design, testing and initial deployment of digital
infrastructure to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. European Command, and
U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) delivered through five programs of
record spanning the development of a software-defined wide area
network, deployable, mobile and fixed digital infrastructure, and
deployable systems.
Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request
supports the continued development of key Command and Control (C2)
software programs, including Cloud-Based C2 (CBC2) which is currently
delivering capability for homeland defense to North American Aerospace
Defense Command/USNORTHCOM, and two additional programs focused on the
development of a common user interface for battle management command
and control (BMC2) and sensor orchestration.
Finally, the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request supports
continued development of aerial networking capabilities through the
Phalanx Griffon program, which will develop the technical framework to
expand airborne edge networking capabilities to deliver both data and
internet protocol routing between tactical aircraft and the DAF BATTLE
NETWORK. These investments in fiscal year 2025 will enable broader
fielding of C3 capabilities in fiscal year 2026 and beyond.
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 2025 and
beyond.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. Senator Cotton.
Thank you, Chairman. I apologize for my late arrival. I was
at the ceremony to unveil the statue of Daisy Bates, the iconic
civil rights leader of Little Rock Nine in 1957, which is the
new statue that the State of Arkansas has chosen to place
inside Statuary Hall.
In the interest of time, and with great disappointment to
you all, I will enter my remarks into the record. I know you
came here just to hear them.
Senator Kelly. I am very disappointed.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Tom Cotton follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Tom Cotton
Gentlemen, welcome and thank you for being here this afternoon.
Let me cut to the chase. Last year, I commended you for finally
maximizing the tactical fighter production line to get the Air Force
closer to the capacity it needs to fight the Nation's wars. This year's
budget cuts the numbers, again. There is no apparent consistency in
your force design. We should be producing F-35s at full rate
production, ramping up F-15EX production, and expediting development of
the E-7 Wedgetail, or some other way to conduct battle management in a
modern battlespace.
We must also fix our dwindling inventory of missiles and munitions
made even more serious by dozens of Air Force missions to defend Israel
in the past months. This is a matter of life and death for those you
protect with our Air Power--if an entire F-15E squadron and its
missiles were absent from the Middle East, would you have been so
successful in shooting down all those drones and cruise missiles? Your
budget cuts the very aircraft that conducted those missions.
I would also like to understand how you are maintaining the
lethality of the Air Force while we wait to field Next Generation Air
Dominance aircraft and Collaborative Combat Aircraft. We must develop
capabilities for the future, especially to maintain air superiority
through the 2030's. However, we cannot continue to neglect the upgrades
we need to ``fight tonight,'' especially on the fighters, bombers, and
mobility aircraft we will rely upon for decades to come.
If your answer is that you cannot afford these things, then you
need to advocate for more money, and loudly. We can't hear you.
The Air Force seems to be in danger of becoming overextended based
on current events. I would like to know how you are planning to
overcome existing gaps in capacity, while readying for great power
conflict, without exhausting personnel and equipment.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say on these topics.
Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Cotton. We will start
with questions here. I am going to start with Secretary Hunter.
Secretary Hunter, as you know, 60 to 80 percent of
lifecycle costs for the average airplane is sustainment, and at
various times there have been press reports that the Air Force
leadership is wondering whether you could afford to buy all
1,763 F-35s and pay for the lifecycle costs at the same time.
Some estimates had the flying hour costs at $39,000 an hour.
The F-35 is the most advanced weapons system in the world.
I got to experience this just in January when I flew an F-16
against an F-35, and was very impressed with some of the F-35's
capabilities.
This aircraft is critical to us maintaining our competitive
edge over our near-peer adversaries. So Secretary Hunter, could
you tell us what avenues the Air Force is investigating for
reducing the lifecycle costs of the F-35 so that we can afford
to operate the airplanes in the numbers that we need, and what
progress have you made in reducing the operating and support
costs?
Mr. Hunter. Well, we work a very close construct with the
F-35 Joint Program Office and with the Department of the Navy
to really get after the issue of F-35 sustainment costs. We
have a number of initiatives that we have been working on, some
of which have been accelerated by the National Defense
Authorization provisions Section 142 direction to us, to
examine how we better leverage the enterprise sustainment
capabilities of the services, Navy and Air Force, to more
affordably sustain that aircraft. That is something that the
Air Force is committed to. We are putting together a transition
team to help us tackle some of those challenges.
The biggest one that the Air Force is focused on initially
is the supply chain management part of the problem. We do
supply chain management for a lot of large air fleets, a lot of
large international air fleets, the F-16 being an example. We
believe that there are savings to be had by leveraging some of
our enterprise sustainment capabilities, in addition to the
capabilities that Lockheed brings to the table, to the
partnership.
Senator Kelly. Mr. Secretary, could you talk a little bit
about the F135 engine and some of the challenges? I know the
Air Force has faced turbine blade issues, also cooling problems
that are tied to the expansion of capability. But is the engine
one of the biggest components in trying to bring down the
lifecycle costs?
Mr. Hunter. Well, it is a huge component of lifecycle
costs. You are absolutely right about that, and when I first
came into this job we had huge issues of engines not being
available because of the turbine issue that you talked about,
and we had power modules that were just not functioning and had
to be returned to the depot for repairs. A lot of aircraft
sitting without engines.
We have largely worked through that issue, thanks to the
incredible work of the folks at Tinker and the Air Logistics
Center there, in close partnership with Pratt & Whitney. It was
a team effort to really get through that issue. So now we are
able to generate the number of power modules that it takes to
keep engines in our fleet.
There is a longer term issue, as you identified. Because of
the need for power for all of the systems of the F-35, that
longer term, we are working through the lifecycle of the F135
engine faster than what was projected. That has led us to make
an investment in the ECU upgrade to the F135 engine to get
after restoring the full lifetime of the engine.
Senator Kelly. What is the current goal for per-flight-hour
costs that you are trying to get to, from $39,000 an hour?
Mr. Hunter. I would have to do some translations. So we
articulate that goal in the Air Force as a cost per tail per
year of $6.8 million, which is the goal that we have
established. We are actually not far from that goal today.
Senator Kelly. How many hours does that give you?
Mr. Hunter. I would have to go back and look. I believe it
is 180.
Senator Kelly. Yes, that is $37,000 per flight hour. That
is still incredibly high. I am not sure what the F-22 is, but I
cannot imagine it is as high as $39,000.
Go ahead, General.
Lieutenant General Harris. So the F-22s, in particular, the
Block 20's are in the neighborhood of $75,000 per hours.
Senator Kelly. Wow.
Lieutenant General Harris. That is part of our challenge
with those aircraft.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, we will work--we will not stop trying to
get that cost lower, but from my perspective it is not uncommon
with what we are seeing in our other fleets, what we are seeing
right now with F-35.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. That cost.
Senator Kelly. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. I want to explore the topic of force design
and Department plans. General Harris, you mentioned in your
opening statement that Air Force fighters are older than the
other services, with an average age of 26 years. Is that
correct?
Lieutenant General Harris. I believe that was the comment
that was made, yes.
Senator Cotton. Does that mean that sustainment cost are
rising as the fleet ages, and thus reducing funds that are
available for modernization needs?
Lieutenant General Harris. There is always a tension
between the modernization and the readiness, and when you start
putting upgrades onto them, how much can we do per tail, per
upgrade, and still maintain pilot absorption. So that tension
for readiness and modernization will still exist, yes.
Senator Cotton. That sounds like a yes.
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes.
Senator Cotton. Okay. How does the procurement of F-15EX,
F-35, Next Generation Air Dominance manned fighters help you
avoid that downward spiral of continued sustainment cost
growth?
Lieutenant General Harris. So from a force design aspect,
what we do is we look at where do we need to be with respect to
the threat into the future. That mix of what is an inside force
and what is an outside force is the balance that we are trying
to maintain. That becomes the mix of the Collaborative Combat
Aircraft, the CCA, plus the F-15EX. So if you think about the
number of rails and the number of munitions you can put on the
EX as an outside force, working your way into the contested
environment, there has to be a mix of both.
When I mentioned in my comments about the force being out
of balance, we have a great short-range fighter game right now,
but it is not the inside force that we need. What we need to do
is pivot to a more outside force, with more rails, the F-15EX,
and the like.
From a force design standpoint, that is how I would answer
the question. I think if there is an operational piece I would
pass that off to General Spain or General Moore as far as the
cost per tail.
Senator Cotton. Before that, how important is the Next
Generation Air Dominance manned fighter to your future force
design?
Lieutenant General Harris. The Next Generation Air
Dominance family of systems is critical to what we do. What I
mean by that is the technologies that are being developed
within that portfolio and where we are going with the entire
enterprise, it is feeding technologies and it has helped us
create S&T and other areas that we are leveraging to put into
other platforms and weapons systems.
Senator Cotton. I mentioned the manned fighter. You talked
about the family of systems. Can you speak directly to the
manned fighter?
Lieutenant General Harris. I can ask Secretary Hunter.
Senator Cotton. Do you want to jump in on that one?
Mr. Hunter. On that one, so for our fiscal year 2025 budget
request we are requesting significant funds for the crewed
fighter part of the NGAD family of systems, and all the members
of the family are leveraging the technology that General Harris
described. But yes, we have requested significant funds in our
fiscal year 2025 budget request to move to the next phase of
the program when it comes to the crewed fighter.
Senator Cotton. What is your current assessment of whether
the United States Air Force or the PLA Air Force will first
field a sixth-generation manned fighter?
Mr. Hunter. My assessment would be that it would be the
United States, but the term ``pacing threat'' is, I think, a
very apt term, because it is a race.
Senator Cotton. Okay. General Spain, every year the
committee seems to receive a request to reduce the number of
manned fighters. How many fighters do you need to do your
mission?
Lieutenant General Spain. Thank you, Senator. I think that
part of the last question hints at the answer to this question.
The idea is that we are reducing the number of actual aircraft
fielded in order to bring on new capabilities that are
exponentially greater than those we are divesting.
There are limits to how much we are able to divest that we
adhere to, and we continue to work with the Secretary of
Defense and the combatant commands and the global force
management process to ensure that the fighter fleet that we
have meets the needs of the force.
Senator Cotton. Do you have a direct or specific answer
about how many fighters you need?
Lieutenant General Spain. I can take that for the record,
sir, but there is not a specific number of fighters. I can say
that we retain between 1,900 and 2,000 fighters currently. That
is the range that we are in. That is sufficient to meet today's
commitments, and that will be sufficient to continue to meet
the commitments going forward.
Senator Cotton. Okay. If the Air Force shuffles combat-
capable aircraft like the F-15E and the F-22 into training
roles, due to divestment, how is that going to affect your
current combat capacity?
Lieutenant General Spain. We are still working through the
details of how that would actually play out, if that were to
occur. But the bottom line is combat-capable aircraft would be
used for training, just like a training-tailored aircraft.
However, in extremis, if they were needed to go into combat, if
they were not T-coded tails, then we would be able to use them
for combat missions, if necessary.
Senator Cotton. Okay. Well, this is one of the concerns I
would have stated in my opening statement. I am sure you are
all going to go read the record about it tonight. I just do not
think we are buying enough stuff fast enough, whether it is
fighters or the E-7 or munitions. I may have more on that
later.
Senator Kelly. Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Hunter, General Moore, to continue the conversation, I wanted
to chat with you a little bit on KC-135 recapitalization. I am
aware of the significant risks that the Air Force faces in its
ability to sustain and protect the Joint Force across the globe
with an aging aerial refueling fleet. It is vital and incumbent
on the Air Force to provide the Air National Guard with the
requisite equipment to support its aerial refueling mission.
I want to ensure that there is transparency in the
decisionmaking process for the MOB 7 selection of the KC-46 and
a plan for what comes next with the remaining Air National
Guard with legacy aircraft.
Can you, Senator Hunter or General Moore, can you provide
insight into how Air National Guard units that have an existing
association with an Active Duty air wing will be scored on the
basis of that association during the MOB 7 process, and if
units will not be scored on their association with an Active
Duty air wing, why did the Air Force not include this in the
basing criteria for MOB 7 and was this scoring included in the
basing criteria for MOBs 1 through 6?
Lieutenant General Moore. Senator, MOBs 1 through 6 all
included an Active associate where they went to Guard units.
MOB 7 is not intended to include an Active associate
necessarily.
Senator Duckworth. Why?
Lieutenant General Moore. That is just not what we decided
to do with MOB 7. So there is----
Senator Duckworth. But why did you decide to take that
criterion out when it was in the previous six MOBs?
Lieutenant General Moore. So we feel like we have the
capacity with the first six that we needed to have in the KC-46
as we transition forward, past MOB 8 and into the future. We
will look at this again. But for MOB 7 we elected not to
include an Active associate. With the possibility of that
coming, we did include scoring criteria for the facilities that
go along with an Active associate in the event that that
becomes an additive mission in the future. But the presence of
the Active associate itself is not a part of the scoring
criteria for MOB 7. For the units that compete but are not
selected for MOB 7, we intend to replace every KC-135, one for
one, eventually. It will take us some time to do that. But our
intent is to replace all of the KC-135s with some form of a new
tanker.
As you alluded to and as you well know, I am not telling
you anything that you have not been watching for quite some
time. The youngest KC-135 that we own was made in 1964, and so
continuous recapitalization of the KC-135s is the top priority
in the air refueling portfolio. We have the ability to complete
the KC-46 buy. That will take us to 183, and then beyond that
we will continue recapitalizating the KC-135s as the budget top
line permits. But our intent is to recapitalize all of them.
Senator Duckworth. Okay. Are you committed to continue to
work with me on this?
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, ma'am. Of course.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Over the last year I have
discussed with Air Force leadership the importance of having a
force design plan, a strategic document to guide the Air
Force's modernization efforts. I want to thank you and just say
how pleased I am that the Air Force has worked with me this
past year on creating a force design process, and thank you for
being very responsive to that. As you continue to refine this
process and finalize your force design plan, I do want to offer
my continued support and willingness to engage in those
planning discussions.
Pivoting to conversation in the Indo-Pacific, I am
concerned about the unique challenges in the region and that
the region will have on the Air Force's aeromedical evacuation
and aerial refueling capabilities. The Air Force needs to
coordinate and integrate modernization efforts with INDOPACOM
and TRANSCOM to support a fight tonight mission and force
design planning.
General Spain, General Harris, and General Moore, as you
continue to develop the force design for the Air Force, how are
you working with combatant commands like INDOPACOM and TRANSCOM
to ensure our current and future operational requirements like
aerial refueling and aeromedical evacuation are incorporated
into the force design? I ask about this capability specifically
because they are contingent on the Air Force's investment in
the next generation air refueling systems and the KC-135
recapitalization.
Lieutenant General Harris. Senator Duckworth, thank you for
the question, and also thank you for your continued support
with this and working with us on the force design.
Since the last time we met, we have continued work on the
force design. We now have the framework of it, which is the
strategic context and where we are looking out into 2030, 2035.
We also have, from the intel community, an assessment of that
same timeline and what we think. What that does for us is it
allows us to do an assessment, and these are the gaps and the
holes that we have within the Air Force. Come of it could be a
clean sheet new aircraft. Some of it is modifications we need
to make to existing platforms, and we have a list of that, as
well. We are happy to go over that at any time with you.
But the other parts of this that we continue to develop are
the force structure pieces of it, and by the end of June we
should have the manpower piece. So it is not good enough just
to have the capability come and arrive, but you need the
manpower to meet up at the same time, as well. So those are the
next two efforts, and that should be done by June, and we are
happy to circle back with you and have a meeting, and keep
working with you and your staff.
But as far as the COCOM [Combatant Command] inputs on this
one, I would say that the framework of the force design has
three components. It is Homeland defense, strategic deterrence,
and power projection, and from the we use the O-Plan, so this
is the COCOM's input to that, to make sure that we are adhering
to what NORTHCOM [United States Northern Command] needs, what
STRATCOM [United States Strategic Command] needs, and what all
the other combatant commands need under the power projection
platform piece of this. So that is one way that we do it.
The second way is we work through our components, so PACAP,
USAFE [United States Air Forces in Europe], to make sure that
we are hearing their requirements and putting that into the
force design.
We are just finishing up a wargame this week, to take a
look at what that force structure looks like, to see if it is
going to meet the needs of the future threat environment that
the intel community has laid out.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Can I just read out a
question for the record, for Secretary Hunter and General
Moore? I am concerned about the Air Force's operating and
contested environment and the need to resource air mobility
command. This is for the record. Can you explain how the new
integrated capabilities command will allow the Air Force Air
Mobility Command to modernize prioritization investments and
resourcing decisions, and how much input will combatant
commands like TRANSCOM [United States Transportation Command]
have in these decisions? Just get that back to me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
gentlemen, for being here today, and, you know, obviously the
Air Force is transforming to meet the needs of the NDS and of
great power competition. As part of the transition the Air
Force has been engaged in a series of open and closed tabletop
exercises to get ready for that China challenges.
One of the key recommendations has been the urgent need to
improve the resiliency of our air assets. Secretary Hunter, if
I could start with you, how does the Air Force plan to
prioritize when it comes to the construction and upgrade of
hardened bases in response to some of these evolving
challenges?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, that was a huge part of our Operational
Imperative 5 effort was to understand what are the bases that
are most in need of hardening and how do we prioritize and rank
among them. So there are significant funds that were included
in our 2024 budget request and also in our 2025 budget request
to procure equipment, supplies, construction material, and
everything that is required to do that work. Then the issue is
how do we prioritize where those materials and supplies then
go. That has been a huge part of our OI 5 effort, in close
coordination with Air Combat Command and the Air Force
components that General Harris just reference, PACAF and
others, as to how we deploy those assets.
Senator Ernst. Mm-hmm. I just want to make the statement,
of course, we do have a KC-135 tanker unit in the Iowa Air
Guard, so I just want to remind everyone not only do we see
needs for the future in our Active Duty Forces, but please do
not forget about our Reserve and Guard forces and their needs,
as well. The concern that we have in Sioux City with that
squadron is that they were promised by the Air Force years ago
that the Air Force would pay for the runway to accommodate
these 135 tankers. That has not happened. We divested fighter
jets. We took on the tankers. The Air Force has not made those
improvements to the runway, and we are very concerned that when
KC-46s roll around, we will not be able to accommodate and we
will lose that mission.
The Iowa Guard continues to give and give and give, and yet
we have not received what the Air Force has promised.
I understand the need to move forward and harden structures
in the future, but let's make sure we take care of the
commitments that have already been made, as well.
Thank you. That was just an aside. I am fighting for my
Iowa Air Guard.
Then, as well, let's move on to modernization. On the 13th
of April, I think we all witnessed in horror the launch of over
350 missiles and drones at Israel from Iran. Fortunately a lot
of the threats were neutralized due to the Israeli defense
capabilities, which included the F-15E. General Moore, the Air
Force currently plans to divest those Strike Eagles, over 100
of those, in order to modernize the Air Force.
What are we doing to make sure there is no capability gap?
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, ma'am. So we are very proud
of what happened as Iran took on multiple countries' air
forces. First of all, I would say that the command and control
that went behind that, all of the things that are a part of
that system, not just the aircraft and the pilots, the
munitions command and control, there were no friendly fire
incidents in that, in a very, very busy and very, very
compressed airspace. That is amazing.
Not to take anything away from what happened that night but
there was no air-to-air threat, there was no ground-to-air
threat, and Iran is not a peer adversary. So those aircraft did
not have to enter a highly contested environment, and they did
not compete with an air force that was specifically designed to
defeat them.
China is a peer adversary. Iran is not. Those aircraft
averaged 33 years old, and as I said at the beginning, our
strategy is not to divest aircraft. That is not the goal.
However, we do see the need to modernize aggressively, and in
order to do that we need to transition airmen as well as
resources to the future.
So we are very proud of what happened in Israel, but those
aircraft were not in a highly contested environment, and they
were not taking on a peer adversary.
Senator Ernst. Yes, and I do appreciate the approach you
are taking. I know we have to assume some prudent risk in doing
this, so as long as the Air Force has a plan to close any gap
that might exist out there, we trust that you are covering down
on that. So thank you for that.
I do have a couple more questions. I will submit those for
the record. But thank you, gentlemen, very much for being here
today. I appreciate it.
Senator Kelly. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen,
thank you for your testimony here today. Thank you for all the
work you do for our country every day. We appreciate that.
General Spain, I would argue that the Air Force needs to
continue to think outside of the box about potential KC-46
refueling tanker and the collaborative combat aircraft (CCA)
teaming, and the potential that offers. I was particularly
pleased during his SAS testimony last month when General Allvin
shared that the Air Force now is exploring using KC-46s as a
communications node with these efforts, potentially enabling
their use as an airborne battle management platform for future
CCAs.
So my question for you, sir, is how is the Air Force
working to advance expanded KC-46 communication capabilities,
and simultaneously, how can the Air Force begin to plan for
potential CCA KC-46 interoperability?
Lieutenant General Spain. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I think
operationally what I will talk to is the need to connect the
mobility fleet broadly and gain situational awareness within
those platforms to help out in the battlefield.
One of the things that we are learning as we experiment
with agile, expeditionary com capabilities is that the battle
management function in the future could be done really from any
platform and not an airborne early warning platform solely. So
for the acquisition details I will kick it to Mr. Hunter, but
from an operational perspective, getting the flexibility in the
evolution of command and control down the road would be very
beneficial to the joint force and coalition force.
Senator Peters. Yes, great. Secretary Hunter?
Mr. Hunter. One of the great things that happened last year
was our mobility guardian exercise in which we did some
relatively low-cost upgrades to enable some additional coms
with the air refueling fleet that participated in that
exercise, and demonstrated quite a bit of payoff, payback,
operationally for those investments.
So that is something that we are absolutely looking at, how
do we take that lesson learned and that approach and apply that
across our fleets. KC-46 starts ahead. KC-135 is an older
platform, has a little bit farther to go. But there is a need
for some modernization in both cases, and make that part of our
approach.
Ultimately what we characterize as our NGAS, the Next
Generation Air-refueling System, it is designed, in principle,
like our NGAD approach family of systems, technologies
developed under that programmatic approach, which actually be
utilized across the broader fleet, not just in the new aircraft
that would be being procured as part of a modernization
program.
So those are threads, all of which are currently in work to
expand the coms capability of the air refueling fleet.
Senator Peters. Great. Very good. Generals Spain and
Harris, this is question is for you. CCAs will require
comprehensive and integrated training certainly for all Air
Force components, including the Air National Guard. Training
should be planned and executed by all components to foster
uniformity in skills, tactics, and most importantly, readiness
for the Total Air Force.
As Air Force integrates CCA, it is crucial, I would argue,
to ensure that our training programs are collaborative as the
aircrafts themselves. So my question for both of you is,
currently how does the Air Force integrate new platforms across
the Total Force, including fielding, training, and maintenance,
and does the Air Force plan on adopting a similar model to
which you have used when it comes to CCAs?
Lieutenant General Harris. So I will start. First off,
thank you for the question. The way that we are going to
onboard CCAs, I do not think it is going to be too drastically
different from the way that we have seen onboarding of other
aircraft, with the exception of bringing something out into an
experimental operations unit. Something we have not done before
is having the aircraft fly with other unmanned aircraft in
close proximity to it, so there is going to be some learning
baked into this.
Using AETC [Air Education and Training Command] is going to
be part of this journey with us. There are ways that as we are
learning through tactics, techniques, and procedure, things we
want to institute within the schoolhouse, so when we bring new
pilots on they become familiar with how to operate with these
unmanned systems. So it is going to be the pairing and the
learning plus the experimental operations unit that we can
actually use to help harness some of this learning.
Lieutenant General Spain. Senator, from a training
perspective and operational perspective I would say that the
benefit and the value that is very clear by outfitting the
Total Force with similar capabilities in particular mission
areas is clear across all of our fleets, and CCAs would be no
different. We would intend to ensure that those units, whether
Active or Reserve component, have the same capabilities to
operate for the Joint Force in any fight with our allies and
partners, and on behalf of the Secretary of Defense, our
combatant commander in any theater, regardless of the
affiliation. So we would ensure that there is a baseline common
across the Total Force.
Senator Peters. Great. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Senator Mullin.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Harris,
just looking at you guys' reoptimizing for the future powers
ahead, right, you guys are making some changes to the training
processes for your pilots, which is great. You know, we have
got new platforms, new technology we have got to work on. But
as you know, Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma and Vance Air
Force Base, where Vance is one of the top five pilot training
centers in the country, where are we at with changing those
programs there, and where does it leave the Air Force bases,
when you start talking about what is the future of Vance and
what is the future of Altus and their current mission?
Lieutenant General Harris. I do not see the current
missions changing. What I do see changing is as we look to
reframe what a unit of action is and how we deploy, that will
be different, and this is where we get into the in-place combat
wings or the different types of combat wings that might be out
there. There are still foundational things that we need to do
within our Air Force, that Air Education and Training Command
does for us today.
The changes that we are talking about under great power
competition and reoptimization for this really are aligning
things like the accessions part of it, or onboarding of the
warrant officers and the other things that our chief has talked
about in previous testimoneys.
As far as the bases and the missions and the roles and
functions, specifically the institutional ones that are aligned
to that, I do not see those changing.
Senator Mullin. Well, in Vance I have a concern because you
are changing a lot of your flight times as simulators, which
is, at first, to be quite frank with you, General Harris, I was
thinking, how are you taking someone with the actual flight
time to a simulator, and then your instructors down there
actually spent time with me and said, ``Listen, we can put
these pilots now in simulations where they might have a 5
percent survivability rate because of a mechanical error. We
can put them in the simulator over and over and over again, and
we are going to see an increase of that survivability rate,''
and which I thought, okay, I totally understand that now. I am
not a video game guy at all. I never even won Mario Brothers
way back when on Nintendo, so that is just not my world.
But when you start looking at the simulators and the way
they are training, I totally understand it. But some of the
simulators you guys have set up at Vance is literally in a
warehouse. I was in there in the middle of summer and, wow. I
mean, this warehouse was 100 degrees all day long, if not over,
and these future pilots are sitting in these simulators for
hours. I do not see the infrastructure meeting where you guys
are moving toward. You are just taking them and putting stuff
there, and I do not see the investment.
I definitely do not see it when you are going to your
budget that the Air Force put out, I did not see anything new
for Vance to develop and need the new training that you are
asking them to do except using old infrastructure. So can you
speak to that?
Lieutenant General Harris. Senator, I can speak to part of
that. In terms of great power competition and the
reauthorization you will not see money associated with any of
the efforts that we are making into this one. A large part of
that is the work is ongoing, and we are still uncovering what
it is going to take to be able to do this effectively, and FSRM
[Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization] and
some of these facilities will be one of them. The joint
simulation environment is another piece of this. But it also
speaks to a broader piece of the ranges, in general, and how we
train and practice every day, and the modernization that it is
going to need to keep all of those together.
Senator Mullin. Go ahead, General.
Lieutenant General Moore. Senator, I am not tracking the
issue that you are talking about at Vance but I understand the
concern. Let us take this for the record and come back to you
and give you a more cogent discussion on this.
[The information referred to follows:]
Lieutenant General Moore. AMF-S training devices are
currently housed in a repurposed section of Vance AFB's
Consolidated Logistics Complex. This facility was constructed
in 2006, and simulators were installed in a repurposed section
of this facility in 2022, accompanied by a $94,400 investment.
This investment ensured the area remained climate controlled
and was supported by adequate electrical, fire detection, and
required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades.
To date, there have been only been five HVAC service calls
to this facility, all of which were corrected in less than 24
hours.
Based on our existing infrastructure options, a focus on
future-mission bed down and the projected divestiture of the T-
1A aircraft, this location remains the most optimal location on
Vance AFB to house these devices.
Senator Mullin. Let me explain this one too. I would love
to invite you guys there. We take a lot of pride in Vance, and
it is something that the community is 1,000 percent behind, it
is something that the State is behind. We love the fact that
there are more pilots trained there any anyplace in the
country. We want to keep that that.
So with that being said, I am a hands-on type of guy. I
want to see it. So we would love to make that invite. I will
personally make sure I change my schedule to fit your schedule,
if anybody wants to come down there and put eyes on it.
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, sir. We would love to do
that. I am not tracking this particular issue, but we will take
it for the record.
Senator Mullin. They are not complaining to me. I picked it
up.
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, sir.
Senator Mullin. They never brought it to me and said,
``Hey, we need to look at this.'' I just thought that if we are
talking about retaining the best, sometimes conditions do
matter.
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, sir. Fair.
Senator Mullin. Real quick before I run out of time, and I
hated to spend so much time on that. Secretary Hunter, we have
got a problem at Tinker with providing our mission when we have
an overrun of the E-7s while we are phasing out the E-3s. I
have brought this up multiple times, and we get answers that go
all over the place on how we are going to actually phaseout the
E-3s when we cannot deliver the E-7s on time and still be
mission capable.
We talk about utilizing space assets, which that is a
possibility. But what are we actually going to do to make sure
the mission that Tinker does--and we know Tinker provides a
very vital role to us, and especially in a time of conflict. If
we go into an eventual fight they are going to be our eyes and
our ears, and yet we are not going to have the platform to
provide the mission.
What is our actual plan? Are we going to plan on just
keeping some of the E-3s around, because they are phasing out
pretty quick, before we get the E-7s?
Mr. Hunter. So our plan is to have E-7 as a replacement,
and we are on contract with Boeing----
Senator Mullin. But way behind and over budget.
Mr. Hunter. So we have been executing on the work. What we
have been behind on is we got a proposal from Boeing that was
roughly twice what the budgeted funding, funds that were
budgeted based originally on information from Boeing about what
the cost was going to be.
I can tell you we have narrowed that gap quite
considerably, and to an area where I believe we will soon have
an agreement that will be something that is affordable for the
taxpayer, affordable for the Air Force, and we will be able to
definitize that contract with Boeing and know how that rapid
prototyping program, which is what we are currently engaged in,
is going to work over the next several years.
Then the issue--and we have seen some changes in our plan,
if you are referencing accurately--is how do we move into
production of those aircraft that we have taken through that
prototyping process. That is where there have been some delays
because not knowing that we had a design that was affordable we
could not in good conscious budget for production of an
aircraft that we did not yet have a design that we knew was
going to work.
So we will be able to revisit the issue of what does the
pace and tempo of E-7 production once we have that agreement
reached with Boeing.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. General Moore I think wanted to
weigh in on this but I am out of time. So, Chairman, it is up
to you.
Senator Kelly. Yes, go ahead.
Lieutenant General Moore. Sir, you said the E-3 would be
our eyes and ears. I think we all have to be honest about what
the E-3 actually provides. The physics of the E-3 does not
permit it to function in the highly contested environment.
Nothing that we can do to upgrade the airplane will change a
10-second revisit rate. It will not change the range. It will
not change the resolution, which allows it to see what we need.
The mission computer in an E-3 weighs 25,000 pounds.
It is powered by TF33 engines. We did an extensive amount
of research in the B-52 upgrade program to determine how long
those engines were sustainable, and there are some heroics that
could get some of those engines past 2030. But for all intents
and purposes, 2030 is the end of the road for the TF33 engine.
So we are working, as Mr. Hunter said, as quickly as we can
to bring the E-7 on, but the E-3 is not a part of the fight in
the highly contested environment. That does not mean that it
does not have use in other AORs [areas of responsibility] in
other regions, Homeland defense in particular, but it is not a
part of the fight in the highly contested environment.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Senator Kelly. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. Thanks for your service.
Secretary Hunter, could you repeat for me the cost of
flying the F-35. Did you say it was 180? I may be off on that.
Mr. Hunter. We were saying it is 180 flight hours, but it
is $6.8 million cost per tail per year. Then I think we were
trying to translate that into a flying hour cost, which I think
we calculated was in the mid-thirties range.
Senator Blumenthal. Mid-thirties. Is that a cost that our
allies or the customers for this plane are going to be able to
sustain? In other words, other nations that are buying the F-35
are paying $30,000 an hour to simply train and fly, and then
there is the cost of modernization of them. I am just wondering
about the long-term viability in terms of our allies and
partners with this plane.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, obviously they have smaller fleets. I have
not heard any of the allies indicate to me that the operating
cost of the F-35 is something that is significantly challenging
their budgets, beyond that we are all challenged by these
operating costs. But I have not heard any of the partners talk
about reducing their buy because of the sustainment cost.
It is something we continue to work to get after and to get
down, and I think we will, and we are on a path. I give General
Schmidt a lot of credit for the effort that he and his team
have put into that. But to the contrary, most of the partners
that I have talked to are talking about increasing their
purchases of F-35s. So that suggests to me that they are
finding it sustainable.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, that was my next question. What
is the likelihood of reducing the $6.8 million per tail?
Mr. Hunter. I think we can reduce it. I think we are
currently on track to do better than that, and I would like to
do quite a bit better than that if we can get there. I think
there are some good approaches. As I said, the potential
leverage, some of our Air Force enterprise sustainment tools,
some of which we are already doing. So the engine maintenance
work we do in partnership with Pratt & Whitney at Tinker has
really grown quite strong, and we can do similar type
approaches on other subsystems of F-35 in the Air Force, and
the Navy has many that they are focused on, as well.
Senator Blumenthal. The number of planes this year, the
procurement this year, is going from 48 to 42, and I understand
your testimony that there are reasons for it, in part the
modernization costs and, quote/unquote, ``flexibility'' I think
is the word that you used to give Lockheed. What is meant by
``flexibility'' for Lockheed Martin to work through the issues
related to Block 4 development and integration? What does that
mean?
Mr. Hunter. So the challenge we have specifically with the
aircraft in our fiscal year 2025 request is they are of the
variant that we are currently working to do the Block 4
upgrades, and working to deliver the technology, the design,
the hardware, the software to make a Block 4 variant of the F-
35. So specifically the lot of aircraft that we are funding in
fiscal year 2025.
Right now it is huge challenge to Lockheed to make all of
that integration work in time to meet the jets that are being
produced on the production line, and so a slightly smaller buy
does add some flexibility for making sure that production
schedule is going to work.
Senator Blumenthal. Last year, when we spoke about the F-35
procurement at the modernization hearing you indicated that
Russia's aggression in Ukraine has spurred numerous F-35
purchases by partners and allies, and I guess that trend is
continuing. You indicated that those purchases were sufficient
to mitigate the dip in procurement by our military, and by
extension, to sustain the supplier base.
Have you analyzed what the effects of the current trends in
purchases by allies versus our own military is going to be on
the supplier base?
Mr. Hunter. We have looked at what the likelihood is, based
on, because there is obviously Air Force and Department of Navy
both had some reductions in our fiscal year 2025 aircraft
purchases. It is our current belief and understanding that
there will not be a disruption to the production rate at the
factory, or that the FACOs, primarily Fort Worth, but obviously
some of the overseas ones, that they would be able to continue
at rate, even with these purchase levels from the United States
services.
Senator Blumenthal. Is that true of the parts and
components, the supply chain that provide what is necessary
going into the plane?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Secretary Hunter, let's talk a little bit about electronic
warfare here for a moment. We are seeing, in the war in
Ukraine, just how critical modern EW [electronic warfare] is on
a modern battlefield. Certainly in any conflict with a near
peer adversary we would be faced with a significant challenging
EW environment, hence the need for electronic warfare aircraft
like the Compass Call. The Compass Call airplane today, the EC-
130, is being replaced over time with the EC-37. This program
is currently slated to replace the 14 EC-130's with 10 EC-37s,
the first one having been delivered already to Tucson, the
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
It looks like the budget justification material shows that
we are not going to get all 10 of the EC-37s until the end of
the Fiscal Year Defense Program (FYDP) in 2029.
Secretary Hunter, what steps could we take right now to
accelerate the delivery of EC-37s, understanding that this is
an important capability that we would need in any conflict with
a near peer adversary?
Mr. Hunter. Well, Senator, that program has been executed
again on a relatively short timeframe. It was only a few years
ago that the decision was made to do the modernization, so the
rehosting of the Compass Call combat system onto the EC-37
platform. So I would hold it up as an exemplar of some faster
work, in general, compared to some of our production programs.
But to your point, to get all the way to fielding of the
new capability, you have to go through the aircraft production
process, the modification process, and then fielding to the
units. So I will look to see what opportunities we might have
to save some time on that process. But the work that has been
ongoing has not been without challenge, but it has happened
relatively on schedule.
Senator Kelly. The equivalent airplane in the Navy was the
EA-6B Prowler and then later the EA-18 Growler, and each air
wing typically had a squadron that had four aircraft. So with,
let's say, a dozen battle groups there you had about 36 or
more, 48, airplanes.
I was surprised when I saw that the Air Force had just 14
electronic warfare airplanes, and now going down to 10. So
could you talk about--and Secretary Hunter, maybe one of the
generals would be better equipped to answer this--but is 10
enough? I mean, it seemed to me when I heard this number, that
there were going to be 10 at Davis-Monthan, my initial question
was, well, where are the other electronic warfare aircraft?
Then I found out, well, there are not anymore. There are just
the 10.
Mr. Hunter. Yes, like you I have a little bit of background
on EA-6B from a prior portion of my career, and so when I
started looking into the Compass Call program I had to
understand it is extremely different conops from the way in
which EA-6----
But I will take your suggestion and defer to General Moore.
Lieutenant General Moore. Yes, sir. So the EA-37 is a
highly capable aircraft, as you know, and it does some things
that no other aircraft can do. It is far from the limit of the
Air Force's electronic warfare capability. With the APG-85 on
the F-35, the APG-32 on the F-15Es, EPoS on the F-15Es, there
are a variety of other electronic warfare capabilities that we
have in the fleet flying, and many of those at the front edge
even in the highly contested environment.
Beyond that we have added a Spectrum Warfare Wing
headquartered at Eglin with detachments in other places in the
Southeast with the specific intent of being able to
characterize a signal ingested by the F-35 and turn that back
around in an F-35 mission data file in a time that we could
talk about in a different forum. But suffice it to say the
quickness with which we intend to be able to do that is eye-
watering.
So the EA-37, it is unique in what it does, but the Air
Force's electronic warfare capability goes far beyond that
aircraft. Ten aircraft was intended to provide two caps.
Depending on what you believe about the breadth of the AOR that
we might have to fight in, you could discern whether or not you
think two caps would be enough. But that was the force sizing
construct when the program of record was set at 10.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General, and thanks for the
reminder. I have met with the commanding officer of the unit in
Eglin, talking specifically in the SCIF about how they turn
that signal around and how that can benefit the warfighter. So
thank you for that response.
Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Hunter, we have heard some talk about
connectivity today, and in your written statement you talked
about the need to develop command and control systems for
relevant contested missions. What is the fielding timeline of a
resilient network for all of these fighters, drones, and future
systems to talk to each other?
Mr. Hunter. It is a rolling timeline. In terms of that
first increment of capability, probably in the 2027 timeframe,
I would say, if you were to talk about something at the level
of a network capability. We have capabilities that are rolling
out prior to that, and they are meaningful. So we have that for
air defense already. We have already rolled out increments of
capability of that system that are meaningful.
But if you start talking about really being able to do
entire mission threads at scale, anywhere in the world, it is
going to be another few years before we can really say we have
rolled that out to the warfighter.
Senator Cotton. All right. What is the impact of the Air
Force's inability to certify basic network modernization today
like Link 16, due to FAA roadblocks?
Mr. Hunter. Well, we have a lot of challenges in test when
it comes to FAA and their certification of Link 16, so that has
impacted our acquisition programs, like the F-22, and several
other. It is challenge that we share jointly with the Navy
because many of our Link 16 capabilities are ones that the Navy
is the program lead for, and they run into the same challenges
that we do.
Senator Cotton. Okay. General Moore, I want to turn my
attention now to munitions. I noted $1 billion less in the Air
Force missile procurement compared to last year, even though
our munitions stockpiles are not where they need to be. Is the
Air Force currently maximizing procurement of munitions?
Lieutenant General Moore. Senator, we are close to
maximizing procurement. What we are talking about here are the
advanced munitions really, the ones that pertain to the highly
contested environment. We are, in most cases, within single
digits, or in some cases within 20 or 24 individual procurement
units of maximizing procurement.
What I think is helpful for the future is, thanks to the
Congress in the 2024 cycle there was additional facilitization
that allowed us to increase what the defense industrial base is
able to procure. So as that facilitization money takes effect
we will be able to increase procurement.
I would not say that we are buying every single round that
is available, but we are really close. the facilitization money
that came in 2024 will increase that capacity as we go through
the FYDP.
Senator Cotton. I am sorry. I do not know what you mean by
additional facilitization money.
Lieutenant General Moore. Building an additional line,
putting together the facilities that it takes to build more of
the same thing.
Senator Cotton. Is the Air Force using multiyear
procurement? Well, I should say, I know you are using multiyear
procurement for critical munitions. Can you buy more of these
munitions with additional fiscal year 2025 funds under that
multiyear plan?
Lieutenant General Moore. There is some additional
procurement that is possible, and if it is okay we will take
the specific numbers and the specific dollars for the record
and provide those back to you, by individual item.
[The information referred to follows:]
Lieutenant General Moore. The AARGM-ER, AIM-9X, and AIM-
120D3 missile programs are funded to equal the production
capability in the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget; no
excess capacity is available in those programs. Production
capacity above planned fiscal year 2025 procurement for other
USAF weapons programs is detailed in the table below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add'l Funds
Program Name Item Prod DOD* FY25 Excess Unit Cost to Maximize
Capacity Proc Qty Capacity ($K) Proc ($K)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AARGM-ER........................................................... AGM-88G 228 228 0 1,500 0
AIM-9X............................................................. Missile 2,500 2,500 0 729 0
AMRAAM............................................................. AIM-120 D3 800 800 0 1,122 0
JASSM.............................................................. AGM-158B3 810 550 260 1,294 336,440
JDAM............................................................... Guidance Kit 25,000 2,000 23,000 56 1,288,000
LRASM.............................................................. AGM-158C1 240 205 35 2,957 103,495
SDB I.............................................................. GBU-39 10,000 9,000 1,000 60 60,000
SDB II............................................................. GBU-53 2,100 1,155 945 219 206,955
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Fiscal year 2025 procurement quantities include USAF, DON, and currently funded critical FMS (UkrAF) plans.
Senator Cotton. Please do.
General Harris, I want to talk a little bit about unmanned
aerial systems and counter-unmanned aerial systems, C-UAS,
known by normal people as drones. What is the plan to defend
our air bases from small drone attacks? After all, we had three
troopers killed in Jordan about 3 months ago from such an
attack, and dozens of drones have overflown Langley Air Force
Base in the last 6 months.
Lieutenant General Harris. Thank you for the question. It
has been almost a year since I was back from the desert, where
I was the Deputy Air Component Commander, and the drone problem
was very much an everyday problem for us to deal with. For the
program of record and what we have within the Air Force, the
Ninja system onto this, is the one that we use primarily, but
it has to be a joint solution for this one.
The Army has several systems that are out there, and quite
frankly, is the detection piece as far as some of the smaller
Group 1 and Group 2, and then for the Groups 3 and 5, as far as
the Air Force doctrine and what we do, it is using some of our
counter-air tactics and air-to-air munitions to be able to
mitigate the counter-UAS, or the drone, threat that is out
there.
Some of the ones that you are seeing around Langley and the
like, these are things that we have to get after. We are
putting resources to those. But for right now, some of these
that use the systems that I mentioned before, the Ninja system,
that is one that we also have money that is in fiscal year 2025
to start looking at some other systems that might be effective
for this.
Senator Cotton. Okay. What is the Air Force plan, if any,
for low-cost, one-way large drones, like we have seen from
adversaries from Russia and Iran and China? I guess by low-cost
I mean numbers that have only one comma in them.
Lieutenant General Spain. Senator Cotton, yes, if I can.
Senator Cotton. Do you want to take that, General Spain?
Lieutenant General Spain. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. As was
mentioned, the problem of counter-UAS is a joint, and really,
frankly, a coalition problem. As we saw in Jordan, any loss of
life is tragic, and our hearts go out still to our Army
brothers and sisters who were impacted by that.
General Kurilla and General Grynkewich at the time, General
France now, are implementing procedures in the theater to
increase domain awareness, which is really a key limitation in
that theater. The events in Langley, or in Virginia, really
speak to the idea that the Homeland is no longer a sanctuary,
and we have to continue to pay attention to it. The systems
that we have been pushing forward have largely gone to the most
contested and kinetic theaters, and we have still paid
attention to systems in the Pacific and/or in Europe. But
starting with the Pacific next year we will field some systems
from a command and control perspective, from a sensing
perspective, and from a non-kinetic effect perspective.
Currently what we are doing is we are nested under the
Secretary of Defense's TIGER team for counter-UAS as a part of
the service, and the Air Force has its own TIGER team at the
half level that has initiated operations to support the wing
commanders who are in the field today, if that problem becomes
a factor, and they do not have the relevant capabilities at
their wings. Air Combat Command has initiated its own TIGER
team for the below-major-command level to ensure that there is
support for the commanders to deal with this threat, as well.
Lieutenant General Harris. It looks like, I was going to
say there are more things we could share with you in a
different forum.
Senator Cotton. Yes, and I take all that, but some of these
drones are not going to be for the little C UAS, right, but for
the actual attack systems.
Lieutenant General Harris. Yes, there is more we could
share on that in a separate discussion.
Senator Cotton. Yes. I fear that, no one at this table, but
I fear that this Department of Defense is taking its name a bit
too literally, and there is not enough thinking about how
offense creates its own defense.
Senator Kelly. Yes, that is what I thought you were talking
about, like what is the cheap offensive drone program, and I
know we need to talk about that maybe in a different
environment.
Secretary Hunter, I want to talk a little bit about the B-
21, if you can give us an update. It was good to see it is
going into low-rate initial production. Obviously, an essential
capability that we need to get a lot of ordnance on target, on
time. Any new developments, positive or negative, since last
year?
Mr. Hunter. Well, we are in the flight test program. The
flight test program is proceeding well. It is doing what flight
test programs are designed to do, which it is helping us learn
about the unique characteristics of this platform, but in a
very effective way. So we are working our way through the test
objectives that we have for the platform, and I am encouraged
with how that is progressing.
There are some key points still to come this year, and
looking forward very much to talking to you when we can come
back with data on those efforts and let you know where we
stand. But as of today, good progress being made, the flight
test program. We believe we are on track.
Senator Kelly. is this the first airplane that would be
considered to be fully digitally designed?
Mr. Hunter. Well, if you get to the people who are the true
experts on this topic there is always a point about, oh, was
this really digital, or how was this done. I would say it is
the first aircraft where it is far more digital than not, that
you can say that we have taken where we are at this stage of
production and moving toward fielding.
Senator Kelly. Can you attribute the timeline, and I
imagine the relatively shorter timeline, in getting this
airborne and starting flight tests to the fact that it was
digitally designed?
Mr. Hunter. I think it has helped us with being as on track
as we are to demonstrating that the aircraft that we have built
to test is meeting our requirements. So I think higher
fidelity, a higher likelihood of success.
There were other things that we did that contributed, as
well, which is we had quite a discipline in setting
requirements and looking for mature technology. So a lot of
good process things, but digital has been a key enabler,
especially on the software side. So this platform is somewhat
unique in the maturity of the software that we had available
when the aircraft came out of the factory.
Senator Kelly. One capability that is critical for the
system is the LRSO. Could you give us an update on where we
are? Is it on track?
Mr. Hunter. It is tracking well. The program is definitely
on track to meet its timelines and deliver to the warfighter
need date. We are also doing well on cost for that program, as
well.
Senator Kelly. Right. Thank you, Secretary Hunter.
General Moore, in my opening statement I mentioned my
concerns that the Air Force plans to truncate the HH-60 Whiskey
program. It would leave the Air Force roughly 25 percent short
of its original plan to modernize the combat search and rescue
capability of the fleet. So I worked to add 10 aircraft last
year to help alleviate the situation.
So for General Moore or General Spain, why do you believe
that truncating the HH-60 Whiskey program will be an acceptable
risk?
Lieutenant General Moore. Sir, the HH-60 Whiskey was
designed and purchased for warfare in the desert. Over the
distances that we see in the desert and with the threat profile
that we see it is highly effective in that AOR. It also does
other good work. The HH-60 Whiskey will support manned space
flight. It will support search and rescue inside the CONUS. But
we have enough aircraft to do all of those missions.
When you then translate to the highly contested
environment, I do not know that any of us think that we want to
be flying around the Pacific in a machine that refuels at 115
knots behind a C-130. It is just not the combat search and
rescue machine that we need for the highly contested
environment.
So for what we do need and for the great work that the HH-
60 Whiskey can do, we have plenty of them. We do not need any
additional aircraft to support combat search and rescue in the
Pacific. Personal recovery, as you know, certainly from many
years of service, is a service responsibility, and there are
literally thousands of aircraft in the DOD that can perform
personnel recovery.
Senator Kelly. So you are planning on PJs out of a C-130,
that kind of rescue in INDOPACOM?
Lieutenant General Moore. That could be one of the options.
I think that we will have to look at all of the relevant
options. I think CV-22 could play a role here. I think there
are several things that could be a part of personnel recovery.
But for combat search and rescue, doing that in a highly
contested environment with HH-60 Whiskeys, I do not see that
that is a path that leads us to success, and for what the HH-60
Whiskey can do, we have plenty.
Another facet of this is as those aircraft continue to be
added, in order for us to bring them into the Air Force,
particularly if we are bringing them in as mission aircraft, we
have had 10 added in the last 2 years. If another 10 were to be
added, the bill for the FYDP for the Air Force to bring those
aircraft in would be nearly $1 billion.
So there is a balance here that we need to strike with
other Air Force priorities, and this is not where we would put
incremental investment dollars. There are lots of other higher-
priority things. This is just not it.
We are not unappreciative, and we understand your
perspective. I have heard you say that combat search and rescue
is a moral imperative. We do not disagree with that. We just do
not think that is going to be done in the highly contested
environment with HH-60 Whiskeys.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. I have got one more question here. I want
to talk a little bit about the CCA program a little bit
further. What do you expect the first delivery of a
Collaborative Combat Aircraft that is operational?
Mr. Hunter. So what we are anticipating is operational
units ready to operate in the later 2020's, with production
aircraft that are delivered and ready for operations.
Senator Kelly. Have you given any thought to, as we go and
fly training missions with pilots in NGAD, certainly there will
be times that you would want a full-up complement of however
many CCA aircraft would be in whatever the strike package would
look like. I mean, that certainly does make sense. But from a
cost perspective, you have got to also maybe see a scenario
where you could fly NGAD in a training environment without the
associated CCA, and, at the same time, simulate them. Is that
part of the program? It was something I was thinking about
today as, I think it was Senator Peters was asking his
questions, that you would have within the airplane itself,
within NGAD, have some kind of simulation mode so you are
communicating with some CCAs, but they are actually not really
out there.
Mr. Hunter. There is absolutely a plan to have that as a
capability, that CCAs will be able to contribute. We have
talked about the joint simulation environment. We need to have
CCAs represented in that. That is absolutely part of our plan.
As you suggest, Senator, the way in which one trains for
the CCA could look very different from the traditional
training, because the capabilities, what the pilot has to do to
interact with the CCA, in operations they may not actually see
those aircraft. They may not be within visual range.
So it is potentially going to look different from what we
are used to, and we are thinking that through as we work into
the CCA capability and with the experimentation that the
Experimental Operations Unit is going to be doing. Thinking
through those issue, how does it work best, not just for
operations but also for training and sustainment.
Senator Kelly. This is a technological leap that we are
about to take here, and to get there we are going to have to
divest some systems that today can deliver ordnance on target.
I am all for innovation, and I think it is one of the things we
do well as a country, and I think we have to out-innovate our
adversaries.
But do you worry about maybe we get to a certain point and
realize this is not going to work as well as we thought, and
then we went too far down the road, and we have divested of
certain capabilities? Or are you starting to feel--and I know
there has been some simulation done on this, some testing--are
you starting to feel as if we are going to get there and we can
make this work?
Mr. Hunter. I have a very high confidence that the CCA
capability will be a significant increase in our overall
capability. But I think to your point, we will learn how to
best use these assets and what exactly they can and cannot do.
But let me defer to General Spain on that.
Lieutenant General Spain. Senator Kelly, operationally the
CCA program, as it is currently moving down its path, gets us
to a place where some of the risks that we are taking with
manned platforms can be mitigated to a degree in less
survivable platforms down the road in highly contested
environments.
The other part of this that we are doing as pathfinders is
in the training environment. So from an undergraduate pilot
training perspective, we are pursuing augmented reality
technology, artificial intelligence technology that can be
embedded into the synthetic environment, potentially in the
joint simulated environment specifically, to enable this
capability down the road and enable the ability to train with
it at a high end, in a relevant environment that, to your point
earlier, allows our air crew to wring out the systems, both the
systems and their tactics, techniques, and procedures, in any
relevant environment that we can no longer emulate and
lifeline.
So we will have elements that are preserved for a lifeline
that we still need to train to and put pressure on humans in
cockpits to be able to do that and get to the skill sets
required in those mission areas from a cockpit. But better we
can, and the more we can bring this technology down the road to
create synthetic targets that they are flying against, where
the TTPs are not observable out in live fly, the better off
that we will all be.
Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you, General. Anything
further anybody would like to share? Anything you feel we need
to know?
[No response.]
Senator Kelly. All right. Well, thank you. Senator Cotton,
anything else?
[No response.]
Senator Kelly. Okay. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Duckworth
integrated capabilities command
1. Senator Duckworth. Secretary Hunter and General Moore, I am
concerned about the Air Force operating in a contested environment and
the need to resource Air Mobility Command. Can you explain how the new
Integrated Capabilities Command will allow the Air Force and Air
Mobility Command to prioritize modernization investments and resourcing
decisions?
Mr. Hunter and General Moore. Currently, our modernization is
planned and developed by each MAJCOM without the benefit of development
efforts from other functional perspectives. Numerous commanders are
simultaneously charged with both maintaining readiness and addressing
the requirements to modernize their respective segments of the force
(e.g., Mobility Aircraft, Fighter Aircraft, Electronic Warfare, etc.)
without an enterprise-wide perspective on how these distinct
capabilities come together to complete missions. This has led to
suboptimal results. Future conflict will require integrated systems
acting in concert across multiple domains. To ensure an integrated
joint force solution, we must aggregate capability development
accordingly.
ICC will be charged with executing a coherent and complete Force
Design that accounts for all Air Force capabilities, prioritized and
coordinated to align requirements and future capabilities with Air
Force operating concepts. ICC will aggregate MAJCOM (e.g., AMC)
requirements, ensuring coherence across systems, to provide a unified
demand signal for materiel needs aligned to a singular Force Design.
This integrated approach ensures the development of operationally
necessary capabilities, breaks down organizational stovepipes, and
allows operational commanders to focus on warfighting readiness.
2. Senator Duckworth. Secretary Hunter and General Moore, how much
input will combatant commands like TRANSCOM have in these decisions?
Mr. Hunter and General Moore. The CCMD and Joint strategies,
concepts, and operational plans are the foundation for Air Force
strategies and concepts. The CCMDs, and Air Force Components therein,
are included at various touchpoints throughout the Force Design and
subsequent capability development processes--the introduction of the
Integrated Capabilities Command (ICC) will only serve to enhance this.
Rather than addressing a single CCMD's requirements in a vacuum,
the ICC will account for all from a global and integrated perspective,
addressing tensions intentionally. We will ensure our Force Design
continues to address each CCMD's annual Integrated Priority Lists of
highest priority capability gaps and requested solutions. We will also
continue to support rapid delivery of critical capabilities through the
Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) requirements process.
Most importantly, the ICC will have Operating Locations embedded at
the Air Force Component Commands to maintain continuous and early
dialog with the CCMDs and our joint warfighters as they build the Force
Design to ensure alignment between AF and CCMD capability priorities.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2025 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2024
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
ARMY MODERNIZATION
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4 p.m. in room
SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Mark Kelly
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Kelly, Blumenthal, Peters,
Duckworth, Cotton, Ernst, Scott, and Mullin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK KELLY
Senator Kelly. The Subcommittee on Airland will come to
order.
I want to welcome Mr. Doug Bush, Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; General James
Rainey, the Commanding General of the Army Futures Command; and
General Karl Gingrich, Deputy Chief of Staff for Army in the G-
8.
I want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you for your
service, thank you for your willingness to appear before us
today.
As we meet today to review the Department of the Army's
investment and modernization strategy as presented in the
fiscal year 2025 budget request, it is important to note that
the Army remains heavily engaged, supporting Ukraine in its
fight against the Russian invasion, conducting complex
operations in the Middle East, and increasing training and
exercises in the Indo-Pacific. I would like to acknowledge the
work soldiers are doing across the globe and express our
gratitude to them and their families for the vital role they
play.
Through all of its endeavors, the Army is working to
increase its readiness, accelerate its modernization, and
improve its interoperability with allies and partners. The Army
seeks to do this by focusing on four key areas: warfighting,
delivering ready combat forces, continuous transformation, and
strengthening the profession. We look forward to discussing
modernization in this context.
I have had multiple opportunities to travel to Ukraine and
the Middle East over the past 3\1/2\ years. Each trip has shown
me the importance of a modern and ready Army. Operations in
Ukraine and the Middle East continue to demonstrate the need
for ground combat forces in effective multi-domain operations
as well as the power of joint and coalition operations.
They also provide an illustration of the complexities the
joint force would face if compelled to conduct similar
operations in a larger and contested maritime theater. I
recently returned from a bi-partisan delegation to INDOPACOM
where I had the opportunity to see firsthand how our forces are
preparing. The Army will play a critical role in the defense of
Guam and in enabling any future combat operations in the
Pacific. This is why the Army remains focused on its six
modernization priorities: Long Range Precision Fires; Next
Generation Combat Vehicles; Future Vertical Lift; Network; Air
and Missile Defense; and Soldier Lethality.
In the last year, the Army has made notable adjustments in
some of these portfolios as it makes tough decisions to balance
force modernization with maintaining enduring capabilities.
Today, the Subcommittee seeks to better understand how the Army
will address remaining gaps moving forward.
In its networking programs, the Army has shifted from a
plan to insert modernized capabilities in 2-year ``capability
sets'' to a more iterative, agile approach consistent with a
necessary emphasis on continuous transformation. The
Subcommittee supports this approach and looks forward to
learning how the Army will balance iterative modernization
while seeking big steps forward in efforts such as: long-range
hypersonics, directed energy, mid-range missile capability and
human-machine integrated formations.
With submission of the 2025 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) we recognize that the Army is required to operate
with a largely flat budget. At the same time, the Army's
munitions support to Ukraine and Israel has exposed capacity
limitations in our industrial base.
Mr. Bush, we have had occasion to discuss this work before,
and today I would appreciate an update on how the Army is using
the replenishment of these items as well as its own investments
to build future capacity. Further, we are interested in how the
Army is employing recently authorized multiyear procurement
authorities as well as your assessment of any additional
resources or flexibilities that would further improve munitions
development and production.
Finally, the rapid growth of unmanned aerial systems (UAS)
creates an urgent need for the Army to develop and field its
own broad range of UAS, and also the ability to defeat similar
systems at scale. We recognize the Army's investments in these
capabilities and look forward to better understanding how to
accelerate these efforts.
It is in the Nation's best interest to avoid going to war
with a near peer adversary, and the best way to do that is to
outpace on the cutting edge, while continuing to modernize
current capabilities in a manner that makes clear to our
adversaries that they cannot beat us on the battlefield. We
must do this to meet challenges in the Indo-Pacific, in Europe,
and in the Middle East. We would like to better understand how
the Army is balancing risk between newer modernization
priorities and supporting enduring programs.
The Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona has been a proud host
for signature efforts like Project Convergence, which plays an
important role in guiding Army modernization activity. We
applaud the Army's work in this area, as such events inform and
accelerate not only Army programs but joint and coalition
operations as well. The Subcommittee is interested in an
assessment of this year's Project Convergence and the
capability and capacity of current testing and training
facilities to support the modernized force to include the Army
National Guard and Army Reserves, which are critical components
of the Total Army.
The Army continues to make significant progress in its
modernization efforts, but the environment only grows in
complexity. I have great confidence in all of you and look
forward to a productive year as we continue to field the
world's best Army.
I will now recognize our Ranking Member, Senator Cotton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM COTTON
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Thanks to our
witnesses for being here today. The goal of Army modernization
is to get the very best vehicles, munitions, and weapons so our
soldiers can defeat the Nation's adversaries in combat, which
makes that combat less likely in the first place.
To prepare our soldiers the Army has to contend with
limiting factors like cost, wait, obsolescence, and
sustainment, among others, and of course it does not help that
the Biden administration has once again cut the Army's budget
for another year.
Fortunately, I believe that General George has taken some
steps to put the service on the right track. For example,
Project Convergence demonstrates how the Army is adjusting to
the modern battlefield. This combined joint exercise showed
that the continuous transformation is becoming a reality in our
Army. I look forward to hearing about lessons learned from the
latest iteration of Project Convergence.
During a visit to Fort Campbell this past year I saw
firsthand how the Army is transforming one of its best fighting
formations. Second Brigade, 101st Airborne is now the first
experimental brigade designed to be more tactically mobile. I
was particularly impressed by the brigade's new infantry squad
vehicles. I would ask our witnesses to provide more examples of
lessons learned from the 101st and other modernized units,
including the light brigade combat teams in the 10th Mountain
and 25th Infantry Divisions.
Since this same hearing last year, the Army has made
significant changes in its modernization portfolio. The Army
has canceled the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program,
based on lessons learned from Ukraine about survivability. The
Army has pivoted the Extended Range Cannon Artillery program
toward open competition, stressing the Army's focus on
developing a longer-range artillery. I would like to also hear
more about these and other major program changes.
When adjusted for inflation, the Army's budget proposes to
cut funding by over 2 percent compared to the fiscal year 2024
enacted levels. As a result, the Army has also submitted more
than $2 billion worth of unfunded priorities, including funding
for counter-unmanned aerial systems, a fancy way of saying
counter-drone warfare, munitions, and military construction.
All of the chief's unfunded priorities will help modernize the
Army, and I hope this Subcommittee and the full Committee will
look to include as many as possible in this year's Defense
Authorization Act.
I thank our witnesses for their appearance once again, and
I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Kelly. We will now recognize the witnesses for
their statements, starting with Secretary Bush.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS R. BUSH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bush. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton, and
distinguished members of the Senate Armed Service Committee
Subcommittee on Airland, good afternoon. Thank you for the
invitation to appear before you to discuss the Army's
modernization program and the resources requested in the
President's Budget for fiscal year 2025.
I am pleased today to be joined by my teammates, General
James Rainey, the Commanding General of Army Futures Command,
and Lieutenant General Karl Gingrich, the Army Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-8. We appreciate you making our written statement part
of the record for today's hearing.
With your support, the Army's fiscal year 2025 budget
request puts us on a path to equip today's soldiers with modern
equipment while we invest in the technologies and systems
necessary to build the Army of 2030 and beyond. The budget
request before you reflects the Army's comprehensive approach
to modernize, allowing us to adapt to challenge of an
unpredictable era, an era marked by rapid and disruptive
technological change and great power competition.
As the Chairman noted, it represents our sustained
commitment to our key modernization portfolios: Long-Range
Fires, Next Generation Combat Vehicles, Future Vertical Lift
Systems, Network, Air and Missile Defense, Soldier Lethality,
and Synthetic Training Environment, while also investing in
All-Domain Sensing and Contested Logistics.
It also continues modernization and procurement of our
enduring platforms and equipment that will remain in the force
for years to come, that has to stay up with the potential
threats.
Mr. Chairman, in the invitation for the hearing you asked
us to provide, in brief, an update of our modernization efforts
as they relate to ongoing operations in the Asia-Pacific
region, as well as across the globe. I will do that briefly and
then in questions we can go deeper.
The fiscal year 2025 budget request fully recognize the
Army's role in the Indo-Pacific. In terms of material, the
request includes sustained investments in key missile programs
such as Patriot, as well as other air missile defense,
including, for example, the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense
Sensor, the new radar for the Patriot and other systems, as
well as the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2,
another critical system to add to our air defense capability.
Second, the hearing invitation asked us to address any
significant portfolio adjustments made in the formation of the
budget. Mr. Chairman, both yourself and the Ranking Member
noted the biggest change, which was the proposed realignment of
aviation funding out of the Future Attack Reconnaissance
Aircraft and into continued production of the Black Hawk M
model and going into production for the CH-47F Block II, as
well as acceleration of unmanned aircraft. We are happy to talk
more about the reasons for that and how things are going as we
do Q&A. But that was our one biggest change.
Although the Ranking Member mentioned the extended range
cannon artillery, which is also significant, we still need the
range. We want to try to get at it in a different way, and
thank you for your support for letting us continue on that
path.
Third, the hearing invitation asked us for an update on
Army efforts to expand production of critical munitions. Thanks
to supplemental funding, in particular, and thank you and all
the Members for providing the supplemental bill, which was
absolutely critical to the Army's current and future readiness.
We are going to dramatically expand production across the board
for both precision munitions, things like Patriot--and the
supplemental included specifically a $750 million investment to
increase production of Patriot--and other things like
conventional munitions, including 155 artillery and other
conventional munitions. All of those things are now fully
funded and on track, thanks to passage of the supplemental, and
we are making it happen. We are now in that phase, and I look
forward to talking to you about that in more detail.
Fourth, the hearing invitation noted the proliferation of
unmanned systems that we are seeing in Ukraine, and you asked
us to provide an update on our efforts in that regard. The Army
is taking significant steps to address this rapidly evolving
threat against our troops, particularly in U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) and working with our allies there. There is over $400
million in the fiscal year 2025 request for procurement of our
two lead programs of record, M-LIDs and FS-LIDs, and $140
million for research and development of various directed energy
systems.
In addition, the supplemental bill passed by Congress
provides us with an opportunity to do further work in CENTCOM
based on urgent needs, getting equipment to them right now as
that theater is, of course, the most under threat from this
capability.
We are also using authorities provided by Congress,
including a new one in the NDAA, to let us rapidly move money
around to address threats. We used that authority in October to
put hundreds of additional Coyote inceptors on contract because
of the scale of attacks we were seeing on our troops after
October 7th. That kind of flexibility is exactly what we ask
for support for in the future, as well.
Finally, the invitation asked that we provide an update on
the Army's establishment of cross-functional teams in contested
logistics and all the main sensing as well as Project
Convergence. With your support I will ask General Rainey to
provide that update in his opening statement.
In closing, I want to say thank you on behalf of the Army
for this Subcommittee's very strong support of the Army in the
fiscal year 2024 bill and the supplemental, and we look forward
to answering your questions.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Rainey.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES E. RAINEY, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
General Rainey. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton,
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
continued support to our Army's soldiers, civilians, and
families. I appreciate the invitation to appear before you
today alongside Honorable Doug Bush, Lieutenant General Karl
Gingrich, great teammates, as well as opportunity to talk about
the work the Army is doing on continuous transformation.
We are in the midst of the most disruptive period and
technological change in the profession of arms in at least the
last 100 years, maybe ever. The Army recognizes we have a
responsibility to invest in systems needed to build the Army of
2030, of 2040, but at the same time be ready to fight tonight,
and make sure our soldiers are absolutely as prepared as
possible.
Army modernization remains on track due to Secretary
Wormuth and General George's consistent prioritization and the
tremendous teamwork across the Army staff, the Secretariat,
TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command], Army Materiel Command
Force Com, and especially our commanders that are forward--
General Williams and his team, General Flynn and his team,
General Frank and his team in CENTCOM, and the input they
provide back to us as we try and modernize and transform.
Additionally, our cross-functional teams remain one of the
indisputable success stories, and in my opinion proof positive
that the Army made a wise decision standing up AFC [Army
Futures Command] almost 6 years ago now.
As Honorable Bush said in remarks today, I would like to
take the opportunity to highlight the two CFTs [cross-fuctional
teams] that AFC has stood up since the last time I addressed
this Committee last year, the Contested Logistics Cross-
Functional Team and All-Domain Sensing Cross-Functional Team.
The Contested Logistics CFT in Huntsville, Alabama, reached
full operating capacity in October 2023. The Army challenged
this CFT with finding ways to make our formations lighter and
more sustainable while also increasing their lethality and
survivability. Seven months into this, the team is already
making significant progress. They have four key portfolios--
precision sustainment, human machine integrated supply and
distribution systems, advanced power, and demand reduction.
These portfolios also present challenges to industry as well as
Army, so AFC continues to work closely with our private sector
partners, from startups to multinational corporations, to apply
their lessons learned to the tactical logistics challenge.
In partnership with the United States Marine Corps and the
Navy, the Contested Logistics CFT is working on a joint
abbreviated capability to develop and document on an autonomous
watercraft and resupply vessels that grew out of our
partnership in Project Convergence. This autonomous watercraft
provides a smaller, lower cost, unmanned capability that will
enable greater operational endurance and reach for both the
Army and the Joint Force, especially in INDOPACOM [United
States Indo-Pacific Command].
The team is also exploring technologies on regenerative
power, alternative fuel source power production, and emerging
battery chemistries. They are exploring ways to utilize
advanced manufacturing, alternative fuels, and new materials
that reduce weight and delivery time of required repair parts,
energy resupply, and items like food and water.
The funding requested in the fiscal year 2025 budget
reflect these priorities, accomplishments, and the resources
needed to maintain our momentum. Me and my team are always
available to provide more detailed briefings to Senators, their
staffers, or to host anyone who wants to come to our facilities
down in Huntsville to have a much deeper conversation on these
efforts.
Most recently, the Army announced the All-Domain Sensing
Cross-Functional Team, which has a small headquarters here in
Washington, DC, with the main body of the organization
remaining in Huntsville, Alabama. This cross-functional team is
not a new build, new soldiers. It is capitalizing on the
success of the Assured Position Navigation and Timing CFT,
which stood up, basically solved that problem, has been able to
transition it to our teammates in Mr. Bush's organization, so
continuing to evolve the cross-functional teams. This cross-
functional team evolution allowed the Army to transfer all the
experience and expertise to a new set of challenges. By keeping
all that talent in place they contribute to our initial
success.
So they are just getting started, but we have scoped the
All-Domain Sensing Cross-Functional Team portfolio to address
multi-sensor dominance. So, not just Army sensor but across the
Joint Force, sensing architecture, and advanced processing and
dissemination to facilitate successful understanding and
decisionmaking in multi-domain operations.
The battlefield has become increasingly transparent, and
the U.S. Army must remain on the forefront of these
technologies and their military applications. The work of these
two new CFTs, as well as the incredible efforts from the rest
of the transformation enterprise, was on display in February
and March of this year during Project Convergence Capstone 4.
Which, as you know, was an Army-hosted but wholly joint and
combined experiment. We had all the services, six different
allies and partners, and also for the first time incorporated
OSD's [Office of the Secretary of Defense's] guide
experimentation effort, wholly integrated into Project
Convergence. It was hosted by our Marine Corps teammates at
Camp Pendleton and then also at the National Training Center in
California. This experiment tested our latest developments in
offensive and defensive fire integration, joint command and
control, contested logistics, and developments in human-machine
integrated formations and next-generation command and control,
as well as counter-UAS efforts. Both on the joint side and on
the Army-specific side. We pushed the bounds of our network
capabilities as we worked to design and implement the
resilient, data-centric systems needed to operate on the modern
battlefield as a joint force.
We had about two dozen professional staff members attend
Project Convergence, which we truly appreciate. I would like to
take this opportunity to invite anybody that would like to come
out to Capstone 5, which is scheduled for March and April 2025.
We would be glad to host anybody who is interested.
For the Army to capitalize on the technological advances
made by our CFTs and the lessons we are learning from watching
what is going on in the world and also during our
experimentation campaign, we believe we need greater
institutional agility. Specifically, as you heard General
George testify on April 18th, we need increased flexibility to
fund and field the unmanned systems, counter-UAS, and
electronic warfare systems. This increased flexibility will
allow us to rapidly integrate critical technologies more
quickly into our combat formations so that our number one
asymmetric advance, the American soldier, has everything they
need to fight and win our Nation's war.
In closing, I want to thank you for your commitment to the
soldiers serving our Nation. Thank you for your time, and I
look forward to your questions.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General Rainey. General Gingrich.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL KARL H. GINGRICH, USA, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, G-8, UNITED STATES ARMY
Lieutenant General Gingrich. Good afternoon. Thank you,
Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Cotton, and the distinguished
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on
Airland, for the opportunity to appear and testify regarding
the Army's fiscal year 2025 modernization effort. A special
thank you to all the Committee Members for your enduring
support to our soldiers, civilians, and their families. They
play a vital role in our Nation's defense, a position they have
maintained faithfully for nearly 249 years.
Our request for investments in modernization for fiscal
year 2025 is synchronized with the Secretary of the Army's
operational imperatives, which seek to place transformational
capabilities in the hands of our soldiers to allow our Army to
dominate in the land domain. As we learn lessons from the
modern battlefield, our Army must transform continuously to be
better prepared to defeat an evolving array of threats.
Our investments will allow the Army to become leaner, more
agile, and most importantly, more lethal. These investments
will strengthen deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and other
regions critical to our Nation's security. As the linchpin of
the Joint Force in the Indo-Pacific, these investments will
contribute directly to the Joint Force's ability to deter, and
when called upon, fight and win decisively.
As we transform for the future fight we are making
generational investments while working with a sense of urgency
to continuously transform. We remain committed to our signature
modernization priorities, essential to the Army's broader
transformation efforts.
Army formations are transforming and modernizing rapidly
through teamwork, engaged senior leadership, process
refinement, and the authorities and resources you provide the
Army. We continue to modernize responsibly, maintaining
readiness now, while continuing to transform at a pace informed
by the available resources.
For several years, the Army ruthlessly prioritized its
modernization portfolio. We have eliminated, reduced, and
divested legacy capabilities, enabling investments in higher
priority modernization programs. As such, we ask for your
continued support of the requested resources essential to
maintaining and sustaining the Army's modernization path.
In closing, I would like to offer thanks to you and your
staff and Committee who professionally facilitate the
engagement necessary to advance our shared commitment to the
defense of our Nation. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
appear, and I look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of The Honorable Douglas R.
Bush, General James E. Rainey, and Lieutenant General Karl H.
Gingrich follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by The Honorable Douglas R. Bush, General
James E. Rainey, and Lieutenant General Karl H. Gingrich
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 E. Wormuth, and the Army Chief of Staff, General Randy A.
George, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Army's modernization program.
The Army's fiscal year 2025 budget reflects the Army's
comprehensive approach to modernization, so the Army can adapt to the
challenges of an unpredictable era marked by rapid and disruptive
technological innovation and great power competition. The budget
request sustains momentum in our modernization initiatives, including
the ability to invest faster in rapidly developing technology, while
simultaneously prioritizing our role as the Joint Force linchpin in the
Indo-Pacific, improving our Nation's industrial base and relationships
with its innovation base, and continuing to support our allies and
partners. 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
The security environment is marked by efforts of the People's
Republic of China (PRC) and Russia to reshape the international system
to suit their authoritarian aspirations and coercive methods and by
accelerating technological innovation that is proving to be the locus
of the great power competition for technological superiority and
economic and military advantage.
As highlighted in the 2022 National Security Strategy, while Russia
remains an immediate and ongoing threat, the PRC is the Nation's most
consequential strategic competitor and the pacing challenge. The PRC is
the only revanchist great power with both the stated intent to
reconfigure the international system and the diplomatic, informational,
military, economic, and technological instruments of national power to
do so.
The PRC is leveraging innovative technology not just to modernize
its military and create asymmetric advantages across all the
warfighting domains and the electromagnetic spectrum, but also
transform it by effectively aligning its military Doctrine,
Organization, Training, Materiel (including weapons systems),
Leadership and Education, People, Facilities, and Policy.
The Russia's war against Ukraine and events in the Levant
demonstrate how the character of war continues to change rapidly and
unpredictably. The unrelenting pace of technological innovation in
these conflicts, as well as the competition between great powers, is
placing a premium on the ability of nations, governments, and military
institutions to adapt materially (including the industrial base),
conceptually, and fiscally while also leveraging the comparative
advantages of their citizen-soldiers and private sector innovation
base. What we are seeing in Ukraine and Israel validates our six
modernization initiatives: Long Range Precision Fires, Air and Missile
Defense, Next Generation Combat Vehicles, Soldier Lethality, Future
Vertical Lift, 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 more than just fielding materiel solutions
such as new technologies and platforms. It requires ``continuous
transformation,'' which is a framework for exploring opportunities
particularly with the private sector's innovation base and reshaping
the institutional processes to invest in and realize leap-ahead
capabilities faster than our adversaries. Those opportunities and
enabling processes may be different according to the timeframe--whether
in the next 18 to 24 months, the next 2 to 7 years (the timeframe for
defense budget planning), or concept-based capabilities in the decade
beyond that.
The balance of current and future readiness requires advanced
analytical methodologies to understand more comprehensibly the
tradeoffs and associated risks between Modernization, Enduring, and
Legacy program requirements and associated Army budgetary bins. To
fully realize the potential of new capabilities on the battlefield
requires integrating materiel modernization with non-materiel efforts.
These include Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership
and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy.
Only by transforming and modernizing our Army in such a holistic,
formation-centric manner and leveraging the Nation's industrial and
innovation bases can we deliver more rapidly the relevant capabilities,
such as human-machine integrated formations, needed to ensure the Army
will continue to dominate the land domain in a period of disruptive
technological innovation and great power competition.
modernizing the force
The fiscal year 2025 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 2030-2040.
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 2030-2040:
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, Soldier Lethality, Synthetic Training Environment, All
Domain Sensing, and Contested Logistics--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 began production qualification testing in
4Q 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 Army concluded the Extended Range Cannon Artillery
(ERCA) Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping effort in
October 2023, with a determination that the current effort required
further maturation and redesign. As part of a shift in strategy, the
Army is planning a ``commercial off the shelf'' performance
demonstration in the summer of 2024 that will provide decisionmakers a
better understanding of the artillery systems available and capable of
meeting the Division Artillery Lethality capability gaps validated by
Army Futures Command led Tactical Fires Study.
The Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies
Office, in partnership with the Navy, is on track to deliver the first
Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) battery in CY 2024.
We delivered the Army's Mid-Range Capability (MRC)
initial hardware in 1st quarter of fiscal year 2023 and are on track to
equip three MRC batteries between fiscal year 2024--fiscal year 2026.
The MRC prototype effort leverages existing Service missiles,
launchers, software, and offers a maritime strike capability. MRC is
projected to operate in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)
area of responsibility (AOR).
Next Generation Combat Vehicle Programs:
The Army remains fully committed to the XM30 (Formerly
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle) program, executing a multi-phased
acquisition approach to maximize competition. In 3Q fiscal year 2023,
the Army awarded the competitive contract to two vendors for the Phase
3 (Detailed Design) and Phase 4 (Prototype and Test) portions of
program. Final vendor selection targeted for 2Q fiscal year 2028.
The Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) program continues to
make progress, informed by extensive experimentation with the RCV Full-
System Prototype effort. At the end of fiscal year 2023, the Army
awarded four contracts for demonstrator vehicles. Final vendor
selection is scheduled to occur in 2Q fiscal year 2025.
The M10 Booker (Formerly Mobile Protected Firepower)
program began low-rate initial production in 3Q fiscal year 2022, with
the first LRIP vehicles arriving in 2Q fiscal year 2024 and fielding
planned for fiscal year 2025.
Future Vertical Lift Programs:
The Army is committed to the Future Long Range Assault
Aircraft (FLRAA), which remains our highest aviation modernization
priority. FLRAA will provide effective assault and MEDEVAC
capabilities, with significantly increased speed, range, and endurance.
The Future Tactical Unmanned Aerial System (FTUAS) is
leveraging a competitive rapid prototyping approach to deliver
transformational reach to ground forces with an organically sustained,
rapidly deployable, runway-independent, and on-the-move control
platform. FTUAS provides the BCT organic airborne reconnaissance and
security with real-time situational awareness and effects vital to
cross-domain maneuver at the speed required in Multi-Domain Operations.
FTUAS will use an open systems approach to continually upgrade the
system with the latest technology.
The Army continues development of Launched Effects, a
family of operationally consumable Uncrewed Aircraft Systems that are
launched from both air and ground platforms to extend tactical and
operational reach across multi-domain operations and enhance the
overall range of lethal and non-lethal effects. This will include
loitering munitions, additional sensors, and a vast array of payloads
to support varying mission requirements.
Network Programs:
The Army is transforming our command and control (C2)
network to ensure we have the right capabilities at echelon to fight
and win in Large Scale Combat by delivering simpler, more intuitive,
lower signature, and more flexible capabilities.
The Army is adapting its electromagnetic spectrum
training, operations, and technology for Large Scale Combat, including
equipping commanders with the materiel they require to see, understand,
and reduce their electronic signature to manage risk to mission.
Over the next year, deployed Army units will conduct
real-world experiments to reduce network complexity and get the right
capability in place at the right echelon.
The Army is also accelerating delivery of the Unified
Network through unified requirements, unified governance, a realigned
PEO, and centralized delivery of services.
Fiscal year 2025 continues the fielding of modernized C2
network capability while evolving to more agile methods of development
and deployment.
In fiscal year 2025, the Army is investing in key
capabilities that increase network resiliency, modernize backhaul, and
upgrade post/camp/station network infrastructure worldwide.
In total the Army is fielding more than 450 Army, Army
Reserve and Army National Guard units with modernized network and/or C2
capability in fiscal year 2024 to 2025.
Air and Missile Defense (AMD) Programs:
The Army fielded the Initial Operational Capability for
the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) in
3Q 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 fielded in 1Q fiscal year 2024.
The Army continues to make progress on its Directed
Energy Maneuver--Short Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) effort, a 50
kilowatt-class laser on a Stryker. Four prototypes have been accepted
by the Army.
We are advancing directed energy efforts for Indirect
Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) by developing high-energy lasers
(HEL) and high-power microwaves (HPM) for a layered defense of fixed
and semi-fixed sites against an array of threats. As of 2Q fiscal year
2024, the Army has accepted four IFPC-HPM prototypes. Two prototype
IFPC-HEL 300kW-class laser weapon systems will be delivered by the end
of fiscal year 2025.
Six Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS)
prototypes have been manufactured and are in developmental testing,
with residual operating capability first demonstrated in 1Q fiscal year
2024. Testing will continue to validate additional capabilities through
an Operational Assessment with Warfighters in 1Q fiscal year 2025.
In November 2023, the U.S. Government leased the two Iron
Dome Defense System Army (IDDS-A) Batteries to the Government of Israel
for a period not to exceed 11 months.
The Army has accepted the first set of Indirect Fire
Protection Capability (IFPC) launchers for test and evaluation and is
on path to complete delivery of all 16 launchers to begin an
operational assessment in 4Q fiscal year 2024.
The Army continues to procure Counter-small Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (C-sUAS) to address Unmanned Aircraft Systems threats.
In 1Q 2024, the Army began procuring one Division C-sUAS set with 172
Coyote interceptors, complete with procurement of 59 fixed sites that
cover globally prioritized critical sites. In fiscal year 2025, the
Army will procure a second Division set of C-sUAS systems, seven Family
of Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems to provide C-sUAS capabilities for
USASOC, continue to field C-sUAS capabilities to protect Secretary of
Defense approved covered facilities and assets, and support emergent
requirements in support of Joint Urgent Operational Needs.
Additionally, the Army will finish fielding C-sUAS capabilities to the
first two Army Combat Divisions.
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. The Army initiated IVAS
1.0 fielding to Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) units in late
fiscal year 2023, and is on pace to field IVAS 1.1 systems to the
Combat Training Centers 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 4Q fiscal year 2025.
The Army has procured approximately half 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, facilitated the purchase of an
additional 10K ENVG-B systems and maintains ENVG-B production through
4Q fiscal year 2026.
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 occurred in 2Q fiscal year
2024.
Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Programs:
STE Software (STE-SW) and Reconfigurable Virtual
Collective Trainers (RVCT) delivered initial prototype capabilities in
fiscal year 2023 and is on track for First Unit Equipped (FUE) in 4Q
fiscal year 2024 to Army Fort Cavazos, Fort Moore, and Fort Novosel.
One World Terrain, a key component of STE-SW, is in the hands of
soldiers now providing operational battlefield visualization.
We continue progress on the Squad Immersive Virtual
Trainer which remains aligned with IVAS, with development focused on
hardware productization, cybersecurity, reliability, 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 Touchpoint in 1Q fiscal year 2023, with a second STP scheduled
for 3Q fiscal year 2024. The program is on track to deliver initial
capability in 1Q fiscal year 2025.
All Domain Sensing Programs:
The Army transitioned to M-Code Global Positioning System
(GPS) and alternative Position, Navigation, and Timing (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.
Success in the APNT/S Cross-Functional Team (CFT) allowed
the Army to transition the team and its efforts into the All-Domain
Sensing (ADS) CFT. The ADS CFT will address multi-sensor dominance,
sensing architecture, advanced processing and dissemination, and other
operational enablers to facilitate successful understanding and
decisionmaking in multi-domain operations.
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.
Contested Logistics Programs
AFC instituted the Contested Logistics Cross-Functional
Team (CL CFT) to lead a deliberate transformation effort by developing
Army and Joint Signature Sustainment Modernization Capabilities aligned
to pacing threats associated with contested Multi-Domain Operations
(MDO) and Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO).
The CL CFT reached Full Operational Capacity (FOC) on 31
OCT 2023.
The CL CFT is currently addressing the challenges
presented in a contested environment through four key portfolios:
Precision Sustainment, Human Machine Integration (HMI) Supply &
Distribution Systems, Advanced Power, and Demand Reduction.
Recently, an Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC)
approved Predictive Logistics with an initial focus on firing
platforms, specifically Abrams, Paladins, and Bradleys.
The CL CFT pursues continuous transformation with
autonomous/robotic solutions and HMI to increase operational reach and
endurance for commanders.
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.
The Aviation portfolio strikes a balance between prudent
investments to maintain the viability 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 FLRAA, the Army is making key
investments in Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopter
modernization, to include CH-47F Block II for conventional units and
MH-47G for special operations units. The Army also continues
investments in munitions and aircraft protection by sustaining Joint
Air-to-Ground Missile production, an improved lethality option to the
current Hellfire missile, and through continued investment 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. With this budget, the Army will procure
30 Abrams M1A2SEPv3s Tanks, 51 Strykers, 20 Self-Propelled Howitzer
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) vehicle sets, and 26 Joint Assault
Bridges.
The Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW) Portfolio enables
Commanders to see and sense more, at greater distance, and more
persistently at every echelon. The IEW portfolio is making key
investments in critical Multi-Domain Intelligence capabilities to
provide better analytics, Deep Sensing, and Indications and Warning
(I&W) in support of Targeting. These investments include the
Terrestrial Layer System which will provide electronic warfare and
cyber enabled effects; the Army Intelligence Data Platform (AIDP) that
is the Army's first cloud native web based intel program of record; The
Multi-Domain Sensing System-High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation
System (MDSS-HADES), which will provide collection at extended ranges;
and the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN), which will
provide processors to exploit and disseminate critical intelligence, at
every echelon. These critical investments are 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
threats. 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. The Fire Support portfolio continues
to invest in modernization priorities to address long-range missiles
fires and capabilities needed for today, with a focus on the INDOPACOM
AOR. In fiscal year 2025, we will procure 236 PrSM Increment 1
missiles, support PrSM Increment 2 seeker development, and begin
procurement of 19 Maritime Strike Tomahawks (MST) to support the
priority theater.
The Command and Control portfolio continues to align resources
required for networks and command posts to be simpler, more intuitive,
lower signature, and more flexible. The portfolio will increase Command
Post mobility and survivability through investments in modular command
posts, on-the-move and low earth orbit SATCOM, and secure wireless
capabilities. The portfolio procures modernized radios to meet the
National Security Agency cryptographic modernization requirements and
joint and coalition interoperability; continues investments in Unified
Network Operations, software-defined network capabilities, and network
security to enable data centricity. It will also continue to procure
and develop Assured Position, Navigation, and Timing capabilities.
The Logistics portfolio invests in Army Watercraft, a 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; and procures of 1,353 Joint Light
Tactical Vehicles, 16 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
(HMMWVs) and 2,167 HMMWV antilock braking system/electronic stability
control kits to improve our existing tactical wheeled vehicle fleet.
Finally, the Human Machine Integration (HMI) portfolio consolidates
Army efforts to bring autonomous and machine learning advantages to our
tactical formations. Integrating virtual training capacities in
emerging weapon systems and enduring systems with add on modules/
effects ensures continuous training of soldiers and formations to
operate efficiently and effectively as part of the joint force.
Observations from ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, as
well as an understanding of the significant threats in INDOPACOM
demonstrate a need to rapidly develop an HMI capability inside our Army
formations at echelon. Our investments in autonomous and semi-
autonomous ground and aerial systems are essential to extend our
battlefield effects, maintain an advantage over the enemy, and enhance
the lethality and survivability of our formations. The Army will employ
robotic systems to offload risk from soldiers onto machines and
leverage autonomy and machine learning to reduce soldier mental and
physical loads. This allows our number one asymmetric advantage, the
U.S. Army soldier, to focus on those tasks that only humans can do--the
ethical application of force, utilize curiosity and intuition, and
apply the art of command. The ability to make first contact with the
enemy using a robot instead of a soldier is essential to continue to
protect our most precious resource. Investment in the HMI portfolio
allows the Army to do this.
modernizing our business practices
The Army has embraced industry best practices, such as the use of
soldier-centered design and rigorous experimentation with prototypes,
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 touchpoints, 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 Doctrine, Organization, Training,
Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy.
The Army continues Project Convergence, a Joint and multi-national
experimentation campaign of continuous learning to inform capability
design with soldier touchpoints 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. Events range from field experimentation with the
signature modernization capabilities from the Army's Cross-Functional
Teams to embedding experimentation objectives in annual operational
exercises, such as Northern Edge, Valient Shield, Balikatan, and
Avenger Triad. These events include focused learning on integration
with multi-national partners, including FVEY, NATO, and many Pacific
partners (Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines, Singapore, etc.). The
PC series also features a Capstone event that establishes an Army-
hosted Joint experimental venue. The Capstone event is designed to
inform the Joint Warfighting Concept, the OSD vision for CJADC2, and
CCMD priority areas (such as the Joint Fires Network from INDOPACOM).
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. In recent years, Congress has
authorized more flexible approaches to acquisition, which have resulted
in the establishment of DOD's Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF). The
AAF provides the Army with six acquisition pathways that enable the
acquisition workforce to tailor strategies to deliver better solutions
faster. 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 32 programs
executing MTA rapid prototyping or rapid fielding efforts and is using
these authorities to accelerate select Army modernization priorities
including FLRAA, XM30, MRC, and IFPC.
The Army also benefits from the establishment of the Software
Acquisition Pathway (SWP). The 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 17 programs executing on the SWP, and we continue to seek
more opportunities to use this tailored pathway. In addition to the
SWP, the Secretary of the Army issued a new policy in March 2024 to
drive adoption of agile software development practices. The directive
institutionalizes modern software development approaches across the
Army, in line with industry best practices. These approaches--which
include agile and lean practices--focus on iterative development and
delivery of software in close coordination with users. This type of
development allows software to be rapidly developed and refined over
time, accelerating the Army's ability to deliver needed capabilities to
soldiers. To enable broad adoption of these modern approaches, the
directive reforms many of the institutional processes that underpin the
software development lifecycle, from requirements through sustainment,
which have historically been cumbersome and time intensive. This
represents one of the first significant efforts across the Department
to comprehensively adjust legacy software development processes in line
with private sector best practices.
Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA) continues to enable the
Department to quickly acquire and deploy capabilities in response to
urgent operational needs. This authority applies to capabilities that
can be fielded within 2 years and are based on already proven or
available technologies, or to capabilities that can be developed or
procured under MTA authority. RAA significantly streamlines acquisition
requirements to enable a rapid response to existing threats. The Army
most recently used this authority to award a production contract for
600 Coyote Interceptors to help protect U.S. forces from Unmanned
Aerial System attacks. Congress further enhanced RAA in the fiscal year
2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to better enable the
Department to respond to emergent technological advancements or
threats, or to U.S. allies and partners who have been subject to an
armed attack by a ``country of concern,'' respectively.
The Army also benefits from expanded use of Other Transaction
Authority (OTA), which can include follow-on production awards. OTAs
are contractual instruments other than standard procurement contracts
(i.e. FAR), grants, and cooperative agreements that lend themselves to
working with small companies and non-traditional defense 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 2023, the Army awarded more than 1,767 OTA agreements
valued at $6.9 billion. The Army updated its OTA Policy in February
2024 to address recent statutory changes, including the expanded
definition of prototype efforts and incorporate innovative pilot
programs to use OTAs for construction.
Congress also made permanent the authority for Commercial Solutions
Opening (CSO) in the fiscal year 2022 NDAA. 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 NDAA, 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.
Last, Congress recently provided temporary authorities to
streamline acquisition and contracting requirements to support Ukraine,
Taiwan, and Israel, and to replenish domestic stocks of equipment.
Section 1244 of the fiscal year 2023 NDAA, as amended by section 1242
of the fiscal year 2024 NDAA, enables the Army to reduce procurement
lead times by several months. It also provides streamlined multiyear
procurement authority for select munitions, which the Army is using to
stabilize the industrial base. These flexibilities have been critical
in helping the Army move quickly to deliver capabilities in response to
Russia's war against Ukraine and to replenish U.S. stocks.
All these initiatives, individually and in combination, allow for
better and faster modernization decisions and faster requirements
development.
conclusion
The Army is modernizing and adapting to ensure we can deliver
leading-edge capabilities to our soldiers at the speed of relevance and
innovation. With continued support from Congress, we are building a
force capable of competing across the spectrum of competition and
conflict to deter war and, failing that, prevail in war. With stable
funding, newly enacted authorities, forward-leaning leadership, and
fiscally agile processes, as well as a rigorous technology
experimentation regime, we are even further down the modernization path
than envisioned at this point last year. Modernization is a central
element of Army transformation, translating materiel modernization into
capability and lethality in our formations. The nature of our
adversaries and their ability to harness if not control the direction
and pace of technological innovation to achieve overmatch across the
warfighting domains demands that we adapt continuously in how we
modernize and transform. 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, General. Again, thank all of you
for your service and being here to testify today.
I am going to start with General Rainey. General, in your
opening comments you mentioned how this is the biggest or
greatest transition an Army has had to make in, I think you
said, 100 years, or maybe ever. I agree with you. It is a steep
hill we are trying to climb here.
I am concerned that our ability to test some of these new
capabilities, ranging from new electronic warfare systems to
directed energy, which you mentioned, to hypersonics, are
constrained by the current limitations in our ability to
conduct open air, as well as hardware in the loop and simulated
tests and evaluation and experimentation. Facilities like the
Electronic Proving Ground at Fort Huachuca in Arizona and the
Yuma Proving Ground, which often hosts Project Convergence, are
crucial to the Army's efforts.
General Rainey, how is the Army ensuring that it has
sufficient capacity and capability to proceed on its
modernization requirement at the pace that our National Defense
Strategy demands?
General Rainey. Thank you for that question. So if I could
take it in two parts, the ability to test is one of the
critical steps in the ability to transform, just like
requirements and acquisition, as you know, Senator Kelly. So
being able to do that in an innovative, fast way that keeps
pace, so that we are not waiting on tests. We are innovating
two different ways there, and there are resources applied in
our budget to fully modernize Army Test and Evaluation Command,
because if we do not do that we are going to end up with
modernized equipment and waiting around for old-fashioned
testing.
I think maybe more important than that is the other part of
the question about being able to train the force. So one of the
things that keeps me awake is, because I believe we will
deliver all these modernization efforts, but we cannot train
with them. Then it is almost pointless, right? We are the best
Army in the world because of our people and the way we train.
That is something that we are passionate about.
Places like the John Fox Range at Huachuca, and that being
a world-class training environment where we can train in
different domains than we have traditionally is something that
is essential, and that is a priority for General George and the
Secretary. Not to speak for my teammate, General Brito, but the
person who is responsible for Fort Huachuca has a laser focus
on that one. Camp Grayling, Michigan, is another place, looking
cross-COMPO. Some of the best facilities we have are not in
COMPO 1. They are in COMPO 2. So it is a great opportunity to
work across the total force.
Senator Kelly. Has there been any, that you are aware of,
any limitations on access to ranges or facilities that have
impacted a timeline for any kind of development programs,
because you have not had access to a place to test the new
equipment?
General Rainey. I am not aware of a specific example yet,
but as we modernize and increase the fielding of these
capabilities we are going to need to grow our ability to both
test and train. So not yet but it is a potential thing if we do
not continue to invest in it.
Senator Kelly. I was down at the U.S. Naval Test Pilot
School about a month ago, of which I am a graduate, and it was
really interesting. I was talking to the commanding officer,
and he said he either had there now, or a student that was
coming from the Army, not a helicopter pilot, but a guy that is
an Abrams tank commander or officer, that is going to go
through the flight test engineering program at the Naval Test
Pilot School, just to be able to better learn how to conduct
developmental tests. If it works out well it might be something
that you would consider expanding upon.
Do you have plans to enhance any of the test capability or
leverage some of these areas like Yuma Proving Ground or Fort
Huachuca, to get further capacity?
General Rainey. Yes, we do, both capacity and then also
testing is expensive. So within the fiscal stewardship aspect
of this, we believe there is an opportunity to use simulation
to a much greater extent than we currently are, and we have
facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground, the National Simulation
Center that is a Fort Leavenworth. So it is not just making the
John Fox Range awesome and making Camp Grayling awesome, and
being able to train at Fort Bliss, Texas, is how do you link
them together and do 100 reps in simulation, so when you do
test we are getting the max effect for the dollars and soldiers
that we actually use.
Senator Kelly. You mentioned Capstone 5. You said it was
going to be in March or April?
General Rainey. March and April.
Senator Kelly. Where will that be?
General Rainey. Right now it will be spread across not just
the United States but we are going to link it distributively to
INDOPACOM all the way out to the Philippines in an exercise,
also into CENTCOM and EUCOM [United States European Command]
for the joint portion, so distributed command and control
modes. Then the Army portion will be primarily at the National
Training Center, but as you know we use Yuma Proving Grounds,
Fort Bliss, and other places for both lead-up events to it and
then to distribute the experiment.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, General. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, I want to talk about the IVAS
system. It is kind of like a bad penny. It keeps turning up,
but it costs a lot more than a cent, hundreds of millions of
dollars per year.
The Army bought 10,000 copies of the first two variants,
which made soldiers sick and did not work. Those systems, I
presume, will never see combat. Now the Army is asking for $250
million to buy 3,000 of the latest IVAS iteration, Version 1.2,
that is still not guaranteed to fix these problems. The Army
recently tested 10 of these units with one squad from the 10th
Mountain. Has the Army tested IVAS 1.2 with any platoon or
company-sized element yet?
Mr. Bush. Senator, not yet, but that is coming imminently,
larger-scale tests. There is a plan to move from squad to
platoon to company as we progress with testing 1.2, to
determine, your question, of whether or not it is worth
spending those procurement dollars on.
I would not say we know for sure, but I believe we have a
plan to inform such a decision, if Members provide the funds.
Senator Cotton. Could you provide an actual timeline to
flesh out your answer, ``imminently''?
General Rainey. Third quarter of fiscal year 2024, so late
summer is when we are going to get our hands on 1.2, and make
sure that it goes through the rigor of soldiers using it and
getting their feedback, Senator.
Senator Cotton. Third quarter of fiscal year 2024, if I am
not mistaken, would be April, May, or June. Is that correct?
General Rainey. Yes, Senator. I will come back to you with
the exact date we are going to get 1.2 and the way ahead for
who is going to test it and where.
Senator Cotton. Today is May 15th, so that is 46 days until
the end of the third quarter. So you expect to conduct tests
with IVAS 1.2, at platoon and company-size elements, by June
30th?
General Rainey. To be clear, Senator, I believe that is the
time we are scheduled to receive it, and I will have to come
back to you, if I may, on the plan to get the soldiers' touch
points and platoon and company.
Senator Cotton. To receive the systems----
General Rainey. To receive the systems.
Senator Cotton.--not to test them at the platoon and
company level.
General Rainey. Correct.
Senator Cotton. So you will receive the systems by June
30th.
General Rainey. Yes.
Senator Cotton. Okay. Do we know a timeline for when we
will test them with platoon and company-sized elements?
Mr. Bush. It is over the remainder of this year, sir.
Senator Cotton. Fiscal year or calendar year?
Mr. Bush. Calendar year, sir, in a series of events. I
apologize for not having it to hand, but we can provide it by
the end of today, a detailed schedule for you.
Senator Cotton. Okay. So you will have them delivered by
June 30th, and you expect to test them with platoon and
company-sized elements by the end of 2024 calendar year.
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. My understanding, from the
results, is that soldiers who have tested these latest systems
could not read or open a lock in low light. Most soldiers had
cable malfunctions. The remote keys got stuck. The mission
shield is not ballistically rated. There are other issues. I
could go on but my time is running short.
General Rainey, do you think these systems are going to
prove suitable for combat use once you start testing them?
General Rainey. Senator, I don't know. I am very interested
in receiving 1.2. We have high expectations that it is going to
be much better than what we have received and tested so far.
When it comes to IVAS, as a former infantryman, I realize the
potential. I mean, if it works it is a legitimate 10x upgrade
to our most important formations. But if it is does not work
then I think we would have to take a very hard look at whether
we continue down that path or use that money for other critical
aspects of our night vision strategy, because we have to make
sure the entire Army can own the night, and there are other
very good systems, like ENVG [Enhanced Night Vision Goggle],
for example, that have demonstrated really strong supports.
Senator Cotton. Well, in a big old Federal budget, and even
in a DOD budget, $250 million is not a lot, but the Army is not
the Navy or the Air Force, and $250 million buys a lot of other
stuff for you that is needful.
Mr. Bush, do you think at this stage we should go forward
with the $250 million purchase of 3,000 units when only 10 have
been tested so far?
Mr. Bush. Sir, I do support the President's Budget because
I will give the Chief and Secretary the option, if testing goes
well, to keep this capability on track. But there is an ``if''
there, and, of course, we would not make such a decision
without informing them of the test results so they can make the
call. But I would ask the Committee's support to consider that
funding so that if it does work out it does provide improved
capability for infantry forces, which is greatly needed.
With regard to the specific problems, sir, I think this 1.2
is designed to get at the three major flaws you pointed out,
which are all very well-articulated. The one that concerned me
the most was the form factor, meaning how a soldier wears it.
The first version I agree was not something that was usable in
an infantry context. This version, I believe, gets at that very
much, and is much closer to what our soldiers are used to
wearing with night vision devices they wear, but does more than
just night vision. However, sir, it is a new technology, and it
may not work out, but we are hopeful that it will.
Senator Cotton. Yes, I share those concerns. More than once
soldiers have wondered who could have possibly designed an
article of clothing or a piece of equipment that they are
expected to wear on long marches or riding in small vehicles or
jumping out of an aircraft. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Senator Mullin.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you guys for
being here.
General, I see that you had shoulder surgery?
General Rainey. Yes, Senator.
Senator Mullin. How long ago?
General Rainey. Three weeks.
Senator Mullin. Well, thank you for being here. I have had
multiple shoulder surgeries, and it is never a fun process.
Enjoy the rehab. If someone does not make you cry they are not
doing their job right.
Anyway, thank you guys so much.
General Rainey, I want to start with you. Has the Army's
Future Command mission changed since sequestration?
General Rainey. I would not say changed fundamentally. I
would say expanded, Senator. So the initial start of Army
Futures Command was almost totally focused on modernization, so
materiel only. Secretary Wormuth adjusted that, in my opinion,
in a broader context, so the overall responsibility to
transform the Army, not just modernize.
So I have a part of the modernization responsibility for
the Army, and that is determining the requirements and working
closely with Mr. Bush and his team to do acquisition. At the
same time, General George, when he became the Chief of Staff of
the Army, assigned all of his major commands a responsibility
and designated AFC as the Army lead for transformation.
None of those things are holy within my organization, but
the overall responsibility to work closely with Mr. Bush and
his team, General Gingrich and his team on materiel, but also
work with General Brito to make sure that the training
organization and leadership of all those critical aspects all
come together in a way that makes sure the Army can continue to
dominate the land domain.
Senator Mullin. So would you say that the Army is kind of
rescoping the command base on the change of mission then?
General Rainey. I don't know if I would use the word
``rescoping'' but adapting.
Senator Mullin. Should it be looking at rescoping?
General Rainey. I am very comfortable with what I am
accountable for to the Secretary and Chief, the resources that
I have that accomplish my mission and the relationships and
teamwork that I have. So my answer would be no, Senator.
Senator Mullin. Okay. Good enough.
Secretary Bush, how effective has the Directed Energy
Maneuverable Short-Range Air Defense prototypes proven in the
field?
Mr. Bush. Sir, so we have deployed----
Senator Mullin. By the way, I would have used the acronym
but I do not know how to pronounce it.
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So we have deployed the prototypes.
That was a request from CENTCOM, and we have done that, and we
are learning a tremendous amount because of that. I think what
we are finding is where the challenges are with directed energy
at different power levels. So that power level, 50 kilowatts,
is proving challenging to incorporate into a vehicle that has
to move around constantly. It is the heat dissipation, the
amount of electronics, kind of the wear and tear of a vehicle
in a tactical environment versus a fixed site.
Senator Mullin. Right.
Mr. Bush. However, sir, that learning, though, on those
prototypes is informing all of our other prototyping efforts in
directed energy. We have deployed other systems at lower power
levels that are proving successful--20 kilowatts, for example,
in some fixed-site type setups. Then we have still to be
delivered some higher power, 300 kilowatt systems that would
also be more of a fixed-site type defense but maybe capable
against a cruise missile, not just a UAV [unmanned aerial
vehicle].
So, sir, I think all this prototyping is going to tell us
how to get a real directed energy system actually in the real
Army as soon as we can.
Senator Mullin. So, the change, is that coming directly
from the soldiers in the field? Is that the feedback they are
giving you, saying this is the issues we are having?
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator. I mean, there is, of course, no
better feedback than that. They will tell you everything, and
they are not worried about your feelings. So we are getting
that feedback, which is what we need.
As I mentioned, we are learning that directed energy in a
lab environment or in a test range is different from a truly
deployable, tactical environment. But it is the future, and we
are committed to it as part of our overall counter-UAS
approach.
Senator Mullin. So what do you figure the benefits are from
some of the high energy lasers versus the high-powered
microwaves?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So the lasers, the key technology is
really the ability to control the beam and keep it on the
target, get it on the target and keep it on the target long
enough to have the effect.
Senator Mullin. Well, that is good for one-on-one, but the
swarms that you are seeing, it is not effective, correct?
Mr. Bush. So, Senator, to your point about, high-powered
microwave has the potential to give you kind of an area weapon
versus a precision weapon against drones. What we are learning
there is it is kind of like how do you apply that tech in a
safe way on a battlefield where other things are flying around,
including our aircraft, and how do you target it using other
systems like a radar, to make sure you are point it at the
right place and it has the effect.
I would say the high-powered microwave systems are showing
promise. We have four prototypes now. We are learning from
them. I think if they show enough promise they could be part of
a layered approach that looks at both approaches, the lasers
and microwaves.
Senator Mullin. So you see them working together and
deployed on the same battlefield?
Mr. Bush. Potentially, sir. I think for fixed-site defense,
for example, the high-powered microwave systems could make a
lot of sense because they do not have to move around. But they
give you a capability that individual laser systems do not.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. My time is running out. Thank
you so much.
Senator Kelly. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
gentlemen, for being here today and for your testimony, and
just making sure that our force of today is ready for the fight
of tomorrow. So truly appreciate that.
Mr. Bush, we had a really great conversation earlier in my
office, and I would love to get that on the record today. This
is important to me because, as you are aware, the focus of our
conversation was the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. Last year the
Army announced plans to increase 155 artillery munitions
production, and their focus was to be on the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant.
During a recent SASC [Senate Armed Services Committee]
hearing, Army Chief of Staff General George stressed the need
to bolster our organic industrial base and push forward with
the Army's investment in establishing the future artillery
complex in Middletown, Iowa.
Mr. Bush, may I have your assurance that this construction
is still proceeding to meet the Army's targeted production of
155 millimeter artillery rounds?
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator, I will.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, and given the magnitude of this
project, particularly as our allies are relying on us to lead
and serve as the arsenal of democracy worldwide, the supply of
munitions remains a crucial factor, especially when it comes to
that 155. Can you commit to keeping me informed with any
updates or issues through the modernization efforts at the Iowa
Army Ammunition Plant?
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
Senator Ernst. Thank you very much. Mr. Bush, as you know,
our supply chains are very much linked to all different defense
acquisitions, and the vulnerabilities in the United States
defense supply chains are particularly due to China's dominance
in critical minerals and certain technologies.
Can you provide us some of the insights into how the U.S.
Army's acquisition processes are currently working to mitigate
these challenges?
Mr. Bush. Yes, Senator. So I think if I could start with
critical minerals. The OSD, through funding provided by
Congress for Defense Production Act investments has been making
those targeted investments in having both mining and processing
capacity for certain critical minerals in the United States,
and that has been a huge initiative, and a very important one,
strongly supported by Congress. I can get you more details on
projects that have already been awarded, and now that we have
2024 funding again, what they have planned to do. But we, of
course, support all of that.
With regard to the Army and our responsibility for
conventional ammunition across DOD, we have the task from the
fiscal year 2024 NDAA--to ensure that all of our supply chains
for subcomponents, including baseline chemicals, by 2028, are
completely either in the United States or with friendly
countries, and we are on a path to do that. That will require
some continued investment, but it is critical to avoid any
dependence on potential enemies for production of ammunition.
Senator Ernst. Well, I do appreciate that because as we
look to the civilian sector, as well, most of that mining and
refining happens outside of the United States. So the Hardrock
Act, I believe, is what you were referencing, through the NDAA,
but making sure that we have enough for our own national
defense. So thank you for that.
How does the U.S. Army assess the impact of these supply
chain vulnerabilities on the timelines and operational
readiness?
Mr. Bush. So, Senator, the way we have mitigated in the
past, and are doing now, in some cases, where downstream, for
example, there might be an unfriendly country that provides us
materials, we stockpile. So the goal of that stockpiling needed
by time in an emergency or if that source became untenable to
produce somewhere else or to get it from another ally. And we
have done that across the board, which has allowed us, as part
of this ramp-up, to stay on track.
However, and Congress has provided the funds, especially in
the last supplemental, we are now, just for 155, over $4
billion of investments in America, frankly, in production
capacity. Those kinds of investments--and we have also gotten
them for precision weapons like Patriot and other things--are
foundational for the future, not just this emergency.
I think what we have learned from this ramp-up is the
longest pole in the tent of increasing production is the big
machine tools and some of the critical materials that are
refined and take time. Those things you need stockpiled or you
need additional capacity you can localize quickly, on hand, and
not building it from scratch, which is what we are doing now.
So if I had one lesson learned, ma'am, it would be that for
the next time around we need to have more of that ready to go
so we are not building new buildings. We are just activating
cold sites.
Senator Ernst. Absolutely. I think there are 18 minerals
that are listed that we are supposed to, as the United States,
have on stockpile for our national defense, and we have
depleted those over decades. So glad to know that we are
working on that. I would love to visit with you more at a
future point about some of that. But I appreciate the time, and
again, gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Kelly. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
I think it was about 3 months ago the Army announced the
cancellation of the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft
(FARA), as it is known, following about 15 years of planning
and investment, more than $1 billion in the X-2 technology, to
replace the aging Apache and Kiowa helicopters. The Army said
it was necessary for your service to be capable in the 21st
century. For more than a decade, the industrial base relied on
the commitment of FARA as a long-term program that enabled
companies to recruit the most capable and technically invested
workforce in the Nation, or at least one of them.
So this decision has shaken the industrial base to its
core. Hundreds of engineers are going to be without work.
Probably they will be employed elsewhere, but the Army will not
be able to get them back. My two questions are, number one, is
the FARA decision irreversible? Second, what will be done to
develop FARA's X-2 technology?
Mr. Bush. Senator, from an acquisition and contracting
perspective the existing OTA agreements that are actually
tailing off but still under work right now with our two
vendors, those will just end naturally later this year. So we
would have to have a new contract award to continue with the
program in some way.
To your second question, right now the U.S. Army does not
have a plan to invest in that particular technology for that
capability. But I would say that that technology, in my view,
if effective, could have a future in unmanned aircraft, for
example, that might be something the Army would very much be
interested in, depending on the way it was used.
Senator Blumenthal. The decision on FARA followed the
decision on FLRAA, which was questionable in my view, both as
to the cost and the capability. The relevant companies decided
not to challenge it. Obviously it is part of what we need to
assess going forward in the National Defense Authorization Act.
But what will the Army do to retain and support the
workforce that will be displaced as a result of the FARA
termination?
Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So I think as part of the larger
decision, and it was a difficult decision, on FARA--and I
would, if I could, defer to General Rainey on the operational
aspects of why that judgment call was made--from an industrial
base standpoint the continuation of Black Hawk production was
our primary focus to retain capacity and talent, as you
mentioned, to just do rotorcraft well, not just build them but
design them. Number one, sir.
Number two is we are still, thanks to Congress, we are
supporting providing the fiscal year 2024 funding for FARA,
even though the program was ending, has allowed us to invest
that in the teams. Between the two teams we have had them
nominate good work to do with that workforce right now, that
helps other Army agencies and programs, and we are embarking on
that work.
Senator Blumenthal. Can you assure us about the commitment
to the Black Hawk program?
Mr. Bush. Senator, we are 100 percent committed, as the
Secretary said, to that follow-on multiyear of a better Black
Hawk than we have now. So that research work will go into that
new, better Black Hawk, that will go into production in that
multiyear.
Senator Blumenthal. You will need the engineers displaced
from the FARA program for that work on the Black Hawk program.
Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Bush. Sir, some of that would be up to the contractor,
of course, but we need the talent to be able to make a better
Black Hawk, yes, because if we are going to go into production
for 120 more aircraft we want it to be the best possible one.
Senator Blumenthal. But it will not be 400.
Mr. Bush. Sir, there will potentially be workforce impacts.
Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. So it might be near that number.
Mr. Bush. Sir, I have heard numbers in that range.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen, for being here today and for your service to our
country. We appreciate you.
Secretary Bush and General Rainey, the Infantry Squad
Vehicle is a proven platform that clearly demonstrates how
leveraging the existing commercial products, which we talked
about just before the hearing here, General, leads to both
schedule procurement and cost efficiencies. The Army has
recognized the ISV's value by including $44 million in
procurement funding on the unfunded priority list to supplement
the President's $34 million request.
So my question for both of you is given the request for an
additional $44 million for the Infantry Squad Vehicle. Can
Congress conclude that the Army needs to field the ISV more
rapidly than originally planned, and how does this acceleration
of the platform help the Army achieve its latest force design
initiatives?
Mr. Bush. Senator, if I could start on the kind of budget
part and let General Rainey, if I could, let him talk about
operations.
Senator Peters. That would be great.
Mr. Bush. From a budget standpoint, yes sir, it is proving
to be a very good vehicle. We are investing in it. I would also
add that the recently passed supplemental, I expect some of
that funding to end up buying ISVs because we are sending
Ukraine older things. That is one of our best, newest
platforms, and we will use some of that supplemental funding to
buy vehicles sooner than even the 2025 budget being approved.
Senator Peters. Good. General?
General Rainey. Senator, the feedback is we have started
fielding the ISV from our operating forces. Not in touch points
but actually fielding it to our brigade combat teams, has been
overwhelmingly positive. The 2d Brigade of the 101st, because
of the way they are coming in, instead of peanut butter,
slicing them all over the Army, we are massing them on one of
our brigades, and that brigade is experimenting with the
motorized infantry brigade combat team. Based on what we have
learned from Ukraine and now the technology, it is finally to
the point where we can bring a system like the ISV to bear.
How many we buy and as fast as we buy I would defer to Mr.
Bush. But as an infantryman and as a transformation guy, I
would like to see them fielded to as many of our infantry
brigade combat teams as we can, as fast as we can.
Tactical mobility is something that has eluded the light
infantry force for a long time, and this is a great capability.
Senator Peters. Great. Great. Thank you for your
assessment.
General Gingrich, the fiscal year 2025 budget request for
the Stryker family of vehicles, comprising 8 Stryker brigade
combat teams, proposes a reduction of $210 million for fiscal
year 2024, enacted level, limiting procurement to basically 51
vehicles. This many hinder the Army's plan to modernize the
half brigade each year, which would impact training and
fielding schedules of these units.
So my question for you, General, this substantial reduction
in funding for the Stryker combat vehicles impacts a
significant portion of the Army's deployed inventory. What is
the rationale behind decreasing the budget for these vehicles,
and how does this reduction align with the Army's overall
modernization goals?
Lieutenant General Gingrich. Thank you, Senator, for that,
and you are absolutely right. Fifty-one Strykers is in the
fiscal year 2025 request.
I think I would best characterize this as one of the hard
decisions that we had to make. Based off the priorities that
were established by the Secretary and the Chief, the resources
that are allocated, we had to carefully balance sort of today's
risk in an enduring platform like the Stryker with some of our
more modern programs that are under development but will bring
game-changing technology.
So I would call this one of high regret that we had to do,
but we thought through the risk and thought this was an
appropriate place for now. We are not walking away from the
Stryker, just buying a little time and space so that we can
address other priorities, sir.
Senator Peters. So what do you see as the future?
Lieutenant General Gingrich. I see the Stryker in Army
formations for quite some time. It is a very versatile vehicle,
not only as an infantry troop transport but also some of the
other technologies that we are bringing in, that it could be
the base platform. So I think the Stryker will be in our
inventory for a long time, Senator.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Good timing, huh? Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Ranking Member. I appreciate having this hearing
today.
The Organic Industrial Base, or OIB, is the backbone of the
Army sustainment capabilities. The Army's industrial base
comprises 23 depots, arsenals, ammunition plants that
manufacture to maintain critical materiel support for the
warfighters across the Joint Force. These highly technical
facilities and skilled workforce help to generate readiness and
operational capability throughout the Army.
Illinois has had the privilege of being home to Rock Island
Arsenal, which has supported this Nation since 1862--we are
very proud of it--and continues to play an essential role in
our national security, contributing to the Army's efforts to
accelerate 155 shell production, for example.
As the Army executes its 15-year modernization
implementation plan it must continue to use and partner with
the 14 DOD Advanced Manufacturing Institutes across the
country, including institutes like MxD, located in Chicago,
which will help enable the use of advanced technologies in
other continuous improvements across the Army's OIB.
Assistant Secretary Bush, you know I have been talking
about Rock Island since our time together on the House Armed
Services Committee. Maintaining global leadership in advanced
manufacturing is vital for ensuring the strength of our OIB.
How can the Army strengthen its relationship with DOD's
Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, such as MxD, and our
additional resources needed to do so?
Mr. Bush. Thanks, Senator. I think Congress has shown
leadership in pushing all the services and the Army to look
more real terms at advanced manufacturing, and as you know,
Rock Island is our center of excellence for that. It is where
we have the most 3D printing machines. We have one of the
biggest in the world there, that Congress was able to provide
us.
There is good work going on to do the hard work of figuring
out which parts we can make with those machines and then also
make those things even more forward in the field. So the idea
of being able to print parts, so to speak, forward is the idea.
I think we need to continue to stay at it. We are also,
though, counting on industry, because they are also moving, if
you go to any modern factory they are starting to use these
techniques, as well, to work with them to get this done.
So I think it is a question of just staying at it, staying
up with industry, and, though, having Government expertise like
we have at Rock Island, so we know what we are looking at.
Otherwise you can be told all sorts of things but not know what
is real, and the folks of Rock Island know.
Senator Duckworth. So in addition to that, Secretary Bush
and General Gingrich, a challenge that will hinder
modernization of our OIB is the mix of legacy and modern
equipment--you touched on that just a little bit--and a lack of
data connectivity with systems. How does this impact our
production capabilities for critical materials, which is those
155 rounds, and what recommendations do you have to strengthen
the Army's OIB?
Mr. Bush. Senator, if I could start and let General
Gingrich help, I think on the ammunition part of the organic
industrial base, the investments we have been able to make,
thanks to support from Congress, both before the Ukraine
conflict and since it started, are going to leave us with a
generational improvement in the ammunition part of the organic
industrial base. I would not say that about the rest. If I have
a concern it is about our other depots and our ability to keep
them modern, good places to work, and busy, given the resources
we have, so that if there is a major mobilization for a large-
scale conflict those depots, which are an insurance policy, can
meet the need. I do worry about that.
I think we have provided Members with a list of ideas for
potential adds for all the depots, not just the ammo ones. That
could certainly help. Also just continuing to work with us to
make sure we know when we are doing something we should not be
doing at those depots, meaning we are not investing the right
way. That input from members is vital to know, so we get on the
right track.
Senator Duckworth. General?
Lieutenant General Gingrich. Senator, I would offer a
couple of things. I think the balancing between legacy and
modernization, as you lay out. I would say it is actually
balancing between enduring and modernization, because frankly,
we have walked away from a lot of legacy systems that are no
longer relevant on the battlefield. I think 155 falls into that
enduring capability for the foreseeable future.
I think that is what the two gentlemen to my right, along
with myself, try to balance, is that balance between enduring
and modernization, and try to get that balance just right, to
acceptable risk levels.
The second thing I would say is we have invested quite
heavily, through our base budget, and with your support, as
well as supplemental appropriations that you have provided, we
have invested in our organic industrial base, especially the
ammunition.
We are going to, frankly, my last point, is we are going to
need your support in the foreseeable future. As we build this
capacity and we struggle with budgets, we may look for
congressional help to maximize that capacity that we are
building.
Senator Duckworth. Okay. Thank you.
Looking to the Indo-Pacific, that region is going to
require the ability to rapidly deploy military forces,
equipment, and supplies to the region, both within CONUS
[Continental United States] and OCONUS [Outside Continental
United States]. As the Army Service Component Command to
TRANSCOM [United States Transportation Command], the military
service deployment distribution command, SDDC, plays a vital
role in the efficient flow of resources delivering readiness
and lethality at speed across surface distribution network
nodes.
Assistant Secretary Bush, General Rainey, and General
Gingrich, a toss-up ball. Concerning SDDC's role as the global
intermodal surface connection and its mission to seamlessly
link the joint deployment and the distribution enterprise with
Army Materiel Command's materiel enterprise, what specific
efforts is the Army undertaking to prioritize and modernize
SDDC's capabilities? Because again, we are going to have to
push all this stuff out there, and if they are not modernized
efficiently we are not going to be able to meet the need.
General Rainey. Thank you, Senator. You obviously have a
deep understanding of this complicated challenge, and I would
add that there is a good chance, depending on who we fight,
that it will be contested----
Senator Duckworth. Yes----
General Rainey.--inside the United States. We are not going
to get a free pass until we show up in the South Pacific. So
everything the Army is working on in terms of contested
logistics is holistic, so SDDC is as important as the
watercraft unit that is going to cross the beach in INDOPACOM.
I think we do have a holistic. We are doing several things,
tabletop exercises, bringing the enterprise together. Army
Futures Command is hosting a contested logistics event June
12th down in Austin, and SDDC has been invited, and we will
make sure they are represented there. So we have to transform
together.
It all comes down to the challenge of we have to be able to
position supplies, not the old iron mountains, but we have to
distribute resources, ammunition, throughout the South Pacific.
The limitation on that is the ability to protect it, so things
like high powered microwave, IFPC [Indirect Fire Protection
Capability], offensively.
So it is a very, very complicated problem. We are working
very hard on our watercraft strategy, autonomous and robotic
supply, working with the Joint Force, because as you know this
is not an Army--we do title 10 for the Joint Force, but
TRANSCOM, the whole enterprise is going to be involved in this.
I feel like it is a very hard problem that we have a pretty
solid understanding of the complexity of, and we have a whole
lot of work to do to make sure that General Flynn and Admiral
Paparo get the resources they need in a very, very tough
environment to do logistics.
Senator Duckworth. On tabletop exercises, is that going to
include some of our friends and allies, as well? Because we are
not going to be able to do this on our own.
General Rainey. In the INDOPACOM ones they do. Yes,
Senator. Not currently. The one in Austin that I referred to is
focused on linking up joint teammates, Army teammates, and the
best industry partners we have in Contested Logistics, because
in a lot of areas the private sector is ahead of autonomous
watercraft, for example, the offshore oil industry is ahead of
where the Army is. So we are trying to make those connections.
But I will take that in mind for the next iteration.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Bush. Senator, if I could just add, I just want to
thank the folks who work there. They work some miracles
supporting Ukraine and Israel. America has many superpowers,
but Logistics is one of them, and you have to have people who
know how to do that, and we do it better than anyone in the
world. I have been stunned by how quickly we can do things when
we have the resources.
Senator Duckworth. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. We will go to a second round of
questions here.
I got to see firsthand part of a logistics training, I
guess, essentially, to the border between Poland and Ukraine.
There were some things that stood out. One was, Secretary Bush,
you mentioned the 3D printing. We sent them a couple of
printers, I think they are using in Ukraine now to print some
parts. The other thing that stood out to me was the
telemaintenance, kind of like telehealth but we are doing
telemaintenance.
General, you mentioned as part of the cross-functional team
I think you mentioned regenerative power and advanced power. I
would like you to comment a little bit on that. Obviously, to
folks that follow this it is pretty obvious that one of the
most challenging things for an Army to do is to move fuel
forward. That long logistic train to get fuel forward where it
is needed is complicated. So I am interested in hearing a
little bit about the regenerative and advanced power stuff that
you had just mentioned in your opening statement.
General Rainey. Thank you, Chairman. So fuel and ammo are
the two things that are the most important thing in taking care
of our casualties coming back, so those three pieces are just
non-negotiable, essential things if you are going to have a
good military. So that is why we chose those. In fuel,
specifically, the biggest opportunity in the near term is to
not move fuel that we do not have to, which sounds like a ``no
kidding,'' right? But our current systems, our tanks and
Bradleys, are dependent on verbal and digital reports of how
much fuel they have.
If you think about any car in America has the ability to
tell you all kinds of stuff with sensors. So the near-term
opportunity is to put systems that generate those data base
reportings off of our vehicles so that our great sustainers are
moving only the absolute amount of fuel they need, which takes
unnecessary convoys off the roads. So that would be the example
of demand reduction.
Then our science and technology, we have numerous ongoing
efforts to come up with alternatives to batteries, lower the
weight, longer shelf life, light, solar. We just put an
incredible new weapon into our light infantry formations, but
it is 3 pounds heavier. So that means 4 pounds have to come off
the back of that soldier, and the biggest opportunity to do
that is make them not carry 3 days' worth of radios. How do we
turn that into one radio? That is primarily in the research and
development, S&T space, but will rapidly turn into a
requirement document from that CFT, move over to Honorable
Bush's professionals to acquire it then.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Secretary Bush, we obviously
learned a lot here from ground operations that the Ukrainians
are conducting against the Russians. But this is at a time when
we are trying to rebuild our force for conflict in the Western
Pacific, which, by the way, I do not think it is not
inevitable, and we want to avoid it, and in my view the best
way to avoid it is to make sure that we have a force that no
adversary feels they can beat. But we have a lot of lessons
learned from Ukraine.
Is there anything that stands out that we will apply to
INDOPACOM, that we have learned in Ukraine, that might be
applicable in one way or the other, or maybe not, to conflict
in the Western Pacific?
Mr. Bush. Senator, if I could start and then have General
Rainey chime in, if that is okay. I would point to two. When
this Army modernization wave started, two of the initial
focuses were long range fires and air defense. Those two
capabilities are proving absolutely critical in Ukraine. So air
defense is not just tactical but a strategic level difference
whether you can do it or not, to protect your facilities and
your people. So we are seeing the need for advanced air defense
systems in Ukraine, which I believe underscores very good
decisions made before I arrived, to focus on that in the early
kind of first wave of the Army's current modernization efforts.
That is number one.
With regard to long range fires, I think it is the same. We
have seen in Ukraine mass precision at range has fundamentally
altered the battlefield for both sides. The Army's investments
there also apply to the Pacific. Again, that is where our
procurement dollars are now. They are in air defense and long
range fires, in terms of this wave of modernization. It was
very thoughtful of the people who realized that those things
needed to be first, and I think Ukraine is showing they were
right.
But General Rainey can offer much more.
General Rainey. Thank you, Chairman. Obviously I am very
proud of the Army. We have actually had people collecting
observations and lessons learned around Ukraine before the
Russians invaded, our partners in TRADOC, and we take that very
seriously.
One of the most interesting things, I think, is what is not
changing. So while we are a joint force--that is the only way
we fight--but the fact that war is still a contest between
humans and the resolve of the Ukrainian people, the importance
of leadership, that tells me that preserving our people, so
maintaining an All-Volunteer Force is as important to the
future of war as some of the technological solutions.
While, again, joint, there are fascinating things happening
in space. There are fascinating things happening in the cyber
domain. But the land domain remains absolutely relevant, you
know, the tough fighting.
The third one is while the technological stuff is
disruptive and fascinating--so Industrial Age warfare did not
stop and then we start this high tech warfare. So HE 155 is
still the indisputable, number one killer of both Ukrainians
and Russians on the battlefield.
But to answer your specific question, the ubiquitous
sensing, the thing that is the most alarming is that on the
future battlefield the absolute saturation of sensors is making
it almost impossible to hide, and a lot of our tactics and
doctrine are based on maneuvering and hiding. When you couple
that with a good enemy that has precision-guided munitions, so
now you are confronted with the problem of pretty much
guaranteed you are going to be observed by an enemy that can
hit you. In China, they have a magazine depth advantage that
even if you defend yourself you are eventually going to run out
of munitions.
So that is the absolute problem that we are facing in
INDOPACOM or Russia or anywhere else that we fight, and that is
what we are working very hard on, Mr. Bush covered. It is a
combination of defensive and offensive fires. We have
absolutely got to get better at defending ourselves, counter-
UAS, but the United States Army is best when it is not playing
defense at the point of need. So we need to protect our tanks
and especially our light infantry formations. But what we are
best at is sensing where the ground control stations are,
sensing where their EWs [electronic warfare] are emitting from,
and then employing ruthless Army offensive fires, joint fires,
to destroy them as opposed to waiting until it is on top of you
to try and defend yourself.
Senator Kelly. I want to come back to the long range fire
question, but for now I want to turn it over to Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Bush, I am glad to see that the budget
requests 230 Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) Increment 1, the
surface variant, but last year's NDAA directed the Army to
submit a plan to procure 400 PrSM per year. Budget documents
show that PrSM Increment 1 procurement peaks in fiscal year
2027 at only 296. What are the Army's options to increase PrSM
Increment 1 procurement over the future years' defense plan?
Mr. Bush. Senator, in the near term it will be the
supplemental replenishment funding. So as you know, we provided
ATACMS [Army Tactical Cruise Missile System] missiles. The
replacement is going to be PrSM Increment 1's. So that will
give us a pool of funding to aggressively maximize that
production rate in the near term.
In the long term, sir, it is going to require our
investment across the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program] to
prioritize that system. But I can tell you it is a very high
priority for the Secretary and Chief to get that much improved
capability at scale as fast as we can.
Senator Cotton. This investment across the FYDP sounds like
more money. How much more money are we talking about?
Mr. Bush. Senator, the goal is to maximize that production
capacity. I could get back to you with a hypothetical delta
between what you see across the out years and then what we
believe the maximum you could put in those years would be. This
is the kind of thing we are doing right now as you build a 2026
budget. But I would be happy to show you the math and what it
looks like, based on what we know now.
Senator Cotton. Please do. That would be helpful. I am also
concerned about PrSM Increment 2, the land-based anti-ship
variant. Can you explain the delay in procurement in the
budget's request of only 10 Increment 2 missiles?
Mr. Bush. Senator, one thing to keep in mind with Increment
2 is that it is a fundamentally new missile in that the seeker
is entirely different, which changes the design of the front
end of the missile. So while we call it an increment, it is a
substantially different weapon.
The reason for the timeline it is on is we have needed the
science and technology work on the seeker to prove out of the
labs. It has. What you see now is our first steps to actually
getting to production, and we just have to get through testing,
sir, to make sure it works.
I agree. Having more of those as part of a family of PrSM
systems we can shoot out of HIMARS [High Mobility Rocket
System], especially in INDOPACOM, would be a very good thing,
to put lots of Chinese ships at risk.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator Kelly. Just a couple of more questions. As you were
talking about artillery, it occurs to me that just like air-to-
air missile systems, the length of the stick is critical. I
mean, who has the bigger stick in the fight? You know, we think
about that a lot in air-to-air combat, and certainly the same
is true with artillery. I think some of the Russian artillery
outrages our 155 millimeter.
We had the 70-kilometer extended range cannon in
development. That program recently ended.
General Rainey, the Army has referenced a Tactical Fires
Study as informing the decisions related to long range fires.
How has that study informed and validated the Army's decision,
and to the extent that you can talk here in an open setting,
what is the plan beyond, you know, where do we go from here,
essentially on longer range artillery?
I was at Project Convergence a couple of years ago and I
saw what I think was about a 40-kilometer shot, which was
pretty impressive. It hit the vehicle dead on. But I want to
find out what are we thinking here, going forward.
General Rainey. Thank you, Chairman. The Tactical Fires
Study, unlike a lot of studies that are directed, that was
actually an internal Army thing that I started as the AFC
Commander. Mainly because the success of our long range fires
efforts, which are in really good shape and one of the
highlights of our modernization, started with a detailed
analytic effort, and I thought it just made sense to do that
same thing on the tactical side. Plus the absolutely
observations coming out of Ukraine. So it was a prudent effort.
Any lack of communication is entirely my responsibility. So
we have sent people over, and I am available, at a secret
level, to go into whatever level of detail would be necessary.
But at this level your point about the range is
fascinating. First of all, the requirement for extended range
artillery remains valid. The prototyping effort that we went
through was incredibly informative, and we learned a lot from
it.
One of the most interesting things is just by focusing on
the round itself we got over halfway from 30 to 70, and I can
share that range. It has been a long time since we have updated
things like propellant and energetics. Industry is very good at
it. At the same time, big, heavy, armored Paladins are costly.
We have a lot of great systems now.
One of the big findings is let's innovate at the round.
Let's work with industry and see what kind of range we can get
without having to redo the barrels, which makes you redo the
turret, which makes the platform.
Another one is we need to continue to upgrade our armored
Paladins that we have, both their auto-loaders, ammo carriers.
Some of our partners and allies have some phenomenal armored
artillery systems, and we have a plan that Mr. Bush could
explain about how we are going to invest in that.
Mobile Howitzer, our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty
Organization] allies and watching the battlefield in Europe,
there are some very good wheeled Howitzers that are having
great effect in a place like Europe where the road systems are
pretty mature, for example.
There is also autonomous. Another one of our partners has a
very capable autonomous and robotic cannon that I would like to
look at. So we are going to invest in that.
Our mortar systems, we have had the same three mortar
systems the entire time I have been an infantry officer, and we
are having great success with one of them, and we are going to
expand that extended range and lethality efforts to the other
one.
Then the biggest thing probably with our tactical fires is
capability is nice, but unlike precision munitions where it is
sinking a handful of ships or closing a piece of ground, the
most important thing in tactical fires is not just capability
but it is capacity, the capability and capacity. So range and
the ability to concentrate. No rounds are cheap, and every
dollar matters, but traditional HE 155, if you can put 50 of
those on a formation as opposed to paying hundreds of thousands
of dollars to kill one tank at a time, so capability and
capacity. The sum of those efforts is what we are doing to
innovate in the tactical fires space.
I would love a chance to come back and lay out the physics
and ranges and things like that.
Senator Kelly. I will take you up on that.
Senator Cotton, anything else?
Well, thank you, all three of you, for being here. Was
there anything that you expected to hear from us that we maybe
did not ask that you think should be mentioned here in this
open hearing? Secretary Bush?
Mr. Bush. Well, Senator, you alluded to it. I just would
want to say that the Chief's unfunded priority list has some
counter-UAS and UAS on there that I would highly recommend to
members. In a classified setting I think we could tell you a
story about CENTCOM counter-UAS that is actually a pretty good
news story. The Army, very quietly, did the diligent work for
years, because we have been under attack by various people in
the Middle East, that is protecting our troops right now, with
Congress' support. So the Army, I believe, has the most capable
counter-UAS systems available. With more resources we could go
even faster.
So, sir, I would be happy to, if of interest, give Members
options on what those things might be, starting with the
Chief's list.
Senator Kelly. Okay. We will set that up, and I am going to
submit some other questions for the record on electronic
warfare, CJADC-2, and some air missile defense questions.
With that the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kelly
electronic warfare
1. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, reporting from credible observers
of the conflict in Ukraine suggest that Russian electronic warfare
systems are fielded at scale across the frontline and that tactics in
this area change at least every 6 weeks. While the Army has significant
expertise in electronic warfare, does it have sufficient capacity in
personnel and equipment across its electronic warfare enterprise?
General Rainey. The Army must continue to increase investments in
electronic warfare (EW) personnel, equipment, and training to ensure
readiness and more quickly adapt to current and future threats. Based
on observations from Ukraine and internal studies and exercises, the
Army understands that our EW capabilities need to be agile, tailorable
by theater and formation, and reprogrammable at the tactical edge. The
Army is expanding the delivery of modernized EW capabilities across
multiple theaters and moving to an adaptive, software-defined approach,
in which electronic warfare capabilities are dynamic and can be quickly
modified for different platforms, threats, and effects. Regarding EW
personnel, the Army continues sturdy growth across the enterprise,
while working to grow our capacity of senior commissioned officers and
to retain highly trained EW warrant officers. Additionally, the Army's
newly formed EW platoons will train with highly capable commercial EW
solutions, improving technical proficiency at home station while
generating feedback on future system designs and functionality.
2. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, are Army systems and supporting
infrastructure sufficiently agile to adapt in real time to a contested
electromagnetic environment?
General Rainey. The Army understands the need for systems and
infrastructure to be agile and adaptive in real time to operate in a
contested electromagnetic environment and is actively investing in and
developing those capabilities. Current systems and supporting
infrastructure provide some agility, but face constraints that the Army
is addressing through new start program requirements. The Army is
focusing on Soldiers' ability to communicate and pass data in contested
environments with the development of electromagnetic protection
capabilities, as well as integrating EW capabilities into decoy and
obfuscation systems, counter-UAS, and other systems to protect our
Soldiers. The Army has demonstrated success through its Air Vigilance
program in the USCENTCOM theater to adapt to quickly changing contested
environments and adversary tactics. Additional details are available
via higher classification.
3. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, based on what we are seeing of
the Russian's electronic warfare systems capabilities in Ukraine, how
would our electronic warfare capabilities perform against Russia?
General Rainey. The Army has leveraged EW capabilities originally
designed for use in a counter-insurgency fight to meet the emerging EW
threat in Europe. Additional details on both can be provided at higher
classification. As a result, in fiscal year 2025, the Army is making
investments in EW capabilities to provide a competitive advantage in
Large Scale Combat Operation (LSCO) and multidomain operations. There
are also several on-going initiatives and opportunities for
acceleration under the Transform in Contact concept to bring mature
industry solutions into formations for employment and experimentation.
These will require a deliberate, coordinated resource strategy led by
the newly established Army EW Board of Directors, and clearly
communicated with Congress.
integrated air and missile defense
4. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, one of the critical capabilities
that the Army would bring to the joint force in any conflict in the
Pacific is integrated air and missile defense. Novel technologies such
as the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon promise to provide high-volume and
low cost-per-shot options to commanders, while efforts to network
existing sensors and shooters enhances the efficiency and resilience of
the current force. As the Air Force implements novel concepts such as
Agile Combat Employment, how is the Army working with the Joint Force
to provide appropriately scaled air defense options for larger numbers
of dispersed operating locations?
General Rainey. In addition to the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon
System, the Army is also prototyping High-Energy Laser (HEL) and High-
Power Microwave (HPM) systems. These systems potentially reduce cost-
per-shot, preserve exquisite interceptors for hard targets, and
simplify and/or reduce logistics by eliminating expendable munitions--
all qualities that would be especially useful in defending dispersed
operating locations. Through the Army's IAMD Battle Command System (or
IBCS), the Army is networking existing sensors and shooters to provide
the appropriate capabilities to Joint and Army Commanders in a more
flexible manner while potentially reducing the required AMD footprint.
Additionally, the Army is growing its Air Defense capacity, including
additional Patriot, IFPC, SHORAD, and Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft
System (C-sUAS) units to better protect critical assets and forces
across dispersed locations. The Army continues to work with the
Services to develop a wide range of systems to defeat the growing
threat of sUAS, both in dedicated Air Defense capabilities and with
capabilities that can be operated by non-Air Defense units.
modernizing command and control (jadc2)
5. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, the Combined Joint All Domain
Command and Control, or CJADC2, initiative is a critical capability for
the joint force of the future. Real and continuous improvement is
essential. The Army has recently completed its Project Convergence
Capstone 4 exercises and experimentation. What are your primary take-
aways from this year's efforts?
General Rainey. In Project Convergence Capstone 4 (PCC4) which the
Army hosted in the 2d quarter of fiscal year 2024, we achieved 56
experimental ``firsts'' across the Joint and combined force, employed
99 technologies in support of integrated fires and expanded maneuver,
and collaborated with OSD Global Information Dominance Experiment's
(GIDE) capabilities for CJADC2.
PCC4 was able to integrate technologies and networks to deliver
operational synchronization, accelerate sensor to shooter, and empower
commanders in their decisions directly enabling the CJADC2 concept.
Multi-National Collaboration: The PCC4 environment
demonstrated increased integration with Joint and Multinational
Partners employing a collaborative teaming approach to data management
and sharing. The U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, and
Japan participated and contributed to advancing multi-national
collaboration regarding core services and Command and Control.
Enhanced Multi-Domain Effects: PCC4 combined Special
Operations, conventional forces, Joint, and Multinational systems to
accomplish a functional CJTF and provide Multi-Domain Effects.
Data-Centric Technologies: PCC4 saw an increased use of
data-centric technologies with the integration of external data from
Army Data Platforms and commercial sources, enhancing tactically
produced data to support Combined Joint All Domain Situational
Awareness (CJADSA), CJADC2, and data-driven decisionmaking.
PCC4 partnered with the Chief Digital and Artificial
Intelligence Office (CDAO) Global Information Dominance Experiment
(GIDE) series which enabled Multi-Domain Battle Management Command and
Control (BMC2) at Echelons 1--3 (Strategic to Tactical) inclusive of
Maritime, Air, and Land components. Our integration with GIDE continues
as are already underway with planning the next iterations of the
Project Convergence Capstone experiment.
6. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, how will this improve not only
the speed of operational decisions but also increase the range of
options for threat engagement?
General Rainey. At Project Convergence Capstone 4, we successfully
demonstrated improved fires distribution methods for our Combined and
Joint partners, both in terms of decision speed and engagement options.
By utilizing automated fires distribution technologies, 5th Gen
Fighters could detect target data and send it to the Combined Joint
Task Force Commander, seamlessly sending a call-for-fire cross-service
and to our multinational partners. We took what was typically a lengthy
decision process that required humans in the loop, automated it, and
reduced the process time by 85 percent, getting us closer to the
decision speeds that we require. Project Convergence will continue to
refine such capabilities and other options for threat engagement in
collaboration with our Joint and multinational partners.
7. Senator Kelly. General Rainey, why is developing these
capabilities so critical?
General Rainey. Project Convergence scenarios, technology and
experimentation are designed to advance our Nation's ability deter
aggression and prevail in conflict, if necessary. The experimentation
will accelerate our ability to achieve a more resilient Joint Force and
defense ecosystem. Project Convergence is nested with the National
Defense Strategy (NDS) Defense Priorities and the CJADC2 strategy.
Through experimenting, we serve to empower Joint Force Commanders with
the capabilities they will need across all warfighting domains, across
echelons, and with our combined and multinational partners to deter or
defeat any adversary at any time and in any place around the globe.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Cotton
itep
8. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, is it correct that the original
ITEP program of record was established prior to FARA and was set forth
to modernize the AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk?
Secretary Bush. Yes. The Improved Turbine Engine Program of Record
was established at Milestone B in 2019 and only accounts for
qualification and integration onto the Apache and Black Hawk programs.
Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) integration was not
included in the program of record. Though the Army has decided to end
FARA prototyping efforts after fiscal year 2024, we will still leverage
lessons learned from the integration activities of the Improved Turbine
Engine into the FARA prototypes and the testing that is planned to
occur this year for the Black Hawk platform.
9. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what are the validated
requirements for the T901 under ITEP?
Secretary Bush. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
validated the ITEP Capability Development Document (CDD) on 26 October
2017, and the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) validation of
the ITEP Capability Development Document (CDD) on 23 April 2018. Some
of, but not limited to, the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key
System Attributes (KSAs) extracted from the ITEP CDD include the
aircraft must perform worldwide in an array of environments,
improvement of logistics supportability and significant increase in
aircraft range, payload, speed, and endurance.''
10. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the current assessed
test performance of the T901 against these requirements?
Secretary Bush. Testing is ongoing; however, initial results
indicate the T901 design meets all performance threshold requirements
for power, fuel efficiency, survivability, sustainment, cybersecurity,
and training defined in the validated Capability Development Document.
11. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, of the total government funding
projected to be required for T901 EMD, what percentage has already been
expended?
Secretary Bush. The current estimate at complete is $781 million on
the T901 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract. To
date, the Army has expended $611 million (78 percent) on the T901 EMD
contract. The Army is assessing resources and timelines associated with
an EMD extension given resource adjustments in the fiscal year 2025
budget request.
12. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the estimated
government funding required to complete EMD?
Secretary Bush. The Army is currently assessing resources and
timelines associated with Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(EMD) phase due to resource adjustments in the fiscal year 2025 budget
request and the decision to delay production.
13. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the projected impact to
Milestone C and full rate production from a partial or full reduction
in funding in fiscal year 2025?
Secretary Bush. The fiscal year 2025 budget request removed of all
procurement funding and the reduction of the fiscal year 2025 Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation funding for ITEP by approximately
$104 million has resulted in a projected shift in Milestone C from
fiscal year 2026 to beyond the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP);
however, the Army is evaluating options to possibly pull the Milestone
C to an earlier date.
14. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the projected
disruption to the supply chain through a delay to the production
schedule?
Secretary Bush. A delay in the production schedule has the
potential to disrupt the industrial base through the loss of suppliers,
skilled labor, and qualified production processes. The Army is working
with our industry partners to mitigate risk as much as possible as the
effort continues in additional development.
15. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, what is the Department's plan
to ensure the T901 supply chain remains strong?
Secretary Bush. In coordination with our industry partners, the
Army has taken several mitigation steps to ensure the T901 supply chain
remains strong. The joint team has conducted activities such as
revising engine production rates during Engineering and Manufacturing
Development (EMD) to enable continuous manufacturing, conducting a
comprehensive risk assessment to determine at-risk suppliers and
develop get-well action plans, and developing courses of action to
leverage long lead item contract actions to support further engine
development.
16. Senator Cotton. Secretary Bush, are there any alternative
engines that can provide the same modernization benefits to the Apache
and Black Hawk for that amount of investment?
Secretary Bush. The Army awarded the Engineering and Manufacturing
Development (EMD) contract in 2019, following down-select from two
Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction-phase vendors, originally
selected through full and open competition. No existing engines provide
the same modernization benefits for the amount invested as no other
alternatives achieve power, fuel efficiency, and weight requirements
and can integrate within Black Hawk and Apache platforms without
additional significant engineering costs.
[all]