[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-123]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-102 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas California
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ADAM SMITH, Washington J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey ROB BISHOP, Utah
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DUNCAN HUNTER, California
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
GLENN NYE, Virginia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
Mike Casey, Professional Staff Member
Lynn Williams, Professional Staff Member
Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, February 23, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request from the Department of the
Air Force...................................................... 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, February 23, 2010....................................... 45
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010
FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services........ 2
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force.............. 4
Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force... 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Skelton, Hon. Ike............................................ 49
Donley, Hon. Michael B., joint with Gen. Norton A. Schwartz.. 51
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Bishop................................................... 73
Mr. Conaway.................................................. 74
Mrs. Davis................................................... 73
Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 74
Mr. Langevin................................................. 73
Mr. LoBiondo................................................. 73
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Bishop................................................... 81
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 84
Mr. Bright................................................... 87
Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 85
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers........................................ 83
Mr. Miller................................................... 77
Mr. Turner................................................... 82
Mr. Wilson................................................... 80
FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Good morning. Today the House Armed Services
Committee meets to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2011
budget request of the United States Air Force. Our witnesses
today are the Honorable Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air
Force, and General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air
Force.
Thank you both for appearing. And let me take this
opportunity also to thank those you lead: the Active Duty,
Reserves, the Air Guard personnel as well as the Air Force
civilians.
Every day, the Air Force flies in excess of 200 sorties a
day in Iraq and Afghanistan, totaling over 570,000 sorties
since September 11, 2001.
In addition, about 29,000 personnel are currently deployed
to Iraq and Afghanistan, including over 4,000 serving on the
Joint Expeditionary Task billets; that is, in nontraditional
billets often outside the wire.
This continues to be an exceptionally busy Air Force and
one that is contributing greatly to the current joint fight,
and we are proud of them. To support this level of activity,
the Administration has requested a $5.3 billion increase over
last year's base budget level. This would support a 1.4 percent
across-the-board military and civilian pay raise and support
the Air Force's continued focus on providing support to
military families.
As someone who has often commented that if Mama ain't
happy, no one is happy, I strongly approve of the continued
emphasis on personnel and family issues.
Nonetheless, there are aspects of this budget request that
cause me concern. For starters, I see we are back to square one
on building a new bomber. Two years ago, Secretary Gates gave
his blessing for the Air Force to begin a new, well-thought-out
bomb program. As I understand the direction now is to
reconsider where to go with this program, going back to first
principles. I find this somewhat confusing as these issues were
recently studied in-depth over a five-year period, and I hope
that our witnesses today will explain to us why redoing this
study is a good use of our taxpayer dollars.
Our national security will continue to require bombing
capability, and the smart design engineering workforce, a
national treasure, frankly, in my opinion, should not be lost.
I also want to discuss the F-136 alternate engine issue. We
have long funded the development of an alternate engine for the
Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] as an insurance policy for our
national security. Twenty-five years from now, the F-35 will
comprise 95 percent of all U.S. fighter aircraft. It seems to
me that relying simply on one engine means accepting a
potential single source of failure. The Secretary of Defense
promised us, starting February 1, that he would provide us the
analysis on this year's decision. We have still not received
this analysis. We do remain deeply concerned about receiving it
quickly. I would hope that you would see to that.
I also have questions about the status of the F-35 program
more generally. This is a critical program for us, as well as
for our allies. The three recent reviews of the F-35 program
have challenged the current development schedule, cost
increases of the F-135 engine, the future production schedule
given us. I would ask our witnesses to help us understand how
we can stay on target for our 2013 initial operating capability
and, in the absence of full testing, why the Air Force wants to
buy 23 in 2011, an increase from 13 in 2010.
Now, I might say there are many other issues that I hope we
can get into during our questioning, including our strike
fighter force structure requirements, cyberattacks, and defense
future plans for light attack aircraft, to name a few. In
addition I will say I am pleased that the OSD [Office of the
Secretary of Defense] and the Air Force will soon be issuing
the final request for proposal for our next tanker. We hope we
can get that behind us. We must get a new tanker contract award
and start replacing current planes just as soon as possible.
I turn to my good friend the ranking gentleman from
California, Mr. McKeon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, it is good to have you
with us here today. We appreciate all you do, and we are truly
grateful that we have men with your leadership ability sitting
where you are.
Gentlemen, I want to take a minute to applaud both of you
for your remarks at the recent Institute for Foreign Policy
Analysis [IFPA] conference. General Schwartz, at that event you
acknowledged that the Air Force has had a short-term and
somewhat narrow, focused, fix-it sort of perspective. I agree
with you on that point, and I also agree that it is not good
for the long-term health of the institution.
Secretary Donley, I believe you were also on the right
track when you said that the Air Force needs to remain vigilant
in tying your work to the National Security Strategy, the QDR
[Quadrennial Defense Review], and the larger national security
community. I would caveat that by saying that your efforts will
only prove successful if the National Security Strategy and the
QDR provide appropriate guidance.
As you all know, we recently had Secretary Gates, Admiral
Mullen and Secretary Flournoy before this committee, and many
of our members, Republican and Democrat alike, expressed
concern that the 2010 QDR and the fiscal year 2011 budget are
overly focused on the short-term and fail to adequately address
strategic risks.
I strongly believe that if we are to be successful in
providing for a military that is ready and capable of
responding to a broad array of challenges, we must take care
that we don't shape our forces for the counterinsurgency
battles of Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of conventional
defense capabilities. We can only address both of these
challenges to our national security with clear strategic
guidance and commitment of appropriate resources. I am very
concerned that the QDR and the 2011 budget request provide
neither.
The near-term focus of the QDR is very alarming when you
consider the impact to the Air Force. Decisions to reduce
fighter force structure, space systems, and missile defense
capabilities cannot be easily undone. We can't feasibly restart
production of the F-22s, and we can't field new satellites or
missile defense systems the way we surged MRAPs [mine resistant
ambush protected vehicles].
I would also like to take a moment to express my continued
opposition to this year's proposed retirement of 250 F-15s, F-
16s, and A-10s. I recently visited with General Roger Brady,
the commander of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe. He is very
concerned about the impact of these force reductions on our
ability to engage and build partnerships with our friends and
allies in Europe. In his words, our basing and force structure
is not aligned with our foreign policy. He strongly believes
that if we take those fighters out of Europe, they will only be
back to fight the war that they were there to deter. I would
argue that the same holds true in the Pacific theater. As aptly
noted in your IFPA remarks, Secretary Donley, ``Presence is
essential to successful engagement.'' Our capabilities must be
sufficiently robust and flexible to support a broad range of
engagement needs.
I also look forward to your addressing directly the
President's State of the Union call to repeal Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. Before the President or special interests force a change
in the policy or law, Congress deserves to see from the
services concrete in-depth evidence that such a change would
improve wartime military readiness in any measurable
significant way. Many of us on this committee have serious
concerns with putting our men and women in uniform through such
a divisive debate while they are fighting two wars. Since
today's hearing focus limits the amount of time we can spend
discussing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I have echoed Mrs. Davis'
request for you to appear at the Military Personnel
Subcommittee hearing on this issue March 3. I would hope that
we could work that out.
Gentlemen, I look forward to our discussion today and
hearing more from you on your vision and strategic goals. I
believe the Air Force is at a critical juncture, one that will
prove to be historic. We must be wise in the path that we
choose. And I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank my friend from California.
Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Donley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon,
members of the committee, it is indeed a pleasure to be here
today representing almost 680,000 Active Duty, Guard and
Reserves, and Air Force civilians.
I am also honored to be here with my partner, General
Norton Schwartz, who is a phenomenal teammate and a tireless
public servant.
Today I am pleased to report that America's Air Force
continues to make progress in strengthening our contributions
as part of the joint team and the excellence that is the
hallmark of our service. We are requesting $150.0 billion in
our baseline budget and almost $21.0 billion in the overseas
contingency operations [OCO] supplemental appropriation to
support this work.
In the past year in planning for the future, we have
focused on balancing our resources and risk among four priority
objectives outlined by Secretary Gates in the recently released
QDR.
First, we must prevail in today's wars. Your Air Force
understands the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan, and as
we continue to responsibly draw down the forces in Iraq, we are
committed to rapidly fielding needed capabilities for the joint
team, such as surging ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance] assets into theater and maximizing air mobility
to accelerate the flow of forces into Afghanistan.
Secondly, we must prevent and deter conflict across the
spectrum of warfare. As we await the results of the Nuclear
Posture Review [NPR] in the new START [Strategic Arms
Reductions] Treaty, we continue concentrating on the safety,
security, and sustainment of two legs of the Nation's nuclear
arsenal. Last year, we stood up Air Force Global Strike
Command. We have now realigned our ICBM [intercontinental
ballistic missile] and bomber wings under the control of a
single commander. We also stood up the Nuclear Weapons Center
to consolidate the management of all our nuclear weapons'
sustainment activities. And to increase our engagement across
the world, we are building partner capacity in Afghanistan and
Iraq, developing the training framework that emphasizes light
attack and mobility that can benefit other nations.
Third, we need to be prepared to defeat adversaries and
succeed in a wide range of conflicts. We need to ensure that we
are providing the right capabilities with our strategic airlift
and ISR platforms and ensure our space-based assets continue to
deliver needed capabilities for the future.
In addition, the last two decades of sustained operations
has strained our weapons systems. We continue to determine
which aircraft we will modernize and sustain and which we must
retire and recapitalize. One of our primary efforts includes
retiring and recapitalizing many of our legacy fighters and
tankers, replacing them with F-35s and KC-Xs. These decisions
require tough choices as well as the ability to quickly field
systems that meet warfighter needs at an affordable price.
Because acquisition underpins this effort, we are continuing to
work to recapture excellence in this area. In the past year we
have made great strides in reforming our internal processes. We
have added more program executive officers and are growing our
acquisition workforce by several thousand professionals over
the over next five years.
Finally, we must preserve and enhance the all-volunteer
force. Airmen are our most valuable resource, and they have
performed superbly in every mission and deployment they have
undertaken. With the understanding that their families serve
alongside them, in July of 2009, General Schwartz and I and
Chief Master Sergeant Jim Roy began a year-long focus on our
men and women and their families. This Year of the Air Force
Family recognizes their sacrifices, and it looks to determine
how we can better support, develop, house, and educate them. We
are determining which programs are performing well and where we
can do better.
It is important to note that each of those areas prevailing
today, preventing and deterring conflict, preparing for
tomorrow, preserving the force, are continuing efforts. We know
that each will require sustained commitment, and we are now
developing and implementing proactive plans for future success.
As I noted last year and would reaffirm again, the
stewardship of the United States Air Force is a responsibility
that General Schwartz and I take very seriously. We are very
grateful for the committee's continued support in this journey.
And we look forward to discussing our proposed program and
budget.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
General Schwartz, please.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and
General Schwartz can be found in the Appendix on page 51.]
STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. AIR FORCE
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McKeon,
members of the committee, I am proud to be here today
representing your Air Force with Secretary Donley.
Let me begin by reaffirming that the United States Air
Force is fully committed to effective stewardship of the
resources that are placed in our trust.
Guided by integrity, service, and excellence, our core
values, America's airmen are serving courageously every day
with precision and reliability on behalf of the American
people. This budget request supports these airmen in our
continuing efforts to rebalance the force, make difficult
decisions on what and how we buy, and sustain our needed
contributions to the joint team.
Secretary Donley and I have established five priorities
shortly after our taking office to ensure our entire force was
focused on the right objectives. Most of our initial effort
focused on renewing our commitment to long-established
standards of excellence. I am pleased to report to you today
that our committed and talented airmen broadly understood our
intent and delivered in meaningful fashion. Although these
initial priorities were not designed to change from year to
year, our progress with the nuclear enterprise is such that we
can now shift our efforts to sustain the progress that we have
made. Thus, our first priority is to continue to strengthen
excellence in the nuclear enterprise. The rigor of our nuclear
surety inspections demonstrates a new commitment to the highest
levels of performance, but we must and we will do even more to
ensure 100 percent precision and reliability in our nuclear
operations and logistics 100 percent of the time.
For our second priority, to partner with our joint and
coalition team to win today's fight, Secretary Donley mentioned
several of the ways in which our airmen are providing critical
air and space power for the joint and coalition team. Your
airmen are also performing admirably wherever and whenever our
joint teammates require, including providing battlefield
medical support and evacuation, ordnance disposal, convoy
security and much, much more.
Our third priority remains to develop and care for our
airmen and their families. As the Secretary indicated, we
initiated the Year of the Family shortly after our testimony
last year in recognition of the vital role that our families
fulfill in mission accomplishment. Although their sacrifice is
perhaps less conspicuous, contributions--their contributions--
are no less substantial.
Modernizing our inventories, organizations, and training,
our fourth priority, is among the most difficult tasks that our
service has undertaken in these last 18 months. In order to
achieve the balance that Secretary Gates envisioned for our
force, we were compelled to action and to decision. The budget
reflects a continuation of that effort. We set forth on a plan
last year to accelerate the retirement of some of our older
fighter aircraft. This year we will not be retiring any
additional fighters, but we are shifting away from some of our
oldest and least capable C-130s and C-5s.
Modernizing where we can and recapitalizing when we must
will allow us to recapitalize our force scenarios where simple
modernization is no longer cost-effective. KC-X is one such
example. Awarding a new aerial refueling aircraft contract
remains our top acquisition priority, and we hope to deliver an
RFP within days to get the program underway. A similar
imperative is the F-35. And I want to underscore Secretary
Donley's comments by noting that this weapons system will be
the workhorse driving much of our Air Force and the joint force
forward.
Long-Range Strike is the last program that I number among
our top initiatives. The Air Force fully supports the
development of a family of systems, providing both penetrating
and standoff capabilities for the next two to three decades as
described in the QDR.
Recapturing acquisition excellence, our final priority, is
only now beginning to pay dividends with our acquisition
improvement plan at the heart of the reform effort. While
promising initial successes must continue for a number of years
before we can declare victory on this front, we are fully aware
that we must bring every bit of capability and value that we
can from the systems that we procure, and this will continue to
require a sustained focus on acquisition excellence.
Mr. Chairman, the Air Force will continue to provide our
best military advice and stewardship, delivering global
vigilance, reach, and power for the Nation. Thank you for your
continuing support of the United States Air Force and that of
the committee, and particularly for our airmen and their
families. I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The joint prepared statement of General Schwartz and
Secretary Donley can be found in the Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. General, thank you very much. We are
especially proud of what you have done, both you gentlemen, as
well as the many young men and young women that wear the blue,
and we hope that you will transmit our appreciation to them.
In the past, I have asked how many non-Army, non-Marine
personnel are deployed doing Army type of work in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Can you enlighten us as to that number today from
the Air Force?
General Schwartz. Sir, the number is about 4,700.
The Chairman. That is down considerably, is it not?
General Schwartz. As Iraq has subsided in terms of
strength, so too have our joint expeditionary taskings, sir.
The Chairman. How goes the recruiting for the Air Force?
General Schwartz. Sir, we have met our numbers, both
recruiting and retention, with the singular exception of the
medical specialty, and thus far this year we have----
The Chairman. And when you say ``medical specialty,'' are
you talking about doctors, nurses?
General Schwartz. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The whole gamut?
General Schwartz. Yes, particularly on the officer side.
And that is why we have in the budget request this year about
$135.0 million in requests for incentives and for bonuses with
respect to making it more attractive for medical professionals
to come on Active Duty and to remain on Active Duty.
The Chairman. The F-35, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, has continued to be a source of questions for me. It
seems like every year the program is slipping and slipping,
although you are asking for 23 this coming year. Where is this
program? Why aren't we ahead of the game on this?
Secretary Donley. Well, sir, this program has had lots of
scrutiny. It is the Department of Defense's largest program.
Within the Air Force, it is our largest single program and by
itself accounts for 15 or 16 percent of all our investment
dollars, not our total budget but our investment dollars. And
we have had a close eye on this program, especially over the
last couple of years, with independent cost estimates set in
motion by Dr. Carter, Secretary Gates, and their predecessors,
so the program is getting great scrutiny. We have identified
potential slips from independent estimates done at the end of
2008, and you may recall that the Secretary made an adjustment
in the F-35 program last year to add about a little over $400.0
million to development. And so we had a close eye on this last
year, and we also set in motion new and independent estimates
to be undertaken at the end of last year. And when those were
done, those independent estimates showed that we had not
regained ground that had been projected to be regained, and we
needed to recognize a slip in the program, and that is the
source, really, of the restructuring that has been proposed in
this budget.
The Chairman. This committee last year successfully wrote a
bill regarding acquisition reform, and what we wrote actually
pretty much was what came out of conference with the Senate. Is
that making any difference with the F-35 program?
Secretary Donley. I think it has made a difference to the
extent that the Department has made a strategic decision to
accept the independent cost estimates that were reported to us
at the end of the year, so we had to make a significant
adjustment in the program as a result of that. So we have taken
onboard what we think are probably the more realistic
estimates. And I think that is a reflection of the same kind of
emphasis that the committee put in its bill.
The Chairman. I hope we can finally say, ``Let's get on
with it.''
Secretary Donley. Well, sir, this does represent a slip in
the program. It will cost us more money to get where we need to
go, but this is the right thing to do. This program had lots of
concurrency built in between development and production, and
the independent estimates showed us that that level of
concurrency just got to an unsustainable level. So we have
knocked down the production ramp. We have added dollars back
into development to complete that work. We have taken other
risk-reduction measures, consistent I think with the philosophy
that the committee presented last year, and we are all about
getting this program on track as quickly as possible. There is
no diminution of the importance of this program or the emphasis
that we are putting on its success going forward.
The Chairman. One last question. As you know, there is a
major Cyber Command that is in the offing. You have within the
Air Force, do you not, a Cyber Command? This is my last
question; then I will ask Mr. McKeon to carry on. But would you
very briefly describe the Air Force Cyber Command and how it is
working, please?
General Schwartz. Sir, we stood up the 24th Air Force, a
numbered Air Force whose focus is the cyber mission. And there
are two major components of that cyber mission based in San
Antonio, along with other cyber activities that are in the
area: The major mission will be to defend the Net--our Nets are
no longer administrative entities, they in fact are operational
and command-and-control entities--and secondly, to employ cyber
in a way that reinforces the Air Force mission. So it is an Air
Force-focused activity.
It will be the component command, the Air Force component
command to the unified or subunified Cyber Command when it is
established. And it is led by a two-star general officer of
some reputation.
The Chairman. I thank you, gentlemen. Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again
for being here. In your personal and professional opinion, do
you believe the current law prohibiting service by openly gay
and lesbian personnel should be repealed?
General Schwartz. Congressman McKeon, in this instance, my
personal opinion is my professional opinion. The President has
clearly articulated his intent, and should the law change, the
Air Force will implement statute and policy faithfully.
Nonetheless, I am concerned that there is little current
scholarship on this issue and little current and reliable
survey data of our airmen and their families. Secretary Gates'
study effort is therefore essential in my view to thoroughly
understanding and properly evaluating the associated facts and
circumstances, the potential implications, the potential
complications.
I have two strong convictions on this, sir. One is that
this is not the time to perturb the force, that is at the
moment stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and
elsewhere, without careful deliberation. And two, should the
law change, our standards of conduct will continue to apply to
all airmen.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Secretary Donley, what capabilities
should the Air Force provide the Nation in the next two to
three decades?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I think we are on track to provide a
full spectrum of Air Force-related capabilities that will be
needed by the joint warfighter going forward. In the past
couple of years, the Air Force has identified 12 core functions
that are essential to the full scope of our responsibilities as
your Air Force, and they range from mobility to space to cyber
to ISR to command and control, precision attack, and several
others. And our task going forward is to balance our
investments and all those capabilities to ensure that we have
provided the joint warfighters the maximum capability out of
the resources made available to our Air Force. So I think we
are on track to do that.
We need to make adjustments along the way. We are not
building the Air Force that was planned to be built 10 years
ago. We are a different Air Force today. We will be a different
Air Force in the future. We need to be--we will probably be a
smaller fighter force structure, for example, but that will be
a fifth-generation fighter force structure. So we need to get
to the F-35 and get up that production ramp as soon as we can.
We are going to have a modern tanker capability that will
be more capable than the current KC-135 fleet. We are building
command and control satellites that have much more bandwidths
and offer much more throughput and security for the joint
warfighter in command and control in ISR and other areas. So
just the things that we do for the joint warfighter
constitute--and all we do is for the joint warfighter, but our
critical and enabling capabilities, for example, command and
control, ISR, mobility, which all the joint community uses, is
over 30 percent, it is over 34 percent of our resources, goes
into that work. We need to get on with a long-range strike
capability to replace the legacy bombers that we are operating
today and to get ahead, stay ahead of evolving threats in that
area. So these are examples of a full range of capabilities
that we will need going forward.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you. I have been concerned in the time
that I have been in Congress. I have seen us cut the B-2 from
130 down to 21, and now the F-22s from 750 down to 187. I
remember a discussion I had with Chairman Dellums 16 years ago:
``What would be the next bomber?'' And he said, ``Well, we will
come up with some new one.'' Well, in the last year's budget,
we cut the work that was being done on the next generation
long-range bomber, and now it looks like we are starting over
from scratch. And I am wondering if we might have a 10- to 20-
year lag somewhere in there in our capabilities.
So you said we are doing the best we can within the budget,
the resources that are made available to the Air Force. In your
view, does the President's budget request put us on track to
get the capabilities? Could we use more top-line money?
Secretary Donley. I think Secretary Gates has addressed
this pretty effectively. We do have some growth in the defense
budget. And there is modest growth depending on how you define
``inflation'' at this point in fiscal year 2011. Compared to
the rest of the Federal Government, the national security
community is getting the attention that it needs this year.
Over the longer term, it would be best for our--my personnel
professional view--it would be best for our national security
community to have modest growth but sustained growth over time.
Modest but sustained.
In this business we are the victims, as you appreciate,
sir, of boom-and-bust cycles. And over the long term, it is
best to have some modest sustained growth that we can count on
and that we can plan on for the future.
Mr. McKeon. I know in the budget it says we have a one
percent growth this year in the proposed budget, but when you
look at the numbers--and I look at all the numbers--it doesn't
look like we have a one percent. And I am not sure that one
percent is a growth, so I do think that as our major
responsibility is funding the defense of our Nation. I think
that that is something that we definitely need to focus on, and
I think we do need to have more top-line money.
General Schwartz, as I noted in my opening remarks, I am
very concerned about the force structure changes we are seeing
in the Air Force. It is clear that you are taking a risk in an
attempt to balance requirements with resources. It is important
that this committee understand your calculus. Can you please
quantify the level of risk you are taking in each of the
service core functions, both in the near-term and the out-
years?
General Schwartz. Congressman, I would characterize that as
moderate, as moderate risk. That is true with respect to the
reductions in fighter force structure, which will allow us to
generate not only some additional resources for missions that
are in their ascendancy right now, such as intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance, but very importantly--and this
is not well understood--generate the manpower in a fixed
manpower pool to man these ascended missions.
On the airlift side, we now have or will soon have the
official Mobility Capability and Requirement Study 16, 2016,
and it is clear that we have some excess capability on the big
airplane airlift side. And we are proposing in the 2011 program
to reduce 17 C-5s. I appeal to the committee for your serious
consideration of those proposals. I understand the angst, but
the reality is that we need to move forward. And part of moving
forward to next-generation platforms is not hanging on too long
to legacy force structure. Part of retooling ourselves to be
more relevant to the joint team is growing in some areas,
shrinking modestly in others, which we consider to be a
moderate risk, sir.
Mr. McKeon. Looking in the future what would be your
biggest concern?
General Schwartz. I think the biggest concern--there are
two parts to this. One is human capital. If I lose sleep at
night, it is concern over our ability to recruit and retain the
kind of people that America needs to do this work, and that is
a continuing issue. And as you suggested earlier, certainly
families are a major part of that.
The second piece is that we have sufficient resources to
sustain the existing inventory of machines and assets. And as
you are aware, we have made that clear that we are currently
sitting, in the base budget, at 62 percent of our sustainment
requirement, with the overseas contingency supplemental that
would bring it up to 84. That is lower than I would like to be,
but again we have worked hard to try to manage risk across the
entire proposal. But those are the two areas, human capital and
weapons systems sustainment, that give me the most concern.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you Mr. McKeon. We are now under the
five-minute rule. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and
General, thank you, good to see both of you and thank you for
joining us today. And let me say that we are proud of the
service that you render to our country. As we ramp our efforts
in Afghanistan, the use of airmen to augment certain bombing
requirements is not expected to go down and most certainly will
increase in the coming months. And we are seeing how this war
is advancing in Afghanistan.
What impact does the augmented mission have on the Air
Force, specifically on dwell time and training for other Air
Force missions? And how do the readiness rates for deployment
units compare to those in stateside? And what impact are those
readiness rates having on your ability to train airmen when
they are deployed?
I was just wondering, I can remember the days when you
joined the Air Force, you were Air Force. Or if you joined the
Navy, you were Navy. But now they get a certain training in the
Air Force or the Navy, but now you are seeing some of these Air
Force and Navy people getting to do some of the groundwork as
well. I was also worried about the training, if they are
getting comparable training, but what is this doing to you and
what are you doing to improve that? What impact is it having?
Thank you.
General Schwartz. Congressman, I will answer at several
levels. The reality is the country is at war. And if there is a
demand, if there is a need for us to serve a wartime function,
we will do so. And I must say, sir, that I don't apologize for
that here, or with our people, when we talk about this. The
obligation that we have is to ensure that those folks who are
doing nontraditional missions are properly trained. And I think
that we have--we fulfill that obligation properly.
The numbers, as indicated earlier, have subsided in terms
of the overall number of troops doing expeditionary taskings.
Although we will plus-up in Afghanistan about 2,000 people,
and, along with the 30,000 folks that will surge through the
late summer of this year, some of those will be nontraditional
tasks.
The key thing for us is that as the Army grows its pool to
its final end-state, and likewise the Marines, we need to make
sure that this does not become a habit, that as they establish
their combat support and combat service support in greater
numbers, that that relieves the Air Force and the Navy of these
augmentation taskings.
Last part about readiness. Typically, sir, our deployed
units are more ready than are the garrison units. This is not a
surprise. We devote our resources, spares, certainly dollars
and attention, to those units that are in the area of
operations. We do our best to maintain readiness in the rear.
There is impact, I can't deny that. We are not as ready across
the board on all of our missions as we would be were this a
peacetime setting. But the truth is that we are prepared to do
the missions that we are on call to do now. We are training our
youngsters both in traditional and nontraditional skills to
execute as part of the joint team, and I think the evidence
is--you have seen it yourself--is they are performing in quite
a remarkable way.
Mr. Ortiz. And I just have one last question.
My concern has been intelligence gathering. And I am just
wondering--and I realize we are at war, and it is horrible. But
what efforts--are you getting the right intelligence now? And I
know it is not easy, especially to get human intelligence in
that part of the world. Can you give us an idea as to what we
are trying to do? And maybe you can't say it in here, but maybe
you can at least elaborate on the intelligence gathering.
General Schwartz. We have, I think, expanded our capacity
to gather intelligence in a variety of ways, and perhaps the
most visible way from the Air Force point of view is our
remotely piloted aircraft. Our teammates on the ground,
including our battlefield airmen, won't go around a corner or
through a window or a door without the situation awareness that
our remotely piloted aircraft provide from above. That is
intelligence. That is real-time intelligence.
What you speak of in terms of understanding the terrain and
the culture and so on and so forth, vital as well. That is more
applicable, arguably, to the ground forces perhaps than it is
to the Air Force, but we have found that our needs for intel
support to the current fight are adequately filled.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you both for your service. Earlier this
month, the Department of Defense [DOD] submitted a response to
the congressionally-mandated aircraft investment plan, the Air
Force inheriting the direct support mission. Can you explain to
the committee how this new mission fits into your plan? The
reason I ask is that I have not seen it referenced
specifically, and I noted that the Joint Cargo Aircraft [JCA]
isn't referenced either as an asset of the Air Force, and yet
the report identifies a target for procuring 63 more C-130Js by
2020.
A second question. In an environment such as Afghanistan,
can the current fleet of C-130s meet the Army's need for direct
support?
General Schwartz. Congressman Bartlett, we ran a test
program for direct support in Iraq, which concluded in
December, for the Army division brigade that was there with two
C-130 aircraft. They were dedicated to that and we ran this
test and it was completed successfully. That is demonstrating
that we have the command and control, the orientation, and the
capacity to provide direct support should that be what the
joint force commander requires. We did it in Iraq because
General McChrystal did not want to run the test at the time in
Afghanistan.
So we have a concept of employment, a concept of operations
for direct support. It will include the C-27 aircraft clearly,
the purchase of which is 38 aircraft. And in this case, it
demonstrated that the C-130 can do that mission as well. And
what we will do is use the platform that is optimal for the
particular requirement, whether it is a C-27 or C-130, and if
there is a need to provide direct support to ground units,
ground formations, the United States Air Force is prepared to
do that.
Mr. Bartlett. Isn't it true that we are currently spending
about $8.0 million a month to lease 22 planes, T-35s,
Metroliners, Colossus? The Sherpas can't do the job in
Afghanistan? Due to runway length and width limitations, the C-
130s can't even land. I know that the Joint Cargo Aircraft was
not a program enthusiastically supported by the Air Force. They
have little interest in it. It was primarily of interest to the
Army for reasons that I am having trouble understanding. This
whole program was given to the Air Force, and they stated they
didn't want the program. And now I am concerned that since it
is primarily of interest to the Army, and we obviously can't
meet our direct support needs because we are leasing all these
planes, and I don't even see this referenced in the report, you
can understand my concerns sir.
General Schwartz. I think the Army was intently interested
in this because they weren't sure their Air Force would be
there with them when they needed direct support. That is a
change. We have demonstrated to our Army brothers and sisters
as well as others that we will be there. We can do this. We
will do this if this is the task. And we will do it with a mix
of platforms, in this case, 27s and 130s.
But I should mention something, sir. Yes, there are some
aircraft that are leased, and not by the Air Force but that are
leased in Afghanistan. But the thing that we have done to
minimize the need for that is air drop. Our air drop
requirements have increased sevenfold, and that is how we are
supporting outlying areas in Afghanistan now, is to do
precision air drop of supplies: 50 percent is food, 35 percent
is fuel, some 10 percent is building barrier materiel and such.
That is the other aspect of this which is truly direct support
that perhaps isn't seen as such, the air drop.
Mr. Bartlett. Sir, are you comfortable with the Air Force's
responsibility for the Joint Cargo Aircraft, whose primary
interest in it is supporting the Army? Are you comfortable with
that relationship?
General Schwartz. Sir, I think not only am I comfortable,
but I believe General Casey likewise is comfortable. And this
is a matter of trust. And if you were to ask Ray Odierno today
about how the test went in Iraq, I think he would tell you that
we changed people's minds. We are going to do this mission to
the standard that our teammates expect, sir.
Mr. Bartlett. This is a good test of jointness. I trust it
is going as well that you indicate to us that it is going.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here, gentlemen.
Two quick questions and then a third one. First of all,
General Schwartz, we tried to give you some looser language to
help you with the retirement of E models. I am not one of those
who thought having old, non-flying hardware sitting on a tarmac
somewhere is helpful to the Air Force. Has that helped you? Do
you need additional language with regard to old E models?
General Schwartz. It has, sir. And I would again encourage
the committee to allow us some latitude in managing the fleets.
And this will be particularly true in 2011 with respect to C-
130s as well as C-5s.
Dr. Snyder. Any specific language that you think would be
helpful, particularly with regard to the 130, I would be
interested in seeing.
Are you satisfied, General Schwartz, that with regard to C-
130s that the Aviation Modernization Program is on track, where
you want to be? I know you had six or eight months of
discussion, but it seems to be back on track. Is that your
view?
General Schwartz. For 221 aircraft, I won't kid you, we
made a proposal not to pursue the Aviation Modernization
Program for all the C-130s. The Department did accept that
proposal, so 221 aircraft is fully funded.
Dr. Snyder. I do want to make a comment. I know, Secretary
Donley, that your Under Secretary is not with you. She is
actually here in spirit. Erin is roaming around here somewhere,
our staff director. I know that Senator Shelby has put a hold
on her and apparently two other DOD nominations. My own view is
she has a job here. We love her. We will treat her well. I
would encourage you all to do what is in the best interest of
the military and the Air Force and not succumb to any parochial
threat just to get a nomination through. I think it is shameful
that is going on. You don't need to make a comment on that,
Secretary Donley, and you probably would be wise not to.
I want to get to a specific question with regard to Don't
Ask, Don't Tell with a little different thought, and this is
from a legal aspect of things. Secretary Donley, General
Schwartz, has your legal team kept you up to speed on the fact
that there is now a split of authority between the circuit
court of appeals with regard to--it started with an Air Force
case in the Ninth Circuit, the Witt case. Are you aware that we
have different standards now in the different circuits of the
country?
Secretary Donley. Yes.
Dr. Snyder. It seems to me that it is going to be a
problem. Mr. McKeon began his comments--he questioned you,
General Schwartz, by saying--your opinion about having openly
gay or lesbian folks serving in the military. Under the
language of the Witt case in the Ninth Circuit, which includes
Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho--and I have talked to
some of the highest legal authorities within the military and
the Air Force--you will have openly gay and lesbian members
serving in the Air Force and the military in the Ninth Circuit.
It is very clear from the language of that opinion and the
analysis that has been done by military lawyers that because
the opinion requires a factual analysis of each case, there
will be people you will not be able to make the case are
disruptive to good order and discipline.
My question, and perhaps more in the spirit of a comment,
is I don't see how--we have put you in a very difficult
position. I don't see how it is workable that you can have
somebody at some point, three months, six months, maybe right
now, that the leadership at a base has concluded there is
nothing--we can't make a factual case that this person should
be out of the military, but if we have them fly to Nashville or
to Little Rock and they are in a different circuit--because we
have the First Circuit case, the Cook case, saying, no, we
defer to the military--that they can be kept there. I don't see
how that is workable.
Now, the suggestion I want to make is, and I haven't seen
this written up, it may well be that as we are going through
whatever transition we are in, that the military may want to
consider making the venue for all these cases within the Ninth
Circuit. Otherwise you are going to have a very difficult
situation for the military leadership and for individual
commanders who are trying to enforce this policy. And because
the Ninth Circuit based their opinion on the Constitution,
there is no legislative language that the Congress can pass and
say, well, we are going to correct that language. This is a
Constitutional right that came out of the Lawrence case out of
Texas.
So I don't think you have to respond to that if you don't
want to, other than do you agree with me that you have a very
difficult situation since you are going to have two legal
treatments of perhaps the same person if they got moved from
state to state?
Secretary Donley. I will just say that the legal community
is aware of the differences between the two circuits and is
assessing all that very carefully.
Dr. Snyder. I think it is an example where you are
inheriting this problem. It is a Congressional problem and a
Constitutional problem. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Very quickly, before we
call Mr. Thornberry. In last year's defense bill, we required a
report on the C-27J basing strategy. What is the status of that
required report?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I believe the report is on track. I
don't think there are any--not off the top of my head in terms
of when the report will be available to the committee, but we
are proceeding with developing basing criteria for the
remainder of the JCA fleet that has not yet been built out and
that has not been already designated to particular locations. I
believe we have 24 aircraft whose bed-downs have already been
announced, and we have 12 aircraft remaining, some yet to be
built, that we need to find bases for. So we have a deliberate
process underway to make those decisions going forward.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Schwartz, I want to ask about some kind of longer
term trends that are affecting the traditional missions of the
Air Force. One hears sometimes that with the increase in
unmanned systems that we have too much pilot training
capability and that the Air Force needs to shed some of that as
we move towards more UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] and
whatnot. On the other hand, one also hears that flying training
ranges are becoming more precious as time goes on, that we have
closed or eliminated pilot training in the past and come to
regret it and had to reconstitute it in the past.
I was just wondering how you see this capacity the Air
Force has for pilot training and whether that should go up, go
down, stay the same, what is the trend there?
General Schwartz. First of all, Congressman, the notion
that you have remotely piloted aircraft, your comment sort of
implies that there is no or little training involved in
qualifying those aviators. That certainly is not the case. Now
we have run test cases, our so-called beta classes, to confirm
whether they needed to be a full-up undergraduate pilot
training and credentialed individual. And the evidence from the
first two classes that are currently out at Creech is probably
not. But there are adjustments that we need to make in the
curriculum.
That is why we did the test, to assure that we--where we
need to do more, where perhaps we did too much. But there will
still be a substantial requirement for manned cockpits in our
Air Force, certainly for the next 25 years, perhaps 50 years.
And I do not see a need, or I do not see a trend which would
suggest that we will reduce our undergraduate pilot training
output.
Mr. Thornberry. On somewhat of a connected note, the
information the staff has given us says that we currently have
6,800 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Most of them are the very small
sorts of things. The Air Force has 600, it says, of the larger
kind. But there has also been discussion before that somebody
has got to be the traffic cop here as far as the acquisition
and also the use of at least a portion of these UAVs. And the
suggestion has been made that that is an appropriate role for
the Air Force, but obviously you get pushback from other
services. What is your view on this?
General Schwartz. I think we respond to what the joint team
requires. And I must tell you that I don't personally have a
lot of time for theological debates over who should do what.
The question is what is pragmatic, what is the least cost, the
most effective way to perform a joint mission? And in most
cases, this can be done through partnering.
However, I will give you an example of what the Navy and
the Air Force are doing with respect to Global Hawk. We are
going to use the same depot. We are going to use the same
ground control station. We are going to use the same training
pipeline. So here is an example where Global Hawk for the Navy
has a unique maritime application. There are certain things
that we have both in the intelligence and communications area
on the Air Force side. We will do those things that make sense
to again minimize cost and maximize effectiveness. But I do not
think that we should overly focus on ownership. That doesn't
take us to the right place.
Mr. Thornberry. Is there something that needs to happen in
the system to encourage those sorts of working relationships?
General Schwartz. Not having too much money.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay, thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and testifying and for
your work on behalf of our country.
I want to ask about the alternate engine for F-35, which is
going to be a major bone of contention, apparently, between the
DOD and Congress. I am newly now the chairman of the Air and
Land Subcommittee. And, obviously, I have dealt with this issue
before, but it has become vastly more important and more in my
purview.
I am just frankly puzzled, having poured over a lot of
documents in the last few weeks. I am puzzled about the DOD
position on this. I am puzzled that they have the position they
have, and I am really puzzled that there would be a veto threat
issued by the Secretary of Defense over this issue. You are
well aware of the history. I won't walk through it in great
detail except to say for 10 years, I guess for 11 years
inconclusive, DOD supported this program, funded it, and moved
it forward. Then for the last four years, we in Congress have
continued it after DOD backed off of it.
But if you are going to get to the point where basically 95
percent of the Air Force's fighter attack airplanes are F-35s,
history shows us that relying on one engine puts you in a very,
very bad spot.
We have put 14 to 15 years into developing the alternative.
It certainly is having no more problems than the main engine in
its development. I am wondering if you can articulate for me
the argument for why DOD is so adamantly opposed to that.
One final point, the cost is debatable at this point given
all of the money that we have put into it. I think the most
objective way to look at it is it is pretty much a wash what it
would cost to build it versus the benefits of competition.
Worst case scenario, maybe it is an extra billion or so on top
of this program, all of that for the major battle we are
looking at, we have asked Secretary Gates, and to this point, I
have not gotten a satisfactory answer that articulates why, why
is that your position.
I should ask, first of all, if it is your position.
Certainly it is the DOD's position. Could you give this
committee some indication of what on earth the argument is for
why you are so adamantly opposed to doing this?
Secretary Donley. A couple of issues, Mr. Smith.
First of all, we do support the Secretary's view that the
Department should not be pursuing the second engine. I will say
up front, this has been one of the most difficult issues that
we have wrestled with. So we have looked at the analysis on
this from all sides for many, many months. And in some respects
it can be regarded as a close call.
I think I would summarize it this way: It is a close enough
call that we cannot see right now the benefits of a
considerable, what we think is still a considerable remaining
investment that would have to be made in a second engine, the
logistics tail that goes with it, all of the preproduction
work, the remaining development which may be understated in
some quarters, the firm costs that are associated with those
activities against the soft savings that might be out there in
the future. We are just--it just looks too cloudy to us, and
that is the basic rationale that I think we have come down on.
We did receive in the Air Force the letter that you all
sent to Secretary Gates on this subject. So the Department is
gathering up all of the data and the analysis that we have had
in front of us the last several months, and we are putting that
back in a communication that will come back to the committee on
that subject very soon.
I would only add one other item on this. When we have
challenges in the F-35 program and in making sure that program
is adequately funded going forward, this is another rock on top
of the F-35 program, an additional item.
Mr. Smith. Two quick points.
I don't think the savings are particularly soft. The DOD
has made a very strong case in many other programs about the
benefits of competition and the way it can motivate a
contractor, without question.
Second, just to be in a position, and we learned this with
the F-15, if you have one engine and something goes wrong with
that engine, you shut down the whole operation and 95 percent
of our fleet is grounded because of one engine, that seems like
a pretty compelling argument to me.
My last point, I would love to see the analysis that you
are relying on. That is another frustration for us. We have
heard a lot about this analysis. The only report we have seen
out there is a 2008 report that comes down on the other side of
this. If you have some independent study, some analysis, we
would love to see it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us.
Mr. Secretary, I listened to your comments, and this is
going to lead to my question, I believe this is what you said
from my notes: ``Must prevail in war; prepare to defeat
adversaries present and future.''
I look at this country which in so much financial trouble,
and I realize that is why this budget situation is the way it
is and that is not your doing but it is what you have
inherited. And I look at the fact that we owe the Chinese. The
Chinese maybe own America. I don't know which now. I have the
pleasure of having Seymour Johnson Air Force base in my
district, and we are proud of the Marines and Air Force in our
district.
I have occasion over the last few years to ask for
briefings, not classified. But I am very interested in the
fact, as one of my colleagues said earlier, we have a
Constitutional responsibility that we have a strong military.
This brings me to my question: The Chinese, I have been told,
this was not from those meetings, I have read it, I think, that
the Chinese are putting the largest percentage of their GDP
[Gross Domestic Product] into military investments, especially
Air Force and Navy. It is my understanding that the Chinese are
buying one of the most sophisticated fighters being made by
Russia. I think it is the SU series.
At what point would you say to this committee, you or
General Schwartz, that we are in a critical situation of losing
our supremacy? That the Chinese are at a point where if we
don't acknowledge and make major investments, that their
fighter force, not because of our manpower but because of our
equipment, they will surpass what we have?
Secretary Donley. Sir, we do track the developments of the
Chinese military and other militaries around the world. I do
think we have the appropriate balance in our current program to
cover both near-term and long-term threats.
As I indicated, just as one example, the F-35 is the
largest program in the Department of Defense. The United States
is, I think, well-positioned on fifth generation fighter
capabilities in comparison to other militaries around the
world.
Are we the only ones that know something about low
observable technologies? No, we are not the only ones. Are
there other countries developing these technologies? Yes, there
are. But I think, I am fairly confident in terms of where we
stand technology-wise and fifth generation capabilities, and
that is only one example of longer term, general force
improvements that we are making that I think should help us
address potential future threats.
We still have the bulk of our resources in the Department
of Defense, though we have much developed and much improved
capabilities at the lower end of the conflict spectrum which
you saw in Iraq, and you are seeing today in Afghanistan.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Secretary, I have about a minute left so let
me interrupt. I want to ask General Schwartz, as we are sitting
here today, if the budget situation continues and you are told
you cannot have a one percent modest growth, five to ten years
down the road, knowing what the Chinese are spending in their
Air Force and what they are buying as it relates to their
fighters, will we be in a situation, General Schwartz, where we
are in a situation where we might not be where we need to be?
General Schwartz. It is my professional opinion, as we
stated earlier, a sustained modest growth profile for the
Department is essential, certainly with respect to that case
and others. Clearly, the Department will need to be resourced
to modernize and to recapitalize in order to have the right
kind of force structure.
My only caution to you, sir, is I don't think we should
look at binary sort of trades. In other words, fighter versus
fighters, necessarily. I think one needs to look at this in a
more holistic fashion.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady from California,
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. General, you expressed concern in talking about
recruiting and retention, that we are certain that we are able
to recruit the most capable individuals, both men and women, to
support the mission. And yet we know in this economy that our
budget managers have reduced costs of recruiting and also that
bonuses have been reduced. Are you able to reprogram that
quickly if you find that there is a need to change that
manpower strength in some specific areas? You mentioned
particularly among medical professionals; but overall, how can
we do that? We would love to see the economy improve, but it is
in some ways helping the services.
General Schwartz. Ma'am, we have about $685.0 million in
bonuses and retention incentives in the program for 2011. That
is a substantial amount of money, to be sure. We are fairly
agile in applying it to where it will produce the best effect.
It is always difficult to reduce incentives and reduce
bonuses, but we have to do that in order to be scrupulous about
this. And so we review this on a continuing basis. If we see
adverse trends developing, we either take it below threshold or
come back up to you and ask for reprogramming authority to
address the need.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Secretary, is there any one area that gives
you the greatest concern? You mentioned the medical profession.
Secretary Donley. As General Schwartz alluded to, we have a
number of stressed career fields: contracting, explosive
ordnance disposal, our terminal air controllers, specialized
career fields that we do have to watch very carefully.
I would say, as you alluded to, ma'am, the economy has
actually been good for the military in the short-term and our
immediate challenge actually is that we are carrying probably
more airmen than we thought we would be carrying at this time
last year. So we are actually over strength and are trying to
manage that down in moderate numbers in the months ahead. But
we may need to come back with a reprogramming to increase
funding for military personnel because we are actually carrying
a few more airmen than we thought that we would be.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. You mentioned the year of the family
and how important that is. And yet there is a program that has
been applauded out in the communities, certainly amongst
spouses, ``My Career Advancement Account,'' which NPR [National
Public Radio] reported today that they basically put a hold, a
freeze on that scholarship program. I don't know if that is
something that you have been apprised of. I think what is
interesting to me is they have stopped it while they are doing
an assessment whereas I think there are other programs that we
have where we don't necessarily do that. It may be very
appropriate to do the assessment, but I don't know if it is
appropriate to freeze the program for those people who were
anticipating that they could benefit from it. If that is not
something that you are familiar with, I hope you can take a
look at it. Any comment?
General Schwartz. Ma'am, it is as has been reported. If you
will allow us to take that for the record, we will get back to
you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 73.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
On Don't Ask, Don't Tell that has been brought up several
times this morning, and I do know that we have a hearing on
March 3. The purpose of that is to examine the implementation
process. That is, is the sense that is really where we want to
try to enlist the help and the support of the services to try
and help us better understand that process. Is that your
understanding, that it is more about an implementation process
than necessarily a debate on the issue itself? And how do you
anticipate, what help and support would you be giving to try
and make available the kinds of discussions that certainly will
need to be ensuing within the Air Force, as well as the other
services?
General Schwartz. Ma'am, I don't know what the purpose of
the hearing is. I don't want to insert myself into that. That
is clearly your reign. What I can assure you is that I
personally will participate in the Secretary of Defense's study
effort thoroughly.
Mrs. Davis. Can I just ask, is this the kind of deliberate
discussion that you think is appropriate?
General Schwartz. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Wilson from South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General and
Secretary for being here today. I particularly appreciate the
Air Force. My dad served in the Flying Tigers. I am the son of
an Air Force veteran. I am a veteran myself, Army National
Guard, and I have four sons serving in the military. But I am
particularly grateful that I have a nephew who is serving in
Iraq with the Air Force. So thank you from our family for your
service.
There have been many rumors associated with the noise
impact of F-35 operations on local base communities. Mr.
Secretary, I have been advised that the noise of the F-35 is in
the same neighborhood as the aircraft that it replaces, such as
the F-16, 18, and F-15E. With regard to the Joint Strike
Fighter [JSF] program, how will encroachment and increased
noise associated with the fighters impact the decision to base
these aviation assets? This doesn't apply to you, but I am
particularly interested in F-35s being located at Buford Marine
Air Station and the joint air base at McIntyre in South
Carolina.
Secretary Donley. Sir, noise has been an issue. But I think
the more refined analysis represents the Department's latest
work on this is that the noise levels from F-35 are only
slightly above the current aircraft. That is my understanding
at this point.
Mr. Wilson. And I do appreciate the sound of freedom. I
have North Airfield in the district that I represent, and the
people of that community really enjoy when you do your touch
and gos.
Secretary Donley, provisions of the fiscal year 2010
defense authorization bill prohibit the Department of Defense
from retiring C-5A aircraft until 90 days after the Department
conducts an operational assessment of the modification of the
C-5A to the reliability enhancement and reengining program
configuration, as well as providing a number of certifications
concerning cost benefits and the risk of the C-5A retirement.
Will the operational assessment required by law be completed
and will you provide the required certifications to Congress in
time for us to reconsider the retirement restrictions in our
markup of this year's defense authorization bill which is
currently scheduled for May?
General Schwartz. The OT&E, Operational Test and Evaluation
on the C-5 reengining program is complete. The report will be
available on or about the 15th of March. We intend to offer the
appropriate certifications through the Secretary's office that
indicates that it is a viable, effective program and one that
should allow us, as we spoke of earlier, to begin to act on
retiring legacy A model aircraft that will not be modified.
Mr. Wilson. I had the privilege of growing up near
Charleston Air Force base. I remember when the first C-5A
landed, and Chairman Mendel Rivers, Mr. Chairman, was there to
welcome the aircraft.
General Schwartz, the engine competitions for F-16 saved
money, improved engine performance, reliability, and contractor
responsiveness. Today the F-16 program continues to operate
with two engines. Why wouldn't a similar program be applicable
to the F-35?
General Schwartz. Because we are 20 years, 30 years later
in technological progress on engine design and production.
Fundamentally, and just to, again, round out Secretary Donley's
answer earlier, there are a couple of issues with respect to
alternate engine that I just offer for your consideration. One
is if this result, if having more engines results in less F-
35s, that is not a good scenario for the Air Force or the
Department of Defense.
Secondly, the reality is that the F-22 and the F/A-18E/F
are single-engine airplanes, and there is no dispute about
that. It is because we collectively in the defense community, I
think, have become comfortable with the reliability and so on
of those respective engines, one of which is the predecessor to
the F-35.
Lastly, a concern that I have is the reality is the
alternate engine is not for anybody else but the Air Force. The
Navy is not going to operate an alternate engine aboard ship.
Our European partners are not going to operate two engines. You
are talking about focusing this on your Air Force, which is
problematic in my view.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You caught me by
surprise.
Thank you both for your service and your leadership. I
think you do a great job for our Air Force.
I was having dinner with former Under Secretary Ray DuBois
a week or two ago, and he brought up the tanker and asked,
``Why don't we move forward with taking two bids, producing two
tankers, do small, relatively small quantities of the two, they
come online faster, and then we would see which one we liked
the most and could make decisions concerning future buys based
on that?'' Could you quickly respond to Secretary DuBois's
thought?
Secretary Donley. We have addressed this over a couple of
years now. The Department's conclusion is that this would be an
expensive way to proceed. We would rather not have a split buy
or dual buy in this circumstance. We do plan to award,
currently our plan is to award the RFP [Request for Proposals]
to the best offer after the evaluation is done.
One concern with that approach which I will lay on the
table is that the Department's estimates are that we will be
probably buying 15 airplanes for over a decade actually to get
to 179 aircraft from this buy. If we go forward with two lines,
the minimum economic order for each line would probably be
about 12 aircraft. It would be very inefficient to do that, and
it would bump the annual buy from 15 to 24 aircraft and that is
a big bump in our budget and it takes a big lump of dollars
that we would have focused on other Air Force programs, puts it
on the tanker. I understand the operational and sort of the
business advantage of buying more, faster and get them cheaper,
et cetera, but we have to manage this procurement in the
context of all other things that the Air Force is doing and
getting up to 24 airplanes each year for a number of years is a
hard thing for us to do.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The alternate engine, again, we are talking about split
buy, basically, and I don't think it is arguable there are
significant risk avoidance advantages to doing that in the long
run. History has shown us that the question is cost. The 2007
cost analysis improvement group estimated that there would be a
$1.2 billion in cost on a present value basis, and $2.2 billion
in savings on a then-year basis. What that typically means is,
as you would expect, the costs are up front, the savings are
toward the rear.
That was done in 2007. We have spent more money, and that
is current costs we have incurred. My assumption is, as we said
in the letter, a good chance is that both those numbers are now
positive based on the assumptions made by that 2007 study. It
seems to me the only way that can change is if somebody changes
the assumptions. So it would be very helpful to the committee
if whenever you get your materials to us, you would say the
2007 group was making this assumption or that assumption, we
have changed that assumption and that's why we come up with
different numbers because that is the only way that the numbers
really change unless you conclude that they just made a math
mistake. And that would be very helpful to us. We really are
troubled by this threat of a veto over a program that we think
benefits in the long-run national security and net, based on
the evidence we have, is a savings to go ahead and do it, as
opposed to a cost.
Finally, Chief, in your response to Mr. McKeon on Don't
Ask, Don't Tell, you said it is probably not something we
should be considering now given our OPTEMPO [operational
tempo]. I agree with that view. And you said assuming we do
consider it and we make some changes, and your last statement
was something to the effect that one standard of combat will
continue to apply to all airmen. Could you please elaborate
what you meant by that?
General Schwartz. Sir, I was just indicating that our
standard of conduct will apply to all airmen. That is what I
would expect, and I think that is what you should expect. So we
will expect performance. Should the law change, we will expect
performance and conduct consistent with our standards, and we
will handle it accordingly.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I have good and bad. Let me do the good first.
General, we spoke on the phone a while ago about the extended
use lease problems at Falcon Hill and you said you would fix
it. I want to thank you for doing that. You did. You
orchestrated a situation where the people went out there, they
saw those particular problems for moving forward, and I just
want to thank you very much for following through on that
issue. I think it is very positive. And just keep the JAG
[Judge Advocate General's] attorneys away from the issue in the
future.
Now for the negative part, and it deals with the warm line
sustainment program. Minuteman III now has to be maintained to
2030. It is our only program of record. I noticed in the budget
for fiscal year 2011, you have $44.0 million for the Minuteman
III warm line, of which $5.0 million is dedicated to
unspecified government costs and overhead, so you have $39
million to buy three motor sets.
Next year in the 2012, it is down to $34 million, and in
the 2013 budget, there is nothing. I put that in contrast. I am
not sure you can actually build three motor sets with that
amount of money. But the Navy, for example, has 12 motor sets a
year that they do to keep their warm line going for their D-5,
and the industry has simply said they need six as a minimum to
maintain it.
Now last year when your superiors cancelled KEI [Kinetic
Energy Interceptor] and stopped the ground base and had no
followup on ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile], it made
a major dent in the industrial base. And obviously AFMC [Air
Force Materiel Command] has simply said there is no in-house
capability to sustain these, so I have three questions. The
first one is, quite frankly, how did you come up with three
booster motors as the adequate element to sustain the military
base? Is this simply another budget-driven exercise that does
not face the reality coming from the industry?
Number two, you sent over a Defense Department report to
Congress on the solid-rocket motor industrial base in June of
last year. I appreciate it. It was a good report. But it said
delays in NASA's [National Aeronautics and Space
Administration] Ares program would have a significant negative
impact on the industrial base, specifically materiel suppliers
for the military.
Now, in light of the decision to cancel Ares totally, if
delay was bad, I am thinking canceling would have to be bad/
bad. In light of that decision, are you going to rethink your
program as to what you are putting in for the solid-rocket
motor industrial base and the funding levels that would be
there?
And finally, my third one is why doesn't the Air Force
simply commit to a long-range Minuteman III sustainment program
in the out-years, and isn't such a commitment now even more
necessary, especially with what may happen in the space
exploration program as well?
Secretary Donley. Mr. Bishop, what I would like to do is
take the details of your question-for-the-record and so we can
get back on each point. But I will say that we recognize the
decisions made on Ares and on the constellation program in
general in NASA, and we have a challenge on the solid-rocket
motor industrial base and on the booster industrial base,
period.
So we recognize not just the Minuteman challenge going
forward, but a broader industrial base issue which we are going
to have to wrestle with this year. So we do not, right now,
have a long-term solution to that right now in hand.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 73.]
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. I think that is the
substance to all three of those questions that were there. But
obviously, three motor sets, I don't think, fits the need and
especially with the budget that is declining to nothing over
the next three years, that is not a long-range solution.
I would appreciate if you would rethink those and get back
with me later. Thank you for your time and for being here.
By the way, Hill doesn't have a problem with sound
encroachments for the F-35.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Courtney, please.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both your testimony this morning.
I want to start off with aftermath of the F-22 decision
last year which was regarding spare engines. It is my
understanding that the Air Force has a formula for calculating
how many spare engines would be needed for any program, and we
are at a point where it appears there are more spares needed
for the F-22 than available. And given the fact that this
production line is coming to an end date, obviously there would
be extra costs for restarting if we had to go that route. Can
you comment on that?
General Schwartz. We currently have 54 spare engines in
inventory, for a requirement of 54 that will grow to 65 as we
round out production, and our intent is to go to 65. So there
will be an additional 11 or so engines procured for the spare
inventory.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
I want to again go back to the alternate engine discussion
which has been going on. General, again, you made the point,
which I think is sometimes overlooked, that sole source engines
is not some unprecedented deviation from past practice. The F/
A-18 is an example which you cited. We build Sikorsky
helicopters in Connecticut, and thousands have been built
without a hitch. So I guess in terms of going forward with the
sole engine with the F-35, do you feel confident where we are
right now with the engine that has been awarded that you will
be able to control costs and provide again an adequate system
for the needs?
General Schwartz. Based on what I know now and the analysis
that I have seen to date, I think it is a manageable risk given
the other demands we have, and again, my primary concern that
we don't get engine production out in front of airplane
production.
Mr. Courtney. Really, that is at some point in a tight
budget the trade-off that we are going to be stuck with in
terms of what the choices are that are involved. Secretary
Gates again reiterated recommendation of a veto if we do not
adopt cancellation of the alternate engine program. I think the
flip side of that is we have to take from some other parts of
your budget or the defense budget to continue going down that
path. I look forward to your response to the letter which has
been requested.
Real quick on the C-27 program which the Air and National
Guard in Connecticut is certainly watching closely. I wonder if
you can indicate whether the Air Force remains committed to the
full buy of 38 C-27s over the next 5 years?
General Schwartz. Yes, we are, sir, to 38.
Mr. Courtney. Previous statements have said that the 38
would be looked upon as a floor and not the ceiling for the
program. Is that still the general thinking?
General Schwartz. At the moment, we are not looking at
going above 38. That was the assessment through this program
build. So I think 38 is probably a good, comfortable number for
all of us.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here and thank you for your
service.
I have three quick comments, and then a question about
AFIT, the Air Force Institute of Technology, and then I would
like to get your thoughts on the Airborne Laser [ABL].
The first three comments, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
is in my district. I will be submitting to you a question for
the record concerning the 445th airlift wing. There had been a
previous commitment that had been made to the base concerning
the issue of the C-5s and the C-17s. I will be looking for you
to reaffirm that earlier commitment that has been made to the
base, and we will be sending it in your direction.
General Schwartz. May I say one thing, sir.
One thing that Secretary Donley and I have tried hard to do
is not make promises we can't keep. So we might not respond
immediately to that. If we say yes, we mean yes.
Mr. Turner. I appreciate that. Actually, I am looking for
you to keep a promise that has been made, and I hope to have
your evaluation and review of that promise.
With respect to NASIC [National Air and Space Intelligence
Center], we spoke about the correspondence that I sent to you.
I am very concerned that there is a pending issue that could
diminish our intelligence capability, and I look forward to
your response there.
Also with respect to the civilian conversion from
contractor personnel issue that is ongoing in the Air Force, I
am continuing to hear a number of complaints over the process
of activities that appear to be inappropriate. We tried to
address this in the committee with some report language in the
last National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA].
I will be getting back to you with some specifics as we
prepare for the next NDAA, and I would like to hear your
thoughts on how other communities may be experiencing this.
My two questions, we had a hearing here about the nuclear
enterprise and the changes and concerns that we have there. We
continue to look at issues such as cyber and computer science
issues. The Air Force Institute of Technology [AFIT], as you
know, happens to excel in the issue of nuclear enterprise and
also cyber and war-gaming and computer science programs. I
would be interested in your thoughts on the issue of how you
see the Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT, may be able to
play a greater role as you look to your needs in that area.
The second is the Airborne Laser. We recently had a success
I think we should all celebrate with respect to the February 11
test of the Airborne Laser test bed with the missile shoot-
down. The air force research labs played a key role in the
early technology development. This test which has been many
years in the making demonstrated the viability of directed
energy [DE] technology and the potential capability of an
Airborne Laser missile defense system.
Now we all know that funding for the Airborne Laser Test
Bed has sharply declined with the Obama Administration's shift
in missile defense policy. I hope this successful test renews
interest in directed energy technology. With increased DOD
investment, there is great potential for further innovation,
technology maturation, and development of a concrete strategy
that transitions Airborne Laser Test Bed capabilities from the
lab to the field. I would love your thoughts and your talk
about the Air Force and its success here and the potential for
future applications in our national defense. This is one that
has taken much criticism but had quite a great success. I am
looking forward to your thoughts there.
General Schwartz. I will talk about ABL. It was an
achievement. It was a magnificent technical achievement. But
the reality, Congressman Turner, is this does not reflect
something that is operationally viable.
Mr. Turner. My question is about the next level of
innovation. Obviously, this is an accomplishment. It is not can
we replicate this over and over again. We are looking for some
vision from the Air Force.
General Schwartz. And that is in the area of solid-state,
not chemical-based lasers. That is the queen of the realm, sir.
Secretary Donley. Just to amplify, the Air Force does have
a directed energy program. It was pretty well-funded. I was
briefed on it just a month ago. To foot-stomp this point, the
Airborne Laser has been a tremendously successful program, but
it is very expensive and it is not necessarily representative
of the future of the technology. We are looking for lots of
potential directed energy applications. So one of our tasks
going forward is to figure out where the directed energy
program is going at a strategic level, both in terms of the
technology and the mission sets against which we intend to put
resources. But we have a robust DE program in the Air Force.
It's a good one.
Mr. Turner. And AFIT, your thoughts on AFIT?
Secretary Donley. Just quickly, AFIT is getting a lot of
our attention in the growth of our acquisition workforce. The
chief and I were briefed on the status of the improvements in
our acquisition Air Force, the growth of the civilian and a
little bit on the military side, just a couple of days ago. So
we have increased the numbers of seats and courses available to
that acquisition workforce that are sponsored by and taught
through the AFIT system. So it is an important part of the
fabric of our research and research community.
The Chairman. Before I call on Ms. Giffords, you have on
page 17 of the prepared remarks the retirement of 17 C-5As.
What is the status of that, and what is your request this year?
General Schwartz. Sir, what we will do is provide the
required certifications of tests on the C-5M, the reengined
aircraft that is required. The Secretary of Defense also needs
to make certifications that he believes it is acceptable to
retire legacy A model aircraft. When that occurs, we intend to
execute the 90-day waiting period and begin retirement of those
aircraft.
The Chairman. Do you have sufficient C-17s as we speak?
General Schwartz. As you are aware, we are above the
required number of aircraft by at least 20, probably more. And
so it is our view to get down to the proper level, we are in
good shape in that regard.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Giffords.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, and I
am pleased to have you before us today.
Normally in the past when given this opportunity, I have
chosen to spend some time talking about the fighter gap issue
and what that means to our strategic readiness. But instead, I
would like to talk about some of the scoping hearings that are
coming before us in southern Arizona. As you know, the 152nd
International Fighter Wing has been put on the list as a
potential site to host the new Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35.
And we are willing and ready to accept as many as three
training squadrons in Tucson. I am very excited about the
prospect of having the F-35 in southern Arizona, but my
constituents still have numerous questions specifically
addressing noise levels and flight patterns. I was hoping to
talk a little bit about that today.
On February 2, I sent both of you a letter asking for a
copy of some studies that were conducted at Edwards Air Force
base to gauge the noise levels of the F-35, and I also asked
for eight specific data sets that I believe must be released to
the communities being considered around the country, not just
in Arizona, these communities that are being considered as F-35
basing locations before any final decisions are made.
I received back two sets of charts that I believe are
conclusive, and I would like to put them up on the screen now.
We have the first one. It is labeled ``Measured Worst Case
Aircraft Sounds Levels at 50 Feet.'' I was hoping you could
explain what this chart indicates both for aircraft at military
power and at full afterburner?
General Schwartz. Ma'am, having not reviewed that chart, I
would prefer to offer you a considered response rather than one
off the cuff.
Ms. Giffords. Okay.
The second chart I was provided with is entitled Predicted
Sound Levels at 1,000 Foot Level Flight, and I was hoping that
we could also get some feedback which indicates for aircraft
flying at minimum power and then at military power what this is
going to mean for communities?
General Schwartz. Again, ma'am, I am disappointed if you
didn't get a narrative to go along with these charts. If we
didn't we failed you and allow us to remedy that situation.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. What we really need
to do is get this data out to the communities and make sure our
communities understand how these numbers compare to other real
world factors. For example, according to the National
Institutes of Health [NIH], a lawn mower creates about 90
decibels and an ambulance siren creates 120 decibels, and so we
need to make sure that the communities understand fully what
the F-35 means to them. And again, I think also, particularly
those of us in southern Arizona that have experience what the
F-16 and the block 60 F-16s that have flown out of southern
Arizona, and also the A-10 and we host Operation Snowbird as
well at Davis Monmouth Air Force base, these are the noises
that the community has experience with.
We are looking forward to the opportunity of having the F-
35 in southern Arizona, but as these hearings come before us,
we want to make sure that the community, and rightfully so, has
full access to the correct information. So thank you for your
consideration. I look forward to hearing back from you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both
of our witnesses for being here today.
As a backdrop, I am very unhappy with Secretary Gates and
his decision to not to go forward with the Air Force's
selection of the tanker that Northrop Grumman and EADS came up
with and you selected after a full, fair, and open competition.
I think he did a disservice to the warfighter, and particularly
to the Air Force who picked the tanker that they wanted. Having
said that, some of my colleagues don't have a dog in that
fight, but I do since it was going to be built in Alabama. I
want to talk a little about where we are with that.
My recollection from the testimony here with the GAO
[Government Accountability Office] of the protested areas of
discontent by Boeing, only six merited GAO acknowledging those
could have made a difference in the selection, but they
couldn't say that they did. Rather than going back and just
remedying those six areas, tightening the language, I
understand from what I have seen, the initial RFP for comment,
and it completely is one-sided in my view, which is why I am
very happy with what Senator Shelby is doing in the other
Chamber.
I understand there is the public comment period, and you
are ready to come forward, do you see dramatic changes in the
RFP from the one being offered for public comment? Because from
what I understand, Northrop is not even going to bid if that is
the case.
Secretary Donley. Sir, we will be prepared actually
tomorrow to roll out the RFP. I believe you have been invited,
if you have not heard already, to a series of briefings
tomorrow that are planned. The Deputy Secretary and Dr. Carter,
the Under Secretary and myself, will be over here briefing
Members on that. So I think I would withhold comment on KC-X
today and let that be tomorrow's issue, if that is okay.
Mr. Rogers. Do you think in your opinion, I am not asking
for Secretary Gates' opinion, I am not really interested in his
opinion, in your opinion, will this be a fair and open
competition? Will the RFP, will it solicit competition?
Secretary Donley. Absolutely. We believe both offerors have
a chance to win the competition. We want a competition, and we
disagree with the view that the draft RFP has been slanted in
any particular direction. We do take issue with that.
Mr. Rogers. If that is the case, why would you deviate from
the initial RFP which was bid and you selected the airplane or
the tanker you wanted, why would you change any more than just
those areas of disagreement where the GAO acknowledged there
was meritorious dispute?
Secretary Donley. I believe the overall message from the
GAO assessment was that yes, there were specific areas that
they took issue with. But overall, I think the message was that
there was too much imprecision and too much subjectivity that
could not be conveyed to the offerors in terms of how the
decisions and how the evaluation would be made.
So we took away from that the need to tighten up our
description of what the required capabilities were and how the
evaluation would be conducted and to lock down those details,
to be as open and transparent and as clear as we possibly could
be. And that is the source really of the draft that has been on
the street.
Mr. Rogers. Well, my concern is the tightening down of that
language has basically guaranteed Boeing to get this plane.
Secretary Donley. We do take issue with that, sir, but I
understand your view.
Mr. Rogers. You made the reference earlier in response to
my colleague from Georgia's question about the dual
procurement. I understand you are operating on the assumption
that the dual procurement would be more expensive. If it could
be proven that it would not, would that be an avenue that you
would pursue?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I think we have analyzed this from
several different sides over the last year. We are always open
to suggestions and constructive comment on how we do our work.
We think that we have addressed this and concluded that that
would not be an effective and efficient way to proceed.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for your responses. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
gentlemen, for being here today.
General, going to a narrow scope here, I am from North
Carolina, and we had put language in the last Defense
Authorization Act that you were supposed to get back to this
committee within a certain amount of time discussing Pope Air
Force base and its relationship with Fort Bragg. The growth at
Fort Bragg, there will be 34 flag officers on base. FORSCOM
[U.S. Army Forces Command], the 18th Corps, their missions
require the ability to get to places in a hurry, requiring an
immense amount of planning. The language is along the lines, is
there sufficient Air Force officer level to be able to
communicate and be able to present the position of the Air
Force effectively with all of the other officers that are
there, and that report is due March 1. So we are looking
forward to that information, sir.
Mr. Secretary, one of the things that has come out of the
discussion today, and nothing new in that regard, is concern
about deployment of the F-35. You mentioned level of
concurrency as a level of concern that has delayed the program.
I wonder if you can elaborate on some examples of this issue
and how it has affected the deployment of the F-35?
Secretary Donley. Well, the issue, sir, is not uncommon to
any other aircraft or major production program of any kind. So
once the production line has been facilitized and begins to
build up to produce test assets, it is inefficient to stop the
line while you wait for the results of the test because the
test can take a year, the test can take two years, and if you
do not support the production line with continued aircraft
production, it goes cold and then you have to pay the cost of
starting it up again. So this is a situation common to just
about every production program of consequence that you might
think of.
In the case of the F-35, there was a lot of concurrency
built in so development was intended to extend for a particular
period of time while we started production. I think what has
happened in this case is that concurrency was just
unsustainable. The test program has been delayed, and the view
was we just need to have more hours on the test program before
we get to significant ramps in production. We are not
eliminating concurrency in the restructured program.
The proposal that you have in front of you is for 22
production aircraft in fiscal year 2011. We think that is
prudent. It has been shaved from last year's estimate of what
we thought we were going to ask you for in 2011, so we have cut
down that ramp but we do need to proceed with production, but
we are adding money back into development program, to speed up,
to add test aircraft to get further down the test program
before we begin to ramp up production at truly significant
levels.
Mr. Kissell. Beyond the engine, is there one or two areas
of this development that are proportionately more challenging
than others?
Secretary Donley. Just a couple of points. This is the
biggest and most complex procurement program the Department has
ever undertaken. So we have the carrier variant and we have the
short takeoff and landing variant, and the conventional all
being developed at the same time. And we have our international
partners and their needs completely integrated into the program
from the very beginning.
So we have truly a complex, very complex joint program and
international program. So it has been a big challenge. Again
with very advanced technology. So it is a huge and complex
program. We should not lose sight of that.
Mr. Kissell. The proportion that you just mentioned of this
program, how important it is that obviously brings about so
much of the need to get it going, and I am just wondering what
kind of time frame are we looking at to have deployable,
meaningful numbers of planes in the air?
General Schwartz. For the Air Force, I can only speak for
the Air Force, that will be late in calendar year 2015. We will
have training aircraft in advance of that.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our Nation's dependence on and demand for space assets have
grown exponentially. At the same time our potential adversaries
demonstrate capabilities that make our space assets
increasingly vulnerable. One example of this was China's
shootdown of its own satellite in January of 2007. With these
factors in mind, our demand for and dependence on space and our
adversaries' asymmetric means to deny those capabilities, in
view of that, why does the current budget cut the resourcing
for operational response of space by 24 percent? And this
follows a huge reduction in the previous fiscal year which
equals a 2-year cut of 59 percent? Operational response of
space is intended to be responsive to a joint force commander's
battlefield needs and surge capability and can also serve to
replenish our space capabilities given natural events or
attack.
So to repeat, how, when demand is growing and our threats
are expanding, can we justify a cut this year of 24 percent to
this program?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I would like to confirm the numbers
for the record with you. But ORS [Operationally Responsive
Space] remains a priority program for us. We are spending about
nine percent of our Air Force resources on space.
That is only exceeded by the mobility and the global
precision strike missionaries. Mobility really reflects the KC-
X investments we are making and the size of our mobility
forces. The global precision attack represents the F-35, which
is our biggest, among others, but it is our biggest program.
But behind that we have a whole slew of space programs that are
very important to our Air Force and to our joint warfighter. We
do have priority funding on our ORS right now to get a
capability that is in place by the end of this calendar year.
So let me circle back with you on the details of ORS
funding.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 74.]
Mr. Lamborn. General, do you have anything to add on that?
General Schwartz. Just two things. One is the ORS is one
approach to providing resilience in space. Another approach, of
course, is being able to discern whether our platforms on orbit
are at risk, are being threatened; and if they are, by whom.
And this is the other part of it, the space situational
awareness initiatives which are appropriately funded, because
it is my personal view that you cannot deter if you cannot
attribute.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Secretary, I am glad to hear that you are
saying this remains a priority, because when I look at the
numbers, 2009 it was 228 million, 2010 was 124, and then the
projected budget for 2011 is 94. So from 228 to 94 causes me
concern.
Changing gears here, General, two years ago the Air Force
predicted fighter and attack aircraft shortfalls beginning in
fiscal year 2017 and rising to an 800 aircraft shortfall by
2024. Is the Air Force still predicting shortfalls in its
fighter and attack aircraft inventory?
General Schwartz. Certainly not at that level, and there
are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the total number
of aircraft that are required is somewhat less than what was
the top line several years back; 2,200 is now 2,024. Secondly,
that initial analysis was done based on a F-35 production rate
of 48 aircraft vice 80, and we do believe that once we break
out of the development phase for the F-35 that we will make 80,
and we will be trying to even push that higher. And a third
aspect of this is that we have looked, and, as the Secretary
suggested, that one thing that was not considered then was the
ability to make modest renovations on aircraft to extend their
service life until the F-35 becomes available in numbers.
Mr. Lamborn. You are able to keep going, although I can't.
The Chairman. You can complete the answer.
General Schwartz. And so the point is, sir, that at most, a
so-called deficit is less than 200 aircraft, and again this is
in my view within the realm of the manageable, depending on
what we do to renovate existing airplanes.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I want to start
off just by thanking Representative Lamborn and reiterating his
concern over the ORS program. I think it is a game changer for
us in many ways in terms of doing more with less. And I am not
sure that the cuts in that program are going to serve us over
the long run in terms of reducing or increasing our ability to
do more with less financial resources.
Changing gears, I know that we all know there have been
some serious incidents in the past, particularly 2006 and 2007,
regarding the mishandling of nuclear weapons materials. And I
remember back in 2008, the Schlesinger task force found that
there had been an ``unambiguous, dramatic, and unacceptable
decline in the Air Force's commitment to perform the nuclear
mission.'' Since then you have made the reinvigoration of the
Air Force nuclear enterprise your highest priority, and I want
to commend you on those efforts. They are much appreciated.
There are obviously still some challenges, but absolute
perfection is the standard that you have articulated on
numerous occasions when dealing with these high-value assets.
I want to ask you, can you please describe what steps are
being taken to address the remaining deficiencies? And are
there enough resources being allocated to Air Force nuclear
security to meet the standards for perfection in maintenance
and in storage?
General Schwartz. Yes, they are. Some of the initial things
we implemented were organizational; that is, standing up of a
Nuclear Weapons Center, as you are well aware, standing up a
Global Strike Command, moving the nuclear missiles and nuclear-
capable bombers into the same organization rather than
distribute it around our Air Force. These were all important
initiatives. But in the end, this is also an issue about human
capital. This is an issue of culture in which we, as
Schlesinger indicated, had lost the edge. And this is not a
short-term undertaking. This is recreating that culture of
excellence, that non-acceptance of deviations in this
particular area. And we continue to work on that.
Our inspection results, as you are aware, have--and by the
way, just to give you a quick insight, in 2005 through 2007, we
had zero no-notice evaluations. And in the following year,
2008, we had three. In 2009 we had eight, and this year so
far--and we are only a couple months in--we have eight so far
this year. It gives you a sense that we are doing this no
notice more frequently and more invasively--not to make life
hard for our kids, that is not it at all--but to ensure that we
discover where we are not up to par. We kidded ourselves
before. We can no longer do that.
So part of it is institutional, sir. Part of it is culture.
And we are working both angles. The cultural piece is longer-
term.
Mr. Heinrich. But you feel that the resources are adequate
to support that change in culture?
General Schwartz. Indeed.
Mr. Heinrich. Great. Wonderful.
I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Turner from Ohio for
bringing up the recent successful demonstration, the ABL
project. I was hoping maybe you could articulate just a little
more where you see directed energy going within the Air Force
over the foreseeable future.
General Schwartz. The Secretary may choose to elaborate,
but my view is that the sweet spot on this is solid-state,
something which isn't as big, isn't as heavy, doesn't require
exotic chemicals to operate, and ideally can be miniaturized so
that it can operate in a variety of aircraft, both large and
small. That is the path that we need to proceed on. I have some
indication from our SMART [System Metric and Reporting Tool]
folks that this is within the realm of the technological
possibilities.
Secretary Donley. Just to elaborate a little bit further,
part of the additional focus in this directed energy program
will be where to put the mission emphasis on developing this
kind of capability, at the tactical level or at the strategic
missile level, for example. And there are some trade-offs to be
made in that in terms of range and power.
But just to come back to where we started, there is no
question that the ABL program has made important strides for us
and has done some groundbreaking work in acquisition, pointing
and tracking, all kinds of scientific research that will
support our program going forward. But whether or not the
existing ABL program, as it exists today, is the right vehicle
to take this research forward, is a separate question.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A couple questions on the ISR assets. A recent GAO report
indicates that the Air Force only has the capability to process
one-half of the Predator signals intelligence collected. What
are the Air Force plans to correct this shortfall?
General Schwartz. Sir, I would dispute the GAO
characterization a bit. However, an example is we intend to add
702, roughly 700 linguists to our processing enterprise in
order to address the difficulties they suggested that we have.
But at a higher level, I think it is important to appreciate
that what we have been doing recently really is solving our
problems with people power. We can't continue to do this. We
have added 4,700 folks to the ground processes system for video
and signals. And we are continuing to grow the take. The real
secret here is automated processing, and that is the path that
we will have to go in order to do this well, not unlike the NSA
[National Security Agency] model.
Mr. Coffman. General Schwartz, is lack of UAV data
encryption and the possibility of terrorist and insurgent
interception of the video or data signal an issue to the United
States Air Force?
General Schwartz. I think it is a modest issue, if that.
The reality is that we made a conscious decision to provide
full-motion, real-time video to our folks on the ground, to our
troopers on the ground. That was the priority, to give them
situation awareness. The argument that others can see that
video and make tactical use of it I think is a stretch.
Nonetheless, we are encrypting that capability that will begin
in 2011 and it will be completed by 2014.
But what I would not want to do is to withdraw the value of
that video from our Army and Marine Corps brothers and sisters
on the ground because we have sort of, I think, excessive
concern about others being able to see the take.
Mr. Coffman. My final question is on your personnel system
and your promotion system and an effort, I guess related to
recruiting and retention. I think you have got a lot of great
folks, and they want to make careers out of the United States
Air Force. You have an up-and-out promotion system that seems
to be a relic of the past, in a way. And I only say that
because--what do they say--sometimes I think that the new 52 is
the old 42 in terms of age.
And I am wondering, have you thought about lengthening up
those times for when an airmen or an officer comes up before
the promotion board? It seems that the process is pretty fast
right now, that we are focused on this 20-year window for a
career--and where we have people that certainly want to stay in
longer than that, that are capable of doing their job but may
not be competitive given the highly competitive environment of
your organization right now.
General Schwartz. Well, we currently have 1,600 more
officers than our end strength permits, so we are keeping some
on board perhaps longer than we should. I think that for a
vital, physically active, aggressive force, which is what you
want your Air Force to be, I think that the notion that you
either compete or you move on, I think there is still merit in
that basic philosophy.
We do make exceptions, sir. And that is actually fairly
common in those situations, or where someone is not promoted
and they are continued in some cases to 24 years, in some cases
to 28 years, depending on their specialty and the need. I think
that should still be the primary factor of consideration: the
need.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
very much for your appearance today and for your service to the
country.
I recently took over as--and had the privilege of chairing
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee for the Armed Services
Committee. And I know that obviously, as you are well aware,
the Air Force has primary jurisdiction over, or at least
control over personnel and equipment, including national
programs involving your jurisdictions.
I would like to go back to some of the questions that my
colleagues have already brought up.
Let's turn first back to ORS. Can you please describe the
programs and the capabilities the Department is funding in the
fiscal year 2011 request to improve spatial situational
awareness, space control, and counterspace programs, first of
all, and more specifically also how all these activities reduce
the vulnerability of our space assets? And beyond that, can you
also elaborate a little further on how have military
operational plans and contingency plans changed to reflect the
possibility that those satellites may be unavailable during
times of crisis or war?
Secretary Donley. Sir, a couple of points. We do have a
space-based surveillance system that is funded in this program.
We do have a Joint Space Mission Operations Center space
management system that we intend to install at 14th Air Force
headquarters to improve space situational awareness,
modernizing that situational awareness to provide us a better
sense of what is happening in space, who is up there, and the
precise location and characteristics of their satellites, for
example, in their operations. Very important initiatives for us
going forward.
Mr. Langevin. General, you had a comment?
General Schwartz. I would just extend on that. Part of this
is knowing what the inventory of objects is above. Part of this
is again being able to identify phenomenology that might be
natural or it might be manmade and being able to differentiate
between the two. Space-based surveillance systems should help
us do that, the first launch of which is going to occur this
year.
I think that the key thing about this is that we need to be
able--we need to drive toward a capability which will not only
warn us of interference in whatever form it may take--physical,
electronic, RF [radio frequency], so on--but attribute that,
definitively to a source. When that occurs, then one can take
action to protect your assets through any number of means.
Mr. Langevin. Can you address more specifically about
redundancy about how the military operations plan and
contingency plans change to reflect the possibility that these
capabilities may not----
General Schwartz. I will give you an example--well, there
are two. One is that we actually have war games where we have
considered a day without space; in other words, intellectually
trying to make sure that we understand what the puts and takes
are, and what are the consequences of losing. Let's say you did
not have GPS [Global Positioning System], or it was jammed; are
our air crews prepared to operate in a GPS degraded
environment? And that is something that we are training to in
larger measure. In other words, taking those things that we
perhaps in the not-too-distant past have taken for granted, but
understand that an adversary might degrade them, and can we
fight through that degradation?
Mr. Langevin. Let me, if I could, also turn to the Space
Posture Review [SPR]. It appears that the Congressionally-
mandated Space Posture Review performed in partnership with the
Director of National Intelligence [DNI] isn't going to be
completed until the summer. Can you tell us anything about how
the war performed thus far on that review and the QDR
[Quadrennial Defense Review] have influenced modernization
investment plans for national security space programs? That is
one.
And finally, before my time runs out, nuclear enterprise. I
would like you to give a specific--could you provide
information on inspections of our nuclear arsenal? I understand
there were two failures recently. So on those two, as much time
as the Chairman will allow. Then, if you can't finish it, for
the record.
Secretary Donley. Just quickly on the SPR, I do expect that
Congress will see the results of that this summer. To put a
very broad summary on it, you will see I think some emphasis--
while we have a lot of details to work through and some
important policy decisions for senior leadership to make, I do
think you will see more emphasis on striking the right balance
between government and commercial use of space assets and how
we leverage the work that is done in the commercial sector. For
example, hosting payloads--commercial DOD-related payloads on
commercial satellites is one aspect of that. And it also gets
to the redundancy issues that you discussed before.
Just a couple of words: Space is getting more congested and
space is getting more contested I think are a couple of themes
that you will hear in that review.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 73.]
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, 10 seconds. Kirtland did
earn unsatisfactory grades in inspections but, interestingly,
recently the 377th Wing, also at Kirtland, retested to
satisfactory. So again this is a process that we are in, sir.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both
of you. Every time we have Armed Forces come before us I
usually try to express gratitude to them. And, General
Schwartz, I want to tell you that I think you are a credit to
the Air Force and to this country. People like us up here talk
about freedom all the time, and people like yourselves have
carried it on your back your whole life. I am very grateful to
you. That is just a little commercial there.
General Schwartz. There are 332,000, plus 70,000 Reserve
and 100,000 Guards, sir.
Mr. Franks. And God bless every one of them. I bet every
one would echo what I just said about you, sir.
Secretary Donley, I know it is a challenging thing to be in
your chair, so my first question is related to the resources
needs of the Air Force, and so I ask you a two-part question.
Number one, do you think you have the adequate latitude to
speak with complete candor about the resource needs of the Air
Force, and do you think that we are resourcing the Air Force
adequately?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I think given the national
constraints in front of us, the DOD constraints in front of us,
the Air Force is funded adequately to meet the needs it has
today. The Department of Defense and the Department of the Air
Force have challenges in the future in recapitalizing our
forces, and I have been very up front with audiences of all
types and with our leadership in making the case that the Air
Force cannot afford to do as much we think needs to be done on
the schedule that we would like to do it. We don't have all the
resources; we don't have all the programs in place. The
programs in place that we do have are too expensive and they
take too long to build, and we perpetuate that by not having
the resources to put up front to make them go faster or to buy
them more efficiently. And the tanker is a good example of
that, where our buy is going to be extended for quite a while,
in part because we don't have all the resources we would like
to do aviation, modernization, space modernization, build the
cyber capabilities we need, build all the ISR, do all of those
things that we would like to do as fast as we would like to do
them. So we are--not unlike previous leadership or those that
will follow us, we have to make those tough choices.
General Schwartz. If I may, may I just amplify that we have
had an opportunity to engage directly with the Secretary of
Defense on Long-Range Strike, for example. Certainly I have a
routine opportunity to engage with the Chairman on these
matters. Neither of us are too timid, and we have venues to
present, sir.
Mr. Franks. I appreciate that. Actually you have made some
of the points that I was going to follow up with, to a degree,
and I am grateful I didn't have to pull any teeth or anything
and I appreciate that.
But I would follow up this way. Under the current plan, the
Air Force is probably going to fly most of its KC-135 tanker
fleet, much of it built in the Eisenhower Administration, into
the 2020s and maybe into the 2030s, and will probably do the
same thing with the remaining B-52s that we have.
We are capping production of the C-17 when the C-5 has a
mission-capable rate hovering around 50-60 percent. And we have
essentially canceled the F-22 program, capping production of
187 aircraft, and I guess this is just as the Chinese and the
Russians are gaining their own fifth-generation fighter
capability. And it will take years--as I don't have to tell
you, I am trying to make some of the case here for you, Mr.
Secretary--and billions of dollars to reconstruct and
reconstitute that production capability if you or your
successor belatedly finds out that 187 aircraft was not enough.
And it seems to me, of course, it would be better to dissuade a
potential adversary with overwhelming capability early on than
having to respond to something where a perceived weakness was
provocative.
I guess I would say here at the end that the Air Force
fleet is around 24 years, the average age of it, and that is
probably double what it should be. And I just want you to know
that there are a lot of us, and I hope you will join with us,
that we want to try to make sure that the Air Force is
adequately resourced, because there is nothing that any of us
do that is more important than providing not only for security
needs of this country but to hope that that liberty that we
have can cast across the world. So help us to make that case.
And I think you have done somewhat today. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary and General Schwartz, for being with us for a very
long time today and for your service to our Nation.
A couple of things. Number one, a recent maritime
publication spoke about the Stryker brigade being moved from
the West Coast to Diego Garcia by ship and then flown the rest
of the way, which saves us a substantial amount of money, half
the way.
I am just curious, what efforts are being made to find a
port with an adjacent airfield or nearby airfield, closer than
Diego Garcia, should the Afghan conflict drag on longer than
any one of us want to. That would be a very smart thing for us
to be looking into.
Second thing is I know that the Air Force is in the process
of moving from Manta, Ecuador to probably a place called
Polancaro, Colombia. As someone who likes to think of himself
as pretty good at pinching a nickel until it bleeds, I am
disturbed that we spent a lot of money, first in Panama, only
to leave it behind. Then in Manta Ecuador, only to leave it
behind.
What kind of arrangements are we making with the Colombian
Government that, should we make substantial investments there,
that we are there more than a decade and that we are not asked
to leave, as we were in Ecuador? Again, you have done an
excellent job of outlining your budget woes. That same dollar
that was wasted in Manta could have gone towards building F-35s
or replacement tankers.
And so rather than continuing to make the same mistakes,
what steps are we taking in Colombia that we don't make the
same mistakes that we made in Ecuador?
General Schwartz. Sir, I think we got ten years of use out
of Manta, so that was a reasonable return on investment. But I
take your point.
Mr. Taylor. But, General, I remember, about the second year
into this, the base commander at Manta telling me he felt like
a second-class citizen on his own base. And I knew right then
we had problems. So what steps are we going to take that we
don't keep making the same mistakes?
General Schwartz. I think the key thing is to have trusted
allies and long-term allies and stable allies, because these
relationships depend on sovereign nations. And to the extent
that we can cultivate long-term stable relationships with
nations in our hemisphere and elsewhere, that is the sweet spot
on this. I think that is likely in the case of Colombia, even
if there is a change in leadership there. There are obviously
other nations where that continues to be true.
There are occasions I think where we will have to go places
that are expedient. I don't think we can dismiss that. But your
point to invest in those who are long-term friends is one that
certainly we agree with, and I think there is a consensus in
the Department on that.
Mr. Taylor. What efforts, if any, are we making to find a
port with a nearby airfield that is closer to Afghanistan?
Again, I am told the burden cost of fuel, of getting 1 gallon
of fuel into Afghanistan is $400. I realize we have to do
everything we can for the warfighter, but the taxpayers are
telling us there is only so much money out there. So what are
we doing to work on that cost?
General Schwartz. That is really in General McNabb's lane.
But there are a couple of locations, one immediately outside
the Gulf and one inside the Gulf, where that transload
operation that you referred to at Diego is viable, and that is
working. I prefer to go offline with you to identify the
specific location, but that is certainly what McNabb has in
store and General Petraeus has in store.
Mr. Taylor. Lastly, General, any evidence--the book Charlie
Wilson's War is out there, the movie Charlie Wilson's War is
out there. Obviously, the game changer there was the
introduction of the Stinger missile. We are not the only people
who make that type of missile. Any evidence of some sort of
game-changing event, given our heavy dependence on air resupply
in Afghanistan, with regard to surface-to-air vessels?
General Schwartz. Not yet.
Mr. Taylor. Again, thank you for your service and thank you
for being here today.
The Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
for your service and for being here today.
I would like to talk about an issue that I have brought up
on numerous occasions for a couple of years now, the serious
concerns that I have about the fighter gap issue and how it
will negatively impact this Nation's national and homeland
defense, particularly as it pertains to the Air National Guard.
As you know, beginning in 2015, 80 percent of the Air
National Guard fighter fleet begins to run out of flying hours.
Without aircraft, the Air National Guard will be unable to
continue to perform the air sovereignty alert mission and
unable to support the Air Force in overseas operations, which I
think it has done magnificently up to this point. Many units
will lose their flying missions altogether and will probably
lose some very highly skilled pilots and technicians who simply
will not be able to be replaced.
My question is that while Congress is still waiting for the
plan on how the force structure and capability gaps will be
filled since the retirement of 254 legacy fighter aircraft was
announced last May--we all know about the delays in the F-35--
we repeatedly asked the question, and when will the underlying
analysis be provided to this committee? And can you talk about
why the delay in getting these answers?
And the second question is, while we are on the topic of
reports due to Congress, when can we expect to see the report
on the 4.5-generation fighter gap procurement required by last
year's defense authorization bill, which we have heard nothing
at all on?
General Schwartz. Congressman, with respect to the report
on the fighter restructure, that will be delivered, as it was
required by statute, not later than the first of April, and it
will be delivered sooner than that.
With respect to the 4.5, sir, I have to take that for the
record to confirm the delivery, but when I reviewed this last,
we were on time based on the expectations. So, Mr. Secretary.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 73.]
Secretary Donley. Sir, I believe we owe you about three,
maybe four, reports related to fighter force structure which we
are tying up as part of our report on April 1. So we are
bringing several pieces of this together back to you.
Mr. LoBiondo. I appreciate that. I know we have been
talking about it for a long time, and there is an increasing
degree of frustration on at least the part of some of us and
how we understand this bathtub fighter gap--choose the
terminology you would like--will be filled. And for those of us
who have a particular interest in the Air National Guard, this
is a very serious concern, because as the clock ticks we get to
a point where we think there is something that can be done now
in the interim if the problem is identified and we can all
agree on a consensus solution. But at a certain point in time,
we run into a serious problem making it up, and we don't want
to see things go dark when we could have made a decision at a
point in time not to have that happen.
Secretary Donley. Sir, I think that chief has been to
earlier address this issue with respect to what this so-called
bathtub looks like. This is a different problem, a much smaller
problem than it was a couple of years ago. The requirements
have changed. The perception of what is required to do this
work has been adjusted in the last few years.
Having said that, we know we have aging platforms. Going
forward, it is our intent to look at whether or not we need
service life extensions for F-16s sometime later in this
decade. And we are working through those issues right now.
But it is not our intent to invest in new so-called 4.5-
generation aircraft. We think there is probably--if we need to
do slips, that is probably a better deal for the taxpayer going
forward. And so that is how we are addressing that.
We do not see right now a threat to the air sovereignty
mission right out in front of us. This is a mission our Air
Force is doing every day, about 18 sites, about 40 aircraft, at
any given time, so we think this is covered.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Conaway, please.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
for being here.
The issue I would like to talk about doesn't have anywhere
near the glamour or romance of second engines on F-35s or F-22s
or those kinds of things. But I am the only CPA [Certified
Public Accountant] on the committee. And the Air Force, the
Department of the Air Force, cannot produce financial
statements today that are auditable and would pass and have a
clean audit. The ability to make good management decisions--and
those structures reach across every single one of those
procurement issues, soup to nuts. And so that won't happen
unless I can get the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force to look me in the eye and say, among
all the other nine zillion first priorities that you have, that
you are committed to working with the Business Transformation
Office and others to get us to a point that that can happen.
There are benefits separate and apart just from that. But to
encapsulate just the drill, let's just call them the audited
financial statements.
So can you give me your thoughts on where that fits in the
pecking order of things you guys think are important?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I had the privilege of serving as
the assistant secretary for financial management when this
issue first started in about, roughly, 1990. This is a long-
term effort, and it continues to take longer than we would
like. But the Department is focused on this problem. It is
getting attention.
The current assistant secretary for financial management is
working on this issue with the DOD comptroller and the BTA
[Business Transformation Agency] office. We have a number of
modernized systems that are required to be in place to make
this work--in personnel, logistics--and they all need to be
interconnected. And we have not succeeded in fielding those
large systems. We have not been successful. So we need to
continue working it, and we know it is a challenge. We are
committed to working the problem.
Mr. Conaway. I don't discount how hard it is. I do know how
hard it is, but it is not impossible. And the value can't be
overstated. You have no clue what you are spending on all these
legacy systems and all the workarounds that the folks behind
you scramble. As soon as General Schwartz asks a particular
question, somebody, somewhere, goes into panic mode because the
system they are working with is not the best. I acknowledge it
is hard. But if the voters in District 11 let me keep coming up
here, I am going to continue to hammer away at this, because I
don't want to overstate it.
Secretary Donley. Don't stop.
Mr. Conaway. From your lips to the voters' ears in Texas.
C-5s. I have asked this question of your predecessor,
General Schwartz. If you ran a major airline who had planes
that won't fly, do you think they would go through all these
hoops, the section 137, 138 requirements, and 90 days' notice
and all this. For the record, I don't have any C-5s in my
district, or C-17s, but can you give us some sort of a sense of
what it costs year in and year out to maintain planes that you
say you don't need, so that we can meet some requirement of the
NDAA that is driven in no small part by the needs of the
particular districts?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 74.]
General Schwartz. It is in the multiple millions of dollars
per platform.
Mr. Conaway. Annually?
General Schwartz. Yes. But, again, I would just ask you to
think that it is not just the money. There are maintenance
personnel devoted to the aircraft. There are crews devoted to
the aircraft that, you know, that are not as well utilized as
they might otherwise be in another part of our Air Force or a
similar mission in a different airplane. The bottom line is,
this is a fleet management issue and we appeal to you to allow
us as much latitude as you can to work out the legacy machines
and to bring on the new.
Mr. Conaway. I understand my colleagues who have those
aircraft in their districts that are not capable of being able
to pitch this issue. But those of us that don't need to know
the hard dollars and soft dollars and just the ideas as to what
it does to your Air Force and our Air Force to force you to do
things that good management wouldn't do in any other spectrum
of flying airplanes, help us to understand the costs that that
is; because we can then say, all right, if F-35 engine costs X,
and we are spending 20 times this over a number of years, what
could we have otherwise spent that money on? And you can pick a
variety of alternative uses for dollars in a scarce
environment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back with three
seconds left.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary, General
Schwartz, I appreciate your patience here. And as the most
junior member of the committee I think I get to be the wrap-up
here.
I want to first associate my comments with Congressman
Conaway and the issue of financials. I had the privilege of
chairing the Subcommittee on Financial Management and Oversight
for four years, and getting to that bedrock and auditing your
internal controls so that you can get after what the
Congressman talked about is so important. By doing it you will
ultimately be able to do better in providing your personnel
what they need because of the dollars you are going to save.
I apologize for not being here at the beginning of the
hearing. I have two other committees I serve on that were
meeting at the same time.
I understand, General Schwartz, in response to Congressman
McKeon on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that your statement was,
given the OPTEMPO that we are currently experiencing, that this
would not be a good time to go forward with that policy.
One followup question, you may have addressed. Is that
based on more of a general assessment of your almost 37 years
of courageous and heroic service to our Nation, or a specific
solicitation from your senior NCOs [noncommissioned officers],
your captains, your majors who are out there on the front line
and how this policy would impact them given the tempo we are
experiencing?
General Schwartz. It is the former and not yet the latter.
But we need to have real information in order to do due
diligence here, sir. And a reality is that we do not have
either that valid, statistically sound survey data or the kind
of scholarship that one needs to sort of assess this properly.
So, in my view this is not a good time because of the demands
on the force. But the Secretary of Defense's approach to have
that study group produce this decision, actionable
information----
Mr. Platts. So we have that concrete data. I share that
assessment that we need to really know, bottom line, how is it
going to work if we go forward and what consequences there
could be.
A followup. Congressman Coffman asked about the UAV issue
and the 50 percent of what we are gathering not being able to
be actually assessed. I appreciate your answer on the 700
additional linguists and the technology needs.
Can you give a time frame both on the 700 personnel that
you are committing and what you expect the time frame to be to
get to more of the technological investment that will diminish
the need for the personnel?
General Schwartz. I think it is within, you know, it is
within the program period. So it is within the next four or
five years we will deliver all of those airmen into those
billets. And the technology is there, that is my sense, to
process video-shoot. We have seen it repeated for us at the
games that we are watching here over the last few days at the
Olympics. So we know that it is there. We just need to go get
it and move out. So the personnel will plus-up over the next
couple of years. And I believe the technology is available now,
and likewise we will deliver over that period.
Mr. Platts. And my hope is that that remains a priority,
given how certain we are the impact it has to those soldiers,
marines on the ground, and being able to be successful and safe
in their mission. So I appreciate that effort.
And, again, to both of you, I appreciate your service to
our Nation. And General Schwartz especially, with close to 37
years in uniform, we are blessed by you and all who wear the
uniform, and your staff and all of our branches.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Secretary,
General, we thank you for your excellent testimony this
morning, and we will be using it undoubtedly when we put
together our national defense bill. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 23, 2010
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 23, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8102.021
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 23, 2010
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO
General Schwartz. The report on procurement of ``4.5 Generation
Aircraft'' will be delivered on or about 1 April. [See page 40.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP
Secretary Donley. The current SRM Warm Line effort sustains skills
required to reproduce 1960's-era technology SRMs. In our FY11 budget
documentation, we estimated we would be able to purchase three boosters
with the $39.2M available. This is a conservative estimate and the
actual number of boosters we can purchase will be based on price
negotiations with the ATK.
In addition to the SRM Warm Line, the AF's Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle (EELV) program utilizes and contributes to the SRM
industrial base through its use of solid rocket strap-on motors. The
EELV Delta IV solid rocket motor is the GEM-60, produced by ATK. The
EELV program is currently working through the inventory of existing
motors. The next expected lot buy will be in 2012.
The EELV Atlas V uses solid rocket motors produced by Aerojet.
Aerojet delivers between 5-7 motors per year. The next lot buy will be
in 2013.
The AF has committed to a long-range Minuteman III (MM III)
sustainment program to extend the life of the weapon system through
2030. The 526th ICBM Systems Group's ICBM roadmap addresses both near-
term and long-term issues to meet weapon system operational
requirements. This roadmap highlights both critical test/support
equipment replacement requirements and numerous other weapon system
components that need to be replaced due to wear and obsolescence. The
most time-critical test and support equipment replacement efforts are
currently underway. Other top-priority near-term needs are addressed in
the FY11 PB.
The AF continues to view MM III sustainment as a top priority. The
AF is evaluating options that would support an industrial base that can
stand ready to resolve issues with the current fleet and also prepare
to integrate modern technology for next-generation systems. [See page
25.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
General Schwartz. The My Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA)
program is administered and monitored by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense/Military Community and Family Policy (OSD/MC&FP) rather than
the individual Services. The Air Force spouse employment point of
contact was notified on 16 February by an OSD/MC&FP staff member of the
``pause'' in MyCAA operations. We were advised the reason for the pause
was for a review of software applications, financial assistance
documents and of the overall program.
Air Force provided notification to all installation Airman & Family
Readiness Centers immediately so they could field any questions from
spouses and up-channel concerns that are subsequently being passed
along to OSD/MC&FP. Air Force spouses are also being directed to other
sources of financial assistance for education and training such as the
Air Force Aid Society funded Spouse Tuition Assistance Program for
those stationed overseas, the Hap Arnold Grants for stateside spouses
and the Spouse Employment Program which can provide entry-level job
training with a goal of finding immediate viable employment. [See page
20.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Secretary Donley. Prior to the 23 Feb, 2010 hearing, two Air Force
bases (involving three units) received unsatisfactory ratings on a
nuclear surety inspection. Details of those inspections follow:
1) 2nd Bomb Wing (2BW), Barksdale AFB, LA
Dates of inspection: 6 - 13 Jan, 2010
Overall rating: Unsatisfactory (Re-inspected to Satisfactory, on-
the-spot)
Reason(s) for failure: (Non-systemic) Munitions handling trailer
and aircraft were improperly grounded. More specifically, the aircraft
and munitions trailer were grounded to separate ground points.
Inspection team ruled this critical deficiency violated a ``warning''
in the maintenance Technical Order.
Corrective action(s): Load crew chief, and 2 crew members
decertified by Wing Weapons Manager. Prior to inspection team
departure, a re-inspection of the aircraft loading technical operation
was accomplished with a different team and the load team performed in a
flawless manner.
Note: On-the-spot Re-inspection policy. When a unit is rated
Unsatisfactory for a condition which can be corrected immediately, the
Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection Chief Inspector may, at his or her
discretion, and with the concurrence of the commander of the inspected
unit or support unit, make an on-the-spot re-inspection and include the
results in the original report. (Technical Order 11N- 25-1, DOD Nuclear
Weapons Technical Inspection System)
2) 341st Missile Wing (341 MW) and 16th Munitions Sq (16 MUNS),
Malmstrom AFB, MT (represents two MAJCOM inspection teams inspecting
two separate units at the same location)
Dates of inspection: 2-10 Feb, 2010
Overall rating: Unsatisfactory
Reason(s) for failure:
(341 MW, AF Global Strike Command) (Systemic) Inspection did not
reveal an unreliable weapon or an unsafe/insecure environment; however,
the nature, severity, and number of deficiencies documented resulted in
an unsatisfactory rating. Concerns were raised in areas of security,
personnel reliability program, and logistics movement (i.e. transport).
(16 MUNS, AF Materiel Command) (Systemic) Maintenance Team Chief
failed to accomplish a step in the Technical Order. Inspection team
ruled this a critical deficiency which could result in an unknown/
unreliable weapon condition.
Corrective action(s): Unit given time to put into place corrective
actions. In accordance with DOD and AF Inspection policy, the MAJCOM
inspection teams will conduct a re-inspection of deficient area(s) NLT
90 days from termination of the original inspection. (Technical Order
11N- 25-1, DOD Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection System, and Air
Force Instruction 90-201, Inspector General Activities)
Note: Multi-MAJCOM inspection. Due to the integrated AFGSC and AFMC
mission at Malmstrom AFB, this NSI was conducted as a Multi-MAJCOM NSI
in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between AFGSC/IG and
AFMC/IG. Each MAJCOM/IG inspected applicable areas and produced a
separate inspection report. [See page 37.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
General Schwartz. In the case of the C-5As, the FY09 Operations and
Support cost of a C-5A was $13.5M per aircraft, totaling $297M per
year, to continue to operate the excess aircraft. In addition, the
Maintenance and Operations manpower devoted to these excess aircraft
can't be utilized on other aircraft. [See page 42.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
Secretary Donley. There was approximately a $30M reduction in ORS
funding from the FY10 President's Budget (PB) to the FY11 PB for two
reasons. First, the FY10 funding line contains approximately $18M for
launch vehicle expenditures, which are not required in FY11. Second,
the original FY10 request was increased by $12M for congressional adds
(Micro-Satellite Serial Manufacturing, LEONIDAS, Rapid Small Satellite
Development Test Facilities and Space Sensor Data Link Technology);
these adds were not carried over into the FY11 budget. [See page 32.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 23, 2010
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER
Mr. Miller. On March 26, 2008, then Secretary of the Air Force Mike
Wynne issued a memorandum to the force indicating that the Air Force
should endorse a ``beyond goals'' approach to small business
contracting. The term referred to the Air Force's Small Business
Programs office initiative to do just that. Is this initiative still in
effect and do you support the desire of the former Secretary to
increase small business participation, specifically for companies with
less than 1500 employees, throughout the Air Force?
Secretary Donley. Yes--the Air Force Small Business Programs office
supports efforts to increase small business participation, specifically
for companies with less than 1,500 employees. The Air Force Small
Business Programs office supports the ``beyond goals'' strategy and has
developed an extensive outreach program to increase awareness and
understanding of the impact small businesses have on the Air Force
mission.
``Beyond goals'' is a strategy to bring the innovation, agility and
efficiency of small businesses to the mission of the Air Force: To fly,
fight and win . . . in air, space, and cyberspace. Beyond goals
considers numerical percentage goals and contracts as tools or a means
to an end--but not the end itself.
The Air Force Small Business community members are not advocates
for small businesses--we are advocates for the mission, met with small
business solutions.
Mr. Miller. Do you believe the Air Force should actively look to do
business with emerging small businesses?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force feels that we should actively look
to do business with emerging small businesses. Small businesses bring
innovation, agility and efficiency to the Air Force mission. Emerging
small businesses are important to the future of a healthy industrial
base and an integral part of the Air Force mission. Small Businesses
also have a proven track record to deliver solutions to the Air Force
rapidly and effectively.
The Air Force Small Business Programs office has initiatives that
highlight small business opportunities to support the mission. The Air
Force Mentor-Protege Program assists small businesses (Proteges)
competing for contract awards by partnering them with large companies
(Mentors) under individual agreements. Also the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program encourages small business
participation in Federal research and development in technology with
both government and commercial applications.
Mr. Miller. Secretary Donley: Last year, the Secretary of Defense
canceled the CSAR-X program stating that the Department was conducting
a review of DOD-wide assets that could conduct the CSAR-X mission. What
is the status of this review? Does the Air Force plan on restarting the
CSAR-X program?
Secretary Donley. Following cancellation of the CSAR-X program, the
Air Force supported the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and
the Joint Staff in their review of rotary wing support to the CSAR
mission. As a result of that review, OSD analysis supported the Air
Force as having a vital role in Joint CSAR.
The current plans for replacing the HH-60G fleet involve two
efforts, HH-60G Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) and HH-60
Recapitalization. HH-60G OLR is the Air Force's plan to replace HH-60G
Pave Hawks lost in combat and other operational missions to sustain the
current HH-60 fleet strength. HH-60 Recapitalization will be a long-
term recapitalization effort to replace the entire fleet.
The Air Force is working with OSD and Joint Staff to finalize
requirements and an acquisition strategy that supports an HH-60
recapitalization program to replace the fleet of aging HH-60Gs. Initial
program funding is contained in the FY11 President's Budget. A Request
for Information has been released to obtain industry's ability to
provide the Air Force with a CSAR platform. The Air Force will procure
a CSAR platform that meets warfighter requirements.
Mr. Miller. In regard to the KC-X, you've both mentioned in various
settings that the Air Force will move forward with a tanker selection
regardless of the number of proposals it may receive. We've learned in
the past that sole source contracts cost the American taxpayers a great
deal of money while at the same time reducing and even impeding the
military's critical need for flexibility. Are we repeating past
mistakes by pressing forward with a one tanker option which will
inevitably lead to sole sourcing?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. The USAF is currently in an
open competition and plans to let the process run its course. The
planned date for proposal submission is 10 May 2010. If only one
proposal is received, the USAF will evaluate whether the proposal meets
all mandatory requirements and will exercise a clause in the Request
for Proposal that requires the offeror to provide certified cost and
pricing data (see FAR 15.406-2). The certified cost or pricing data
will be audited by the Defense Contract Auditing Agency and used by the
USAF in negotiating contract price. Finally, the USAF retains the
option to not award the contract if a satisfactory agreement cannot be
reached in the best interest of both the warfighter and the taxpayer.
The Department clearly prefers competition because it delivers weapon
systems at a lower cost for the warfighter and taxpayer.
Mr. Miller. The Department seems to be dead set on a sole sourced
tanker replacement. Do you think one single company will be able to
provide a production rate fast enough to replace the current aging
tanker fleet in a timely manner? How can we be sure that a sole source
company doesn't charge us unnecessary amounts of money for speed of
production? If we need a tanker now, why not have two companies? Would
that not decrease the amount of time it will take to replace the fleet?
In addition, the longer it takes to replace the fleet, the longer we
will need to sustain the current fleet which as I understand, is
becoming more and more expensive.
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. At this time, two companies
have expressed an intent to bid for the KC-X contract. The KC-X
contract will allow the USAF to order up to 18 aircraft per year in
full rate production, with a target quantity of 15 aircraft per year.
This is a reasonable production rate for a single company and meets
USAF tanker recapitalization requirements. If the USAF receives only
one KC-X proposal, and if it meets the RFP requirements, we will then
obtain certified cost and pricing data to negotiate and award a fair
and reasonable contract for the American taxpayers. The USAF considered
all options per Congressional direction, but ruled out dual award
approaches based on budget affordability and fleet concerns including
increased training, operations, maintenance, and support costs. The
Department and the USAF are committed to awarding to a single company
through a competitive strategy for a commercial derivative tanker as
that strategy provides the best value for the warfighter and taxpayer.
Mr. Miller. In regard to in-sourcing, what criteria have been
established for determining which functions should be in-sourced? What
steps does the Air Force have in place to assist contractor employees
whose functions may be in-sourced?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. In-sourcing guidance issued
by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 28 May 2009 outlines a systematic
approach that helps ensure in-sourcing decisions are fiscally informed
and analytically based. If contract workload is found to be inherently
governmental, experiencing contract administration problems, providing
unauthorized personal services, or otherwise exempt from contracting
under DOD Instruction 1100.22, Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix,
the function must be in-sourced regardless of cost. However, if the
contract does not fit one of the mentioned criteria, a cost analysis is
required to determine the most cost-effective means of performing the
work.
The Air Force must adhere to the legal requirements of Merit
Systems Principles that call for open and fair competition. To single
out contractors for special assistance programs may be considered
inconsistent with Merit Systems Principles. The Air Force has
implemented a number of enhancements that serve to streamline the
recruitment process, including the development of an Enterprise
Recruitment Function at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) to
address enterprise-wide recruitment needs with a strategic focus; use
of social networking sites (e.g., Twitter) to augment recruiting to
meet our most critical needs; creation of an Air Force Civil Service
Career Portal that is more applicant-friendly, resulting in larger
pools of well-qualified candidates; and data mining using commercial
recruitment websites to steer applicants to Air Force vacancy
announcements. More robust and improved recruitment processes will
benefit all applicants, including those contractor employees whose
functions may be in-sourced.
Mr. Miller. Over the years DOD has defined potentially hostile
nations' military capabilities in comparison to our own in terms of
``peers'' vs. ``near-peers''. For example, in regard to a blue water
Navy or air dominance Air Force, the Department has maintained that the
United States currently has no ``near-peers.'' With the advent of cyber
warfare and the multitude of recent examples of cyber attacks, do you
think it's reasonable to say that the United States does indeed have
``peers''? I mean, at this point anyone, state actor or not, with
internet connectivity and skilled in cyber operations has the ability
to be a ``peer'' of the United States. With that in mind, do you think
the Department should be moving toward creating a combatant command as
opposed to a sub-unified command?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. With low costs of entry and
global interconnectivity, the U.S. does have ``peers'' and ``near-
peers'' in the cyber domain. As a Service, the mission of the United
States Air Force is to organize, train, equip, and provide forces to
Joint Combatant Commands. The Department of Defense has determined that
a sub-unified command is the best command structure for the Cyberspace
mission. The Air Force is committed to providing support for cyber
operations as a component of any joint command arrangement.
Mr. Miller. General Schwartz: The F100 and F110 engine competitions
in the 1980s and early 1990s for the F-16 saved money, and improved
engine performance, reliability and contractor responsiveness. Today,
the Air Force continues to execute the F-16 program with two engines.
Why wouldn't a similar program be applicable for the F-35? With fewer
fighters today, and even fewer in the future, do you believe that the
Air Force is taking significant risks by not including a program to
develop and procure a competitive, alternate engine for the F-35?
General Schwartz. The Air Force supports Secretary Gates'
conclusion to not pursue a competitive engine. While engine
performance, reliability, and contractor responsiveness did improve
during the F100 and F110 engine competition, there is no evidence that
this was a direct result of competition. Historical experience shows
that any costs and/or benefits arising from competition are highly
unpredictable and also depend heavily on the strategic behavior of the
companies involved. Maintaining two engine suppliers would result in
increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
The Air Force maintains that the risks involved with a single engine
supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which
may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
development costs when competing against existing Department
priorities. Recent experience with engine development for the F-22 and
F/A-18E/F indicates that sole source risks are acceptable, especially
considering the Pratt & Whitney engine continues to meet or exceed the
stringent performance requirements associated with the F-35 propulsion
system.
Mr. Miller. What is the current Air Force policy, directive or
regulation governing the conversion of non-acquisition contractor
personnel to government positions?
General Schwartz. The following are the policies, directives and
regulations governing the conversion of non-acquisition contractor
personnel to government positions:
1. In-sourcing Contracted Services--Implementation Guidance from
OUSD (P&R) dated 28 May 2009, outlines a systematic approach to
identifying and evaluating potential in-sourcing candidates. These
guidelines ensure in-sourcing decisions are fiscally informed and
analytically based.
2. Guidance and Documenting Civilian In-sourcing Positions from
OUSD (P&R) dated 31 December 2009, provides guidance on tracking DOD
civilian personnel actions associated with in-sourcing.
3. Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-007, ``Estimating and
Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract
Support'' from OSD (CAPE) dated 29 January 2010, establishes a DOD-wide
cost estimating methodology in support of workforce decisions to
include in-sourcing.
Mr. Miller. Is the Air Force policy different than that of other
services? If so, why?
General Schwartz. No, the Air Force in-sourcing procedures comply
with the same OSD policy guidance that applies to all Service
components. Due to the organizational differences between the Air Force
and the other Service components, the Air Force has taken a more
decentralized approach to in-sourcing. The Air Force relies heavily on
the Major Commands to review their contract inventories, identify
candidates, conduct business case analyses, and implement the resulting
decisions. The Air Force maintains centralized control by issuing
policy, validating business cases, and monitoring the conversion
process.
Mr. Miller. Has the Air Force conducted an analysis of non-
acquisition contractor conversions as they relate to the service's
small business participation requirements?
General Schwartz. The Air Force has not conducted an analysis of
non-acquisition contractor conversions and the impact on small business
goals. However, the Air Force does place strong emphasis on ensuring
that we meet or exceed the federally mandated goals, and has instituted
a ``Beyond Goals'' strategy to help ensure small businesses are
provided maximum practicable opportunity to compete for Air Force
requirements.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. With regard to the Joint Strike Fighter program, how
will encroachment and increased noise associated with the fighters
impact the decision to base these aviation assets?
Secretary Donley. With the announcement of the candidate basing
locations, the formal environmental impact analysis process and
development of environmental impacts statements (EISs) have begun. The
EISs will analyze potential impacts of the alternative basing locations
for both Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) training and operational basing
candidate locations.
At this point in time, we cannot specifically state how
encroachment and noise may impact the Air Force's final basing
decision. Through the EISs, a full spectrum of issues will be
evaluated, to include consideration of JSF noise and encroachment
related impacts. When released, Congress, regulatory agencies, and
local communities will be provided the opportunity to review and
comment on these EISs through an iterative review process.
After the draft EIS review, all comments provided to the Air Force
will be considered and made a part of a Final EIS. This final EIS will
support the Air Force's operational and training basing decisions,
which will be reflected in a signed Air Force Record of Decision (ROD).
Air Force JSF basing decisions become final when the ROD is signed
and issued. The Air Force expects to announce the F-35 EIS preferred
alternatives in late Spring/Summer of 2010, release a draft EIS in late
summer 2010, and issues its ROD in early 2011.
Mr. Wilson. On February 3, Secretary Gates told this committee that
a business case analysis had been conducted with regards to the
alternate engine for the F-35. Are you aware of any business case
analysis? If so, does the Air Force agree with the Secretary of
Defense's position not to develop and procure a competitive engine for
the F-35? Lastly, would you be able to share any insights to this
committee when we may be able to see the aforementioned business case
analysis?
Secretary Donley. The Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
office performed a Cost/Benefit analysis in FY2007. Both the original
study and the recent FY2010 ``Quick Update'' were provided to the HASC
on February 23, 2010.
The Air Force supports Secretary Gates' conclusion to not pursue a
competitive engine. Maintaining two engine suppliers will result in
increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
The Air Force maintains that the risks involved with a single engine
supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which
may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
development costs when competing against existing Department
priorities. Recent experience with engine development for the F-22 and
F/A-18E/F indicates that sole source risks are modest and acceptable,
especially considering the Pratt & Whitney engine continues to meet or
exceed the stringent performance requirements associated with the F-35
propulsion system.
Mr. Wilson. The engine competitions for the F-16 saved money,
improved engine performance, reliability, and contractor
responsiveness. Today, the F-16 program continues to operate with two
engines. Why wouldn't a similar program be applicable to the F-35?
General Schwartz. The Air Force supports Secretary Gates'
conclusion to not pursue a competitive engine. While engine
performance, reliability, and contractor responsiveness did improve
during the F100 and F110 engine competition, there is no evidence that
this was a direct result of competition. Historical experience shows
that any costs and/or benefits arising from competition are highly
unpredictable and also depend heavily on the strategic behavior of the
companies involved. Maintaining two engine suppliers will result in
increased development, production, and support costs in the near term.
The Air Force maintains that the risks involved with a single engine
supplier are acceptable, and savings associated with competition, which
may be realized in the future, will not sufficiently offset the upfront
development costs when competing against existing Department
priorities. Recent experience with engine development for the F-22 and
F/A-18E/F indicates that sole source risks are acceptable, especially
considering the Pratt & Whitney engine continues to meet or exceed the
stringent performance requirements associated with the F-35 propulsion
system.
Mr. Wilson. The Air Force will need to submit reports required by
Sections 137 and 138 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2010 before it can retire the 17 C-5As planned for FY2011. When will
this committee be provided these reports?
General Schwartz. The report is being drafted at this time and is
expected to be delivered by early July 2010.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP
Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. How did the Air Force
determine that only 3 booster motors for Minuteman III annually was
adequate to sustain a viable warm line effort for the MM III weapons
system through 2030?
Secretary Donley. The number of booster motors identified in the
Air Force budget documents is a conservative estimate. The final number
will likely be more than three; but will not be defined until the
contract negotiations are completed. Additionally, the Air Force is
reevaluating the overall Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Warm Line concept in
order to help sustain the SRM industrial base production skills. Unlike
the Navy, there is currently no anticipated Air Force requirement to
replace operational MM III missile motors. An interagency task force,
that includes representation from DOD (the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense Agency) and NASA,
has been formed to offer solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to
Congress. The interim report to Congress is expected to be delivered in
June 2010.
Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. Wasn't the number of
missile motor sets being placed at only 3 in FY11 by the Air Force
based primarily upon budget considerations, and not actual program or
industry requirements?
Secretary Donley. The number of booster motors identified in the
Air Force budget documents is a conservative estimate. The final number
will likely be more than three; but will not be defined until the
contract negotiations are completed. Unlike the Navy, there is
currently no anticipated Air Force requirement to replace operational
MM III missile motors. An interagency task force, that includes
representation from DOD (the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army,
Navy, Air Force and Missile Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed
to offer solid rocket motor industrial base sustainment recommendations
to the Secretary of Defense for a subsequent report to Congress. The
interim report to Congress is expected to be delivered in June 2010.
Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. Was the private Solid
Rocket Motor (SRM) industrial base consulted by the Air Force about the
minimum number of MM III motor sets required annually to maintain a
viable warm line during formulation of the FY11 budget recommendation,
and if so, what was their response to the Air Force?
Secretary Donley. Industry was consulted during the FY11 budget
formulation process. Initially industry stated the need for 12 per year
and then revised the number to six motor sets per year to maintain a
fully qualified and certified workforce to produce MM III booster sets.
The number of booster motors identified in the Air Force budget
documents is a conservative estimate. The final number will likely be
more than three; but will not be defined until the contract
negotiations are completed. Unlike the Navy, there is currently no
anticipated Air Force requirement to replace operational MM III missile
motors. An interagency task force, that includes representation from
DOD (the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and
Missile Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket
motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to
Congress is expected to be delivered in June 2010.
Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. What is the Air Force
contingency plan for ensuring a viable MM III weapons system through
2030 (the program of record) if the private SRM industrial base
capability for the MM III is shuttered and its contract obligations
with the Air Force are not renewed?
Secretary Donley. If the current MM III Solid Rocket Motor
production capability is allowed to lapse, any requirement for follow-
on MM III SRM production would include the time and costs required to
reinstate a MM III SRM production capability. The Air Force, in
coordination with industry, has determined what those costs and
timelines would be and would include these factors in long-range
planning efforts. Unlike the Navy, there is currently no anticipated
Air Force requirement to replace operational MM III missile motors. An
interagency task force, that includes representation from DOD (the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile
Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket motor
industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of Defense
for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to Congress is
expected to be delivered in June 2010.
Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. A Department of Defense
Report to Congress on the Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base, dated
June 2009, at page 47 stated that ``Delays in the NASA Ares program
could have a significant negative impact on the large SRM (Solid Rocket
Motor) prime contractor industrial base and on some of the SRM subtier
base, specifically material suppliers.'' In light of NASA's FY11 more
drastic budget recommendation to completely cancel the Constellation
program, along with the Ares 1 and Ares 5 boosters, should not the
above-referenced study be revised and updated?
Secretary Donley. Per direction in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2010, the Secretary of Defense is to
``establish a plan to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base,
including the ability to maintain and sustain currently deployed
strategic and missile defense systems and to maintain an intellectual
and engineering capacity to support next generation motors, as
needed.'' An interagency task force, that includes representation from
DOD (the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and
Missile Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket
motor industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to
Congress is expected to be delivered in June 2010.
Mr. Bishop. The proposed FY11 budget only allows for $44.2 million
for Minuteman III warm line, of which $5 million is for unspecified
government costs or overhead, leaving only about $39 million in this
funding line which budget documents state are to produce only 3 motor
sets. By contrast, the Navy funds a warm line effort for the D-5
missile which produces 12 motor sets a year. What are the impediments
preventing the Air Force from committing to a long-term Minuteman III
sustainment program in the out-years, and isn't such a commitment more
important than ever to sustain this vital strategic industrial base?
Secretary Donley. The AF is fully committed to sustaining the MM
III weapon system through 2030 and has budgeted over $1.3B of
investments through the FYDP (FY10-FY15) to achieve that objective.
Unlike the Navy, there is currently no anticipated Air Force
requirement to replace operational MM III missile motors. An
interagency task force, that includes representation from DOD (the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force and Missile
Defense Agency) and NASA, has been formed to offer solid rocket motor
industrial base sustainment recommendations to the Secretary of Defense
for a subsequent report to Congress. The interim report to Congress is
expected to be delivered in June 2010.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. The Pentagon put out a directive for the services to
expand the acquisition corps by thousands of personnel. The Air Force
appears to have aggressively executed this increase in acquisition
professionals. Many organizations are converting contractor employees
to government civilians. According to some observers, there may be a
perception that some individuals are ``being coerced'' and pressured
into leaving their contractor employers and switching to the civil
service as government employees. Has the AF developed a plan for the
conversion of transitioning contractor to government personnel? If
policies have been codified, have procedures been developed on how to
address contractors' concerns of hiring away their personnel to Air
Force civilian positions?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force has an overarching plan for
transitioning certain functions or services currently performed by
contractors to DOD civilian or military performance, or a combination
thereof. The Air Force plan does not include specific policies or
procedures to address contractor concerns regarding the hiring of
contractor personnel.
We acquire talent through open, fair, and competitive hiring
processes, consistent with Merit Systems Principles. Because the Air
Force has positioned itself as an employer of choice, engaged in a wide
range of functions that represent desirable and meaningful work among
jobseekers, we receive applications from a broad range of applicants,
including employees of contractor companies. We are required to
consider all applicants who meet the eligibility and qualification
requirements for the positions we are seeking to fill, without regard
to the organizations that employ them.
We view our contractors as valued partners and greatly appreciate
the talent and skill they bring to the mission. We respect the work
relationship these companies have with their employees.
Mr. Turner. During the hearing, I mentioned I would be submitting a
letter (attached) in which the Air Force Chief of Staff assured Mr.
Hobson and the community that ``If the Air Force receives funding to
procure additional C-17s beyond the current 180, it is our intent to
place C-17s at Wright-Patterson AFB to ensure a follow-on mission for
the 445th Airlift Wing.'' Can you reaffirm the Air Force commitment to
ensuring the continuation of the important mobility mission by
eventually placing C-17s at the 445k Airlift Wing?
General Schwartz. The review and evaluation of additional C-17
basing candidates is nearing completion. Once complete, the Air Force
will make the appropriate Congressional notifications and
announcements.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCMORRIS RODGERS
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. As a Member who represents a KC-135 Air
Refueling Tanker base, I see first hand the impacts the delayed tanker
acquisition has on a community. The KC-135 represents a central piece
of war plans to support the United States and its allies around the
world. Like many, I want to see the new KC-X at the ramps at Fairchild
Air Force Base sooner than later. I understand that we will finally be
seeing the RFP come out this week. What type of timelines can we look
forward to for this project?
General Schwartz. The Air Force released the RFP on 24 February
2010 with proposals due to the government on 10 May 2010. Contract
award is planned for the fall of FY2010. After an approximately four-
year Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, the USAF
estimates the first seven production KC-X aircraft will be delivered in
2015. Final decisions regarding the basing of KC-X are part of a
separate process that will take place at a later date.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. I proudly represent Fairchild Air Force Base
and saw the surge of the operations tempo that has continued to be
maintained at high levels. We are deploying our Airmen more frequently.
The opts temp for our tanker crews right now is to deploy every 90
days. We also have Airmen participating in Joint Expeditionary Taskings
in support of other services. Over the years, the Air Force end
strengths have been reduced significantly. Are you confident that a
mere .15% person increase in the Air Force is sufficient to support the
overall missions now and in the foreseeable future?
General Schwartz. We believe the Air Force's proposed 332,200 AD
end strength in the FY11 budget achieves the right balance between
providing capabilities for today's commitments and posturing for future
challenges, i.e. increasing demands for Intelligence, Surveillance &
Reconnaissance operational capabilities; enhancing cyberspace,
irregular warfare, command and control capabilities to win today's
Joint fight; recapturing Acquisition Excellence; continuing to
strengthen the Nuclear Enterprise; and developing and caring for our
Airmen and their families.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. As you both know, one of every ten Americans
are out of work. We know that it is critical to focus our attention on
creating new jobs in the United States. The KC-X tanker competition
pits an American made airplane against a plane whose major assemblies
will be manufactured in Europe. It seems we have a choice: creating
tens of thousands of jobs here in the United States or sending those
jobs overseas. When the President spoke of creating conditions
necessary for business to expand and hire more workers, I think we all
assumed he was referring to U.S. workers and U.S. jobs. If that is the
case, why is this Administration considering sending the tens of
thousands of tanker manufacturing jobs to Europe?
General Schwartz. The USAF KC-X tanker solicitation is a full and
open competition in the best interest of both the warfighter and
taxpayer. Discussion of a KC-X contract award to any company is
premature at this time. The Department will ensure the tanker
solicitation remains wholly compliant with the current state of law,
including the Buy America Act.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Wouldn't you agree that spouses relying on
the Military Spouse Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program to
further their academic goals should have been notified prior to the
temporary stay in order to make the necessary arrangements with their
school.
General Schwartz. The MyCAA program is administered, and monitored
by OSD rather than the Services. It is not an Air Force controlled
program. When the Air Force was unexpectedly notified on 16 February by
staff from OSD(MC&FP) of a ``pause'' in the MyCAA spouse tuition
assistance program, we provided notification to all installation Airman
& Family Readiness Centers immediately. Air Force spouses were informed
of other sources of financial assistance for education and training
such as the Air Force Aid Society Spouse Tuition Assistance Program for
those stationed overseas, the Hap Arnold Grants for stateside spouses
and the Spouse Employment Program which can provide entry-level job
training with a goal of finding immediate viable employment. We expect
further guidance from OSD regarding program operations for spouses that
are currently enrolled, as well as the long-term status of the program.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. My question is regarding the military humanitarian
mission in Haiti. Can you comment as to whether or not the C-27, Joint
Cargo Aircraft, have been used for the Haiti Humanitarian Relief
Operations and in what capacity? If the aircraft has not been utilized,
can you explain why this tactical asset has not been used to disperse
needed supplies to regions outside the epicenter of Port-au-Prince?
Additionally, I understand the total buy for the C-27 program is 38
aircraft but that is the floor and not the ceiling. To that extent, and
given the change in program leadership, what steps have been taken to
work with the Army to develop a strategy on how to replace the Sherpa
aircraft and to give missions to those units that have the Sherpa or
who were previously slated to receive the C-27 aircraft in the Army?
General Schwartz. No Air Force C-27Js were used in Haiti relief
operations. As of today, the Department of Defense has taken ownership
of three aircraft. These aircraft are undergoing testing and
development. The first operational deployment for the C-27J has not yet
been finalized. The Air Force does not currently plan to increase the
number of C-27Js beyond the current 38 program of record.
The Air Force intent is to support the Direct Support mission
utilizing our entire airlift fleet, as required, to best meet Army
demand. The Air Force is not actively engaged with the Army in
determining the way forward for the C-23 fleet or for Army National
Guard units affected by the transfer of the Direct Support mission to
the Air Force.
Ms. Bordallo. The recent QDR requires the Air Force to conduct a
study on the Long Range Strike program and field a new long range
strike bomber by 2018. However Secretary Gates stated in his recent
testimony before the HASC that a new bomber might well be more than 15
years away. Can you explain what the Air Force is doing to ensure we
execute an efficient and timely study in order to move forward with the
fielding of a New Bomber. Additionally, when can we expect the study to
be completed. Finally, when do you foresee procurement of the new
generation bomber taking place?
General Schwartz. The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) delayed the
development of an Air Force follow-on bomber, which was directed in the
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), until the Department of Defense
could better understand the need, requirement, and technology
associated with the weapon system. Based upon the need for additional
analysis, the SECDEF chartered a subsequent study to examine a broad
array of long-range strike issues and options, including: the
appropriate mix of long range strike capabilities, upgrades to legacy
bombers, manned and unmanned force structure numbers, stand-off and
penetrating platform ratio, stand-off cruise missile requirements,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) demands and
conventional Prompt Global Strike needs. The results of the study are
scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2010. This study will inform
subsequent Departmental decisions on new bomber procurement.
Ms. Bordallo. Our current strategic focus is on counter-insurgency
operations that rely on precision strikes from aircraft on a daily
basis, which require less of a bomb payload. In a major regional
conflict on the order of a Desert Storm or Allied Force or the initial
phases of Iraqi Freedom we dropped a significant payload every day. Do
you believe we have seen our last major regional conflict? If not, In
your opinion, will we need the ability to do that in the future?
Although the QDR tries to strike a balance across the spectrum of
warfare, I'm deeply concerned that we're too focused on the current
counter insurgency conflict we're fighting and not looking enough at
the ways we can deter future regional conflicts that require a stealthy
long range strike capability. Isn't a next generation bomber needed to
better address our deterrence capability in future conflicts?
General Schwartz. The Air Force must be fully prepared to respond
to our Combatant Commanders in support of operations that span the full
spectrum of conflict from counter-insurgency to large scale
conventional campaigns while still maintaining a credible nuclear
deterrence posture. A long-range strike aircraft is one element of our
future strike capability which also strengthens our strategic
deterrence posture. While investments in our legacy bombers sustain our
nuclear deterrence operations and conventional global precision attack
capabilities into the future, the Air Force has also programmed
research and development funds to accelerate development of an enhanced
long-range strike capability to counter the anti-access and area denial
strategies of our adversaries.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that you would verify my
numbers and get back to me on the funding for Operationally Responsive
Space (ORS). The funding from FY09 to FY11 has undergone a 59% cut with
the cut from FY10 to FY11 being 24% (FY09-228.5 million; FY10-124.3
million; FY11-94.0 million). This trend does not indicate that it is a
top priority as you implied when speaking about the space budget in
general. My question pertains directly to ORS and how in an era of ever
increasing demand and looming enemy threat that we reduce a program by
59% that is intended to provide Joint Force Commanders with surge space
capacity and the ability to replenish should our enemies attack our
space assets. Please provide specifics on ORS initiatives and explain
the specific cuts in funding.
Secretary Donley. The Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)
initiatives include completing and launching ORS-1, and continuing the
critical payload, bus, launch, range, and command and control enablers
necessary to make ORS successful. These enablers include the Modular
Space Vehicle (MSV) and the Rapid Response Space Works (RRSW). The MSV
effort supports the design and development of mission kits (modular
payloads and buses) and the RRSW procurement develops the facilities,
capability, and Concept of Operations for rapid assembly, integration,
and testing of tailored ORS systems.
The budget has been relatively stable for ORS funding. It is
approximately $100M per fiscal year from FY09 to FY11 with some
exceptions for launch vehicle expenditures, ORS-1 and congressional
adds. The FY09 funding is $135M higher than FY11 due to three reasons.
The Air Force reprogrammed $39M into ORS when ORS-1 was initiated as an
urgent need in FY09. The FY09 funding line contains $9M for TacSat
launch vehicle expenditures while FY11 doesn't require any TacSat
launch vehicle funding. Additionally, the original FY09 request was
increased by $87M for congressional adds (Infrared Sensor Payload
Development, Micro-Satellite Serial Manufacturing, LEONIDAS, Chip Scale
Atomic Clock, and Missile Range Safety Technology).
The ORS funding in FY10 is approximately $30M higher than FY11 due
primarily to the FY10 funding line containing $18M for TacSat launch
vehicle expenditures, while FY11 doesn't require any TacSat launch
vehicle funding. Additionally, the original FY10 request was increased
by $12M for congressional adds (Micro-Satellite Serial Manufacturing,
LEONIDAS, Rapid Small Satellite Development Test Facilities and Space
Sensor Data Link Technology).
Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that the requirement for
fighters had changed from 2200 to 2024. What specific factors drove
this lower number? Is the lower number based on the near term (5-year)
or the longer (15-20 year) look?
General Schwartz. The lower number of approximately 2000 Total
Active Inventory (TAI) reflects the most current Air Force assessment
of the required fighter force structure to meet National Defense
Strategy objectives through the mid 2020's. The change in the fighter
force structure shortfall was caused by three factors. First, the Air
Force elected to accept a moderate level of warfighting risk. Second
the F-35 planned procurement rate was increased from 48 to 80 aircraft
per year, bringing 5th generation to the field sooner. Third, the
approach to fighter service life computations was refined.
Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that the initial fighter
gap numbers were based on a yearly production rate of 48 for the F-35,
but now you anticipate a production rate of 80. With the program
continuing to sup to the right, what specific change has moved us from
the 48 number to 80? Why were we not looking at 80 to start with? If
the program continues to slip will we see a continuous rise in these
production estimates to mask the fighter gap? When will slips become so
critical that we cannot simply up annual production to close the
fighter gap and what specific other actions are you taking to minimize
risk should the annual number of 80 prove unattainable?
General Schwartz. A yearly production rate of 48 F-35A was
programmed in the FY08 PB based on to fiscal considerations. Production
was increased from 48 to 80 F-35A aircraft per year in the FY11 PB
commensurate with an Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT)
review confirming the feasibility of increasing the production ramp-up
to 80 F-35A a year.
The Air Force is also closely monitoring fighter capability and
capacity shortfalls; conducting full scale fatigue tests (FSFT) on the
F-15C, and starting a FSFT on the F-16 Block 50 in FY11. These tests
will increase the accuracy of determining the remaining service life of
these aircraft, continue to inform service life extension programs
(SLEP), and define when needed SLEP entails maintaining operational
viability through capability and structural upgrades. This option for
the F-16 Block 40-52 aircraft provides essentially the same capability
as new ``4.5 Generation'' fighters at 10 to 15 percent of the cost.
SLEP programs for current fighters and aggressive F-35 program
management will be essential to maintain fighter capability and will be
reviewed as part of the FY12 budget process.
Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony, you stated that the initial fighter
gap numbers were based on a yearly production rate of 48 for the F-35,
but now you anticipate a production rate of 80. You also mentioned that
given these new numbers, a ceiling lowering from 2200 to 2024 aircraft
and 48/yr growing to 80/yr, that the total fighter gap would only be
200 aircraft which was ``within the realm of the manageable depending
on what we do to renovate existing airplanes.'' What are your specific
plans for renovating existing airplanes? Which aircraft are designated
to receive service life extensions or other modernizations to help make
sure that the fighter remains in the realm of the manageable? Is the
money for these upgrades in the existing President's Budget proposal?
If so, how much by aircraft/upgrade?
General Schwartz. The AF will continue to modernize and sustain
legacy fighter aircraft as part of an active force management plan.
Modernization plans include upgrades to Active Electronically Scanned
Array (AESA) radars, integration of advanced weapons, development of
infrared search and track capability, and digital data links to support
communications and navigation. Specifically for individual platforms:
A-10 modernization programs include Precision Engagement which
integrates smart weapons and advanced targeting pods; adds color
displays, moving map, and Hands-on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS); improves
mission effectiveness through rapid target acquisition and
identification. Installations will complete in FY11 at a total program
cost of $388M. Digital Data Link adds Situational Awareness Data Link
radios across fleet. These installations will complete in FY10 at a
total program cost of $55.1M. Mode S/5 will meet international Air
Traffic Management standards and provide enhanced Identification Friend
or Foe (IFF) capability. These installations will complete in FY13 at a
total program cost of $40.1M. Extended Duration Covert Infrared
Countermeasures System which automates identification of infrared
surface-to-air threats and dispensing of countermeasures are funded
within the FY11 OCO, with installations completing in FY12 at a total
program cost of $63.7M.
A-10 life extension programs include Service Life Extension Program
(SLEP) which is scheduled after 8,000 flying hours and provides
detailed structural evaluation and repair. It also includes Scheduled
Structural Inspection (SSI) which follows SLEP at 2,000 flying-hour
intervals as well as the Wing Replacement Program (WRP) that replaces
233 thin-skin wings with redesigned thick-skin wing incorporating a
number of structural improvements. Thin-skin wings will be replaced
during SLEP/SSI, starting in 4th Qtr FY10 with installations (funded
with Operation and Maintenance dollars) complete in FY16 at a total
program cost of $1.2B.
F-16 modernization programs include integration of new precision
weapons, advanced targeting pods, and improved avionics. It is included
in the FY11 PB request at $84.5M (RDT&E). $31.7M for Falcon STAR (APAF)
to bring life-limiting components to the planned service life of 8,000
equivalent flight hours and $20M (RDT&E) to initiate a full scale
fatigue test to scope the additional modifications required to extend
the life of the newer F-16s (Blocks 40-52) beyond their design life of
8,000 equivalent flight hours. Funding to complete the full scale
fatigue test and to do other F-16 upgrades will be addressed in future
budgets.
The F-15 has funded upgrade programs to address both operational
effectiveness and sustainment. Both F-15C/D and F-15E have existing
programs that will replace legacy mechanically-scanned radars with
Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars. AESA radars provide
a significant improvement in reliability and maintainability while
giving the aircraft a radar that has greater power, range and
versatility. Also, both F-15C/D and F-15E are receiving an upgraded
computer to allow the aircraft to use the full capabilities of the new
radars. All four of these programs will extend past the Fiscal Year
Defense Plan (FYDP), but the estimated costs are: F-15C/D AESA radar
$1.5B, F-15C/D computer $180M, F-15E AESA radar $2.5B, and F-15E
computer $165M.
Other modernization upgrades include a new Infrared Search and
Track (IRST) sensor, under development, for the F-15C/D to provide
target tracking and engagement data to supplement the radar for an
estimated $400M; satellite communications for both F-15 C/D and F-15E
for an estimated $65M and $60M, respectively. Also new solid state data
recorders are replacing old magnetic tape recorders for approximately
$56M.
Sustainment upgrades are critical, especially given the extended
service life expected of the F-15. Each aircraft undergoes Programmed
Depot Maintenance in which the aircraft are periodically fully
inspected for wear-related damage. Additionally, the Air Force has just
started a full scale teardown, and a full scale fatigue test of the F-
15C. These tests will provide data needed to plan the sustainment of
the aircraft in the future. The F-15E is scheduled to start these
efforts as soon as they are completed on the F-15C/D.
Mr. Lamborn. In your testimony regarding Operational Responsive
Space (ORS), you stated that another approach to space resilience is
``being able to discern whether our platforms on orbit are at risk or
are being threatened.'' I am glad to see these Space Situational
Awareness initiatives have received a plus up in funding, but at the
same time our defensive and offensive programs to respond to these
threats, our space control programs, received a 40% decrease from FY10
funding (206.1 million down to 124.0 million). My concern is that we
will know we are being attacked, but due to these cuts, we will be
unable to react. Were the cuts in the space control budget primarily to
offensive or defensive capabilities? Which programs were cut and what
was the reasoning behind the cuts?
General Schwartz. The space domain is becoming more congested and
contested, which is why it is increasingly important to focus on
developing a more capable Space Situational Awareness (SSA) capability
with decision support tools, the foundation for all space control
activities. These SSA and decision support capabilities will allow us
to evaluate threats and take appropriate actions. Space control
capabilities are a valuable element of our space portfolio. The
reduction in funding from $92.1M in FY10 to $65.9M in FY11 was planned
primarily due to the Rapid Attack Identification and Reporting System
transitioning from development to the sustainment/enhancement phase and
the Counter Communications System conducting a pre-planned product
improvement incremental improvement vice a new development effort.
Mr. Lamborn. The Army's procurement request includes $506.31
million to buy 26 MQ-1 Predator UAVs. I understand the vital role UAVs
play in the current fight and our national defense. I also know that
the U.S. Army currently fields and flies many smaller UAVs, but the
United States Air Force has been the DOD lead in Predator operations.
Was the Air Force consulted in the Army's Predator procurement plan?
Will these Predators offset the number of CAPs the Air Force has been
tasked to produce (50 in FY10 and 65 by FY11)?
General Schwartz. The Air Force was generally aware of the Army's
plan to procure the MQ-1 to address their organic Service needs, but
was not ``consulted'' directly. The Air Force program will not be
offset by the Army procurement. The Air Force has been tasked and is on
track to provide 50 MQ-1/9 CAPs by the end of FY11 and 65 by the end of
FY13.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIGHT
Mr. Bright. Secretary Donley: Several years ago, the Air Force
established the Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence
(ASACoE) at Maxwell AFB--Gunter Annex in Montgomery, Alabama. I have
toured the facility and been briefed on the Center's activities. I
greatly value the work they are doing to provide application-level
security to protect us from cyber attacks. As such, I have several
questions related to the Center's mission, operation and funding. 1)
Can you explain the goals and objectives of the Center and how you plan
to achieve those goals and objectives? 2) My understanding is that a
major focus of the Center's mission has been to develop application-
level security best practices that can be put in place Air Force-wide.
Does this remain a primary focus? 3) What progress has been made
towards reaching this objective? 4) As the Center has been in operation
since 2007, can you tell me what are some of the more significant
findings that have come from the work at the Center? 5) Can you also
explain how the Center will be aligned within the structure of the new
Cyber Security Command that was recently stood up? 6) What is the long
term plan for providing manpower and funding to complete the Center's
mission? 7) Also with respect to funding, could you tell me how much
funding is included in the FY2011 President's Budget to operate the
Center and conduct the evaluations? 8) Moreover, at this funding level,
how many applications will you be able to evaluate? 9) Finally, if you
had additional resources, would you be able to move faster in
evaluating the applications?
Secretary Donley. 1) The Application Software Assurance Center of
Excellence (ASACoE) was established to help promote and assess software
assurance (SwA) in the Air Force. The goals and objectives of ASACoE
are to: partner with application development program offices to
identify SwA issues and mitigations; foster SwA knowledge; support SwA
as part of certification and accreditation; establish a framework to
support the acquisition and development of assured software products
and assist governing bodies with developing SwA policy. ASACoE has been
evolving to achieve these goals and objectives over the last 2 years.
Our current model utilizes SwA training and education, automated SwA
tools and licensing, on-site SwA assessments, and follow-on support.
2) Yes, the primary objective of the ASACoE remains to improve upon
the assurance of combat and mission support applications and their
underlying data.
3) To date, ASACoE has partnered with over 120 separate program
management offices (PMOs) providing SwA training and evaluation for
over 500 applications. This resulted in identifying approx 3.5 million
software vulnerabilities and gave the PMOs the training and tools
needed to fix those current vulnerabilities and prevent future
vulnerabilities.
4) ASACoE focused on the most vulnerable systems and applications,
which are web-based. Additionally, the ASACoE has, aided with the
security of our more secure, critical systems, such as the embedded
systems of our weapons arsenal and classified systems of our strategic
and intelligence forces. The ASACoE found every application assessed
has software vulnerabilities, with 99% of the applications assessed
having what we categorize as critical vulnerabilities. A critical
vulnerability is one that would allow a potential hacker to gain
elevated access to the application and/or its data. The top three
vulnerabilities found in Air Force applications are: cross-site
scripting, SQL injection, and trust boundary violation (excessive
privilege). The data suggests that the Department of Defense must focus
on securing the work of the net (applications and data structures) in
addition to the network itself. Our ASACoE effort was listed as an OSD
best practice in the ``Report on Trusted Defense Systems'' prepared by
USD(AT&L) and ASD(NII)/DOD CIO submitted to Congress in September 2009.
5) Currently the ASACoE continues to be aligned under Air Force
Materiel Command. Any future re-alignment has not been determined.
6) Currently, the Air Force is evaluating the best way to provide
SwA. This includes evaluating the most cost effective and qualitative
way to ensure that SwA is performed on all existing and future
applications. This includes evaluating whether to centrally perform SwA
evaluation or require it to be performed by each application owner and
developer.
7) There is currently no FY2011 funding identified. ASACoE has been
operating from unfunded requests. There are currently efforts being
made to secure funding for ASACoE if it is the most cost effective and
qualitative solution for SwA.
8) No FY2011 funding is identified. The Air Force is evaluating the
best way to provide SwA.
9) The ASACoE is conducting market research to develop a
streamlined concept of operations that would allow the Air Force to
assess the approximately 3,000-5,000 web applications in existence
today. In this revised concept, the team is reviewing the use/
development of a web-based portal to upload source code to allow the
completion of a rapid triage assessment for these applications within a
10-16 month period. This could allow expansion to potentially enhance
quick scan capabilities, improve prioritization for services, and
improve the training curriculum.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
