• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie Joint Air & Land Forces and Seapower Subcommittees Hearing re: Fiscal Year 2009 Departments of the Navy and Air Force Aviation Programs

March 11, 2008

"This morning we meet in a joint hearing of the Air and Land Forces and the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittees to receive testimony regarding Departments of the Navy and Air Force aviation programs.

"We have a lot to cover today and we'll conduct this hearing in two panels.

"Leading the first panel, Secretary John Young, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, will discuss issues related to F-22 force structure and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program; followed by Mr. Mike Sullivan from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), who will give us GAO's views on the risks associated with the current JSF program, including an updated evaluation of the merits of a competitive JSF engine program.

"The second panel will include Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force witnesses to provide information on major issues associated with their helicopter, fighter, and airborne electronic attack programs.

"Navy and Air Force aviation includes a large number of programs, but today we will focus on the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22, tactical aircraft inventory, and CSAR-X as Air and Land Forces Subcommittee issues. Since 1997, the Department of Defense has requested approximately $1.1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program.

"Congress has added $977 million to this amount for a total of $2.1 billion being authorized and appropriated through fiscal year 2008.

"We understand that an additional $1.3 billion would be required through 2013 to complete development of the JSF alternate engine, which would provide the Department of Defense a competitive choice between two interchangeable engines for the 2,443 Joint Strike Fighters that the Department of Defense now plans to buy.

"One reason Congress has supported a competitive alternate engine program for JSF is because of the benefits brought to DOD from the competition between the F100 and F110 engine manufacturers, beginning in the early '80s.

"As a result of this competition, the GAO indicates the Department of Defense saved approximately $4 billion in life cycles costs, a 21 percent savings. Competition, GAO notes, has had other benefits such as improvements in engine performance, reliability and maintainability.

"I would like to note that Section 213 of last year's authorization bill, the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure the obligation and expenditure of sufficient annual amounts for the continued development and procurement of two options for the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter. Despite this provision of law, the Department has not included funding for a competitive JSF engine in its budget request.

"Funding for the F-22 will be another important issue for the subcommittee this year. The budget before us would authorize the final F-22, 20 aircraft procurement. Although, DOD officials have indicated the anticipated fiscal year 2009 supplemental will include four additional aircraft, neither advance procurement funding for additional F-22s in fiscal year 2010 or F-22 line shutdown costs is included in the budget request before us.

"The current F-22 program of record is 183 F-22s, but the Air Force asserts that it requires a fleet of 381 F-22 aircraft to meet the requirements of our National Military Strategy.

"The future years defense program as presented ends production at 183 F-22 aircraft, with the possibility of an additional four more aircraft. The Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35A, is planned to complete the remainder of the future Air Force fighter force structure. The F-35A is now planned to achieve its initial operational capability in 2013.

"The 2009 average procurement unit cost for 20 F-22s is $205 million, while the projected cost for the F-35A is $73 million.

"We are much more certain of the cost for F-22s since we have an ongoing production line. As we will hear from the GAO this morning, there is high risk in the F-35 program that it will not achieve its cost, schedule or performance parameters.

"The F-22 and F-35 have a similar 12 year development period. If we go back to where the F-22 was five years into development in 1996, about where the F-35 is now, projections were for a buy of 438 aircraft at an average procurement unit cost of $104 million in 2008 dollars. Today, we're only planning for 183 aircraft and unit costs have increased 97 percent.

"If the cost of an F-35 increases similar to the F-22, costs could increase by a similar amount to $156 million per aircraft in 2008 dollars if the cost grows at the same rate as it did for the F-22. And that is without a reduction of the currently projected 2,443 aircraft total procurement.

"I ask that our witnesses today give us a candid assessment of the JSF competitive engine program, development and procurement risk in the JSF program, and the way forward for F-22 production or line shutdown.

"Our second panel has been asked to discuss a range of aviation programs in the Departments of the Navy and Air Force.

"Two issues are of particular interest to the Air and Land Forces subcommittee-Air Force fighter inventory shortfalls and the Air Force's CSAR-X combat search and rescue helicopter.

"Air Force senior leadership has indicated in previous testimony that the high operational tempo for the past 17 years in the Balkans and Southwest Asia has taken its toll on the projected service life of its aircraft. Current Air Force projections indicate a shortfall in the desired tactical aircraft inventory beginning in 2017. If production of the F-35 is delayed or is procured in numbers fewer than the planned 80 aircraft per year, the gap could come sooner and be larger.

"The C-SAR X program has been delayed because of disputes over the contract award and two protests sustained by the GAO. As a result, the CSAR-X program is two years behind schedule and is once again in source selection. CSAR-X is the Air Force's number two acquisition priority, after the airborne tanker program. It is intended to replace the Air Force's fleet of 101 aging HH-60G rescue helicopters. We expect to be informed by our witnesses on the path forward for this program.

"Before we begin, let me call on our Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Chairman and the Ranking Members of the two subcommittees for any opening remarks."