[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 112-7]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 17, 2011
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-863 WASHINGTON : 2011
___________________________________________________________________________
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 Twelfth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Cathy Garman, Professional Staff Member
Doug Bush, Professional Staff Member
Megan Howard, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, February 17, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Air
Force.......................................................... 1
Appendix:
Thursday, February 17, 2011...................................... 45
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011
FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.............. 1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 2
WITNESSES
Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force.............. 4
Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force... 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Donley, Hon. Michael B., joint with Gen. Norton A. Schwartz.. 53
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''.............................. 49
Smith, Hon. Adam............................................. 51
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Bartlett................................................. 94
Mr. Coffman.................................................. 98
Ms. Giffords................................................. 98
Mr. Griffin.................................................. 99
Mr. Larsen................................................... 98
Mr. McKeon................................................... 93
Mr. Reyes.................................................... 94
Mr. Scott.................................................... 98
Mr. Smith.................................................... 93
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 111
Ms. Castor................................................... 117
Mr. Coffman.................................................. 119
Mr. Conaway.................................................. 117
Mr. Forbes................................................... 105
Mr. Franks................................................... 116
Ms. Giffords................................................. 113
Mr. Griffin.................................................. 121
Mr. Kissell.................................................. 115
Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 119
Mr. Langevin................................................. 109
Mr. LoBiondo................................................. 112
Mr. McKeon................................................... 103
Mr. Palazzo.................................................. 122
Mr. Runyan................................................... 121
Mr. Smith.................................................... 104
Ms. Sutton................................................... 118
Mr. Turner................................................... 113
Mr. Wilson................................................... 110
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 119
FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, February 17, 2011.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
The Chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank
you for joining us today as we consider the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget request for the Department of the Air Force.
Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, it is good to have you
back before the committee today.
We appreciate all you do, and we are truly grateful for
both of you for your many years of service to our Nation.
Last year at this time, we talked a bit about your vision
for the Air Force and specifically the need for a short-term,
fix-it sort of perspective to a longer-term view that seriously
addresses national security risks in a very challenging global
environment.
At that time, I remarked that I believe the Air Force is at
a critical juncture, one that will prove to be historic, and I
cautioned that we must be wise in the path we chose. I stand by
those remarks today.
There is no doubt that we must take our Nation's financial
position into account, and I appreciate the fact that Secretary
Gates and the Department have identified savings from lower
priority programs and efficiencies that can be reinvested into
force structure and modernization. However, we must be cautious
moving forward that we do not take short-term savings at the
risk of our longer-term security.
This year's budget request for the Air Force reflects a 2-
percent reduction in real growth from the fiscal year 2011
budget request. The Air Force's operation and maintenance
accounts, military construction accounts, and procurement
accounts are all funded below the levels requested last year,
despite inflation and despite rising fuel costs.
This committee needs to clearly understand the risks
associated with these reductions. I understand that the Air
Force identified over $33 billion in efficiencies to support
this budget, but it is unclear to me how much of that funding
was retained and reinvested in the future of the Air Force.
I am also very concerned that many of these efficiencies
are cost-avoidance initiatives and not clear-cut savings, and
as such, they may not actually materialize. We have seen this
from the Air Force before. The most recent examples being a
2006 attempt, before your time, to cut 40,000 personnel in
order to fund procurement efforts and then the end-sourcing
initiatives from the last budget cycle; neither of those worked
out so well. We cannot and must not allow shortsighted budgets
drills to drive our national security priorities and planning.
The Air Force can't continue business as usual. We must
find cost savings through innovation and competition. Just last
week as an example, I was briefed on an innovative approach, a
business model that could significantly reduce the cost of
space launch. And I think you have been informed of that. We
will talk about that.
Echoing my remarks from yesterday's hearing, this Congress
must finish work on defense appropriations legislation that was
left unfinished in the 111th Congress. We have been working on
that now all night, the last few nights, and I guess we hear we
are going to be working all night tonight now and maybe
tomorrow. Given our promise that we were going to be done by
three o'clock today, we had two promises that conflicted: One
was openness and letting everybody participate; the other was a
schedule. The schedule fell to the openness and letting
everybody participate. So with all the work we have done the
last few nights, I am told that there is more left to do than
what we have already done.
So you are going to miss that afternoon flight, as we all
are.
Echoing my remarks from yesterday's hearing, as I just
talked about, I am very concerned about the implications to our
troops of funding the Department of Defense at fiscal year 2010
funding levels in a year-long continuing resolution. One thing
we all agree on and that is we, it would be devastating to the
Defense Department, to our military, to the troops, to have a
year-long CR [Continuing Resolution]. We definitely need--
desperately need to get this appropriations bill done for the
military. Our men and women in uniform deserve more from this
body.
Gentlemen, I look forward to our discussion today and
hearing more from you on your vision, your strategic goals and
your 2012 budget request.
Ranking Member Smith.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I start by agreeing
with you on two critical points: Number one, the need to get a
Defense Appropriations bill this year and not rely on a CR. I
have heard from all the Services as well as many contractors
who are in limbo on a number of different very important
products and a number of--important programs, sorry--if we
don't get that done.
So, hopefully, we will do that. Hopefully we will do it
sooner rather than later, but one way or the other we will move
through the process and get that done.
And also I want to agree with the chairman that as we look
at the budget constraints that we face with our overall budget
and within the Department of Defense as well that we make sure
not to jeopardize our national security needs and priorities as
we do that.
Now Mr. McKeon had alluded to the promise of we will get
you out of here around three and we will have a completely open
process. Occasionally those promises do conflict. And making
sure that we meet all of our requirements within the tight
budget environment that we have is not going to be easy. But I
do believe, based on the testimony from Secretary Gates and
Admiral Mullen yesterday, that both of them and all of you are
doing a very good job of doing that in an efficient,
responsible way.
I think the initial take, finding $178 billion in
efficiencies now, as Secretary Gates said yesterday, the great
quote, he said the outyears are when everybody's dreams come
true. To some degree, that applies even directly to the $178
billion figure that he gave us. So there is going to be more
work required, but I honestly believe that all the services and
the Secretary have really gone in and scrubbed the budget, and
they are looking for places where we can find efficiencies, get
more out of the money we are spending, rethink our requirements
and what we truly need to get the job done.
So I applaud you for that effort.
And I know in the Air Force, it is particularly challenging
because you have significant programatic upgrades that are
being required. You know, the tanker contract, which we are all
hopeful, after a long and tortured history, we will get that
going and get it done.
I know General Schwartz, Secretary Donley, you have worked
very, very hard to make that happen, and we appreciate that.
The Joint Strike Fighter, of course, is a huge program for
the Air Force. Going forward, it needs to get straightened out.
The expanding number of UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] and
other ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance]
platforms, there is a lot that you need to get done in order to
meet the requirements that we are asking of you. And you are
working on it and doing a good job.
And then also the personnel, as many may not be aware, I
mean, starting back in 1990 with the Desert Shield program, the
Air Force has actually been more or less at war for over 20
years now, and that has placed an incredible strain on the
force and the equipment. And we need to make sure that we are
protecting our airmen and their families as we go forward on
that.
With that, I look forward to your testimony. I want to
thank both General Schwartz and Secretary Donley for their
outstanding leadership in the Air Force. And I look forward to
your testimony and your answers to our questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
We have with us today the Honorable Michael B. Donley,
Secretary of the Air Force, and General Norton A. Schwartz,
Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force.
Gentlemen, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Donley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, members of the
committee it is a pleasure to be here today representing more
than 690,000 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian airmen. I
am also honored to be joined today by my teammate and a
tireless public servant, our Chief of Staff, General Norty
Schwartz.
I would first like to recognize the unfortunate absence of
Congresswoman Giffords today. The Air Force knows and respects
Representative Giffords for her strong support of our men and
women in uniform and especially for the airmen who serve at
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and live in the Tucson community.
We certainly wish her a speedy recovery and look forward to her
return to this committee.
Today, I am pleased to report that America's Air Force
continues to provide the Nation unmatched global vigilance,
reach and power as part of the joint team with an
uncompromising commitment to our core values of integrity,
service before self, and excellence in all we do.
The Air Force is requesting $150 billion in our baseline
budget and $16 billion in the overseas contingency operations
supplemental appropriation to support this work.
Our budget request represents a careful balance of
resources among the Air Force core functions necessary to
implement the President's National Security Strategy and
between today's operations and investment for the future.
Before discussing our fiscal year 2012 budget request, I
would like to address some unfinished business from fiscal year
2011 and also set in context the changes in your Air Force over
the past several years.
As you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, operating without a
defense appropriations bill in fiscal year 2011 is having a
significant impact on the Air Force. A decision to extend the
continuing resolution at fiscal year 2010 levels through the
remainder of this year would delay our ability to reach the
Secretary of Defense's directed goal of 65 MQ-1 [General
Atomics Predator unmanned aerial vehicle] or 9 combat air
patrols by 2013 in support of current operations in
Afghanistan. It would cause a production break and a likely
increase in the unit cost of the wideband global communications
satellite, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, F-15
[McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Eagle fighter jet] radar
modernization and other programs.
Deeper reductions to our modernization programs would be
required to fund over $3 billion in must-pay bills for urgent
operational needs in Afghanistan and Iraq, for military health
care, and the military pay raise of 1.4 percent which Congress
authorized but has not funded.
Without fiscal year 2011 appropriations, we face delay or
cancellation of some depot maintenance, weapons system
sustainment and other day-to-day activities in order to
prioritize our most critical needs under the lower funding
levels in a full-year CR.
Finally, fiscal year 2011 appropriations are also required
for 75 military construction projects now on hold which support
ongoing operational needs and improve the quality of life for
airmen and their families. Passing a fiscal year 2011 Defense
Appropriation bill is essential to avoid these severe
disruptions. And we appreciate the efforts that are currently
under way to resolve this situation.
Over the past decade, the Air Force has substantially
reshaped itself to meet the immediate needs of today's
conflicts and position itself for the future. While we have
grown in some critical areas, it has been at the expense of
others. We have added intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capacity with 328 remotely piloted aircraft and
over 6,000 airmen to collect, process, exploit and disseminate
intelligence. We have added over 17 aircraft and nearly 2,400
airmen to bolster Special Operations capacity so necessary in
counter insurgency. We have added over 160 F-22s [Lockheed
Martin/Boeing Raptor fifth-generation stealth fighter jets] and
120 C-17s [Boeing Globemaster transport aircraft] to our
inventory and funded over 30 satellites and added 2,200 airmen
for critical nuclear and cyber operations and acquisitions
support.
In the same period, however, we retired over 1,500 legacy
aircraft. We have cancelled or truncated procurement of major
acquisition programs, shed manpower in career fields less
critical to the fight, and deferred much-needed military
construction in order to balance these capabilities within the
resources available.
In all, during the past 7 years, the size of the Active
Duty Air Force has been reduced from 359,000 in 2004 to
approximately 333,000 today. And the Air Force's baseline
budget, when adjusted for inflation and setting aside the
annual wartime supplemental appropriations, has remained flat.
Looking ahead, we face a multiyear effort to recapitalize
our aging tanker, fighter, bomber and missile forces to
continue modernizing critical satellite constellations, meet
dynamic requirements in cyber domain and replace aging air
frames for pilot training and presidential support.
We continue to recognize the requirement for fiscal
restraint and are committed to remaining good stewards of every
taxpayer dollar, improving management and oversight at every
opportunity. The fiscal year 2012 budget request incorporates
over $33 billion in efficiencies across the Future Year Defense
Plan, which will be shifted to higher priority combat
capability, by reducing overhead costs, improving business
practices and eliminating excess, troubled or lower priority
programs. By consolidating organizational structures, improving
processes in acquisition and procurement, logistics support and
streamlining operations, we have been able to increase
investment in core functions, such as global precision attack,
integrated ISR, space and air superiority, reducing risk by
adding tooth through savings in tail.
We are fully committed to implementing these planned
efficiencies and have already assigned responsibilities to
senior officials and put in place the management structure to
oversee this work and track progress on a regular basis.
Having faced the need to reshape our force structure and
capabilities within constrained manpower and resources over the
past several years, we do not view the current need for
efficiencies as a singular event but as an essential and
continuing element of prudent management in the Air Force.
Our investment priorities remain consistent with minimizing
risk and maximizing effectiveness and efficiency across the
full spectrum of potential conflict. Proceeding with the new
KC-X [next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft] tanker
aircraft, implementing the Joint Strike Fighter restructure,
meeting the combatant commander's need for more ISR, investing
in the long-range strike family of systems, including a new
penetrating bomber, and enhancing space control and situational
awareness, all remain critical capabilities both for today's
and for tomorrow's Air Force.
In addition to these investments, we will continue to
address challenges in readiness, in particular the slow but
persistent decline in materiel readiness most notable in our
nondeployed forces, and the personnel challenges across 28
stressed officer and enlisted career fields, both of which are
the result of today's high operational tempo.
And of course, we will continue to support our Active Guard
and Reserve airmen and their families with quality housing,
health care, schools and community support.
With respect to health care, I would like to convey the Air
Force's support for DOD's [the Department of Defense's] TRICARE
reforms that will modestly increase premiums for working age
retirees, premiums that have not changed since they were
initially set in 1995. Going forward, we must continue to seek
and develop reforms in the benefits that our men and women in
uniform earn to make them economically sustainable over the
long term.
Mr. Chairman, good stewardship of the United States Air
Force is a responsibility that General Schwartz and I take very
seriously, and we remain grateful for the continued support and
service of this committee, and we look forward to discussing
our proposed budget. Thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and
General Schwartz can be found in the Appendix on page 53.]
STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. AIR FORCE
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith and
members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here today
with Secretary Donley representing the men and women of the
United States Air Force.
Congresswoman Giffords' absence saddens us today, but her
spirit compels us to continue our work.
And our airmen continue to inspire us with their dedication
and service and impress us with their many accomplishments.
Quietly and proudly serving alongside their Army, Navy, Marine
and Coast Guard teammates, airmen every day act on behalf of
the American people as stewards of the Nation's trust and
defenders of her security.
This budget request, fully appreciating the extraordinary
fiscal condition that our Nation faces, supports our airmen and
continuing efforts to structure the force for maximum
versatility across the full spectrum of operations for today's
requirements and tomorrow's challenges.
Because of budgetary pressures, I echo Secretary Donley's
concerns about operating under a continuing resolution. And
extending far beyond March 4 without a 2011 appropriations
bill, we will have to reduce flying hours, delay or cancel some
weapons systems sustainment and depot maintenance activity, and
disrupt other day-to-day operations, all of which will
adversely affect readiness and impact our brave men and women
who are preparing to serve or are serving in harm's way.
Consistent with the 2010 National Security Strategy in the
Quadrennial Defense Review, our national military objectives
are to counter violent extremism; defeat and deter aggression;
strengthen international and regional security; and shape the
future force. Airmen are committed to the task of leveraging
air and space power with all of its inherent versatility in
presenting to the President and our national leadership a range
of strategic options to meet those objectives, even while the
Nation continues to grapple with substantial deficits and
related national debt.
To counter violent extremism, airmen continue to make vital
contributions to our Nation's strategic objective of
disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its
affiliates in Afghanistan and elsewhere, thereby inhibiting
their return to former sanctuaries. More than 37,000 airmen,
approximately 6 percent of the force, are forward-deployed
worldwide. Of this group, nearly 30,000 are continuing on a
rotating basis to contribute to operations in the United States
Central Command area of responsibility, including 10,000 airmen
in Afghanistan providing close air support to U.S. and
coalition ground forces, air lift and air refueling, personnel
rescue and air medical evacuation from hostile battle space,
and training and exercises to develop our partner Air Force.
An additional 57,000 total force airmen, or about 11
percent of our force, are forward-stationed overseas providing
capabilities in direct support of our combatant commander
requirements.
And from home stations here in the United States,
approximately 218,000 airmen, or 43 percent of the force,
provide daily support to worldwide operations, standing nuclear
alert, commanding and controlling our satellites, analyzing
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data and much,
much more.
To deter and defeat aggression, we maintain vigilance
across the entire spectrum of conflict while we employ
multirole systems with capabilities that can flex to different
warfighting requirements. At the upper end of the continuum, we
continue to provide two of the Nation's three arms of nuclear
deterrence with steadfast excellence, precision and
reliability. And across the remainder of the operational
spectrum, we will continue to leverage air and space power
capabilities that are vital to the Nation's ability to sustain
a robust conventional deterrent.
This requires the ability to rapidly project power through
the global commons and globally interconnected domains of air,
space and cyberspace. Therefore, in addition to leveraging air
power, we will also magnify our efforts to reinforce our cadre
of space and cyber professionals. We will continue to ensure
precision navigation and timing, secured satellite
communications, timely missile warning and global environmental
sensing for our joint teammates, while we enhance our space
situational awareness that is vital to attributing space-borne
threats and protecting our systems and capabilities.
We will also continue to support the whole-of-nation
efforts to team with international partners in reinforcing
norms for space and cyber activities. And ultimately,
developing a broader range of options to ensure our Nation's
access to and freedom of action in both domains.
To strengthen international and regional security, the Air
Force will translate air power's inherent ability to traverse
vast distances with unmatched speed, ensuring that U.S. forces
are globally available yet through inherent versatility can be
tailored in scale to be regionally focused.
Through a whole-of-nation approach and with mutually
supporting strategies toward this objective, the U.S. Air Force
and the joint team will underwrite defense, diplomatic and
developmental efforts to help address the root causes of
radicalism and aggression and not just through violent
manifestations. For instance, nearly 300 airmen are deployed as
members of the Iraq training and advisory mission, supporting
the development of counterpart capabilities in over 400
specialties.
Similarly, our airmen supporting the combined air power
transition force not only advise Afghan airmen; they help to
set the conditions for a viable and self-sustaining Afghan Army
Air Force to meet a range of security requirements.
Ultimately, these and other coordinated efforts to build
international partner capacities can help to prevent lower
intensity problems from escalating into full-scale crises.
Finally, to shape the future force, we will work to ensure
readiness, training and equipage while contending with serious
budgetary pressures. Our systems and capabilities must be
evermore adaptable to be employed across the full range of
operations while agile command-and-control capabilities and
shared interoperability with our joint and coalition partners.
But flexible air, space and cyber capabilities require
resilient airmen. They are the lifeblood of our Air Force, to
whom we owe our fullest commitment, particularly our Wounded
Warriors and their families. And during this time of sustained
and frequent deployments, we will bolster our capacity to
provide assistance to our airmen in managing both the obvious
and the less obvious challenges of returning home from war.
Since the first of July, 2010, we have made considerable
progress in this regard with the establishment of the
Deployment Transition Center at Ramstein Air Base in Germany,
where nearly 1,200 personnel attended programs to decompress
and begin a healthy reintegration into family and unit of
assignment. We intend to continue this progress.
And as deployment tempos remain high, we will further
strengthen our efforts to develop core components of the Air
Force Resiliency Program in its ongoing assessment of the
fitness of our force. This will inform our efforts as we
continue to improve quality of airmen and family services and
support from child education to base fitness centers to
transition assistance programs.
In closing, I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to affirm my
personal support for the efforts to better control DOD health
care costs.
I respect and I celebrate the service and sacrifice of our
retirees. They are, and they always will be, honored members of
the Air Force family. But I do believe that the current
proposals are both modest and responsible.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, the Air Force remains
steadfastly committed to providing global vigilance, reach and
power for America.
Thank you for your continued support of the United States
Air Force, for our airmen, and of course, for our 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 53.]
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
You both talked about the importance of an appropriation
bill that would fund the Department of Defense for the rest of
this year. We find ourselves in an awkward situation, not
having done the work last year and so now we are trying to
finish it up and at the same time start our work for this year.
We are 5 months into the year. We have on the floor right
now a CR which contains a cut of $16 billion over the request
for this year, which leaves about $2 billion more than was
spent in fiscal year 2010. The Secretary was here yesterday and
reaffirmed his strong position for the one engine for the F-35
[Lockheed Martin Lightning II fifth-generation stealth fighter
jet]. And he was successful, a vote on the floor last night
eliminated the second engine. In so doing, the amendment that
was passed takes the $450 million and takes it out of the
defense budget, puts it into payment against the debt, so that
$2 billion is now about $1.5 billion.
And we also have other amendments on the floor today that
will be proposing further cuts in defense. The problem, as I
see it, as we start our work for next year not having done the
work last year is, where do you see yourself starting? You have
presented a budget, and we don't really have a starting number
because we don't know where we are going to be. It could
actually even be less than was spent last year.
So when you talk about the things we did in the
authorization bill at the end of last year that gave a raise to
our troops, I don't know if you had that in your budget, but it
would put us in a real quandary, I am sure, as we move forward,
along with many of the other things that you have mentioned.
The $33.3 billion in savings for efficiencies I have a
couple of questions on. First of all, how do you intend to
track the realization, now those were over 5 years so it is not
all in this budget that you are proposing, but I would like to
know how you intend to track the realization of those savings
and what you expect to spend those savings on that gives us
modernization and does a better job for us than the things that
you have realized in the savings? If you could respond to
those. Thank you.
Secretary Donley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To one of the initial comments you made concerning the pay
raise, the fiscal year 2012 budget assumes a 1.6 pay raise for
military personnel. There is no pay raise assumed for civilians
for fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 in the President's
budget. So that is the status of our pay proposals.
To the subject of efficiencies, yes, as I indicated, we did
propose and get approved $33 billion in savings across the
Future Years Defense Program. For the Air Force, those were
broken up into about 12 different categories of activities,
ranging from energy, IT [Information Technology] consolidation,
consolidation of headquarters, infrastructure, and acquisition,
changes in our acquisition process going forward.
Those were not cost-avoidance kinds of assumptions. Those
dollars were assumed in our out-year program and were tracked
in particular accounts. So we can track where we are against
that database. So for each of those 12 areas, we have
identified a senior officer or SES [Senior Executive Service],
a civilian, to be the champion for that work. They have all
come in with initial plans for how they intend to achieve those
savings across the future year plan. We had lots of discussion
on these matters before settling on the targets in the
categories.
So I think we have had several months of work on this now
under our belt, and we have champions for each of those 12
categories, and we have an oversight process, which will bring
them back to our Air Force council on a regular basis to report
progress.
Just on the flip side, we have been able to fully fund and
normalize funding for the EELV, the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle family of launchers, which had been underfunded. And we
put over $3 billion against that in the FYDP [Future Year
Defense Plan]. We have been able to start work on a new
penetrating bomber. We have put dollars into enhanced F-15
radars, and we have done a number of other proposals as well.
Chief.
General Schwartz. I would just mention one more, sir, to
give you a sense of how we are also trying to normalize the
contingency accounts versus the base budget in that we brought
the MC-12 [Beechcraft twin-engine turboprop aircraft]
operational costs, that is intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance light aircraft, from the contingency account
into the base budget. And so that was enabled through these
efficiencies, and that is real capability that will stay with
us and should stay with us, rather than perhaps retiring it at
the conclusion of the current engagements.
The Chairman. Let me thank you for that.
Let me just ask a question. If we had gotten our work done
last year by--let's say if we had gotten it done before the
year end, September 30, you had money that would have been in
there for a pay increase for last October 1 to the coming
September 30. If, in fact, we end up with what is on the floor
today and there are no further changes, and it ends up at
$533.5 billion, something like that, which is considerably
under what your request was for this year that would have been
done for last year, what does that do to the raise that we had
voted for the troops for the year that we are halfway through?
Secretary Donley. Well, sir, the current picture that I
think I have painted but I would like to make sure that you
understand is that we have broken acquisition programs as a
result of staying at a fiscal year 2010 level. And I
articulated the particular programs that have been affected by
the extension of a CR.
But we also have bills to pay on the operations side,
health care bills to pay. The pay raise is being, 1.4 percent
approved by Congress last year, is being paid out to our----
The Chairman. Starting last October.
Secretary Donley. Starting last October, it simply means
that our personnel account, the last payroll of this fiscal
year is uncovered. So we cannot make payroll for the last pay
period this fiscal year. And because we have those operational
costs in front of us that are must-pay bills, we will dig
further into our modernization accounts. We will break programs
further to get the resources reallocated toward the must-pay
operational bills. That is our site picture if we had to extend
a full-year CR at fiscal year 2010 levels.
The Chairman. And that extends across all the Services. So
there is jeopardy about how they are going to be paid at the
end of the year.
Secretary Donley. That is correct. One thing I would like
to offer for your consideration, the lower the number is for
fiscal year 2010, the more flexibility that the Department
needs to move funding across accounts because we have to make
some massive adjustments in our budget mid-year, so we would
need special consideration to do that.
We think the better approach is to fund what is required
for fiscal year 2011. But if that is not feasible for some
reason, we have got to have flexibility to cover these costs.
The Chairman. And if someone is assuming that these cuts
that we are talking about won't affect the troops, they are
probably mistaken.
Secretary Donley. Absolutely.
The Chairman. If you would consider not getting your pay
raise affecting the troops.
Secretary Donley. Well, we would have to make significant
changes in our budget in order to make sure that last pay
period is covered.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ranking Member Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen. I have two sets of questions.
Actually I am working with Congresswoman Giffords' staff to
make sure that her questions and concerns are addressed during
the hearing, and I am doing that myself, so I have some for her
district and then a couple on broader issues as well.
As you mentioned in your opening remarks, Davis-Monthan Air
Force Base is in her district. Her staff in her notes that they
gave me said that she always refers to it as the best Air Force
base in the Nation. I am in a bit of an uncomfortable spot to
say that, seeing as how McChord Air Force Base is in my
district. I guess technically it is a joint base now. So best
joint base. Best Air Force base; that is Congresswoman
Giffords' opinion at any rate. And it is a great place. I am
going to have the opportunity to go down there and visit it at
the end of March.
And the one question she had about the base there is a
consolidation of the Air and Space Operation Centers the 612th
is at Davis-Monthan and the 601st is in Florida. I just wanted
to do to know what the process was going to be for that
consolidation and also what impact that might have on the Air
Forces Southern Command's capabilities in this area?
I will take a quick comment on that and then also if you
could submit something to her office for the record, that would
be great, too.
General.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 98.]
General Schwartz. Congressman, we would be happy to do
that.
Just quickly, this is one of the efficiencies that gained
us the 33-plus billion in savings we identified earlier. The
fundamental logic of this was that our Air Operation Center, we
had one aligned for each of the ten combatant commands. And
that is the right alignment. But it turned, the reality was
that we were never able to man those centers to 100 percent.
And as we looked at this, we had to ask ourselves, are
there ways to be more efficient, to economize? And there were
two locations that came to mind. One was in Europe where the
617th supports AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command], and the 603rd
supports EUCOM [U.S. European Command], and they are
essentially at the same location but now separate. And it made
clear sense to consolidate there.
Likewise, domestically, as you are well aware, during the
Haiti operation, it was the 601st AOC [Air Operations Center]
that actually did most of the work for Southern Command during
the Haiti contingency. And that certainly raised the specter in
our own minds, might it be possible to consolidate those two
missions in a way that would serve both NORTHCOM [Northern
Command] and SOUTHCOM [Southern Command]? We think that is the
case.
We have a strategic basing process, sir, that we will go
through, establish criteria, objective criteria, and evaluate
both Davis-Monthan and Tyndall, the current locations of both
of those Air Operations Centers for which is the best location
to consolidate. And that decision will be taken later this
spring or early summer.
Mr. Smith. Right. Thank you.
And the only other area for Congresswoman Giffords is on
energy. That has been a major focus of hers. The largest
consumer of energy in the United States is the Department of
Defense, so anything we can save there is great. Obviously, the
Air Force fuel is a major, major issue, and I know you have
launched a number of efficiencies and alternative programs. Can
you give us some idea of the savings you envision being able to
do in that area.
Secretary Donley. Sir, we have, in part of our efficiencies
and savings package, we have assumed about $700 million in
savings across the Future Year Defense Program.
Mr. Smith. How is that achieved? Just quickly what are the
big programs that drive the savings?
Secretary Donley. There are a number of pieces to it.
Some of it is investing in energy projects which will make,
help us manage our energy assets more carefully and more
closely. It involves bringing into the flying units, especially
the large aircraft operated by Air Mobility, Air Force Mobility
Command, the--more efficiency and flight profiles by bringing
in commercial best practices that are used in commercial
airliners today; more, better aids to navigation, those sorts
of issues that will improve flight profiles.
It also involves investing in renewables. We have about 400
projects across the Air Force that are working on energy
efficiency. Well over 50 of those are focused on renewable
sources of energy. And certainly, in the Southwest, solar is
big.
It also involves investing in early demolition of aging
infrastructure that we don't need so we can get it off our
books and take a away future bills by eliminating excess
buildings, for example. Those are the highlights.
Mr. Smith. I think it is also important to point out the
technology on alternative fuels is getting to the point where
you can fly, even very complicated, very sophisticated Air
Force airplanes, with alternative fuels. Now there is a scale
problem. You have to make sure you have enough of it to be
sustainable. But there is great promise I think in those areas.
Thank you.
I just have a couple of questions of my own.
General Schwartz, you had a fairly colorful way recently of
describing the difficulties in our Air Force acquisition
program. I won't repeat that here in public, but I will say
that I completely agree with the sentiment that we have had a
major, major problem in a variety of different areas of going
for too much in our acquisition programs, and that certainly
hasn't been peculiar to the Air Force. It has happened across
the services, but it has cost us an enormous amount of money
and left us with not as much to show for it as it should have.
One particular area in space, we have had a major challenge
on that in terms of figuring out what the right mix of
satellites is and launch vehicles. But broadly speaking, can
you elaborate a little bit? Because that is a critical point.
If we are going to save money, get the best equipment to our
troops, we are going to have to be smarter about how we do
this. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit on what you see
there?
General Schwartz. Sir, there are a couple of areas where
there is real promise. The way we buy satellites today is one
at a time and just to meet the need, so just-in-time delivery
of satellites means that you build one; you wait 4 or 5 years,
and you build another one, and so on. And it entails not only
stop-start of workforce but nonrecurring engineering and all
expenses that are associated with not having a continuous
workload. And so one of our efforts which we intend to
undertake is an effort both with AEHF [Advanced Extremely High
Frequency], the advanced communication satellite and SBIRS
[Space-Based Infrared System]--that is the early-warning
satellite--to suggest that we will build satellites in blocks,
more than one, to get up the learning curve to earn the
efficiencies that that brings along with it.
And likewise, on the launch side, instead of buying two
this year and eight the next year, to suggest that we will try
to stabilize that as well, and to do this across the
Government, not just DOD. But DOD, the NRO [National
Reconnaissance Organization] and NASA [National Aeronautics and
Space Administration] together, instead of competing against
ourselves, we will go to the providers for these services to
together.
These are the kinds of efforts that we think will yield
efficiencies. It will need your support, sir, because there
are, particularly on satellite side, there will be a need for
traditional appropriations, some advanced appropriation, and so
on. And so we will have to discuss that with you.
Mr. Smith. We will be very, very happy to support that. And
I think it is a critical issue across the DOD. And essentially
the best way it was ever put to me is when I was serving on the
Intel Committee and we were talking about satellites, you can
sort of imagine what you want. So it is like, well, we will
build this one, and then next time we will be able to do all
this other stuff, and then someone said a computer model will
build, will beat an actual piece of equipment every day of the
week, but it is just a computer model. It is a vision off in
the future that may or may not come to pass and may or may not
do what we need. So I applaud you on that.
Two final things. One I will just take for the record. I am
curious what your thoughts are on how the joint basing
arrangement is going. I think it is working great out at Joint
Base Lewis-McChord. You have got two colonels out there, Army,
Air Force, who are working very closely together, doing a great
job. But I am curious if you could submit for the record when
you get a chance what we can do to make that work better. I
think it is a very positive step in the right direction.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 93.]
Just a quick comment on the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System] upgrade, Joint STARS [Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System] upgrade program. This is an ISR
platform based off of a 707 air frame now, and you are looking
at ways to upgrade that capability. Sort of two ways to go: One
is just figure out a way to make the 707s that you have work
better; two would be to upgrade the platform to the 737. I am
curious what you think is the best approach and when you going
the make a decision on that.
General Schwartz. Sir, there are a couple of options. We
currently have direction, both from within the Department and
in language to pursue a re-engining effort for the E-8 JSTARS
platform, and subject to appropriations, we will be acquiring
up to four ships sets to accomplish both test and validation of
that modification to give us information on what a re-engining
effort on the E-8 would mean for the long-term future. We have
an analysis of alternatives underway which will conclude late
this spring, which is not just looking at re-engining of JSTARS
and perhaps improving the radar that is inherent in that
platform. But as you suggested, the P-8 is an option, the Navy
airplane, and there are others. The Block 40 Global Hawk is a
possibility. Likewise, there are business class jet
applications that are also a possibility.
And so this study is looking at those to discern, what is
the best blend to deal with the Ground Moving Target Indicator
mission, the GMTI mission. That is where we are at sir.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, both of you, for your
service.
General Schwartz, as you know, in 1979, the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force wrote Congress asking the Congress to support
funding for the alternate engine for the F-35.
Why did the Chief of Staff feel a need to ask for funding
over and above the President's budget that year for funding for
an alternate engine?
General Schwartz. Sir, I will tell you my view of the
alternate engine. It begins by stating that this is not 1979.
The reality is that engines have matured considerably both in
terms of design, in terms of manufacture, in terms of material,
in terms of durability and so on, and reliability.
My view is simply this, that competition in the ideal is
desirable. I agree with you, sir.
Mr. Bartlett. Having said that, sir, I would like to put a
little chart up on the screen. I believe that your staff had
that yesterday. I hope that it has been shown to you. You can
look at look on the screen to see it.
Last year, the Air Force provided a graphic to the
committee based on a committee request for information on the
Air Force experience with a primary and alternate engine for
the F-16 [General Dynamics Fighting Falcon fighter jet]. How
would you interpret the F-16 major accident trends for both the
primary and alternate engines?
General Schwartz. Again, the F-100 engine was, in the early
days, was an immature platform. And my point here is that the
engines we are using today are much more mature, much more
reliable, as we have demonstrated in the F/A-18 [McDonnell
Douglas/Boeing Hornet fighter jet], in the F-22, and, you know,
certainly in the big airplanes. But in terms of the high-
performance engines, as you note on your chart, sir, that the
loss rate due to engine malfunctions has declined precipitously
over the last 30 years. That is a factor in our recommendation
not to pursue an alternate engine.
Mr. Bartlett. But, sir, for these two engines, I note that
it is just a positive correlation, which does not necessarily
mean a cause-and-effect relationship, but there certainly is a
positive correlation between the introduction of the alternate
engine and the drastic reduction of the mishap rate.
Mr. Secretary, last year the GAO [Government Accountability
Office] provided the committee with a graphic on its analysis
of the average procurement unit cost per engine for both
engines of the F-16. The F-16 primary alternate engine
manufacturers began competing in the mid 1980s. How would you
describe price trends before and after the introduction of the
alternate engine for the F-16? And I think that chart is up on
the screen for you, too.
Secretary Donley. Mr. Bartlett, I would like to look at
this more closely and give you an answer for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 94.]
Mr. Bartlett. Well, sir, as you look at the chart, it is
pretty obvious that the price came down. As a matter of fact,
the GAO indicated in its 2007 report on the alternative engine
that prices for the F-16 engine decreased by an average of 21
percent over the four years they analyzed it.
Again, sir, this is just a positive correlation. It does
not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect relationship.
But if you have enough of these circumstantial evidences,
positive correlations, you begin to get a picture of that.
I have one more brief question.
Secretary Donley, in 2009, the Secretary of Defense
cancelled the CSAR-X combat search and air rescue program,
stating that the department was conducting a review of DOD-wide
assets that could conduct this mission. At that time, the CSAR-
X was the number two Air Force acquisition priority. What is
the status of this review? And does the Air Force plan on
restarting the CSAR-X program?
Secretary Donley. We are currently looking at the
requirements for a future CSAR platform in conjunction with the
HH-60 [Sikorsky Pave Hawk CSAR helicopter] loss replacement
program that has been underway during the current conflicts.
And also the replacement of other UH-1 [Bell utility
helicopter]--of UH-1 capabilities across the Air Force, in
particular in support of the missile fields and the nuclear
mission, and a few other UH-1 units across the Air Force.
Our goal is to see if we can get those requirements aligned
so that we can get a cost-effective solution to our vertical
lift challenge in all of those areas. But I think the chief can
amplify a little bit for you.
General Schwartz. Sir, our goal here is to approach this as
a minimally developmental effort. In other words, to secure a
vertical lift capability that is largely off the shelf that we
could modify to do both the combat rescue mission, rescue
hoist, so on and so forth, as well as the nuclear site support
mission, which would mean fewer modifications.
Fundamentally, though, the approach, as opposed to CSAR-X,
which was a highly developmental effort, we are looking at
being less ambitious and approaching this as a minimally
developmental effort.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conaway. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes, is recognized 5
minutes.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for being here with us.
Just 2 weeks ago, I was with the chairman and another
member of the committee in Afghanistan. We actually got an
opportunity to fly the Osprey, which is the equivalent of the
CV-22 [Bell-Boeing tilt-rotor aircraft] for the Air Force; and
I had an opportunity to ask some of the crew members how it was
going, how it was flying, what their thoughts were. And they
seemed to love it, they seemed to think that it was performing
well, that it gives the Marines capabilities that they don't
have, or they didn't have, with the CH-46 [Boeing Vertol Sea
Knight transport helicopter].
And since the Air Force Special Operations Command has the
CV-22, I'm curious, in spite of the crash that occurred in
Afghanistan where we, unfortunately, lost four crew members,
I'm curious to know your assessment of the CV-22. And if you
have any information as to the operations that are ongoing in
Afghanistan, that would probably be very useful for us.
General Schwartz. Congressman, the airplane does things
that a conventional helicopter could never imagine doing, and I
have some experience in this area. In our case, it succeeded
the MH-53J Pave Hawk helicopter or Pave Low helicopter, I'm
sorry, a very good machine in its own right. But what this
combines is the capacity to go vertical in tight spaces as well
as have a block speed that's like a turboprop; and so you can
get to locations quickly and operate in a vertical dimension,
which is unlike any other platform that we've ever operated. It
is performing well; and there is great confidence, not just by
the air crew, sir, but also by the shooters, by the people who
get to the target via this mode of transportation.
The only thing I would mention is that we have experienced
greater-than-expected wear on engines. In part, this is due to
the environment in Afghanistan; in part, it's because we think
we need a particle separator apparatus on the airplane. But the
bottom line is we're working the engine issues with both Rolls,
who is the manufacturer, and Boeing, who is the prime, and
we'll fix that in time.
Mr. Reyes. Is there a process in place that gives feedback
in terms of perhaps some of the concerns that some Members of
Congress--and I ask this because we just had a vote on this a
couple of days ago, and members are asking questions about the
operation of the aircraft, the feasibility and that. So I'm
curious to know if there is a way that you can provide the
crews and the feedback from those involved in the operation of
this aircraft to us.
General Schwartz. Sir, we would be happy to gather the sort
of anecdotal testimony, if you will, from the operators and
maintainers; and we'll put that together for you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 94.]
Mr. Reyes. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the Osprey that we flew in
in Afghanistan. We talked to the crews, and it seemed to be
performing up to the expectations. But I think, in lieu of that
vote that we took earlier, I think it would be beneficial to
get some feedback for Members of Congress so that they could
see.
Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's my understanding that next week perhaps we're going to
get an announcement on the tanker, the long-overdue tanker. But
I've also heard the rumor that the Air Force has decided to
issue or the DOD has decided to issue a stop-work order
immediately after the announcement because of an anticipated
protest from whoever loses. Please tell me that's not so.
Secretary Donley. Sir, we have resources available to put
against the engineering and manufacturing development contract
that will go with the source selection on the tanker, and we
will modulate the funding for that based on where we are in the
process.
Mr. Rogers. There's going to be a no stop-work order issued
then.
Secretary Donley. We're going to modulate the funding for
EMD [Engineering and Manufacturing Development] based on where
we are in the process. We will be just days after this source
selection process and just days into a signature of a contract,
so there's going to be no appreciable effect on the ramp, if
you will, in the immediate days after the decision.
Mr. Rogers. I just know I'm sure you have a full
appreciation of the fact that everybody on this committee wants
to see that tanker start being built. Talking about the best
Air Force base in America, Maxwell--I'm sorry. I was mistaken.
It's the best Air Force in the world--are you aware of the dorm
problems they're having for the visiting students that is
grossly underavailable and in some of the dorms that we've got,
they are pretty antiquated? I know that everybody in a blue
uniform in here has been to Maxwell if they're an officer, so
you're probably familiar what I'm talking about.
Secretary Donley. I have seen the dorms at Maxwell. I'm not
aware of the current problem. But we do have a dormitory master
plan across the Air Force that has tiered the requirements and
the sequence of our investments for dormitories. I'm sure it is
in that mix.
Mr. Rogers. I hope you will. I know you've got a lot of
things to do, but if you could visit that plan and just look
and see if you do have something in the near future to address
the shortage that we've got at Maxwell, I would appreciate it.
And then just have one of your staffers let me know like what
outyear you see that target being hit.
And then, lastly, can you talk to me a little bit about
your future planning for professional military education
efforts, specifically at Air University in Montgomery?
General Schwartz. Sir, we certainly don't anticipate any
change. I mean, as you're well aware, we have everything from
Air and Space Basic, to Squadron Officer School, to Air Command
and Staff, to Air War College, the School of Advanced Air and
Space Studies. I mean, it is--you know, I didn't end up going
there because I didn't qualify, but it is the intellectual
capital of the Air Force. Those courses are essential. And we
also do more near-term activity there, including one commander
courses, group commander courses, preparing people to lead. So,
Congressman, there will be--there's no expectation of altering
the footprint of education and training activity at Maxwell.
Mr. Rogers. Excellent. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, again, for being before us.
Space is increasingly congested, competitive, contested,
and the level of funding for the space situational awareness,
or SSA as we all know it, is 27 percent lower than the fiscal
year '11 request level, and it's also lower than the fiscal
year '10 request. So my questions to you are, does this reflect
a decrease in our focus on SSA, and how do the recent
agreements with France and Australia support progress on SSA?
Secretary Donley. Well, Ms. Sanchez, space situational
awareness is a foundation in the space domain, and it is a
mission of growing importance not just to the Air Force but to
the joint community as well as we turn our attention to this
domain, as you described the words out of the national security
space strategy.
Immediate funding for space situational awareness was
impacted by a programmatic decision that we made this year not
to proceed with SBSS [Space Based Space Surveillance] Number
Two. We had launch of SBSS One last year. It has been
successful. But the cost and the capability that we intended to
get from SBSS Two did not match, in our view. So we cancelled
that SBSS Two. We are now in the process of evaluating what
comes after and seeing if we can develop more cost-effective
solutions going forward.
So that was really the main driver in the change in SSA
funding, but it reflects no diminishment of our interest in
this mission there. It is a very important one going forward,
and I think the reference you made to the international
agreements recently signed with both Australia and France is
evidence of that.
Part of our strategy going forward is to do this work more
effectively with international partners and also commercial and
industry partners where we can. So part of our emphasis in the
space community is to recognize that we cannot do all this work
alone and to build the necessary partnerships that will support
our interests and our pocketbooks going forward.
Ms. Sanchez. General, are you fine with that answer?
General Schwartz. Yes. I would only add that, on the Space
Fence side, there was no change. In 2015, the so-called Space
Fence, the ground--the surface surveillance capability of space
will proceed as was previously programmed.
And, in addition, there is an aspect of this that has to do
with the space operation center out at Vandenberg and the
capacity to understand the potential for collisions and so on
and so forth and be able to share that both with industry
partners as well as appropriate international partners, too.
Ms. Sanchez. My other question has to do with the
industrial base, the space industrial base. Obviously, as a
Californian, I'm very interested in that.
We continue to tell our people don't worry about losing
jobs in factories, making televisions, because, you know, we're
putting more money into education, we're doing the new, new
thing. A part of that is, of course, the space industrial base.
So my question is, can you talk a little bit about what the
plan is for sustaining the space industrial base and making
sure that we take full advantage of commercial space industry
resources as well? Because it seems--I mean, these things cost
quite a bit of money. How do we make that more cost-effective
and really continue to be a leader when it comes to these
assets of space?
Secretary Donley. I think, as the chief discussed a little
bit earlier, we have sort of two--several lines of work under
way to focus on this challenge. We do recognize the importance
of this base. We do recognize the challenges that it has faced
in the way that the military and other parts of our government
have bought both launch services and satellites.
So, on the launch side, we've added money to EELV to
normalize that program in the out-years, focused on trying to
stabilize the industrial base and also our costs going forward.
So we have worked closely with the National Reconnaissance
Office and with NASA based on some work done by the Defense
Science Board to identify the minimum number of launches that
need to be covered each year.
That number is about nine; and between the Department of
Defense, NRO, and NASA we have coordinated on a memorandum of
understanding that will provide for our continuing coordination
going forward to fund that minimum level. We need to go work on
the cost and the pricing that go with that.
But, fundamentally, on the launch side, what we have done
is to decouple our approach to launches and to payloads. And in
prior years we had focused on not buying--always having the
launcher tied to the payload. And so when we had payload delays
the requirements for launchers, as the chief described earlier,
went up and down wildly. And this perturbated the industrial
base and cost us more money. So our approach now is to buy the
launchers independently, ensure we have a stable base going
forward, and hold for later decision the timing of when the
launchers and the payloads get married up together.
That explains sort of the launch side.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
I know that you are both aware that the ECSS [Expeditionary
Combat Support System] program is a major part of an important
initiative known as the Expeditionary Logistics for the 21st
Century, a strategy that is expected to result in a 10-percent
cost savings of at least $12 billion when fully fielded over
the Future Years' Defense Programs for the Air Force.
The program is currently undergoing a Critical Change
Report, CCR, process that has extended beyond the original
forecasted completion date and certainly is questioning the
program's funding. I know that both of you are aware that one
of the reasons why the program is undergoing a CCR is because
it experienced an 18-month delay due to contract protests and
an additional 9-month replanning delay, neither of which were
caused by the program itself. Further delay, obviously, would
result in some interruptions in the program.
I would like, if you would please, for both of you to
comment on the status of the program. I think we certainly have
had a significant amount of comment, positive comments that
have been made about the program and what it will accomplish on
behalf of the Air Force in the past; and I would like to know
the status.
And then, as you gentlemen are aware, I'm the chairman of
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee; and, in looking at the
budget, I have several questions. I'll give them to you all at
once.
With respect to the new bomber, obviously, from the
perspective of my subcommittee, we're very curious as to
whether or not the first lot of these new bombers will be
nuclear capable and nuclear certified.
With respect to the issue of dual-capable aircraft, does
the fiscal year '12 request contain funding to make the Joint
Strike Fighter nuclear capable?
And with respect to ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic
missile], does the fiscal year '12 request contain funding for
an ICBM follow-on study?
And then with respect to cruise missiles, does the fiscal
year '12 request contain funding for a follow-on air launched
cruise missile and will it be nuclear capable?
Gentlemen.
General Schwartz. Sir, why don't you let me give that a
try; and then you can fill in the blanks.
Sir, on the expeditionary combat support system, it is an
enterprise resource planning system, it's an ERP, and it's an
important one. It is something that all of you here who
understand big business know that, to really be able to monitor
the numbers, you've got to have a system like this. But they
are hard. They are difficult to implement, and they're
difficult to fuel, and they are not cheap. And you know we have
struggled a bit to try to get this up and running.
We have now two modules which are running. One has to do
with transportation and vehicle management. The second one has
to do with inventory management at the installation level. The
third one is a harder one that has to do with supply chain
management.
And so we have looked at this extensively; and it's our
view that this is something, as hard as it is, that we have got
to stick with. And so you will be hearing that from the
Department. I think that we request Congress' forbearance to
press on, even though our performance to date has been
lackluster, to be candid.
I would only mention, in addition, that this is part of our
strategy for achieving a capability to be audit-ready. You
can't be audit-ready if you can't smash the numbers, and this
is one of the vehicles for doing that, sir.
The second thing, on the bomber. It will be nuclear-
capable. It probably won't be nuclear-certified at the outset.
F-35 DCA dollars--that's dual-capable aircraft dollars, sir--
are not in the '12 program. That is a decision that's further
out. It's probably '14, as opposed to '12.
On the ICBM, we currently have a mission analysis under way
that will lead to a formal analysis of alternatives in '13; and
that's when it will be funded.
And, finally, on the ALCM [air launch cruise missile],
there's about $800 million in the '12 proposal for a follow-on
air launch cruise missile; and, likewise, there's an analysis
of alternatives under way that will conclude in '13.
Mr. Turner. And will that follow-on be nuclear-capable for
the cruise missile air launch?
General Schwartz. Clearly. The purpose for the follow-on
air launch cruise missile is the nuclear capability, yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. Excellent. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and
Secretary; and, General Schwartz, thank you for appearing today
and service to our country.
I represent Anderson Air Force Base, one of the finest and
most scenic Air Force bases in the country.
Just a comment first, gentlemen. I remain extremely
supportive of the C-27J [Alenia Spartan military transport
aircraft] program, but I remain deeply concerned about the
program cut from 78 aircraft to 38. So I hope that we will
continue to examine the lack of rationale for these cuts and
work toward ensuring that we have a truly functional tactical
airlift capability.
Now, my first question is for either witness. As you know,
the Navy signed a record of decision on the Guam military
buildup back in September of last year. As the Department
continues its planning with regards to land acquisition, I
remain skeptical that deals can be reached on Guam without
significant changes to the Navy's plans. Further, the footprint
of the Marines on the east coast of Guam to accommodate firing
ranges is inconsistent with local land use. A contiguous Marine
base is not likely attainable, and the land issues involved in
achieving a base are daunting. So, as such, to what extent is
the Air Force working with the Guam Oversight Council and the
Department of the Navy to utilize some of Anderson Air Force
Base for Marine basing requirements? What type of challenges or
impacts should the committee be aware of if some marines are in
the main cantonment area and some are on Anderson?
General Schwartz. In fact, Congresswoman, they will be on
Anderson. On the west side, Marine aviation will have its own
area that they will use.
At the same time, however, I think it's important to
recognize--and I know you appreciate this--that Anderson is a
strategic location and that what we need to do is not think
about trying to dense-pack Anderson, but, rather, we also need
to consider what likely contingencies might unfold and what
might have to fall in on Anderson in the event of such a
contingency. So we want to make as much of Anderson available
as is prudent but not so much that we constrain future
contingency operations. This is the tension.
Ms. Bordallo. I understand.
General Schwartz. And something that we do need to keep in
mind.
With respect to the contiguous nature of the Marines and so
on, again, our approach has been to be as supportive as
possible. And what we have asked the Navy and the OSD [Office
of the Secretary of Defense] folks that are working this
problem is to consider all the Federal properties, not new
properties but existing Federal properties, for potential bed-
down locations for the Marine Corps presence.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. Thank you, General.
My second question is for either the Secretary or the
General. Can you update this committee on the progress of
filling Air National Guard units with missions, particularly
flying missions, that were lost to the result of BRAC [Base
Realignment and Closure] 2005 decisions? What is the progress
on this issue? I remain concerned that there are still Air
Guard units with bridge missions and that we continue to
hemorrhage flying capabilities out of these units, and I hope
you can continue to work with me on a flying mission for Guam.
We are missing a key capability out there.
Secretary Donley. Well, we continue to work those issues
location by location. The simple fact is that many of the units
that have been in the fighter business over the years, the
fighter force structure has been shrinking over time. So we are
looking at alternative missions going forward.
We've used the MC-12s to work through those issues. We've
used the C-27s to work through those issues. The MQ-1, MQ-9
[General Atomics Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle] bed-down
issues all have been part of our considerations as we take--
where we do have new capability and new resources coming into
our force structure.
But the one-for-one replacement models are simply not
feasible going forward anymore. So we're having to--as we shed
legacy aircraft or missions, we have to bring in the new
capability and find homes for those; and we certainly want the
Guard and Reserve to be part of that work.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have further questions, but I would like to
have them entered into the record. And I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome today. Thank you for coming. Secretary
Donley, General Schwartz, thank you for your service to our
country.
First of all, I want to comment or just thank you for the
fact that we are moving forward now finally on the new-
generation penetrating bomber. It's good to see that finally up
and going.
But I am concerned about some long-range issues and
certainly in terms of our nuclear strength. While our nuclear
enterprise strength today is strong, there's one area of
concern that I have, and that has to do with the weapon storage
area. As you know, following very serious instances in 2006 and
2007 involving nuclear weapons in key components, the Air Force
embarked on a top-down review of the nuclear mission; and a
number of investigations and reports explored the root causes
that led to the atrophy and decline in the nuclear enterprise.
One of the common conclusions of those reports was a
negative impact on nuclear readiness that resulted from the
closure of the Barksdale WSA [weapons storage area] in 2007.
With respect to that decision, let me paraphrase from Dr.
Schlesinger's report: The closure of the weapon storage area at
Barksdale was a significant mistake with a negative operational
impact. It created the requirement for bombers to train and
exercise from their home station--far from their home station,
resulting in operational complications. Nuclear munitions
training and proficiency were severely impacted owing to the
inability of training weapons to stimulate the real thing--to
simulate the real thing. Only from a global nuclear deterrence
perspective do the ramifications of this become clear.
The task force strongly encourages the Air Force to revisit
the Barksdale WSA closure decision. We arrived at that decision
in 2008 to recertify the Barksdale WSA. That was part of the
Air Force's nuclear roadmap, which included the establishment
of Global Strike Command, which of course since has been stood
up at Barksdale, and an Air Force directorate to coordinate
nuclear issues. And the Air Force went as far as requesting $73
million in funding for the project in the fiscal year '10
budget request. However, the project has not moved forward, and
I do not see any funding for it in this year's budget.
Just to encapsulate, the nuclear weapons are at Minot, many
of the nuclear bombers are at Barksdale, and a potential
adversary know this. And the whole idea was not to centralize
all of our weapons, of course, in one WSA in Minot and to at
least put some at Barksdale. So my question is, first of all,
for General Schwartz, does the Air Force still intend to move
forward with this project?
General Schwartz. No, sir, we don't. And it is true that
the initial assessment in the 2008 timeframe was that was the
right thing to do. But when we ultimately discovered that it
was a multi-hundred-million-dollar undertaking to make that
come true, given the other demands to deliver the precision and
reliability throughout the enterprise, we decided that that was
not sustainable.
And I acknowledge Dr. Schlesinger's view, and we have
talked to him about that then and since. But the evidence that
we have collected to this point in time through evaluations,
inspections, and so on--I don't deny that the optimal solution
would be to have two WSAs. But the reality is that we had other
more pressing matters to attend to--reliability on the
aircraft, reliability on the missile systems, and so on--that
required investment that out-prioritized the WSA.
Dr. Fleming. Do we, sir, have any mitigating concepts,
anything else that might obviously solve that problem for us?
General Schwartz. We think we have. We have implemented
that.
As you're aware, we move the airplanes and the crews from
Barksdale to Minot on a regular basis. They have access to
actuals. But, of course, at home, at Barksdale, they have
access to trainers. And so the bottom line is that we think
that--and so far the evidence we have collected in terms of
observing proficiency, professionalism, and so on--is that the
current solution is workable.
Dr. Fleming. If I could quickly ask, is that a final
decision or is it possible this could be opened up in the
future?
General Schwartz. I would say that in this business no
decision is really ever final. But it would require Jim
Kowalski and Global Strike Command to come to the conclusion
that this was essential for them to maintain the level of
proficiency that's required, and that has not yet occurred,
sir.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr.
Secretary and General, for joining us here today.
First, on behalf of my constituents, I want to express my
gratitude for the hard work, courage, and sacrifice of the men
and women of the Air Force. These aren't easy times for those
who serve, and on behalf of Georgia's Fourth District I thank
you all for your service.
I would like to focus for a moment on Air Force
procurement, because dysfunction in this area is of serious
concern.
Secretary Donley, there were 12 years between the launch of
Sputnik and the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon. It's taken
nearly that long to develop and procure a new tanker for the
Air Force, and on the spectrum of programs that the Air Force
is developing the KC-X is one of the least technically
challenging. Respectfully, I think our collective inability to
develop new military systems in a timely manner is a national
embarrassment and a huge strategic weakness. We on this
committee bear responsibility for that, but so does leadership
at the Pentagon.
Secretary Donley, why has KC-X development and selection
taken so long and when do you foresee that we will finally be
able to deploy?
Secretary Donley. Well, as you alluded to, sir, the current
KC-X source selection is actually the third attempt of the Air
Force in about the last 9 years or so; and the first were
marred by irregularities that caused them to be thrown out,
essentially. So we're--but we think we're back on track. We've
worked very hard to focus on strengthening our acquisition
workforce, and putting the right KC-X team together for us has
been the acid test from the very beginning.
In bringing back the tanker program from the last GAO
protest which was sustained in 2008 and caused us to go back to
the drawing board, we've worked very carefully inside the Air
Force acquisition system and with our colleagues in OSD to put
together the right team of people with the right experience and
gravitas to oversee this very important program.
It is an important program to us. The average age of the
tankers, as you suggested, is about 48, 49 years old; and that
explains why it is our highest acquisition priority at this
point in time.
I would say I couldn't agree with you more on the challenge
to our acquisition system at a strategic level of taking so
long and having to pay so much for the new systems that we buy.
There is no doubt that what we are procuring across the board
in our Air Force represents significant increases in capability
for our Air Force and will stand us in very good stead going
forward. But sometimes the costs, the prices we pay for that
are certainly more than we would like. And the increases in
costs, combined with the length of time that it takes, works us
into a spiral where it takes longer and longer to get these new
systems field; and I do agree with you that this is a strategic
problem for the United States.
In the case of the tanker and several other of the programs
that were referenced today, the bomber programs, for example,
those programs like the KC-135 [Boeing Stratotanker] were built
in numbers 30, 40 years ago when the United States spent 8
percent of gross national product on defense. And while we do
not need to build as many as we had in the '50s and '60s, we
are now trying to recapitalize those forces on a much smaller
base of the Nation's economic strength. So we're more in the
neighborhood of 4 percent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product],
instead of 8 percent of GDP. So these programs are getting
spread out and taking much longer than we would like.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Point well taken.
A question to General Schwartz. Is less than 200 F-22s
enough to ensure U.S. air superiority for the next three
decades?
General Schwartz. Sir, the short answer is we at the time
made a case for somewhat more than 187 aircraft, but that
decision is behind us. We now need to move on. We need to get
the F-35 into the fleet. And 187 F-22s, provided we do the
improvements that are in the program, the F-22 improvement
program is probably one of the six or seven largest procurement
efforts we have under way. That's to bring it up to weaponize
it the way it needs to be weaponized and improvements for
reliability and maintainability and so on.
The bottom line is it's a smaller fleet than we would like
to have had. That's behind us. The object now is to make sure
that the airplanes we have can kick ass and that we can keep
them in the air.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Mr. Secretary
and General Schwartz, thanks so much for your service to our
country.
First of all, General Schwartz and Mr. Secretary, I want to
thank you so much for achieving some cost efficiencies through
consolidating commands. I think it's a great initiative on your
part. And I want to ask you what further opportunities you see
in terms of streamlining the top of the United States Air Force
through consolidating commands or efforts to bring down cost.
General Schwartz. There are a couple. In addition to the
Air Operation Center effort that we talked about earlier, you
know, we asked ourselves, for example, when you have two
headquarters at the same location you have to ask yourself if
that makes sense in the current environment. I mean, there were
reasons for it, having the focus and so on, you know, one
headquarters does management stuff, the other headquarters does
operational stuff. But we came to the conclusion that that was
no longer sustainable.
So in the case of Third Air Force, for example, at Ramstein
in Germany, where we have a major command headquarters, U.S.
Air Force's in Europe, we're going to collapse that.
The same thing is true at Hickam, where we have 13th Air
Force, and Pacific Air Force is at the same location, is going
to do that.
In San Antonio, where we have the Air Education and
Training Command and 19th Air Force, we're going to collapse
that.
You know, this wasn't really a stroke of brilliance. I
mean, this was just recognizing that what was once a good idea
was probably no longer affordable. And, importantly, it was
probably less a function of dollars than it was about how
precious manpower is right now; and we needed to free up
uniform manpower to do the missions that are most pressing,
like the 4,500 folks we put in the intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance or 2,000 people into nuke or 1,000 into aircraft
maintenance, that sort of thing.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, General Schwartz.
Mr. Secretary, anything additional to add to that?
Secretary Donley. Just to add that sometimes the
opportunities are available on the business side as well. So
another area of significant efficiencies for us is in the IT
world where there is significant coordination going on across
the services to collapse the number of data centers that we
have operating across the Department and to get more efficient
in the way we share IT resources and conduct our business in
that manner.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you.
The Unmanned Air Vehicles, we're across the board in all of
our branches of the military. We're becoming more and more
reliant upon those platforms to do everything from tactical
strikes to ISR. But the development is fairly fragmented. And I
know there's been efforts in the past for the United States Air
Force to take the lead in this issue. Can you tell me, if the
United States Air Force did have the lead on UAVs, what kind of
potential savings might there be in terms of the development of
these platforms?
General Schwartz. Sir, I don't think it would necessarily
be substantial. And I have to tell you that this is an
emotional issue that--I just don't know if it's worth it to go
down this path.
What Gary Roughhead and I from the Navy are doing I think
is representative of what adults working together can achieve.
He has BAMS [Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial
vehicle], which is a version of our Global Hawk. And the
question we asked each other is why should we have two
different V posts for these airplanes? Why should we have two
different training engines for these birds? Or, for that
matter, why base them at different locations?
And we've come together to do that ourselves without the
Air Force asserting its dominion over remotely piloted aircraft
across the department. I, frankly, think that's a better
strategy to do this; and certainly the budget challenges we
face are motivating us to do this.
Mr. Coffman. Well, I think you mentioned satellites, that
you're working across jurisdictional lines across branches of
the Service and other governmental agencies in terms of the
development of the satellites, and that's leading to a savings.
It would seem to me that if we could derive a savings on the
development of these satellites we could also derive a savings
on a better coordination with the development of UAVs and one
Service taking the lead on it.
General Schwartz. I think better coordination is required.
You're absolutely right on that, sir. And we're endeavoring,
particularly between the Navy and the Air Force, to do that.
Mr. Coffman. Just one last question. For the record, if you
could update us on those States that aren't--on the F-16s for
those States that have F-16s for their Air Guard and where the
process is on the F-35, obviously, specifically, in my case, to
Colorado.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 98.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm running around
here today.
And certainly, Mr. Secretary and General, good to have you
here, and thank you so much for your service.
I wanted to ask you about end strength and the fact that
we're obviously pleased that you do such a great job in
recruitment and retention, but that creates some real
management problems for you. Could you talk a little bit more
about that? And I think there was a concern that while you're
looking to have both voluntary and nonvoluntary--what's the
word--separations, right?
Secretary Donley. Incentives.
Mrs. Davis. Yes. That's a nice way of putting it. But
separations at the same time in the fiscal year '12 budget
you're looking to increase by 600. Why that kind of
discrepancy?
Secretary Donley. Just quickly on the 600. The increase in
Active Duty end strength by 600 is driven by the results of the
Authorization Act last year which denied the Department's
request to convert officers associated with a defense health
program from military to civilian. That was our--we requested
to do that. The Congress denied us that. So we reverted them
back to uniformed slots. So that's the reason for that change.
What you've alluded to more broadly is our current and most
immediate personnel challenge in the Air Force, which is that,
given the state of the economy, airmen are not leaving the Air
Force at normal rates of attrition and so we are operating
above our authorized end strength, particularly for officers.
We recognized this problem last year, and we did take action,
both voluntary and involuntary, to get ahead of this problem,
but we did not make enough progress. We made only enough
progress really to tread water, and the problem has gotten even
more difficult this year. So we do have force management
actions planned for later this year and into fiscal year '12
that will get our end strength down to the authorized levels.
General Schwartz. I would just comment that this is
painful. I mean, here we are in the middle of the war, and
we're trying to encourage people to move on, but we have to do
it. We cannot operate above our end strength, given the other
pressures that we have. Because, obviously, we have to take
resources from elsewhere to make that work.
So I think the key thing here, ma'am, is that we are asking
for certain authorities which go back to the case of the '90s
when we had a similar situation and the Congress gave us
temporarily certain authorities that enabled us to better
manage the reductions that we seek to achieve. And, again, we
would do this with compassion and with precision, but we need
to do it.
Mrs. Davis. How do you work with families through this
then? Is it different from other transitions that families go
through?
General Schwartz. I think it's similar. You know, we have
transition assistance programs. Clearly, it's more difficult,
though. If someone leaves voluntarily, the psychology is
completely different than when we ask someone to leave
involuntarily.
And so the important thing we're trying to do is indicate,
as difficult as this is and it was a tough decision for the
Secretary to take, that this is for the future of our Air
Force, and we need you to move on, and we'll do all we can to
make it as soft a landing as possible, but that we have to do
it.
Secretary Donley. Ma'am, if I may just add for a moment,
with respect to the additional authorities that we need, we're
still working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
put together that package. We are hopeful that that will get
over here to the Congress soon. Understanding the normal
legislative cycle, we have flagged this as something that we
would like to ask your consideration of early and to identify a
legislative vehicle against which we can tag these authorities
early in the year, hopeful that perhaps we could get the
authorities in place before midyear as we start making--going
into boards and such later this summer. If we do not miss--if
we do not get the authorities this year, we'll miss a cycle.
We'll pick it up next year, but it would be better if we had it
earlier.
Mrs. Davis. And you're saying this is a majority of people
or officers that are in the services and not in specialty
positions then, because you've had special authority to
recruit.
General Schwartz. We are being careful about limiting or
sort of protecting certain categories of officers. For example,
we are protecting certain nurse specialties because they're in
very short supply and they're essential. But we're protecting
Catholic chaplains for the same reason, but it's very few,
because we are serious about trying to get this behind us.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Secretary, General.
As I've traveled and looked at the bases and listened,
whether it's the Air Force or another agency, and talk about
the procurement process and running bases, EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency], OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health
Administration], disgruntled voters, is there any way to
calculate the cost of these burdens on our operational
capabilities as a country in protecting our citizens?
Secretary Donley. Well, Mr. Scott, certainly we can try to
put an estimate together of that. It is the policy of our Air
Force to be environmentally responsible and to provide safe and
healthy working conditions for our employees, so we want to
understand how well we're doing on that and we need to monitor
that inside our Air Force. But I don't think I've seen any
estimates on the overall cost of that across our Air Force, but
we could see if we can get you some more information on that
front.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 98.]
Mr. Scott. Don't spend a bunch of money. The tanker is more
important right now.
I would like to move, gentlemen, if I could, to the airlift
capabilities of the Air Force long-term with no more purchases
of the C-17. What effect does that have on our capabilities
going forward, as much as we're flying the plane?
General Schwartz. I think we collectively--I certainly have
this view--came to the conclusion that the 224 C-17 wasn't as
much--wasn't as valued as the first KC-X was going to be. That
is sort of the situation we're in, and it's a question of
marginal value to defense overall. And so I think where we are
with a mix of C-17s, 223, 222 of them, and the remainder C-5s
[Lockheed Galaxy transport aircraft], some of which will be
reengined, some of which currently are not, satisfies the peak
demand that we forecast for a crisis power projection scenario.
I think that is a moderate risk force for us, and it allows us
to devote the resources to procuring the new tanker that we
need at 15 a year.
Mr. Scott. If I could, moving to the Middle East, how close
is our relationship, Air Force to Air Force, with Israel?
General Schwartz. Very close, sir.
Mr. Scott. Is there any room for improvement there or is
that something where we work hand in hand daily?
General Schwartz. You have to ask Ido Nehoshtan what he
thinks, but I believe that he and I, as individuals and
certainly as two Air Forces, are very close together. We share
our secrets, frankly, you know, our tactics and techniques, and
so on and so forth, consistent with policy; and I think that
Ido would tell you that we are his best partner.
Mr. Scott. General and Mr. Secretary, we would like to have
you at Warner Robins, Robins Air Force Base, as my guest and
the people's guest down there on short order.
And, with that, I will yield the rest of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll just mention the tanker and leave it at that. I'm not
sure I need to say anything more. Where am I from? Thank you.
Page 12 of your testimony discusses electronic warfare as
well, but that's something else I'm obviously very interested
in. On the C-130 [Lockheed Martin Hercules transport aircraft]
to compass call, or craft conversion, will that result in these
new compass call--these converted C-130s being strictly compass
call mission or will these be on call for a compass call? How
do you envision that?
General Schwartz. The conversion of the additional compass
call airplane will be a dedicated asset.
Mr. Larsen. It will be a dedicated asset.
General Schwartz. It will be a dedicated asset.
Mr. Larsen. And these will be active Air Force assets, not
Reserve, not National Guard?
General Schwartz. That's correct. One of the things under
consideration is having an associate relationship, but that's
not yet final, by any means. So, initially, that converted
aircraft will be Active Duty.
Mr. Larsen. And then MALD [Miniature Air Launched Decoy]
and MALD-J [Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer] are in
production?
General Schwartz. MALD and MALD-J certainly are in the
program. The MALD version is in production. J will come along
here. It is fully funded, because it is one of those aspects of
our electronic attack effort that goes along with the long-
range strike family systems.
Mr. Larsen. And increment two, what's the timeline for
that?
General Schwartz. Sir, I'll take that for the record, with
your permission.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 98.]
Mr. Larsen. Great. On page 20, you talk about your regional
partnerships. I had a chance to be out in Air Force Pacific
last May and had a chance to talk with Admiral Owens about the
things we are doing. It's great. Do you have a particular
regional focus in your regional partnership?
General Schwartz. In fact, one of the things we've done is
in our contingency response groups we have attempted to focus
them along combatant command lines. And what that allows us is
to specialize on the language skills on the sort of cultural
awareness and what have you and it's very good.
Obviously, the one that's in Europe focuses on that area,
the one at Anderson and the Pacific focuses on the Asian
region, and the CONUS [continental United States] one splits.
But I think clearly this is an area where we are committed.
As you know, in the budget we have a proposal for a light
lift platform, a new start in '12 with the Congress' consent on
a light strike platform. But, fundamentally, this is about
enabling other Air Forces that are not as sophisticated as ours
or our near-peers to build their capacity to defend their own
airspace.
Mr. Larsen. So will the light lift and light strike be
strictly for partners?
General Schwartz. That is our proposal sir. It would be for
training our air advisors, and it would be for introducing a
less complex, a more readily simulated platform into these
partner Air Forces that can neither afford nor maybe have the
technical capacity to operate F-16s, for example.
Mr. Larsen. Sure.
With regards to DELV [delivery], I understand there's a
pretty significant increase in that over '11 or '10, or
whichever budget you're operating under today. We should be
taking care of that tonight, I think. One step closer.
But the effort by the Air Force to increase access to space
by making these launch vehicles more affordable and reliable is
important. But I have concerns from some folks how the Air
Force is--how is the Air Force ensuring that companies such as
Space X, which is going to be part of that new industrial base
that's out there on satellites, as well as there's other
competitors out there, too, that are not traditional larger
contract competitors, how are they being given access to
contract competition as a way of promoting lower cost for that
program or any other satellite programs?
Secretary Donley. We are working through the issues of what
certification will be required for commercial partners to enter
the space launch work. So there is more to follow on that.
NASA has had more of the lead in that. They are further
along. I met with the National Reconnaissance Office the other
day on some of these subjects. We are also tracking NRO and
with NASA in terms of developing criteria for certification
going forward.
Mr. Larsen. I would just note, these folks might be new to
this, and so I think you need to keep that in mind, as well.
Secretary Donley. They are, but, you know, we are very
focused on mission assurance. And as I think the chief has
mentioned previously, we don't necessarily want to take a $2
billion satellite and put it on top of a launcher that is a
first-time effort for someone.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Secretary Donley. Thanks.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks a lot.
The Chairman. That is something I would want to talk to you
about. You mean first time for the Air Force, not necessarily
first time.
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, great to have you
back with us. We appreciate your service to our Nation.
Secretary Donley, let me begin with you. I want to talk a
little bit about our ability to project power, and specifically
in light of China's efforts of anti-access. As you know, their
efforts there are continuing to emerge. And it concerns me,
when you look at our alliances and our security partnerships in
those regions, about our ability to project power into the
future, especially in how it affects our ability in areas like
the Western Pacific and where we are going in the future.
Let me ask this. As we look at our ability to project
power, I know we have the next-generation bomber coming on line
some years into the future, you do have scheduled, though, to
retire the B-1 [Rockwell Lancer strategic bomber], and retiring
the B-1 as excessive of requirements. It seems like to me,
though, that there is a gap between the retirement of the B-1
and the introduction in a serviceable form of the next-
generation bomber.
Can you elucidate a little bit for us about how we are not
going to lose the ability to project force during that period
of time when we are retiring the B-1 and as we are bringing the
next-generation bomber on line?
Secretary Donley. Our bomber forces are managed very
carefully inside of our force structure. We recognize the aging
challenges, the maintenance challenges that go with each of the
platforms, which comes from a completely different generation
of technology despite all the upgrades that they have had over
the years.
We have not made a decision on retiring the B-1. The
proposal in fiscal year 2012 is to reduce the fleet from 66 to
60 aircraft. So it is to reduce the fleet by six aircraft.
There are savings that are harvested from that. We believe
that--we have, sort of, been through the analysis. The military
judgment was that this is not an unreasonable burden on
operational risk, this is something that we can do.
And we also harvested dollars out of that, which we can put
back into the B-1 for upgrading cockpit displays and other
maintenance support aspects of this work that will help sustain
the platform going forward.
I have to say, this is not an unusual profile in managing
inventories of aircraft, that over time they tend to shrink a
little bit over time and you harvest the dollars to put them
back into the long-term sustainability of the remaining fleet.
Mr. Wittman. So that reduction of six, then, is going to be
really where the movement is going to be?
General Schwartz. And the remainder is 60.
Mr. Wittman. Sixty, right, got you. Okay. Very good.
General Schwartz, let me ask now--and I want to go from our
bomber aircraft to our fighter aircraft. As we know, some
challenges there, as you know, with the F-22 program being
terminated, also now with the F-35 lagging a little bit time-
wise in being able to deliver those platforms to make sure that
we can meet that requirement, also with the retirement of F-
15s, F-16s, A-10s [Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II close air
support aircraft]. You look at our fighter component, and you
look at the recent developments in China with the J-20 [fifth-
generation stealth fighter jet], and you look at our strategic
capability as it relates to fighters.
My question is this: Does this scenario, does this justify
the 124 F-35 reduction in the FYDP? And I just want to look at
that in context of where we are going, especially with concerns
across all of our groups of fighters.
General Schwartz. In a perfect world, if the program was
absolutely healthy, my answer would be ``certainly not.''
But the reality is that the bottom-up review that Admiral
Venlet did on the F-35, you know, yielded insights that suggest
that, number one, the plant in Fort Worth couldn't produce
those airplanes right now even if we wanted them to----
Mr. Wittman. Right.
General Schwartz [continuing]. And that there are issues in
terms of development, less on our airplane--that is, less on
the conventional takeoff version than the STOVL [Short Take-
Off/Vertical Landing] version, to be sure.
But the reality is that, you know, where we are at right
now is, I think, as aggressive as we can pragmatically be until
the program picks up more momentum.
And so we have 14 airplanes in flight test. Our acquisition
of assets is 203 over the program period. And that is 57 less
than it would have been for the Air Force. As you suggested, it
is 124 system-wide.
Mr. Wittman. Yeah.
General Schwartz. I think, regrettably, that that is the
right place for us to be, given the level of confidence that we
have at the moment.
I believe that the airplane is going to be the centerpiece
of our tactical fleet, you know, in due course. But getting it
into full-rate production has been a greater struggle than we
imagined. And I think this is a time to be a little bit more
conservative.
Mr. Wittman. Okay. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was trying to remember the date that we had that
wonderful lunch in Sacramento, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you for coming out for Air Force Day and for a
terrific show by the Air Force, General. You and your men and
women did a wonderful job displaying the Air Force there in
Sacramento when I was Lieutenant Governor. Thank you for that.
I now have the joy and the pleasure of representing Travis
Air Force Base. And I want to compliment all the men and women.
I won't say--well, otherwise I would get a cheer out of some
ex-Travis folks here. I will just let that go. But they did a
terrific job in Haiti. And, I don't know, maybe a flight will
be 5 minutes or so to the theaters of war. A lot of heart but a
lot of good work, and we compliment you on that.
We also compliment you on the efforts you are making for
the community. You really do reach out. And the current effort
under way to employ more local contractors is much appreciated.
And I also want to compliment you on the new LiMA [Light
Mobility Aircraft] program and the studies that are going on
and the process you are going through to select the appropriate
base. I have my favorite. I will let that go for a moment. But
it sounds like it is going to be a very useful--and it fits
into, I guess, your new tactical fighter, which looks pretty
much like a Korean War fighter, upgraded significantly.
In any case, I really don't have a question other than to
compliment you on the work that you are doing and the service
that you are rendering.
And one more thing, since I have three minutes and 25
seconds. I was shocked, delightfully, to hear your opening
statement about the missile acquisition programs, that you are
actually going to work with the other services, including NASA,
for some sort of ``let's see if we can make it all work
together.''
I was on the Science Committee last year, and I don't think
NASA was quite willing to do it when they started the hearings.
At the end of the hearings, they were more willing to work with
you on a more common platform and the satellite business.
It is the way to go, and I want to compliment you for
heading that way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, in a few minutes, we are going to have another
vote on another amendment cutting V-22. I realize this question
is better suited for the Marine Corps, but there are five CV-
22s in the Air Force budget. Can you make a brief comment as to
how that program is going and particularly how the aircraft is
performing?
General Schwartz. As I indicated earlier, sir, this is a
capability we have never had before. We need to continue that
procurement profile to the full 50 that the Air Force Special
Operations Command expects to possess.
We have had it in Africa. We have had it in Iraq. It is
going to be headed out to Afghanistan shortly. In fact, it has
been in Afghanistan, as well. Forgive me.
I think the bottom line is that this is a machine that both
the operators and the passengers--very important--you know,
like to have in order to execute their missions. I would
certainly say that there would be other things I would give up
in the Air Force budget before the CV-22.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
I want to go back to your conversation with Mr. Larsen
about partnerships. Because, in addition to the idea that we
could have some certain kinds of aircraft to help train other
air forces, training is a part of that. In last year's defense
bill, we had a provision to make it possible for the aircraft
to bring some pilots to be trained here with the ENJJPT [Euro
NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training] program from Eastern European
countries. But, in a larger sense, it just seems to me that all
branches of the military are going to have to do more of this
training with others. And that includes the education and
training piece as well as the equipment piece.
Are you all looking, whether it is that or other things, at
creative ways to help these sorts of opportunities? Because
some of these small countries don't have big budgets to send,
to participate, whether it is to buy aircraft or to send pilots
to train here. So it seems to me we are going to have to be a
little more creative in sorting through these things, because
it may be just one pilot from a country but he may be chief of
staff of the air force before long.
General Schwartz. Sir, that is absolutely true. Just a case
in point, the current chief of the Indonesian Air Force was
trained here in the United States. But he is the last of that
genre, because there was a 12- or 14-year gap after he wrapped
up his training. And he is now the chief.
There is no question but that training we do, whether it be
for piloting or infantry officers or, you know, intermediate
service school, what have you, is playing the long ball. And we
certainly are committed to continuing to do that.
I can just give you, quickly--you talk about innovations.
The Contingency Response Group that I talked about, their
primary mission is opening expeditionary airfields. And they
have cops and they have engineers and they have docs and air
traffic controllers and so on. And what we decided was, when
they are not opening airfields, they can be training and
educating nascent air forces who need to develop these varied
skill sets.
So they now have this additional mission to grow other air
forces. I think that is an indication of the innovation we have
undertaken.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, and we want to work with you for not
only funding but legal authorities for those sorts of creative
exercises.
Last question. You were talking about personnel with Mrs.
Davis. For some time, we have talked about some nontraditional
authorities for certain categories of personnel. Cyber is one
that is fresh in my mind. Because sometimes the folks you need
to run cyber may not fit a traditional military profile.
Is that something you all are looking at or have
suggestions for where we can help you?
General Schwartz. Sir, you are the expert on this, to be
sure. But I think we do need to be a little bit more flexible.
For example, thanks to the Secretary, there is an effort under
way to allow people to go out of the Air Force to the Guard for
a period of time and have the opportunity to come back into the
Active Duty if that fits the way, you know, their lifestyle is
unfolding.
I do believe that having the additional flexibility on
career paths will serve us well in terms of, you know,
retaining the kinds of people we need. Right now it is not an
issue. The economy is not, you know--is favorable in terms of
retention. But when it turns, you know, that is when we will be
competing for the best and brightest.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I was happy to hear your comments, General, on the V-22. As
Mr. Reyes said earlier, we flew in Afghanistan on the V-22, and
it was a great ride. And I know there were problems early on
with the development, but now it is a good bird.
General Schwartz. It is a proven platform, sir.
The Chairman. Yeah.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General.
I represent the Black Knights at Little Rock Air Force Base
and would like to talk with you about the C-130 AMP, the
Avionics Modernization Program.
First, I would like to ask you--I think I know the answer
to this, but I want to make sure--is there any risk to this
program, to the AMP program, as a result of the efficiencies
that you are implementing?
General Schwartz. No, sir. The program is designed to do
221 H2, H2.5, and H3 category C-130Hs, and that is what we are
going to do.
Mr. Griffin. Now, my understanding, General, is that in
fiscal year 2009 there was funding, in fiscal year 2010 there
was not funding. And so, right now, currently, it is not
funded. Is that correct? That is my understanding.
And I wanted to just--if you don't have those statistics,
you may not be able to answer this. But what I am concerned
about is, if the CR does not pass, I think there will be a
funding gap. If I remember correctly, there was a Nunn-McCurdy
breach a couple years ago or whatever, and the funding stopped.
And so, if we stay where we are, there is no funding. If we
get the CR passed, then there is funding. Is that a fair
characterization of where we are?
General Schwartz. We need to confirm this for you, but I
believe that to be the case. We did not defund this program----
Mr. Griffin. Right.
General Schwartz [continuing]. In the Air Force. I think
this is a CR-related issue. But, sir, we will confirm that in
writing for you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 99.]
Mr. Griffin. That is my understanding. And my understanding
is, if you vote for the CR, then you are voting for funding for
the C-130 AMP. And if you vote against it, you are voting to
keep things as they are, and there is no funding. If you could
check on that and get back with me.
And I will mention, incidentally, that I am starting the C-
130 Modernization Caucus. It is very important to me, in my
district, and to our national security.
Have you done any sort of calculation to look at what the
numbers would be, the dollar savings would be as a result of
the efficiencies that we get from the AMP process, in terms of
maintenance cost and operational cost savings?
General Schwartz. Sir, we will have to get back to you on
the details of the business case. But there was a business case
done.
One thing I could comment on, though, very importantly, is
that the AMP modifications also include subsystems that allow
the airplanes to operate in increasingly demanding airspace--
European airspace, for example--that require precision
navigation and communications, which the basic airplanes do not
possess.
So we will take that one, as well, for the record, sir, and
get you the rough numbers on the business case for AMP.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 99.]
Mr. Griffin. Okay. If you don't know this, I would like you
to add this to your list. I would be real interested in what
your number is in terms of how many years of combat service you
believe that we are adding to the C-130s that go through the
AMP process.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 99.]
Mr. Griffin. That ultimately relates to efficiencies. And I
think those numbers will bear out that the AMP investment is a
good investment, and a good investment for our national
security and a good investment for the taxpayer, both of which
are important. I appreciate that.
I was given a couple of questions to ask for a colleague of
mine, and I just wanted to see if you could get to them quickly
in my 39 seconds that I have left. Representative Kinzinger of
Illinois wanted me to ask about the flight suit development. He
indicated that he had seen the press articles about a $100
million price tag for developing a flight suit. And he was just
wondering if that is accurate and if you have anything to say
about that.
I think he is an Air Force pilot, himself.
General Schwartz. We are not in the business of redesigning
our flight suit under the current circumstances.
Mr. Griffin. Okay. Great. I will pass that on to him.
And my time has now expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was unexpected.
Just as an aside, there are at least two of us in the room
who understand there is a second Air Force base that Mr. Rogers
needs to visit before he makes categorical statements in
reference to his.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.
I want to talk a little bit about--and even General
Schwartz mentioned it--in the auditability of the Air Force's
financial statements. Made the posture statement, skidded in
just in ahead of ``Conclusion'' and ``Strategic Basing,'' page
26 or 27, but at least made the cut. I appreciate that.
I have had good discussions with the team that you have in
place to do this. The Air Force has further to go than the
Department of Army, Department of Navy, and so you have to run
a little bit faster. I have great confidence in his team and
his colleagues over at the Army and the Navy, as well, that
they get it, they understand it.
I am wondering how much easier--or, excuse me, less
difficult finding your $33 billion share of the $100 billion
might have been had you had better systems in place. And one of
my colleagues asked you for how much something cost, and,
Secretary Donley, you mentioned you would try to get that
number. Somebody on your team just threw up in their bucket,
thinking they would have to go through whatever they had to do
to get you that number, those kinds of things.
So, can you talk just a little bit about your commitment to
getting this done sooner, maybe, rather than later, and your
opinion as to how important good financial systems that you use
to run your business--I mean, we have this issue we have been
hiding behind, in the sense that your getting a clean audit
requires a balance sheet and everything else, and that is a way
off. But you use, day in and day out, data systems, financial
systems to make decisions. That ought to be auditable sooner
rather than later.
So can you just give me your side of what is going on?
Secretary Donley. We do think this is an important priority
for the Air Force. It has been on our plate for a long time.
And, certainly, we are not where we want to be. But, as I think
you have been briefed, we are making some progress.
As of the end of last year, we have asserted audit
readiness in a couple of areas that we think are important: 100
percent of appropriations received, used in our Automated Funds
Management System. And this is the system that tracks
appropriations from Congress to OMB [Office of Management and
Budget], to the Department of Defense, to the Department of the
Air Force, and from our Headquarters Air Force to our major
commands.
We are not all the way down to the field level yet, but we
are working on that part of the problem. And we think we have
100-percent auditability through the Automated Funds Management
System to do that.
That is one of many aspects of auditability, but it is an
important one. And it is one that I think Secretary Hale has
put emphasis on. And I think you are familiar with his focus on
making sure that we get the clean financial statements and the
auditability on the systems we most often use and rely on.
Another piece of this has been our preparedness to assert
audit readiness on about 48 percent of our mission-critical
equipment, which includes all of our military equipment, our
military hardware. There is more to follow in the other 52
percent in terms of spares and logistics support and where a
lot of numbers are. But----
Mr. Conaway. Are those percentages based on dollar
exposure? Fifty-two percent of what?
Secretary Donley. Inventory.
Mr. Conaway. Inventory based on dollars.
Secretary Donley. I think it is inventory. I think it is
assets. I am not sure that it is dollar-based. I think it is
asset-based.
But, in addition to these areas--and the chief mentioned
one, in particular, early--the ECSS system is our enterprise
resource system for a modern logistics system. We must get this
done. It is very important to us. It has been painful,
continues to be a challenge, but we think it is worth sticking
with, going forward.
The experience of this committee and, I think, for other
committees for many years, you recognize the importance of
getting software right across our weapons systems. This is a
huge issue as more electronics have gone into our weapons
systems. So, working through software issues is critical. In
our enterprise resource systems like ECSS, software is
everything. It is the whole thing.
So it is very, very hard work, but, again, we are trying to
make some progress here.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. I want to be careful that we don't,
in our quest to cut spending and find efficiencies, that we
don't become penny-wise and pound-foolish and underresource
this important effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Runyan.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Schwartz, Secretary Donley, thank you for being
here. Thank you for your service. And thank you for everything
you do for our airmen.
I have the pleasure to represent the Third Congressional
District of New Jersey, which, as we know, is home to Joint
Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. And Joint Base is an air mobility
center of excellence in extending air mobility forces
globalwide, moving troops and cargo. But over the past 10
years, we have lowered the number of aircraft, and the aircraft
capability requirement worldwide has grown. And, you know, even
the hostility around the world has grown.
And, quite frankly, General Schwartz, is the requirement of
the mobility aircraft lower--is it because we have less
equipment, less people, less missions? Or is it just, quite
frankly, because of budget?
General Schwartz. First of all, I am from Toms River, so
I----
Mr. Runyan. I am sure you have family that are
constituents.
General Schwartz. The bottom line is, we have better
airplanes. You know, there was a day when we had C-47s that,
you know, we had thousands of them. And we now have C-17s and
C-5s and we have several hundred. I think, you know, we are
making economic decisions here. I mean, you know, you have to
be somewhat business like here. There are times when it doesn't
matter what it costs. But when it comes to sizing the fleet, it
does matter.
And so I think the bottom line is, we have looked at the
most stressing possible contingency, scenario; we have modeled
that. We have come to the conclusion that 32.7 million ton-
miles a day--that is gross capacity--is what the country needs
to project military power, and that that is met with a
combination of C-17 and C-5 aircraft in the low 300s. And that
is, you know, the tack that we are on, sir.
These are expensive airplanes to operate, but we would not
have gotten 6,000 M-ATVs [MRAP All Terrain Vehicle] or MRAP
[Mine Resistant Ambush Protected] vehicles to Afghanistan
without them. So, yes, we have capacity. We can do that, and we
have. We did the surge in Afghanistan that ended up this
summer. And, you know, we mobilized some Reserves in order to
get that done.
But the bottom line is that I think that low 300s of the
big airplanes is the right number for us.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you for that. And I live close enough
there, in Burlington County, where they are overhead all the
time. We see them. So I know you guys are busting your tail,
and thanks.
And, with that, I yield back, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And riding along with that, I understand that we have
better planes. I remember talking about the B-2 [Northrop
Grumman Spirit stealth bomber], how in previous wars we talked
about how many planes it took to take out a target, and now we
have talked about how many targets a B-2 can take out.
But, at some point, numbers also do matter. And hopefully
we will be okay, but when we get down to the last one, it may
not be enough.
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, you can't be in two places
at once.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the distinguished panelists being with us
here today. And I thank you for your leadership of the Air
Force. And also I want to express my support and admiration for
all those that serve under your command and to the families.
My question has to do with joint forcible entry
capabilities. In the next 3 years or so, 3 to 4 years, we will
be wrapping up--successfully wrapping up our operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and we will be refocusing the force. And I am
interested to hear your vision and commitment to providing
trained and ready forces as we look towards restoring a
capability, joint forcible entry, for Army Airborne and also
for Marine Expeditionary.
General Schwartz. We take tasking, sir, from our joint
force commanders. And if that is the demand signal, that is
what we will do. It is as simple as that.
And, by the way, you know, the 82nd hasn't been leg-bound,
so to speak. You know, they are maintaining their jump
credentials, not when they are deployed, to be sure, but
certainly when they are back at Bragg. And, you know, we are
providing the platforms for that training.
I would say that there are times when joint forcible entry
works, and there are times when, you know--it is not as simple,
perhaps, as it once was. This is the old question about anti-
access and aerial denial capabilities. So we just can't run
massive formations of C-130s or C-17s in areas that are too
hostile for them to operate. But there is a methodology to
reduce that threat, such that we can enter it at a time and
place of our choice.
Secretary Donley. Sir, just to add there, there are a
variety of Air Force capabilities that contribute to that
aspect of joint operations--so, not just the lift, but the
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that goes with
that, the command and control backbone through satellite
systems, and many other dimensions of joint operations where
the Air Force is supporting with key capabilities.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I appreciate those comments very much.
I probably should have said at the outset that I commanded
the Division Ready Brigade up until last year. And I will tell
you that your formations down there at Pope really did a
fantastic job. Many of them grew up at a time when that was a
higher priority and are really working exceptionally hard to
restore that capability in an environment that really puts a
lot of demand--and, as you point out, not only C-17s but,
really, this is a fully across-the-board joint endeavor to
actually overcome issues of anti-access.
So, it is an area that I believe we need to work at
restoring in the coming years, especially as we reset and
conclude operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I thank you
very much for your comments and look forward to working with
you on that point.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Just as a point of interest, I met a couple of weeks ago
with General Dempsey, and he was commenting that they are
changing the training. I was just recently at National Training
Center with Mr. Smith and the Marine Mountain Training Center
and then at Lewis-McChord. And all of the training there was
geared toward Afghanistan, but they are looking out over the
horizon and planning in the next round of training in those
centers they are going to start focusing on the training that
the colonel was talking about. And so it is good to know that
they are thinking our ahead on that.
Ms. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary and General, it is an honor to be here today and
to have an opportunity to visit with you. I am representing the
Missouri Fourth Congressional District, of course home of
Whiteman Air Force Base. And we are very, very proud of the
good work that is being done there and the B-2 bomber.
And I wanted to ask a little bit of questions about the new
bomber that is being developed. I see this year in the budget
request we had $197 million for RDT&E [Research Development
Test and Evaluation]. I was just wondering, what is the
timeframe for this new bomber to be able to come on line?
Secretary Donley. Mid-2020s.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. I was just wondering, is it projected
to replace the B-2 bomber eventually?
Secretary Donley. No, the B-2 will be part of our inventory
for as far as we can see forward right now.
Mrs. Hartzler. That is good news. That is good news.
Have you determined where the new bomber will be housed
yet, or will that be down the road?
Secretary Donley. No, that is a down-the-road decision,
ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Very good.
I also wanted to ask some questions about the new tanker,
the KC-X. Of course, we have 1 in 10 Americans out of work
right now, and jobs are very important to all of us, I know to
the President. He says he wants to hire--we need to hire more
workers. Yet, from what I understand, the competition for the
tanker is between an American company and a European company.
And so I was just wondering why, when we need more work
here in America, would the Administration be talking about
outsourcing some of our very important military equipment to a
foreign government.
Secretary Donley. The acquisition process that we are using
for the source selection on the KC-X is one that is governed by
statutes which the Congress has created and is open to
qualified bidders. So, EADS [European Aeronautic Defence and
Space Company N.V.] is a qualified bidder and has been a
partner in other work across our national security or aerospace
establishment.
Mrs. Hartzler. So, in the current statutes now, there is
not a preference for American companies over other companies
worldwide?
Secretary Donley. Only in some very, very specialized
areas--specialty metals and these sorts of areas.
Mrs. Hartzler. Uh-huh. Well, that is interesting to know.
And I appreciate your responses and all the good work that you
do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, thank you very much
for your testimony today and for the work that you are doing to
keep our Nation safe.
As the ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee
and the former chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I
have been very concerned about the potential for a cyber attack
on the national electric grid, among many other things but that
in particular, and the impact, of course, on our ability to
conduct our strategic military missions.
During the last Congress, I asked Major General Webber,
commander of 24th Air Force, in charge of cyber operations,
what measures were being taken to mitigate the risks to
military bases, in particular, that rely on civilian power
sources in the event of a cyber attack against these systems.
As you know, many of our military bases are dependent on the
electric grid that is primarily in the hands of the private
sector, and the owners and operators, obviously, are in the
private sector. I was pleased to hear that the general
responded that the Air Force has been actively engaged in
looking into these issues.
So my questions are: How much progress has been made in
evaluating threats to our military bases that rely on single
sources of civilian power systems? That is number one. Next,
has the Air Force strengthened plans for energy security by
examining new technologies that could lead to better
alternative energy sources? And number three and finally, are
you confident the Air Force could carry out prolonged
strategic-level missions over significant amounts of time in
the event of a massive commercial electric grid failure?
And, as you know, Idaho National Labs, a couple years back,
had found a significant vulnerability to our electric grid
whereby a cyber attack could potentially take down a power
plant and potentially damage a sector of the electric grid for
quite some time. And if our military bases are dependent on
that grid, it would be a significant challenge for us. So I
would like to ask you to address those questions.
Secretary Donley. A big set of issues, very important ones.
Critical infrastructure protection across the board is a
priority for the Department of Defense and certainly for the
Air Force, as well.
The local analysis--the analysis that is there is often
localized. It depends on a base's local situation, its
relationships with the community, and the local power grid at
that location. And so it varies from location to location.
But we are very interested in identifying single points of
vulnerability and taking actions to mitigate that. We store
fuel. We have backup generators in place, for example, in many,
many locations so that we can operate if and when power goes
down.
So this is--some of this is, sort of, standard work. But we
understand the importance of getting a more strategic
perspective on this. And it is going to be a challenge, I
think. And I think we are, kind of, still at the front end of a
lot of this work.
I would ask if General Schwartz would want to fill in a
little bit.
General Schwartz. Sure. I think that the key thing here is,
as you know, we identify mission-essential facilities, and we
posture those with backup power, either UPS [Uninterruptible
Power Supply] or generators and so on.
They are not foolproof. Sometimes the power goes down, they
don't turn on. We had a situation develop, in fact, recently, I
think it was March, in San Bernardino, where they were
controlling a couple of orbits of Predators and the commercial
power went down and the backup didn't kick in right away.
So it is not foolproof. But we do know where our key
missions are and what those things are that, you know, can't
afford an interruption, and we try to back that up.
With respect to your question on innovation, you know, I
think we are really open to about anything. I mean, Nellis Air
Force Base you visited, I know. You know, the solar array there
is in the top five in the world. It powers about a quarter of
the base energy consumption. And we are going to expand that.
Mr. Langevin. Uh-huh.
General Schwartz. Wind has a place; we are looking hard at
that, as well. So we are looking at ways, again, to diversify
our sources of power for exactly the risk-management reasons
you indicate.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. My time has expired, but I will
have additional questions for the record. But, in the meantime,
thank you very much for your service, and I look forward to
having you before us again very soon.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Probably what we should do is build one of those--you know,
we have all those nuclear-powered carriers and submarines? Just
build some of those plants and put them on every base. You
know, we could really move--we could really move forward in
energy independence.
Mr. Langevin. Well, it is funny you should say that, Mr.
Chairman, because the Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, of
course, we have a presence in my district, but, obviously, we
build the finest nuclear submarines in the world starting in my
district. And I know that General Dynamics is actually looking
at producing domestic smaller reactors for perhaps just that
purpose. Maybe someday it will be viable.
The Chairman. They have definitely proved their safety.
Mr. Smith, do you have anything further?
Mr. Smith. No, nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Let me just make one closing request. We
had--Plant 42 in my district, we had 175 positions that were
slated for conversion. Of that number, 61 were firefighters. I
met with many of those gentlemen. 44 lost their jobs just
because they were too old, and they are a lot younger than I
am. 17 of the 61 were rehired.
The Readiness Subcommittee sent you a letter; you
responded. We asked for a cost analysis. We got it, but it was
about a document that thick. Is there a way that maybe you
could break out how that was handled at Plant 42?
And I understand it is too late to save those jobs. That
was taken care of in January of this year. You did not use your
authority to waive that limit. I would like to readdress that
later, which we will in the next bill. But thank you for that.
With that, this hearing--thank you for being here, for your
good response. And any of the questions that were asked for on
the record, if you could respond on those.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 93.]
The Chairman. And we will continue to work together now as
we go through this process. Thank you.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 17, 2011
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 17, 2011
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 17, 2011
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON
General Schwartz. In-sourcing guidance developed by the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness was issued
on May 28, 2009. This guidance outlines a systematic, well-reasoned,
and strategic approach that helps ensure in-sourcing decisions are
analytically based and fiscally informed. If contract workload is found
to be inherently governmental, experiencing contract administration
problems, providing unauthorized personal services, or otherwise exempt
from contracting under Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1100.22,
Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix, the function must be in-sourced
regardless of cost. If the contract does not fit one of the above-
mentioned criteria, a cost analysis is required to determine the most
cost-effective means of performing the function.
Air Force Material Command's (AFMC) initial cost analysis,
completed in July 2009, indicated that it would be more cost effective
to perform the workload currently performed by the Pyramid Services,
Incorporated contract at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California,
with 185 DoD civilian employees. AFMC re-validated the business case
model in April 2010 using the costing guidance in Directive--Type
Memorandum 09-007: Estimating and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian
and Military Manpower and Contract Support. The re-validation shows a
$2,500,000 savings across the next five years by performing the work
with DoD civilian employees. Based on the re-validation of the business
case analysis, AFMC proceeded with implementation of its transition
plan for this business case, to include hiring actions.
When filling civil service positions, federal agencies are required
to adhere to Title 5 U.S.C. 2301, which requires fair and open
competition consistent with merit systems principles. As allowed in
Title 5 U.S.C. 3307(d) & (e) and DoD Instruction 1400.25-v336, the DoD
established the maximum entry age of 37 for original firefighter
appointment to positions with primary duties directly connected to
controlling and extinguishing fires. Those eligible for veterans'
preference, who exceed the maximum entry age for primary firefighter
positions, will receive a waiver consistent with the Merit System
Protection Board decision in Isabella v. Department of State and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and in accordance with OPM and DoD
implementing guidance. The Secretary of the Air Force approved waivers
for the nine selectees who met the criteria for veterans' preference
eligibility. Waivers were not granted for five selectees as they were
not veterans' preference eligible and there was not a shortage of
qualified candidates who met the entry maximum age. [See page 44.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH
General Schwartz. Most of the Joint Bases have been at full
operational capability for less than a year. At this point, they are
still working start-up issues, and identifying best practices among the
different operating procedures used by each Service Component. In an
effort to make Joint Basing work better, we have several ongoing
initiatives. We are collecting lessons learned from Joint Bases and
sharing the solutions. I have also directed that an Air Force team
visit both Air Force-led and sister Service-led Joint Bases to help
identify problems, determine trends, and capture best practices. We are
planning a conference where we can share this information and Joint
Base commanders can discuss issues and share ideas to improve Joint
Basing. In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each
Service Component review Joint Base performance quarterly and work
solutions for issues beyond the Joint Base's control. All of these
efforts are focused on helping the Joint Bases through their start-up
phase, developing organizations that effectively support installation
missions, and gaining efficiencies where possible to accommodate fiscal
constraints. [See page 14.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTLETT
Secretary Donley. In 1985 GE began production of the GE F110, an
alternate engine for the F-16. GE offered and achieved unit prices for
the F110 that were below those offered by Pratt & Whitney for the F100.
For instance, during the competition in 1991, the F110 was priced 16.1
percent below the F100 engine. Subsequently, in 1992, GE raised its
prices to a level only 4.8 percent below Pratt & Whitney's prices. In
1993, the GE price exceeded the Pratt & Whitney price. In 1994, the Air
Force awarded GE a sole-source contract for the F110 engine.
Competition resumed in 1995 and continued through 1998. While the
competition did appear to improve engine pricing, there were only
minimal reductions in the acquisition unit price of the engines. [See
page 16.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. REYES
General Schwartz. Section 1 of this document contains crewmember
and maintainer testimonials and Section 2 features a variety of CV-22
vignettes provided by Air Force Special Operations Command.
Section 1: Crewmember and maintainer testimonials
1. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field Florida
Crew position/Primary duty: Evaluator Pilot/B Flight Commander
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 5\1/2\
years
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``If you
were to compare the CV-22's performance to that of any military
helicopter, you would find that there are some with more lift capacity
or larger cabin area. You would also find that they had half the speed
and range of the CV-22. If you were to compare the CV-22's performance
to that of any military airplane, you would find that there are some
faster and again, some with more lift capacity. You would also find
that none of them could land vertically in unimproved areas. You simply
cannot compare the CV-22 performance to conventional helicopters or
airplanes because a tilt rotor is a different category of aircraft all
together.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``I feel safer in the CV-22 than in
any other aircraft I have flown over the last 22 years. Every type of
aircraft that has been deployed to Afghanistan has experienced losses.
These losses have less to do with the nature of any particular aircraft
type and more to do with the nature of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an
extremely challenging flight environment. My deployment to Afghanistan
in the CV-22 last year was my sixth since 2001, and my fourth to
Afghanistan. I felt safer flying the CV-22 in Afghanistan than I felt
flying the MH-53M on previous deployments to the same Area of
Responsibility.
The CV-22 is as reliable as any other complex Special Operations
aircraft. Special Operations Forces (SOF) aircraft are necessarily
complicated and well equipped in order to be able to perform their
precision tasking. These aircraft have robust communications and
countermeasures equipment, precise navigation systems, and additional
sensors to allow them to operate in poor weather. This additional
equipment and the arduous duty these aircraft perform in the conduct of
their assigned mission generally equate to a lower reliability rate
than that of traditional, non-SOF aircraft.''
2. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, Florida
Crew position/Primary duty: CV-22 Evaluator Pilot/Commander
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 4 years
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``CV-22
performs unlike any other aircraft in our military inventory. The
combination of speed and range with a vertical lift capability allows
SOF to solve tactical problems in a revolutionary way. Additionally,
this aircraft is the most stable platform in a hover or 100 percent
dust out than any other platform I have ever flown.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``While deployed in support of
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, we were able to generate and launch three
aircraft, fly more than 2,500 nautical miles in just over 12 hours. In
less than 24 hours after landing, the unit and aircraft reset and
assumed an alert posture. There were no safety concerns with flying the
aircraft continuously for over 12 hours, nor was there any doubt the
aircraft were ready for the mission the next day.''
3. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, Florida
Crew position/Primary duty: CV-22 Pilot/Operations Officer
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 2.5 years/
200 hours
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``For an
initial operational capability aircraft, the CV-22 has been very
reliable and its effectiveness rates continuously improve. Performance
as a tilt rotor is impressive; it has great speed with vertical landing
capability. [The CV-22 provides] niche capability with a good safety
record.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``Several missions in Afghanistan
demonstrated the impressive speed and distance capabilities of the CV-
22. The fact that the CV-22 can cross oceans and conduct helo insertion
and extraction missions with a very reliable launch rate sets it apart
from any other aircraft.''
4. Location of assignment: 46 OG/OGV Eglin AFB--Attached to 8th
Special Operations Squadron
Crew position/Primary duty: CV-22B Flight Engineer/Evaluator
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 4\1/2\
years/850 flight hours
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety:
``Performance of the aircraft is great! The speed and hover
combinations bring a new capability to war fighter. I believe the
current block of aircraft is very safe. Reliability, in my opinion, is
on par with other aircraft of the same stage of development.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``Being able to take half the time
to accomplish the same missions as helicopters, demonstrating the
ability to be at 230 knots airspeed within seconds, converting the
aircraft to Vertical Takeoff and Land mode, and performing two-hoist
operations [are events that have shaped my opinion.]''
5. Location of assignment: 8th Special Operations Squadron,
Hurlburt Field, Florida
Crew position/Primary duty: Pilot/Instructor Pilot
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 7 years
(including MV-22 time)
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``I have
been amazed in the rapid improvements to reliability over the last
seven years. There are still a few components with questionable
reliability (i.e., Engine Air Particle Separator). Safety and
performance are both truly remarkable.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``I flew a CV-22 from Cape Verde
non-stop to St. Thomas (2,500 miles). Has any rotary-wing aircraft ever
done that? This aircraft has already gone places and done things that
no helicopter is capable of. The [aircraft's] speed and range
compresses time such that the teams we fly have more time available in
one period of darkness than ever before.''
6. Location of assignment: 8th Special Operations Squadron,
Hurlburt Field, Florida
Crew position/Primary duty: Evaluator Flight Engineer/Squadron
Superintendent
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 7 years/
1004 flight hours (including MV-22/CV-22) 2800 total hours
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``I have
been a flight engineer for 15 years. I spent 8 years on the MH-53 Pave
low performing the same mission the CV-22 does now. Is the aircraft
perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. However, when
executing Special Operations Forces (SOF) missions to insert, extract,
and resupply SOF personnel, at night, in adverse weather, there is no
other aircraft I would want to be on.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``There is no specific event that I
can point to. It would be made up of my experiences over a seven year
period on this aircraft. If you need to cover a great distance, over a
short period of time there is no other aircraft in the world that could
do it. I have seen the CV-22 do this mission over the course of seven
years. I am convinced there is no better aircraft for the mission. When
I look at where the aircraft was when I first flew on it in 2004, let
alone when it first flew, I can only imagine how good it is going to
get.''
7. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, Florida
Crew position/Primary duty: Evaluator Flight Engineer/HQ AFSOC
Command Flight Engineer
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 5 years/
1012 CV-22 hours
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``In my
opinion, the CV-22 is as safe as any other aircraft in the inventory.
The performance is unlike any other aircraft I have flown on; if you
are not watching out, it will throw you back in your seat on take-off.
In combat, this aircraft knows when the business needs to be done. It
will go and go until the team is safe back at the forward operating
base (FOB).''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``One night in Iraq, we were
gearing up to depart our main operating base (MOB) to pick up the team
at their forward operating base (FOB). Helicopters departed the MOB
approximately 30-45 minutes prior to us. The FOB was 40 minutes away
(at the speeds we fly), which means about 1.5 hours for the
helicopters. We landed and had time to brief with the team. After we
briefed, the helicopters landed, did not shutdown, picked up their
team, and departed the FOB. We cranked up, loaded the team, and
departed approximately 20 minutes after the helicopters. The CV-22
allows us to depart later and still give the team the most time on the
objective, and still return in one period of darkness.''
8. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, FL
Crew position/Primary duty: Maintenance Officer in Charge
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 6 months
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``I won't
speak on the performance of the aircraft in operation, as that is
outside of my specialty. However, from a maintenance safety standpoint,
the aircraft is built around several redundant systems which all
communicate with each other electronically on a timescale measured in
fractions of a second. In the most general of terms, the aircraft will
either default itself to the most safe condition, alert the crew to a
possible area of concern, or both.
From a reliability standpoint, the aircraft is still new and we are
still gathering data. If the amount of lead time on receiving
replacement components in the field is any indication, parts are
failing before they were anticipated to fail during the design phase.
It has been reported that the Air Force fleet of CV-22s is
maintaining an extremely low (in the 50 percent range) Aircraft
Availability rate. This is due to several factors: a relatively low
experience base in the maintenance technician arena; a laundry list of
inspections that require extensive downtime; and the low availability
of spare parts.
I believe that a number of these issues will be resolved in time;
experience will grow as the fleet ages, the inspections will take less
time as the maintainers gain experience, certain inspection
requirements could be dropped if the data collection supports it, and
there will be a larger pool of supplies as failure data is solidified
and the production effort is geared towards sustainment rather than
output after the fleet has been delivered to the service.''
9. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, FL
Crew position/Primary duty: Maintenance Officer in Charge
Length of experience with CV-22 (years or flight hours): 14 months
Opinion of CV-22 performance, reliability, and safety: ``The CV-22
has the unique capability of speed, range, and vertical takeoff/landing
that allows it to perform special operations missions unlike any other
aircraft; however there are some maintenances issues that we encounter
that puts some burden on maintainers. The majority of our work and
issues in generating sorties is focused in several areas which include
parts availability in supply, component reliability, engine
performance, fault detection, experience, cleaning (in sandy
environments), and inspections. While the CV-22 has several challenges
to maintenance, it must be understood that the CV-22 is not only a new
aircraft, but a new technology; being that it is the first mass
produced production tiltrotor. With this it is difficult to accurately
predict what components will fail and when because there isn't that
much historical data. In addition it is difficult to allocate spare
parts if there isn't historical data to justify failure rates. Our
maintainers also need to gain experience on the aircraft because there
frankly isn't any out there to draw from, due to how new the aircraft
is and the small Air Force fleet, which leads to a small pool of
maintenance experience. On other aircraft like C-130s, which have been
around for more than 50 years, people can spend an entire career on
that airframe making them very knowledgeable and efficient at
troubleshooting problems because they have truly seen and done it all.
Additionally, the inspections can be laborious and are performed often;
however, the requirements continue to decrease as more historical data
is collected.
The engine performance is mainly attributed to an inadequate intake
filter system which is currently being improved. While deployed to
Afghanistan we were changing engines with less than 50 flight hours on
the aircraft due to the ingestion of sand. When operating in austere
sandy environments, the V-22 incurs additional maintenance related to
cleaning filters, oil coolers, and engines which are generally not
encountered in non-sandy environments. The dirty, sandy environment
also created problems with detecting faults. Shorts in the wiring are
produced when vibrations in combination with a sand paper like
substance created from dirt, oil, and sand in hard to reach places of
the nacelle result in wires chaffing.
Overall, the reliability and performance of the CV-22 will increase
over time as parts dependability, parts spares, historical data, and
experience improves. Just in the short time our unit has been operating
(less than four years) there has been great improvement overall in
performance and reliability. In fact our unit produced a noticeably
higher mission capability rate during our most recent Operation
ENDURING FREEDOM tour compared to the previous Operation IRAQI FREEDOM
tour. Despite the challenges, we as maintainers are dedicated to
providing safe, serviceable, and properly configured aircraft every
time. And we did just that during our Afghanistan tour, providing
Special Operations a unique capability unlike any helicopter that
brought and will continue to bring the fight to the enemy.''
A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV-22's
performance, reliability or safety: ``Being deployed with the CV-22s in
Afghanistan for four months was a strong contributing factor to my
opinion on the aircraft.''
Section 2: AFSOC vignettes
VIGNETTE 1--MAJOR CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OEF/OIF)
The CV-22 supports the QDR mandate and USAF strategic focus to
``prevail in today's wars'' and ``succeed in a wide range of
contingencies.'' In support of OEF and OIF, the CV-22 has conducted 120
assaults resulting in the capture of 363 detainees. Due to its
incredible speed, the time required by a ground force to action an
objective is practically cut in half. On many occasions, the speed of
the aircraft compared to a traditional vertical-lift platform allowed
ground forces to action multiple objectives during a single period of
darkness. For instance, any objective in Iraq could be serviced from
Balad with less than a 1.5 hour flight in a CV-22, versus 3 hours using
a legacy platform.
The CV-22 provides unique, critical combat capability to our
special operation forces (SOF), combining vertical take-off and landing
ability with the speed of a fixed-wing turboprop aircraft, presenting
unprecedented global mission agility and reach.
VIGNETTE 2--LONG-RANGE RESCUE
In June of 2010, a coalition helicopter conducting a Special
Operation Forces exfiltration mission was disabled while departing a
nighttime target in the Baghlan Valley (south of Konduz, Afghanistan).
Multiple coalition attempts to retrieve the aircrew and ground team
were unsuccessful due to limited visibility and mountainous terrain
between Konduz and the target. CV-22 capabilities conquered these
obstacles within two hours. After being notified, two CV-22s were
launched from Kandahar and conducted a high-altitude, 450 mile flight
to the target area recovering all personnel and returning them to
Konduz. The CV-22s were able to perform this mission without needing to
be refueled. Those recovered stated, ``Thanks for picking us up when no
one else could.''
VIGNETTE 3--RAPID RESPONSE
A recent successful national contingency mission used three CV-22s,
which self-deployed over 2,500 nautical miles. These CV-22s performed
two air refuelings on their 13-hour non-stop flight to the objective
area. During this operation, the CV-22 was used for combat search and
rescue, personnel recovery, and quick reaction force support. The CV-
22's objective was 500 nautical miles from the staging base; this
increased stand-off distance reduced the US signature in the target
area helping to make the operation a success. The enemy never knew the
Americans were on his door step.
VIGNETTE 4--DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO MEET ``FUTURE CHALLENGES''
The CV-22 is optimal for use in areas without a large United States
footprint and robust aviation support infrastructures. This was
demonstrated through exercise and contingency operations conducted in
SOUTHCOM (Honduras) and AFRICOM (Mali). The CV-22 has the ability to
depart the Continental United States, conduct vertical-lift
infiltration/exfiltration operations throughout Central America, and
return to CONUS within a single period of darkness. Exercise FUSED
RESPONSE demonstrated the CV-22's capability of flying 1,100 nautical
miles from Hurlburt Field, perform a vertical landing mission within
the Dominican Republic, and returning within a single crew duty day.
This is equal to flying missions from Dallas, Texas, to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and back.
``The CV-22 is my weapon of choice.''--75th Ranger Regiment
Commander to 3-star Special Operation Forces Commander, June 2010.
VIGNETTE 5--MAINTENANCE
Overall, the reliability and performance of the CV-22 meets
requirements and is expected to increase over time as parts
dependability, parts spares, historical data, and experience improves.
Just in the short time our unit has been operating (less than four
years) there has been great overall improvement in performance and
reliability. In fact, our unit produced a noticeably higher mission
capability rate during our most recent Operation ENDURING FREEDOM tour
compared to the previous Operation IRAQI FREEDOM tour. Despite the
challenges, we as maintainers are dedicated to providing safe,
serviceable, and properly configured aircraft every time. And we did
just that during our Afghanistan tour, providing special operations a
unique capability unlike any helicopter that brought, and will continue
to bring, the fight to the enemy. [See page 17.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
General Schwartz. The Air Force uses an iterative, continually
informed process for fielding weapon systems intended to optimize
mission sets and requirements of the Total Force to meet Combatant
Commander requirements. The Air Force is committed to fielding the F-
35A Lightning II aircraft in the Reserve Component with the first
increment of operational basing, and fully supports further Reserve
Component fielding in the future. The Air Force believes the
combination of a collaborative and fully operational Total Force
Enterprise process, an open and transparent Strategic Basing process,
and effective linkages with the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Execution process will provide avenues to balance the Active Component
and Reserve Component workload while prioritizing Combatant Commander
requirements. The Air Force is dedicated to using these processes, with
full Reserve Component participation, to refine concepts of balanced
fielding and to ensure fielding of the F-35A in the most effective and
efficient manner. Colorado's bases are a valuable asset to the Air
Force and will be considered as part of the enterprise-wide look in
each of these basing actions. [See page 27.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
General Schwartz. The MALD-J Increment II is scheduled to enter
technology development in FY12, production in FY15, and begin fielding
in FY16. [See page 31.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Secretary Donley. There is no way to calculate the impact of the
procurement processes, oversight requirements associated with
Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, or the impact of the political process on Air Force
operational capabilities. The Air Force is actively implementing
efficiency initiatives to minimize the amount spent on overhead
functions such as these, while maximizing resources available for
operational requirements. [See page 29.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH ON BEHALF OF MS. GIFFORDS
General Schwartz. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 President's Budget
directs the consolidation of two Continental United States Air and
Space Operations Centers (AOC) into one. The Secretary of the Air Force
(SecAF) and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) directed the use
of the Strategic Basing process to determine the consolidated location.
The SecAF and CSAF determination of the preferred alternative location
should be made in late spring or early summer 2011. To mitigate risk
and ensure continuity, the consolidation will be a phased approach
through the fourth quarter of FY12. Finally, we do not foresee any
operational impact on Air Forces Southern Command's capabilities based
on lessons learned from recent operations. The AOC at Al Udeid Air
Base, Qatar has successfully coordinated air operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, while AOC operations in support of Haiti relief have also
demonstrated the ability to handle multiple contingencies in different
areas of responsibility from a single facility. [See page 12.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GRIFFIN
General Schwartz. The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
program requires either an appropriations bill to legally issue FY11
Aircraft Procurement Air Force (APAF) funds, or an exception clause in
a Continuing Resolution authorizing the C-130 AMP program to expend
APAF funds. [See page 36.]
General Schwartz. The Air Force Cost Analysis Agency (AFCAA)
summarized the projected Operations and Support (O&S) savings in
support of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) Milestone C
decision in June 2010. The AFCAA analysis projected the total O&S cost
savings for C-130 AMP, relative to the legacy fleet, at $163.8 million.
[See page 37.]
General Schwartz. The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
modernization does not directly add any years of combat service to the
C-130 Fleet. C-130 AMP is primarily focused on capability enhancements
to enable C-130 aircraft to operate well into the future in compliance
with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and international airspace
mandates. AMP will allow the modified C-130 Combat Delivery aircraft
unlimited access to United States airspace past January 1, 2020, when
the Federal Aviation Administration's NextGen airspace access mandates
take effect in United States airspace. Similar international airspace
mandates are anticipated. [See page 37.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 17, 2011
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON
Mr. McKeon. During the previous Next Generation Bomber program
cancelled just two years ago by Secretary Gates, the program was
described by Air Force acquisition officials as having the attributes
of: long-range, penetrating, optionally-manned, nuclear capable and
survivable. Further, the program was founded and grounded in the
integration of existing technologies and not invention of new
technologies. Ironically, Air Force officials have been using the same
terms to describe the new Next Generation Bomber program in this year's
budget. What's going to be different about this platform, compared to
the last planned platform, so that it doesn't meet the same
cancellation fate as before? Have any requirements or capabilities
changed?
General Schwartz. A thorough Department of Defense review of future
options for Long-Range Strike provided the opportunity to refocus Air
Force requirements and technology and better reflect the bomber's role
in a balanced portfolio of long range strike capabilities. The new
penetrating bomber program emphasizes affordability. This program will
leverage mature technologies, utilize a streamlined acquisition
process, and constrain requirements by making informed capability
tradeoffs. Additional details with regard to the new program are
protected with enhanced security measures and will be addressed in the
proper channels. I would be happy to have my staff provide a follow-up
classified briefing to you.
Mr. McKeon. The Air Force has a request to retire 6 B-1 bomber
aircraft in fiscal year 2012. Given that the Air Force only has 96
combat-coded aircraft, of which only 20 are low-observable (the B-2),
isn't it premature to retire any bomber aircraft before the new Next
Generation Bomber aircraft is fielded? How did you determine, and what
analysis supports, the Air Force decision in determining that 6 B-1
aircraft are excess to warfighting requirements?
General Schwartz. The Air Force carefully considered current bomber
force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection
requirements in determining the risk associated with a B-1 fleet
reduction.
The results of high-fidelity modeling and simulation analysis
conducted by Air Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of
six B-1 primary aircraft authorizations still meets currently approved
Office of the Secretary of Defense Analytic Agenda scenarios.
The Air Force conducted comparative analysis between the B-1, B-2,
and B-52 fleets' current and historical mission capable rates, as well
as model driven variable cost per flying hour data using the Air Force
Cost Analysis Agency's 2010 Air Force Cost and Performance tables, in
order to support measured force structure adjustments. However, the B-1
in particular faces several grounding concerns due to a thin industrial
base and avionics sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air
Force feels a reduction of six B-1s is a prudent course of action to
address these critical issues thereby increasing the pool of equipment
spares and freeing funds to source critical sustainment and capability
modifications. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft
availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements, while
bridging the gap to the future long range penetrating bomber.
Mr. McKeon. Do you plan to decrease the number of combat-coded B-1
aircraft, currently at 36 aircraft, if Congress allows you to retire
the 6 B-1 aircraft in the Air Force request?
General Schwartz. The Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of
current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power
projection requirements in determining the risk associated with a B-1
fleet reduction. The FY12 President's Budget requests retirement of six
B-1 aircraft in order to improve the B-1B program inventory. All
options regarding end state force structure composition are under
consideration, but reducing Primary Aircraft Inventory assets produces
the greatest impact on the readiness of the remaining fleet.
Mr. McKeon. The Air Force currently maintains 96 combat-coded
aircraft, however, according to recent Air Combat Command statistics on
average among the bomber fleet, only 44 percent of combat-coded
aircraft are available at any given moment. This equates to
approximately 42 aircraft available, out of 96 combat-coded. Is it
prudent to consider any bomber aircraft retirements at this time?
General Schwartz. Recent aircraft availability statistics and near-
term estimates indicate a declining trend in aircraft availability and
support the Air Force's decision to commence a modest reduction in
bomber force structure. The B-1 in particular faces several grounding
concerns due to a thin industrial base and avionics sustainment issues.
In light of these facts, the Air Force feels a reduction of six B-1s is
a prudent course of action to address these critical issues thereby
increasing the pool of equipment spares and freeing funds to source
critical sustainment and capability modifications. The Air Force
expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-
term as a result of these retirements, while bridging the gap to the
future long range penetrating bomber.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH
Mr. Smith. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ``A one-time cost of
$14 million for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter
(Operation and Maintenance, Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).''
Has NASA selected the National Museum of the United States Air Force in
Dayton, Ohio as the site for one of the retiring space orbiters?
Secretary Donley. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) did not select the National Museum of the United States Air
Force (NMUSAF) as a site for one of the retired space orbiters.
However, NASA did select NMUSAF to receive the crew training module and
a shuttle engine as well as other smaller artifacts. The NMUSAF is
pressing on to develop, design and implement an exhibit and Science,
Technology, Education and Math (STEM)--related activities on the USAF/
NASA partnership.
Mr. Smith. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ``A one-time cost of
$14 million for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter
(Operation and Maintenance, Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).''
Has the Museum entered into any preliminary discussions or agreements
with NASA on this subject?
Secretary Donley. No, the National Museum of the United States Air
Force did not enter into any preliminary discussions or agreements with
National Aeronautics and Space Administration on this subject.
Mr. Smith. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ``A one-time cost of
$14 million for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter
(Operation and Maintenance, Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).''
If not, is it premature for the Air Force to be allocating funds for
this activity?
Secretary Donley. Due to the Department of Defense budget process,
any substantial known requirement for FY2012 must be included in the
President's Budget to prevent an unplanned execution year bill. The
National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) is scheduled to retire
shuttles in FY2011 and deliver them and other equipment to the
recipients by the end of FY2012. The cost of preparing, transporting
and accepting the crew training module, shuttle engine and other
smaller artifacts and the subsequent development and implementation of
an exhibit and Science, Technology, Education and Math (STEM)
activities could be as much as $1 million. Since the announcement is
recent, the Air Force is just now entering into discussions with NASA
as to the process and projected costs of transferring the items.
Mr. Smith. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ``A one-time cost of
$14 million for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter
(Operation and Maintenance, Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).''
The budget states that the Air Force has `requested an interagency
transfer of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the National Museum of the
United States Air Force.' Was this a formal request and when was it
placed? Can you define what is meant by an interagency transfer? What,
if any, is the significance of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the Air
Force?
Secretary Donley. An ``interagency transfer'' is a common phrase
used to describe how a United States Government agency or department
may obtain excess property directly from other Federal agencies. The
process is regulated by the Federal Management Regulation (FMR), Title
41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-36.145. The National
Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) has designated the National Museum
of the United States Air Force to receive the crew training module and
other items. These will be transferred through interagency agreement
for development and implementation of an exhibit and Science,
Technology, Education and Math (STEM) activities related to the USAF/
NASA partnership.
Mr. Smith. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ``A one-time cost of
$14 million for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter
(Operation and Maintenance, Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).''
What does the $14 million cost in the budget represent? NASA documents
reveal the costs to prepare and deliver a shuttle to be much higher.
Has NASA provided the Air Force with a separate cost estimate?
Secretary Donley. Since no orbiter was designated for the National
Museum of the United States Air Force, costs of transfer have reduced
significantly. Although the National Aeronautics and Space Agency has
not provided the Air Force a separate or detailed cost breakdown, the
Air Force will require approximately $1 million to prepare, transfer
and accept the crew training module, shuttle engine and smaller items
and develop exhibits and education activities. Display of these
artifacts will commence immediately upon receipt to further educate the
American and international public of our nation's great achievements in
space. With the concurrence of the Congress the remaining $13 million
will be reprogrammed for critical Operation and Maintenance needs.
Mr. Smith. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ``A one-time cost of
$14 million for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter
(Operation and Maintenance, Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).''
I understand that there are a number of non-government museums across
the country that are qualified to display a NASA shuttle and are hoping
to secure one. How does the Air Force answer the charge that including
Federal funds in the FY 2012 budget for this purpose gives the National
Air Force Museum an unfair advantage in the NASA selection process?
Secretary Donley. As a Federal Entity, the National Museum of the
United States Air Force (NMUSAF) depends on the budget process. It is
precluded by law and regulation from soliciting private funds:
therefore, it must seek the support of Congress. This is not an unfair
advantage. Rather, the NMUSAF is following the normal budget processes
available to it in order to meet its mission requirement for
preserving, maintaining and making available to the widest public
audience possible portions of our nation's heritage. A Space Shuttle
Orbiter is an important part of the Air Force's history and heritage
and as such, it is appropriate for the Secretary of the Air Force to
request a Space Shuttle for display and to seek budget support. Since
the time of this hearing, NASA announced the locations designated to
receive an orbiter. The NMUSAF was not selected.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Forbes. The Air Force has identified specialties within active
component career fields that are experiencing significant stress and
maintains what it calls the stressed career field list. For a specialty
to be considered stressed, it must meet two of the following
conditions: high personnel deployment rates, career field manning
shortages, or low personnel inventory and retention. As of October 31,
2010, over 63,000 individuals, or around 19 percent of Air Force active
component personnel, were in a stressed specialty. Many specialties
have remained on the list for several years, including Security Forces,
Contracting, and multiple Civil Engineering specialties.'' What steps
is the Air Force taking to mitigate the strain on the career
specialties on the stressed career field list in general and on the
specialties that have perennially appeared on the list in particular?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. A career field is designated
as stressed if it is critical in at least two of three measures: 1)
Operational Demand which expresses the effort required of an Air Force
Specialty (AFS) to meet contingency demands with both active and
reserve component Airmen; 2) Work Tempo which measures home station and
deployed requirements versus funded authorizations and inventory; and
3) Career Field Health which measures manning, career field shape,
Personnel Tempo, and retention. The Air Force uses a variety of tools
to address stress depending on the specific problems leading to a
stress designation. As of 28 Feb 11, there are 16 stressed enlisted Air
Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) and 6 stressed officer AFSCs which
totaled just under 55,000 Airmen, 17.9 percent of the active Air Force
population. All but one of these 22 AFSCs are in high operational
demand. Since authorizations are funded based on a stable peacetime
mission, not the surge of two simultaneous combat operations, and the
Air Force grows and maintains the active component inventory to meet
authorizations, we do not expect these AFSCs to come off the stressed
list until the contingency demand decreases. Until then, demand will
exceed supply for some AFSCs, and at least one of the three measures
will remain critical.
When manning and retention add to stress, the Air Force works
solutions across the career continuum to correct it. We have increased
accessions to reasonable levels to build a healthy future force without
creating a bulge in the inventory in years-of-service groups. We have
implemented opportunities for voluntary and involuntary retraining,
which is a long-standing formalized annual process for enlisted but a
new formal process for officers. Enlisted first termers can retrain
through the CAREERS program and mid grade Airmen through the
Noncommissioned Officer Retraining Program. The Air Force recently
selected 73 officers to crossflow into undermanned non-rated line
officer AFSCs. The Air Force also offers bonuses to encourage longer
enlistments and improve retention and manning in officer AFSCs through
the Critical Skills for Retention Bonus (CSRB) program and for enlisted
Airmen through the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program. When
necessary, the Air Force will limit developmental opportunities/
assignments for officers to utilize them more fully in core AFSC
requirements. For enlisted AFSCs, the Chronic Critical Skills for
Promotion program provides extra promotions for shortage skills and
grades.
Bottom line, the Air Force continues to closely monitor and manage
all stressed specialties, and we will take appropriate force management
actions to improve retention and manning. We will continue using SRBs
and CSRBs to manage retention and address shortfalls in critical
skills.
Mr. Forbes. Each Air Force unit is designed to perform a specific
mission requiring a particular skill set. However, Air Force personnel
may be assigned to support current operations by deploying to perform a
related mission that does not necessarily require their full skill set.
When individuals are engaged in operations that require only a subset
of their full skill set, their competence in some other skills may
erode because the individual is unable to complete the full extent of
their training requirements to remain qualified in their core
mission.'' To what extent has the Air Force identified unit types or
career specialties, in which assigned personnel are not receiving
comprehensive training for their core missions and what steps, if any,
have been taken to mitigate any identified gaps in training?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. The Air Force has approved
specialized procedures for maintaining specialty skills to include
comprehensive training management processes. Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 36-2201, Air Force Training Program, requires supervisors to
review the training records of enlisted Airmen prior to their
deployment to ensure the training continuum is not broken. In turn, the
supervisors document any remaining upgrade training requirements and
training remarks as appropriate on the On-the-Job Record Continuation
Sheet, or automated version. If airmen are out of their career
specialties long enough to diminish the proficiency in their particular
specialty skills set, Airmen will increase their proficiency in lost
competencies through Air Force Force Development programs that include
any combination of education, training, and experience (i.e., Career
Development Courses (CDC), OJT, and/or specific placement in
development positions).
Additionally, the Air Force trains rated personnel in accordance
with (IAW) 11-series Mission Design Series (MDS)-Specific Volume 1
AFIs, which identify events to be accomplished for aircrew personnel to
maintain mission qualification and currency. Depending on real-world
mission requirements, some skill sets may experience a loss in
training, in order to accommodate immediate mission requirements, which
reinforce other skill sets. When personnel return to their unit,
individuals receive the necessary training to regain proficiency in
unit mission tasks and accomplish training events as necessary to
comply with Volume 1 requirements. This is a recognized issue
associated with the Air Expeditionary Forces (AEF) cycle, and is
provided for in the cycle dynamic. The Air Force is standardizing
deployment lengths to 179 days, increasing dwell, to afford more time
for reset and training opportunities. The Air Force restructured the
AEF to include TEMPO banding for high stressed capabilities in response
to the long term surge.
Mr. Forbes. In a 2007 memorandum and subsequent implementing
guidance to the services, the Secretary of Defense established
deployment rotation goals that generally call for reserve component
personnel to be involuntarily mobilized for no more than 1 year and
then demobilized for 5 years, and for active component personnel to be
deployed for 1 year and then at home station for 2 years.'' What
percentage of Air Force personnel are currently deploying within these
rotational goals and what steps is the Air Force taking with the aim
that all personnel meet these goals in the future, particularly
personnel who provide critical capabilities in support of current
operations and have traditionally deployed at rates that exceed the
Secretary's deployment goals?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. There are 178K personnel in
the Reserve Component (RC) with 3,420 currently mobilized under Title
10, United States Code, section 12302, which is considered an
involuntary action. Of those, 2,843 or 83 percent are meeting or
exceeding the Secretary of Defense's established mobilization to
demobilization ratio minimums of 1:5 for the RC. However, a significant
portion of the remaining 17 percent volunteered to be mobilized.
Therefore, in practice, we are actually closer to Secretary of
Defense's goal than the statistics indicate.
There are 332K personnel in the Active Component (AC) with 29,325
currently deployed on contingency operations. Of those, 27,350 or 93
percent are meeting or beating the Secretary of Defense's established
deploy to dwell ratio minimums of 1:2 for the AC.
The Air Force strives to provide all Airmen, to include those in
critical capabilities that traditionally deploy at rates exceeding the
Secretary's deployment limits, as much time at home as possible after a
deployment or a mobilization. In fact, the Air Force Generation
Construct maximizes dwell and provides greater deployment
predictability for all Airmen. The Air Force also uses the civilian
workforce and Air Reserve Component volunteers to increase dwell for
Active Component members and involuntarily mobilized Active Reserve
Component personnel. The Air Force's Force Engagement Strategy sizes
and shapes the force with the appropriate balance of skills to meet the
needs of the current and future fight.
Mr. Forbes. The Air Force is in the process of enhancing its
fighter aircraft capability by replacing fourth-generation fighters
such as F-15s and F-16s with fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22
and F-35. The Air Force has stated a strike fighter operational
requirement of 2,000 aircraft, and, under current procurement and
retirement plans, the Air Force does not project a strike fighter
shortfall. However, delays in deliveries of the F-35A aircraft will
affect the Air Force fighter aircraft inventory. To what extent do Air
Force aircraft retirement plans and life extension and modernization
plans for the F-15, F-16, and A-10 aircraft factor in potential delays
in the deliveries of the F-22 and F-35?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. A 2010 comprehensive review
of the current and projected force structure revealed a shortfall of
approximately 3-5 percent of the total aircraft (60-100) through the
Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). The last two production F-22s are on
schedule for delivery in March 2012. F-35 program status remains the
key variable in the fighter force structure forecast as the Air Force
transitions to a 5th generation force. F-35 delays are manageable
across the FYDP, but have long term impacts that require mitigation.
These impacts will be mitigated through aggressive management of F-35
production, legacy fleet review and sustainment, along with selected
service life extension program (SLEP) and modernization program. In the
FY2012 (FY12) President's Budget (PB), Air Force continues to sustain
Block 25--32 F-16s via structural sustainment funded through the fleet
management program utilizing existing Operation & Maintenance funding.
The FY12 PB also adds $15M to begin Research, Development, Testing and
Evaluation for structural modification and avionics modernization as
part of selected Block 40/50 F-16 SLEPs.
Mr. Forbes. According to the FY12 budget submission, the Air Force
has identified 33.3 billion dollars in savings from efficiencies that
will be reinvested into its budget, including improving depot and
supply chain business processes (3 billion) and reorganizations (4.2
billion) such as consolidating staff (4 operations and 3 numbered) and
streamlining installation support. What are the specific actions that
will be taken to realize the savings from improving processes and
reorganizations. How does the Air Force intend to track the realization
of these savings? How will realizing the total amount of $33.3 billion
improve Air Force readiness, i.e. what tangible evidence will the Air
Force be able to show that gaining greater efficiencies has benefited
its readiness posture?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. We have developed a series
of Priority areas with supporting Objectives which include specific
tasks and actions to realize our efficiencies. The following are some
of the major objectives for improving organizational and business
process:
Consolidating three Numbered Air Forces with co-located
Major Command staff and consolidating the activities of four Air and
Space Operations Centers into two, thereby achieving a redistribution
of 347 military authorizations (228 in FY12 and 119 in FY13) across the
Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) and eliminating 212 civilian
authorizations beginning in FY13 which will save $100.1 million across
the FYDP
Consolidating installation support management to improve
Air Force-wide standardization and prioritization
Reallocating 5,600 active duty billets over the FYDP from
lower priority support functions to higher priority, growth areas
Saving more than $3 billion from anticipated growth in
Weapon System Sustainment (WSS) portfolio efficiencies across the FYDP
by reviewing operational requirements, depot processes and the
sustainment of the supply chain without degrading operational
capabilities or support to the warfighter
Reducing fuel consumption within the Mobility Air Forces
by leveraging proven commercial aviation practices for flight planning
and weight reduction, and implementing other initiatives to save $715
million (net) across the FYDP
Reducing acquisition costs by consolidating services,
scrutinizing contracts, reducing contract support, and more efficiently
using resources to deliver capabilities and support to the warfighter
Reducing information technology costs by more than $1.2
billion over the FYDP by adopting Department of Defense (DoD)-level
Enterprise Information Services including enterprise core services,
consolidating and standardizing the network information technology
infrastructure from nine Air Force and Air National Guard Regional
Processing Centers to five centrally controlled centers, and migrating
current and developmental applications, services and data to DoD-
provided enterprise computing centers
Improving our procurement of satellites with a new
acquisition strategy which, subject to Congressional approval, will
lower procurement costs and stabilize the defense industrial base.
Across our Efficiency efforts we assigned Senior Leaders (by name)
as the responsible owners and champions to achieve their assigned
portion of $33.3 billion in Efficiency savings. They work across our
major commands and functional organizations to develop and manage
Efficiency Plans. Their plans address the Efficiency objective,
specific steps to achieve that objective with associated completion
dates, and forecasted results. The plans include financial performance,
manpower savings, and mission area performance projections.
Corporately, we are reviewing progress on a Monthly basis in the
Air Force Board (attended by Flag Officer/Senior Executives from across
Headquarters Air Force and the major commands) which then informs a
Quarterly Air Force Performance Review in the Air Force Council
(chaired by the Under Secretary and Vice Chief of Staff). These reviews
will monitor plans and progress and ensure that Efficiency outcomes are
in fact delivered and do not inadvertently impact readiness, mission
performance, or quality of Life for Airmen. As fact of life issues
surface during the year of execution, deviations from approved plans
will be thoroughly assessed by senior leadership. To alleviate fact of
life impacts and to continue to foster a culture of stewardship, we
know we will need to fill gaps and shortfalls in existing plans with
modified or new Efficiency initiatives. Our process for management of
Efficiencies and corporate oversight has considered that some
initiatives will be more successful than others and that we must have
the ability to fill gaps when they arise. This is to ensure we do not
create future bills and preserve investments in mission and readiness.
Within the dynamics of today's resource constrained environment,
the chance to redirect Efficiencies to other higher priority Air Force
operations and investments is a strategic opportunity that can enhance
readiness and warfighting capability. The Secretary of Defense's
Efficiency challenge has allowed us to re-invest our efficiencies. The
following mission funding enhancements are included in our budget
submission:
Investing in the Long-Range Strike Family of Systems,
including a new penetrating bomber as a key component of the Joint
portfolio
Investing an additional $3.5 billion to fund the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) program to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) Independent Cost Assessment, with the
Department of Defense (DoD) committed to buying five boosters per year
to meet national space launch requirements and stabilize the industrial
base
Repurposing 5,600 active duty billets over the FYDP to
support Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability, U.S.
Pacific Command force structure requirements, Total Force Integration,
the U-2 continuation, building partnership capacity, increasing support
to the Air Force District of Washington UH-1N mission, among other
increases
Procuring an additional 16 simulators for F-35 aircrew
training bringing the total procurement to 30 simulators to ensure an
effective training pipeline throughput and operational unit pilot
proficiency and cost control
Recapitalizing the aging special operations forces MC-
130H/W aircraft
Improving the aircraft computer infrastructure of the B-
52 to enable more rapid machine-to-machine retargeting
Enhancing combat capability of the F-15C and F-15E with
additional Active Electronic Scanned Array radars and electronic
protection software upgrades
Continuing to fund the development of next-generation
Global Positioning System (GPS) III Operational Control Segment
Researching and developing electronic protection and
suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) capabilities for the F-22
Transitioning MC-12W Liberty Project from Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding into the Air Force baseline budget
beginning in FY13
Continuing maximized production of the MQ-9 Reaper to
ensure delivery of 65 Combat Air Patrols by the end of FY13
Extending U-2 operations through FY15 to ensure a smooth
high-altitude transition
Baselining the Air Sovereignty Alert program across the
FYDP to solidify support to homeland security operations.
Mission support enhancements that were enabled include $7.0B into
Weapon System Sustainment to support readiness and $327.0M in military
construction (MILCON) enhancements to meet critical Combatant Commander
requirements, bed-down new mission weapons systems and improve the
quality of life for our Airmen through the construction of six
additional Airmen dorm projects.
Other tangible evidence that Efficiencies have benefited readiness
will be accomplished through our continual review of readiness
indicators throughout the year as well as our annual reassessment of
capability gaps and annual future year programming reviews.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. The Air Force has been a leader in developing their
Computer Network Operations capabilities. However, I have some serious
questions about how progress has been made in developing the personnel
and acquisitions side of your cyber policy. The fiscal year 2010
National Defense Authorization required the development of a new
acquisition process for IT systems that focused on the rapid deployment
of emerging technologies. The same bill also required of the entire
Department a study on the recruitment, retention, and career
progression of uniformed and civilian military cyber operations
personnel. What is the Air Force specifically doing to make its IT
acquisitions more nimble and encourage airmen with critical cyber skill
to stay in uniform?
Secretary Donley. There are several actions the Air Force is taking
to accelerate Information Technology (IT) acquisition. In concert with
Section 804 of Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisition Reform efforts,
the Air Force is developing processes and models to streamline and
speed IT acquisition through a ``services'' development and delivery
process. This ``Services-based'' model will allow the Air Force, and
ultimately the entire DoD, to quickly develop services and
applications. To attain this vision, we will first build a common
platform or infrastructure as part of Secretary of Defense's efficiency
initiatives. From this common platform we will be able to quickly
develop, test, and field new IT services and applications. The first
step to achieve this objective occurred when the Air Force Chief
Information Officer (CIO), in consultation with the Air Force Chief
Management Officer (CMO) and Service Acquisition Executive (SAE),
released a directive which will ensure all future IT developments are
done in accordance with web-based standards and protocols. The Air
Force is also restructuring IT programs, when feasible, to deliver
rapidly executed increments/releases of capability. The goal is to
release capability improvements every 18 months. The Air Force program,
Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System, is a pilot program
for developing this new model. Taken together, these are some of the
prerequisite steps which will enable the Air Force to make IT
acquisitions more cost effective and schedule efficient.
The Air Force manning for Cyberspace Operations and Support
personnel in the 17D, 3D, and 1B4 Air Force Specialty Codes are
currently within sustainment levels. Overall retention is good for the
Air Force, and this holds true for the majority of our Cyberspace
career fields. We do provide reenlistment bonuses to four Cyber Support
specialties (1B4X1, Cyberspace Defense Operations; 3D0X2, Cyber Systems
Operations; 3D0X3, Cyber Surety, and 3D1X5, Radar) whose historical
reenlistment rates are below desired levels. All others (military and
civilian) do not require any retention incentives. Additionally, the
Air Education and Training Command and 24th Air Force continue to train
and produce critical cyberspace operators to meet operational needs.
However, as operational requirements emerge (United States Cyberspace
Command, etc), the Air Force will continue to evaluate the need for
special incentive programs to ensure the Cyberspace force continues to
meet sustainment levels and operational needs.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. The Air Force has exceeded its authorized end strength
for the past several years. We are told the Air Force will meet its
authorization by the end of FY12. What makes this year different than
the past and how will you be successful in achieving your desired end
strength? What assistance from the Congress will you need to facilitate
your efforts to stay within the end strength limits?
General Schwartz. We are committed to reaching our authorized end-
strength by the end of FY12 and we are implementing several force
management actions to meet end strength requirements. Force management
is a multi-year effort and we are taking aggressive measures for both
officers and enlisted to meet requirements. We are using existing
authorities to the maximum extent; however, renewed and expanded
measures would enable us to be even more effective in shaping our
force. Thank you for the FY11 National Defense Authorization Act
renewed authority to allow officers with 20 or more years of total
service to retire with eight versus ten years of commissioned service.
We implemented this authority in our current Force Management strategy
to help manage our end strength for FY11 and may continue it, if our
request for another extension is granted beyond September 2013. In
addition we are utilizing several voluntary and involuntary measures.
In coordination with our sister Services, we are working with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to request additional
legislative authorities. As you may be aware, our authorities to shape
our mid-grade officers by offering voluntary separation pay and
conducting an involuntary reduction in force board expires in December
2012. We have successfully implemented this legislation in the past,
and request an extension of these authorities. To manage officers with
more than 15, but less than 20 years of service, we are requesting a
Temporary Early Retirement Authority. Additionally, to incentivize
officers to retire in skills excess to Air Force requirements, we are
requesting authority for a voluntary retirement incentive pay. We
currently have the authority to selectively retire lieutenant colonels
and colonels early; however the existing authority is limited. Renewing
the enhanced selective early retirement authority will allow the Air
Force to more precisely manage our lieutenant colonels and colonels. We
also request flexibility to adjust the maximum years of active
commissioned service for lieutenant colonels and colonels. Lastly, we
are requesting an extension to the Career Flexibility to Enhance
Retention program beyond December 2012, to authorize service members to
assume inactive status from active duty in order to meet personal or
professional needs, and then return to active duty at the end of such
period of inactivation.
We are working all of these items through OSD. Each of these
legislative authorities will provide all of the Services with
additional tools to size and shape the armed forces, to best meet
current and future mission requirements.
Mr. Wilson. I appreciate that the Air Force retention-oriented
culture will have great difficulty with the involuntary officer
separation/retirement actions being introduced. How will the Air Force
prepare the officer corps for these actions and avoid the morale
problem that might cause retention problems when the job market
improves?
General Schwartz. The Air Force must balance the desire of Airmen
wanting to serve with the need to operate within our Congressionally
authorized end strength ceiling. In doing so, the Air Force is
concerned about doing the right thing for our Air Force, our Airmen and
their families. Air Force leaders at all levels are communicating with
Airmen in clear candid terms to minimize uncertainty and maximize
employment options. Airmen eligible for involuntary separation,
discharge or retirement programs have opportunities to separate from
the active duty force voluntarily in lieu of the involuntary force
management actions. The Air Force has many programs to help Airmen
transition from active duty and those who leave the active duty force
are encouraged to consider opportunities along the continuum of service
in the Air Force Reserves and Air National Guard. The Air Force
Reserves and Air National Guard are working closely with the active
duty force to fill shortage skill areas with Airmen transitioning from
active duty. Transition programs are also in place to facilitate
opportunities available to Airmen in our Sister Services. Many Airmen
are also uniquely qualified for federal service. Airman and Family
Readiness Centers offer transition assistance planning and veterans
benefit seminars. Transitioning Airmen are encouraged to capitalize on
opportunities available with the Post 9/11 GI Bill to further their
educational goals.
Mr. Wilson. Given that in FY11 the Air Force will use both
voluntary and involuntary measures to reduce end-strength, why does it
make sense for the Air Force in FY12 to add 600 people to its active
duty end-strength?
General Schwartz. In the FY10 President's Budget (PB), the Air
Force programmed active duty end strength at 331.7K in FY10, increasing
to 332.2K by FY11 and 332.8K in FY12-15. The growth of 600 between the
FY11 and FY12 PBs are in support of the Defense Health Program (DHP),
specifically due to FY08 National Defense Authorization Act reversal of
planned military to civilian conversions for DHP. The growth has been
in the Air Force's program since the FY10 PB.
Mr. Wilson. The Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a letter
conveying their ``strong support for the military health care program
changes that are included in the President's proposed fiscal year 2012
budget.'' Please explain in your own words why you support the proposed
changes. These changes will go beyond the beneficiaries and will impact
the people who support the Department of Defense health system. Are you
concerned about the implications these changes will have on hospital
employees, pharmacists, vendors, just to name a few? In your opinion,
will these effects harm the quality and access to care for our
servicemembers, military retirees, and their families. For example,
there are hospitals located very close to Holloman Air Force Base,
Malmstrom Air Force Base, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, and Grand Forks
Air Force Base that will be significantly affected by the plan to
reduce the rate that TRIACRE pays them to care for our beneficiaries.
Does that concern you?
General Schwartz. We will continue to provide the finest health
care benefit in the country to our active and retired military service
members and their families. In an effort to slow the growth in health
care costs, the Department of Defense (DoD) is proposing TRICARE adopt
Medicare rates at 420 Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs). In the early
2000's, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services changed medical
inpatient reimbursement rates for 420 SCHs throughout the United
States; DoD did not implement this change for TRICARE network
hospitals. As such, TRICARE currently pays 29 percent above the
Medicare rates. The proposal will match Medicare reimbursement.
The SCH reimbursement change will not affect active duty (AD)
military members and their families' access to health care. While SCH
will receive lower rates, there will be no additional out of pocket
costs for the AD families. This change also does not impact
professional fee reimbursement only hospital charges.
As for the impact of health care providers, we have a long history
of partnership with the SCHs and have helped them expand services that
are now available without a TRICARE payment above Medicare rates.
However, per the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs and TRICARE Management Authority, about 5 percent (20) of the
420 SCHs could be significantly affected by the proposed change. This
is because these SCHs receive more than 5 percent of their revenue from
TRICARE. Eight of these 20 are near and support Air Force Military
Treatment Facilities (MTFs). To reduce the affects of this proposed
change on these 20 SCHs, a phased approach to the reimbursement rates
over a four year period will be used and we will closely monitor the
impact on availability of network care. Further, the Department is
working a payment adjustment above the Medicare rate for SCHs with
greater than five percent of overall income from TRICARE, where network
care may be adversely affected. To this end, we are watching Whiteman,
Holloman, Minot, and Altus communities very closely.
The Air Force values our partnership with the community medical
facilities that care for our Air Force beneficiaries and supports the
efforts to minimize the impact of this proposal.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. Secretary Donley, to what extent is the Air Force
working with the Guam Oversight Council and the Department of the Navy
to utilize some of Andersen Air Force Base for Marine basing
requirements? What type of challenges or impacts should the Committee
be aware of if some Marines are in the main cantonment area and some
are on Andersen?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force is working closely with the Guam
Oversight Council, chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the
Department of the Navy to best utilize the existing Department of
Defense lands on Guam. In February 2011, the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force (CSAF) sent a memo to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment) restating our strong support of efforts
to consider all options for Marine housing on Guam. The CSAF identified
prioritized areas of emphasis during analysis of housing options and
the buildup in general. These are:
a. Protect and preserve the Air Force's mission readiness and
Operation Plan execution.
b. Ensure any alternatives factor in operational suitability and
compatibility to existing Air Force training.
c. Analyze and provide Joint Service Mission Support Requirements
(JSMSR) in a fair and equitable fashion with respect to quality of life
standards, avoiding the ``haves'' and ``have nots'', and sustaining the
quality of life for Air Force members and families currently assigned
to Andersen Air Force Base.
d. Continue our track record of protection of some of Guam's most
sensitive environmental areas.
Ms. Bordallo. Secretary Donley, please update this committee on the
progress of filling Air National Guard units with missions,
particularly flying missions that were lost as a result of the BRAC
2005 decisions. What's the progress on this issue? I remain concerned
that there are still Air Guard units with bridge missions and that we
continue to hemorrhage flying capabilities out of these units.
Secretary Donley. All Air National Guard (ANG) units impacted by
Base Realignment and Closure 2005 have had permanent follow-on missions
assigned. Of the twenty-one ANG flying units which divested aircraft,
sixteen have received new flying missions to include Remotely Piloted
Aircraft. Three of the sixteen units are operating bridge missions (C-
21) to maintain flying skills as they await delivery of their permanent
aircraft, the C-27J, with the last delivery scheduled for 2015. Five
ANG units have received new non-flying permanent missions.
Ms. Bordallo. Secretary Donley, will the general concept for the
new bomber be an improvement over the previous program? How so? Will
requested funding be adequate to support the bomber industrial base
over the next three years and how do you intend to manage the cost
growth of a new bomber program? And lastly, Mr. Secretary, can you
please explain the rationale behind your decision to build a long range
manned bomber with the ability to penetrate defended air space. Why is
standoff insufficient to meet future Combatant Command requirements?
What are the inherent limitations within our existing legacy bomber
fleet?
Secretary Donley. The new penetrating bomber program puts more
emphasis on affordability. This program will leverage mature
technologies, utilize a streamlined acquisition process, and constrain
requirements by making informed capability and cost tradeoffs. Specific
capabilities are classified, but I would be glad to have my staff brief
you on the details.
The Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) includes $3.7B for the new
penetrating bomber program. The Air Force believes that this funding is
sufficient to maintain the bomber industrial base.
The Air Force remains committed to providing standoff strike
capabilities as well. Over the FYDP we continue our investment in the
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range. Additionally, we
will initiate the Long Range Standoff program which will replace the
Air Launched Cruise Missile. These existing and emerging stand-off
weapons, coupled with a penetrating bomber, provide the President with
the option to hold virtually any target at risk at any point on the
globe. The penetrating bomber's long range and significant payload will
provide operational flexibility for Joint commanders. The penetrating
bomber also offers broad geographic coverage, a wide mix of stand-off
and direct attack munitions, and is usable across the spectrum of
conflict.
The greatest inherent limitation of our existing bomber fleet is
age. The mainstay of our legacy force, the B-52H was initially fielded
in 1962. Our most advanced platforms, the B-1B and the B-2A were
fielded in 1985 and 1993, respectively. The effectiveness of the legacy
bomber fleet is dependent upon the threat environment which will
continue to increase over time as advanced integrated air defenses
continue to proliferate. Throughout several conflicts our adversaries
have had the opportunity to observe how we employ these systems and
subsequently have adapted their technology and tactics to attempt to
challenge our ability to hold the global target set at risk.
Development of a new penetrating bomber will allow future leaders
to leverage the capabilities of the existing fleet while also providing
an asymmetric advantage over adversary advances.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO
Mr. LoBiondo. How does the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request
from the Department of the Air Force address not only the current needs
of the Air National Guard's Fighter Wings, but also the need for
service life extension programs and modernizing its aging fleet of F-
16s?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. The FY12 Budget Request
adequately meets the needs of the Air National Guard's Fighter Wings.
The Air Force, with inputs from the Air National Guard, programs and
schedules the modernization of the entire F-16 fleet. The management of
service life extension programs and modernization is an utmost
priority. In addition, the Air National Guard utilizes critical
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account funding to increase the
capabilities of legacy F-16 aircraft no longer in the active duty fleet
(Block 30 and below).
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH ON BEHALF OF MS. GIFFORDS
Mr. Smith [for Ms. Giffords]. My question is in regard to the Air
Sovereignty Alert (ASA) system. ASA is charged with providing aerospace
control to ensure air sovereignty and air defense of the air space of
both Canada and the United States. This is an issue that has been
discussed in the Committee before; an issue my good friend
Congresswoman Giffords has worked on throughout her years on this
committee. I understand this is mission is under NORAD command, but Air
Sovereignty Alert (ASA) units include both Air National Guard (ANG) and
active duty Air Force personnel. We have seen a reduction of ASA sites
and we are hearing additional funding and resources could be in danger,
leaving in danger our air space.
General Schwartz. The security of the United States and its
citizens is at the top of the Nation's enduring national interests, as
codified in the President's 2010 National Security Strategy. Operation
NOBLE EAGLE is just one of many contributions the Air Force makes every
day in defense of the homeland. The Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) posture
of Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE) is the Air Force's first layer of
deterrence and defense of North American air sovereignty.
The Air Force/Air National Guard (AF/ANG) team is committed to ASA
and fully funded the requirement across the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP). The Air Force made this commitment to the aerospace control and
warning mission in the 2012 President's Budget submission to Congress
ensuring resources and manpower are strategically programmed and
available.
Currently, the Air National Guard is filling most of North American
Aerospace Defense Command's (NORAD) requirements for ground alert
forces by establishing ASA locations at strategic points in the
continental United States and Hawaii. Those units can change due to
conversions, deploying in overseas contingency operations (OCO) or
vital combat training missions. However, these changes or adjustments
are carefully reviewed and mitigated by the Air Force in coordination
with joint force providers and our NORAD customer.
The Air Force maintains a trained, equipped, and ready force to
meet Commander, NORAD's operational mission requirements for a 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week, response.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. The burgeoning use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles poses an
increasingly realistic threat to national security. This threat could
be reduced through detect and destroy technology which the Air Force is
developing. The Air Force has the scientists who are specialists in
sensor technology who are working the problem, and also has the
research radars for testing. But the problem is that we don't have
special use airspace to fly UAVs to take advantage of the people and
equipment. What is the Air Force doing to secure the necessary special
use airspace so that we can develop the critically needed UAS
countermeasures utilizing our research equipment and scientific
personnel?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. Air Force supports
establishment of Special Use Airspace (SUA) to allow for the
development of counter-Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) technology test
and evaluation. Current airspace constraints do not enable AF Research
Lab to meet increasing demands for new Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)-
related Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) and
operations. The Air Force has been working with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to determine the safety challenges inherent in use
of UAVs. We are in the process of completing a proposal to the FAA that
we believe will allow the Air Force to move forward.
Mr. Turner. The Air Force is currently the federal government's top
energy consumer, requiring 2.5 billion gallons of fuel each year to
power its operations. This heavy dependence on fossil fuels poses a
significant risk to our national security. The Air Force's Energy Plan
states that ``Energy security is at the nexus of national,
environmental, and economic security.'' One of your ``End State'' goals
is to have aircraft ``flying on alternative fuel blends if cost
competitive, domestically produced, and have a lifecycle greenhouse gas
footprint equal to or less than petroleum.''
a. What investment in alternative fuels has the Air Force made to
achieve these goals?
b. What progress has been made?
c. Does the Air Force still expect to meet half of the its aircraft
jet fuel needs with alternative fuels by 2016?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. a. Since 2007, the Air Force
has invested over $120M to certify aircraft and systems for
unrestricted operational use of a 50/50 blend of synthetic fuel and
traditional JP-8, where the synthetic component is produced via the
Fischer-Tropsch process, and a 50/50 blend of hydroprocessed renewable
jet fuel (HRJ) and traditional JP-8. At this point, sufficient funding
is in place for the Air Force Certification Office to complete
certification of both alternative fuel blends.
b. To date, the Air Force has certified over 99 percent of its
fleet for unrestricted operations using the synthetic fuel blend. Final
certification efforts are underway for the RQ-4, or Global Hawk, which
is the only remaining Air Force-owned platform to be certified. The Air
Force is working with the U.S. Navy to achieve certification for both
the CV-22 and F-35, which are Joint programs.
The next step in diversifying aviation fuels was to begin
certifying aircraft for operational use of a 50/50 HRJ blend. The Air
Force, using lessons learned from the synthetic fuel certification
initiative, is certifying the fleet using a pathfinder approach instead
of testing each individual air frame. On 4 February 2011, the Air Force
certified the C-17 for unrestricted operations using the 50/50 HRJ
blend--the first Air Force platform certified on this blend. The entire
HRJ fuel blend certification is expected to be completed by the end of
2012.
c. The Air Force's 2016 goal is to be prepared to purchase 50
percent of its domestic aviation fuel as alternative fuel blends;
however, the Air Force will not be a producer of fuel, but will use
what the market cost competitively provides. Once the commercial market
is ready, having the ability to use non-traditional aviation fuels will
provide the Air Force with an improved energy security posture and
increased protection from price fluctuations resulting from foreign oil
sources. The Air Force is looking to private industry to develop
alternative aviation fuels in commercial-scale quantities, and in a
cost competitive and environmentally-friendly manner, so we can provide
the best value for the taxpayer and our environment. If industry
achieves these criteria, the Air Force is confident it can meet its
goal.
Mr. Turner. The Air Force has proposed to defer investments again
in facilities restoration and modernization. At Wright Patterson Air
Force base we have important research being conducted in the Air Force
Institute of Technology (AFIT) laboratories that were built during the
cold war and were only meant to be temporary. These dilapidated
buildings support important graduate research in the areas of
electromagnetic field theory and low observables, communications, radar
and electromagnetic warfare programs.
a. Given the strategic value of the training conducted in AFIT's
buildings, when does the Air Force plan to modernize the facilities?
b. With respect to the Air Force budget in general, why did the Air
Force elect to take risk in the facility accounts and delay critical
sustainment, restoration and modernization activities?
c. What is the long-term effect of a delay in funding this facility
maintenance account?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. a. The Air Force recognizes
the importance of the training provided by the Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT)--we have a military construction (MILCON) project
entitled ``AFIT Research Lab'' programmed at $18.3M to address the
needs of that mission. With that said, as we worked within the current
fiscal environment to build our budget requests, the Air Force made
tough choices between many valid requirements. In our final FY2012
President's Budget (PB) submission, we were unable to include this
project when balanced against the many other competing requirements.
However, given its importance, we have maintained the project within
our FY12-16 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for future consideration.
b. The Facility Sustainment efficiency saves $1.7B across the FYDP.
The efficiency allows the Air Force to fund Facility Sustainment at 80
percent of the requirements identified by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense Facility Sustainment Model without mission degradation. In
fact, the Air Force MILCON and Operation & Maintenance (O&M) programs
are funded at increased levels from the FY11 PB. The MILCON program is
$3.0B greater across the FYDP and $1.8B higher in the near years (12,
13 & 14) over the FY11 PB position. The FY12 MILCON program hits the
highest priorities--as analyzed through the lens of efficiencies and
``tail to tooth''--only the most critical aspects of our program are
funded. Similarly, the Air Force had a net increased investment of
$160M in FY12 from FY11 in active infrastructure O&M accounts to ensure
our most critical requirements are met. We continued our focused
investments in dorms and energy reduction initiatives and initiated
focused investments in airfield pavement repair. Additionally, the Air
Force increased investment in demolition and consolidation initiatives
to ``shrink from within'' and reduce future O&M requirements.
c. The Air Force will implement the Facility Sustainment efficiency
by leveraging sustainable facility design, demolishing excess
infrastructure, sourcing strategically, enforcing common standards, and
employing smarter support practices. The Air Force facilities and
infrastructure programs include Facility Operations, Sustainment,
Restoration and Modernization and MILCON. These programs have
interdependent relationships where a funding reduction in one account
typically has ramifications across the others. In this case however,
because the reductions are driven by efficiencies, with defined
implementation plans, we believe the reductions to the Facility
Sustainment account will have minimal impact on other programs over the
long term.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KISSELL
Mr. Kissell. How well is the Air Force balancing shifting mission
expectations, training facility and installation capabilities against
reductions in budget?
Secretary Donley. Over the past decade the Air Force has
substantially reshaped itself to meet the immediate needs of today's
conflicts and position itself for the future. While we have grown in
some critical areas it has been at the expense of others. We've added
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacity with 328
remotely piloted aircraft and over 6,000 airmen to collect, process,
exploit and disseminate intelligence. We've added over 17 aircraft and
nearly 2,400 airmen to bolster Special Operations capacity so necessary
in counter insurgency.
We've added over 160 F-22s and 120 C-17s to our inventory and
funded over 30 satellites and added 2,200 airmen for critical nuclear
and cyber operations and acquisition support. In the same period,
however, we retired over 1,500 legacy aircraft. We've cancelled or
truncated procurement of major acquisition programs, shed manpower in
career fields less critical to the fight and deferred much-needed
military construction in order to balance these capabilities within the
resources available.
In all, during the past seven years the size of the active duty Air
Force has been reduced from 359,000 in 2004 to approximately 333,000
today and the Air Force's baseline budget, when adjusted for inflation
and setting aside the annual wartime supplemental appropriations, has
remained flat. Looking ahead, we face a multiyear effort to
recapitalize our aging tanker, fighter, bomber and missile forces, to
continue modernizing critical satellite constellations, meet dynamic
requirements in the cyber domain and replace aging airframes for pilot
training and presidential support. We continue to recognize the
requirement for fiscal restraint and are committed to remaining good
stewards of every taxpayer dollar, improving management and oversight
at every opportunity.
The FY12 budget request incorporates over $33 billion in
efficiencies across the Future Years Defense Plan which will be shifted
to higher priority combat capability by reducing overhead costs,
improving business practices and eliminating excess, troubled or lower
priority programs.
By consolidating organizational structures, improving processes in
acquisition and procurement, logistics support and streamlining
operations, we have been able to increase investment in core functions
such as global precision attack, integrated intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance, space and air superiority. We are reducing risk by
adding ``tooth'' through savings in ``tail.'' We are fully committed to
implementing these planned efficiencies and have already assigned
responsibilities to senior officials and put in place the management
structure to oversee this work and track progress on a regular basis.
Mr. Kissell. What lower priority initiatives (for example) Silver
Flag Site, are being impacted by shifting budget thresholds?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force is committed to reducing excess
overhead and support activities, to ensure sufficient funding for force
structure and modernization. We are taking on the President's challenge
to reduce the deficit by eliminating waste, improving efficiencies and
effectiveness through a comprehensive review of our mission
capabilities and roles in a changing world environment. Some of these
lower priority initiatives include programmatic adjustments to reduce
Air Force management infrastructure, and reducing some low priority
installation services and headquarters programs. Many other initiatives
are identified in the budget documents provided to the Committee. The
Air Force, through its normal budgeting process, will continue to
identify cost savings and additional efficiencies in future budgets in
order to meet mission needs. In reference to the Silver Flag Site, the
decision to not beddown a fourth site was not based on shifting budget
thresholds. It was based on being able to fulfill the training
requirements at the already existing Silver Flag sites so that the
fourth site was no longer required.
Mr. Kissell. What readiness areas are being impacted that simply
did not make the report language; has a low visibility but high Airmen
impact?
Secretary Donley. Lower visibility issues with high impacts to
readiness include stressed career fields and reduced dwell times for
high demand skills.
The Air Force has identified six officer specialties and sixteen
enlisted specialties as ``stressed'', in terms of deploy-to-dwell time.
Stressed officer specialties include Control and Recovery (13D),
Airfield Operations (13M), Intelligence (14N), Public Affairs (35P),
Contracting (64P), and Civil Engineer (32E). Stressed enlisted
specialties include Airborne Cryptologic Language Analysts/Airborne ISR
Operators (1A8), Tactical Air Control Party (1C4), Structural (3E3),
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (3E8), Contracting (6C0), Command Post
(1C3), Geospatial Intel 1N1), Network Intel (1N4), Combat Control
(1C2), Pararescue (1T2), Pavement/Construction Equipment (3E2),
Operations Intel (1N0), Special Ops Weather (1W0), Utilities Systems
(3E4), Engineering (3E5), and Security Forces (3P0). The high OPSTEMPO
in these career fields has resulted in reduced dwell times that have
diminished readiness for full spectrum operations due to missed
training opportunities.
Finally, the Air Force may have to reduce the Combat Air Force
sponsored GREEN FLAG/RED FLAG exercises as we balance meeting the
warfighter's needs in a fiscally constrained environment.
Mr. Kissell. With the availability of numerous advanced engines and
the JSF now 4 years behind in engine development, when will the engine
be ready for full deployment?
Secretary Donley. The F135 is in full deployment. Both Pratt &
Whitney engine variants have achieved Initial Service Release (ISR)
(Conventional Take-Off and Landing/Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV) in Feb
2010 and Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) in Dec 2010) and
production representative engines have been delivered to the
government, installed in production aircraft, and flown in the case of
the CTOL (AF-6 in Feb 2011).
Mr. Kissell. With the increased use of older air platforms, are we
allocating enough funding for training and is the Air Force providing
enough training opportunities to maintain a robust personnel capability
in support of these platforms? Additionally, how does the continued use
of older platforms impact the readiness of the Air National Guard and
Reserve forces?
Secretary Donley. Until the Air Force modernizes aging air and
space inventories, legacy platforms will continue to provide
significant contributions in our Active Duty, Reserve and Air National
Guard forces. The current fiscal environment, ongoing combat
operations, and delays in standing up new weapon systems have stressed
our ability to maintain our aircraft and train our aircrew. Despite
these challenges, the Air Force continues to meet standard training
requirements for our legacy platform operators and maintenance
personnel.
The Air Force is currently able to sustain our legacy aircraft and
manage associated risk to balance total force needs in today's high-
tempo operational environment. Although the Reserve and Air National
Guard components have legacy platforms, the Air Force budgets to meet
warfighters' requirements by investing in improvements, such as service
life extension programs and capability upgrades, to ensure the Air
National Guard and Reserve have a viable combat force. While reductions
in worldwide deployments are expected to improve recent declining
readiness levels, the increased resources that are needed to maintain
legacy platforms will continue to challenge Air Force efforts.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS
Mr. Franks. Mr. Secretary, on the same date which the Air Force
announced its F-35 Basing Plan Preferred Alternatives--which included
Luke AFB as the Active Duty Training site, the Department proposed
other force structure adjustments. One of these was moving two Luke F-
16 training squadrons to Holloman AFB because of F-22 consolidation.
What is the basis to move two (of four) critically needed F-16's
squadrons from Luke given its Active Duty F-16 training mission, while
it awaits confirmation of a future F-35 Active Duty Training mission
starting in 2015; and what are the associated additional costs? What
would be the annual net through-put of F-16 pilots trained be if the F-
16's remained at Luke vs. splitting these assets between Luke AFB and
Holloman? Won't there be an actual reduction in the number of pilots we
can train given this division of the F-16's between the two locations--
a clearly inefficient configuration? Luke currently operates two models
of F-16's for training. What is the concurrent impact on training tempo
and curriculum at Luke given the movement of either model aircraft to
Holloman? Which model F-16 is under consideration for transfer? What is
the net personnel impact to Luke if the Air Force proceeds with the
transfer of half of its F-16 training assets as announced and what is
the net impact to Holloman's total manning if the F-16's remain at
Luke, given the recent addition of the RPA mission the status of F-22
manning at Holloman prior to the July announcement?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force long-term vision is to make
Holloman Air Force Base our primary F-16 formal training unit, and the
decision was made to move two squadrons of our more advanced Block 42
aircraft to Holloman. At the time the decision was made, F-35
deliveries to Luke were expected to start in 2013 and training was to
start within the year. As F-35 programmatic changes occur, the Air
Force will continue to evaluate the best timing for the transfer. The
current cost estimate for the move is $100M. During the move itself,
the Air Force loses the ability to produce 32 new F-16 pilots (16
pilots in FY12 and 16 pilots in FY13). Once the move is complete in
FY14, the net loss of training will be marginal. After the move, the F-
16 squadrons will be able to train the same number of initial F-16
pilots, however there will be a marginal reduction in capacity for
transition and/or instructor upgrade courses. Luke will retain one
Block 42 squadron and one Block 25 squadron for the foreseeable future.
The net effect is approximately 52 percent of Luke's current F-16
training will be transferred to Holloman by the end of FY13. Finally,
regarding manning impacts at Luke and Holloman, Luke would transfer to
Holloman 432 billets in FY12 and 556 billets in FY13. If the F-16s were
to remain at Luke, Holloman would gain 153 billets in FY12 from
Remotely Piloted Aircraft growth with a manpower total of 4,694
positions, and they would lose 463 positions in FY13 due to the
drawdown of the 7th Fighter Squadron (F-22s).
Mr. Franks. Mr. Secretary, the Air Force Fiscal Year 2012 RDT&E
Budget Request includes $15.9M for the completion of concept
development activities and initiation of the Technology Development
phase for the T-X Advanced Trainer Replacement Program, a family of
fully integrated systems that will modernize how effectively and
efficiently we train Air Force pilots. Given the significance of this
major acquisition effort in the coming years, how does the Air Force
plan to meet a 2017 Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the T-X,
and given budget constraints, how do you intend to prioritize and
demonstrate life cycle costs within this program?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force plans to meet a 2017 initial
operational capability date for the T-X by pursuing an acquisition
strategy that minimizes schedule risk. Specifically, the Air Force is
giving primary consideration to existing, non-developmental advanced
trainer aircraft. The Air Force is developing a 30-year life cycle cost
estimate in accordance with Department of Defense and Service
guidelines. This estimate will project life cycle costs for a variety
of alternative courses of action, including service life extension of
the current aircraft as well as non-developmental and developmental
solutions.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. CASTOR
Mrs. Castor. I represent MacDill AFB, home of the 6th Air Mobility
Wing (6AMW). There we also operate the KC-135. As you know it has been
serving with the USAF since 1957, it is one of just six military fixed
wing aircraft with over 50 years of continuous service with its
original operator. I don't have to tell you Mr. Secretary and General
Schwartz, that we need new ones. I'm hearing we are scheduled to hear
an award announcement soon. My question is what are we going to do if
we have another protest of the award? How long can we expect the
process to continue?
General Schwartz. The KC-X contract was awarded to Boeing on
February 24, 2011. The tanker is designated the KC-46A. On March 4,
2011, EADS-NA announced at the National Press Club that they would not
protest the award.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
Mr. Conaway. In January, the Secretary of Defense announced a
reduction of 124 F-35s over the FYDP. He further stated that the
savings from this reduction would be used to fund $4.6 billion to
extend the development period and add additional flight tests; as well
as using $4 billion for additional purposes, such as purchasing more F/
A-18s for the Navy. How does this decision impact you? Would any of the
$4 billion being used for additional purposes be used to support Air
Force requirements?
General Schwartz. The impact on the program is positive in nature.
The resources applied to the development program add realism and
prudent reserve, to absorb expected further learning and discovery. The
difference between the decrease in the procurement account and the
increase in the Research Development Test & Evaluation account cannot
be traced precisely by the Air Force to any particular Service or
program. The Department used these funds in the areas of greatest need
across all Services and programs.
While resources cannot be directly attributed to any program, the
Air Force places a high priority on the F-16 Service Life Extension
Program (SLEP) program. The program will ensure sufficient fighter
strength in the years to come in lieu of the previously expected F-35
fleet.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SUTTON
Ms. Sutton. One issue I believe has significant relevance to
discussions of cost reduction and readiness is the concept of corrosion
prevention and mitigation. A key component of modernizing our
infrastructure, preserving our military assets, and saving money in the
process is adopting a robust corrosion prevention and mitigation
strategy. As you know, the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight
plays an important role in this process, and each of the services faces
a unique set of issues with respect to the maintenance of their assets.
For the FY2011 Defense Authorization bill, this committee's report
discussed the issue of corrosion and how it impacts the Air Force. The
report cited the grounding of the F-22 Raptor fleet due to corrosion on
ejection seat rods due to poorly designed drainage in the cockpit.With
respect to the Air Force, what potential issues do you face with
corrosion? Are there any specific Air Force programs or assets
currently experiencing these issues? How can this committee best
support DoD efforts to tackle these problem and do you believe
sufficient funding and resources have been devoted to address these
issues?
Secretary Donley. In order to perform its mission, the Air Force
must train and fight in all environments including many of the most
austere and corrosively aggressive on the planet and in space. In the
broadest sense, designing, employing and sustaining weapons systems,
equipment and infrastructure able to not only perform our unique
mission but also endure these harsh conditions at an economical cost
remains our most significant challenge related to corrosion. Operating
in these conditions makes our weapons systems and equipment susceptible
to corrosion. All aircraft experience some form of corrosion during
their life cycle. The Air Force attempts to mitigate the effects of
corrosion by inspecting and repairing corrosion during Program Depot
Maintenance, phase, and isochronal inspections.
Additionally, the Air Force mitigates corrosion by periodically
rotating aircraft out of highly corrosive environments and by
performing clear water rinses at various intervals depending on the
aircraft's proximity to salt water as directed by Air Force Technical
Orders. The Air Force closely monitors aircraft specific corrosion
issues from initial discovery until a repair is designed and completed.
For example, there are currently fifteen F-16s that are restricted from
carrying wing tanks due to wing pylon rib corrosion; inspection
procedures are in place to closely monitor the remainder of the fleet.
Furthermore, we worked closely with industry to develop an F-16 wing
pylon repair, saving millions of dollars. On the F-22, we continue to
mitigate corrosion concerns by working with industry partners to
develop new materials not as susceptible to corrosion. We also
research, develop, and field aircraft modifications to restore known
problem areas to serviceable conditions and apply treatments to reduce
risk in the future. Our C-130 fleet is replacing the Center Wing Box
due to corrosion and there are several components on the C-5, C-130,
and KC-135 that are being replaced during Program Depot Maintenance. To
repair, control and mitigate the effects of corrosion on our critical
assets is both a sustainment and a design issue. The Air Force
sustainment effort centers around the rigorous process of inspection,
prevention, treatment, repair and modification identified above.
Additionally, with respect to design, we have initiated a comprehensive
revitalization of our systems engineering processes to instill
discipline and improve processes to help our design engineers take a
total life cycle, total systems approach to planning, development and
implementation of systems to meet warfighting capability requirements.
Congress can best support the Air Force's efforts by continuing to
support the Department's strategic planning efforts to influence
acquisition design and development to incorporate corrosion resistant
technology and materials as a key consideration during acquisition of
all new aircraft, weapons systems and equipment as well modification of
existing Air Force assets. We do have sufficient funding and resources
to devote toward addressing these issues. Our ongoing DoD-wide
efficiency initiatives are reducing costs and enabling us to invest in
newer technologies to combat the effects of corrosion and improve our
readiness.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. Why is the Air Force continuing with its insourcing
policies while the Army stopped? What direction did DoD give to the Air
Force concerning this issue?
Secretary Donley. It is our understanding that the Army did not
stop in-sourcing but raised the approval level to the Secretary of the
Army. In-sourcing can be an effective tool in re-balancing the
workforce, and the Air Force continues to comply with applicable
statutory and policy guidance in using this tool.
Title 10 United States Code, Section 2463 requires Department of
Defense (DoD) to ensure consideration is given to DoD civilians to
perform duties currently performed by contractors.
The Air Force is committed to complying with the statutory
requirement of 10 USC 2463. Given the Secretary's direction to hold to
FY10 civilian funding levels, any future civilian increases as a result
of in-sourcing in most instances will have to be offset through
realignment of existing civilian end strength, although the exceptions
may be made for critical functions and needs such as the acquisition or
cyber workforce.
Mr. Lamborn. With all the near-term position and personnel cuts and
freezes (both contractors and defense), are they all synchronized so
that we don't have a gap in covering the mission and services?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force is conducting a senior-level
strategic review to effectively position our civilian workforce to
accomplish essential joint/Air Force mission areas. This group is also
assessing trade-offs to balance risk to include reevaluating our in-
sourcing plans as we rebalance the workforce within authorized end
strength levels. We will work with Congress in FY2012 to inform more
refined decisions in the Air Force's FY2013 President's Budget
submission.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. Wittman. Admiral Mullen spoke of the extensive high operational
tempo of both the Navy and Air Force over the past ten years of
sustained combat in Iraq & Afghanistan; do you feel that the Air Force
has an adequate budget to carry on enduring missions while balancing
critical life cycle maintenance programs? How has the past ten years
affected the service life of your force? Do you have a budget that
allows for sustained life cycle management and operation and
maintenance cost for new acquisition?
General Schwartz. Yes, with requested Overseas Contingency
Operation (OCO) funding, the Air Force sustainment budget is adequate.
Currently, the Air Force is developing a plan to realign OCO to
baseline funding and ensure maintenance programs are sufficient for
enduring missions. Despite an aging fleet and extensive use in
contingency operations, less than 0.5 percent (1 percent last year) of
aircraft are grounded and fewer than 1.7 percent (5 percent last year)
are flying with operational restrictions. Over the past ten years,
service life has been preserved by funding structural improvements and
Service Life Extension Programs. The FY12 budget submission adequately
funds sustainment of newly fielded weapon systems.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
Mr. Coffman. I understand that personnel retention has not been
problematic for the US Air Force. In fact, personnel retention in the
Air Force is actually higher than projected, therefore complicating
achieving ultimate end strength goals. Given the retention rate in the
Air Force, how would you characterize the performance and practicality
of the all-volunteer force?
Secretary Donley. By all accounts, the all-volunteer force
continues to provide world-class Airmen while meeting our Combatant
Commanders' needs. In an all-volunteer environment, recruiting has
continued to be successful with all quality indicators either remaining
the same or improving over the last five years. The Air Force has
continued to meet its quality objectives and recruiting goals since
2002. To our advantage is a professional and dedicated staff of
recruiters along with a motivated, bright, and eligible youth
population. In addition, military pay remains high as compared to
private sector earnings for high school graduates. An Oct 06
Congressional Budget Office study on recruiting and retention states
the combination of better educated Airmen and Airmen who score high on
aptitude tests make them more likely to complete their initial training
and remain in the service beyond their first term of enlistment.
Generally, the all-volunteer force is less expensive to train since
they stay longer and become more effective and experienced performers.
However, there are still challenges to our Air Force to maintain
our recruiting and retention success. We anticipate that the current
environment will become more challenging as the economy improves. We
also believe that maintaining steady recruiting resource levels will be
critical to our future efforts if we are to be successful in achieving
our longer term goals. Although the Air Force is currently experiencing
high retention, there are some significant shortages in some skill sets
which highlight the need for continued enlistment and retention bonuses
in these critical occupations.
The Air Force has been engaged in a multi-year effort to reduce
excess military end strength and associated costs through voluntary and
involuntary measures. Without action, the Air Force projects we would
have exceeded FY12 end strength of 332.8K by approximately 7K Airmen.
This is especially burdensome considering the real cost of an Airman
increased 26 percent from $76K in FY01 to $96K in FY12 (normalized to
FY12 dollars). This equates to an approximately $5B increase in the
Military Personnel Account from FY01 to FY12 (normalized to FY12
dollars and not including health care costs). Therefore, it is
absolutely essential for the Air Force to continue its efforts to
maintain the force at its funded end strength.
Mr. Coffman. For the F-35 basing issue, what data was used to
determine the airspace and other factors that made up the ``objective
criteria'' by which prospective basing locations were evaluated? Who
provided the data for the criteria? Were units evaluated for possible
F-35 basing briefed on their score and given an opportunity to respond?
Was the airspace attributed to Buckley Air Force Base limited to the
state, or was the airspace of nearby states considered as well? What
weight did unit quality have on the grading? Why were bases without
runways (such as Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station) scored and how
did they score better on airspace than bases currently conducting the
air sovereignty mission? Finally, how much infrastructure will need to
be constructed at the selected bases and has this factor been weighed
against existing operational facilities?
Secretary Donley. The criteria applied to the enterprise of Air
Force installations for basing F-35A operational and training missions
were designed to evaluate an installation's ability to support specific
mission requirements. Data such as pilot qualification syllabus
training events, recurring readiness requirements for combat coded
units, logistics support infrastructure, existing operational
facilities, base operating support, and environmental considerations
were all dimensions of criteria development. Unit quality was not a
specific criterion.
Applying the criteria in an enterprise-wide look was accomplished
through mining authoritative data sources coupled with Major Command
and installation data calls. Real property and civil engineering
databases were the sources for a majority of the physical
infrastructure data. Mission-specific data (airspace, weather) was
sourced from the Federal Aviation Administration, National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, United States
Census data, and the Air Force Weather Agency. Data layers were
imported into a geographic information system (GIS) for analysis as
required. The airspace for all installations, including Buckley Air
Force Base, was evaluated through GIS geospatial referencing. No state
boundaries were considered in this analysis and all airspace within 120
nautical miles for training locations and 200 nautical miles for
operational locations was scored. The score for an airspace complex can
be expressed through the following formula:
airspace attributes X airspace capacity X distance to the
installation = total score
Scores for individual installations in their Congressional district
are available to the delegation upon request.
Installations without runways were also scored in the interest of a
thorough, transparent analysis. If an installation scored well in the
enterprise-wide look based on distance to appropriately configured and
sized airspace, subsequent analysis and military judgment would be
required to determine whether there could be future military and fiscal
value in constructing a runway at that location. For the recent round
of F-35A basing, none of these installations were considered as
candidates or preferred or reasonable alternatives for the required
basing actions.
Infrastructure requirements vary by base. During the Strategic
Basing process, site surveys are conducted to determine facility and
other infrastructure requirements. Use of existing facilities is the
preferred option. In the event existing facilities are unavailable, new
construction would be required.
Mr. Coffman. There are thousands of Air Force personnel stationed
on the Korean Peninsula, including units of the 7th Air Force. Recently
there have been initiatives to increase the number of families allowed
to accompany their deployed service members in South Korea.
Accordingly, new infrastructure, housing, and support facilities must
be built to accommodate these families. What is the cost incurred by
the increase of accompanied tours to the Korean peninsula by Air Force
personnel and how much--if any--of this cost is being borne by the
Republic of Korea?
General Schwartz. In accordance with Department of Defense (DoD)
policy, Air Force has recently increased the opportunity for service
members to bring their families to the Republic of Korea. By the end of
2010, Osan Air Base had increased the number of families to 632,
including more than 100 Army families. This was done by using existing
capacity on base for support and off-base rentals for housing. In their
report released on 15 Apr 2011, DoD Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation identified the marginal cost of families in Korea.
Extrapolated for current Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) rates, a
family in Korea costs $83k/yr and the cost for an unaccompanied soldier
in Korea with his family collecting housing allowance in the
continental United States (CONUS) as $55k/yr. If we apply these
generalizations across the 700 accompanied USAF service members in
Korea (including Seoul and other locations), the marginal cost is $2M/
yr. This includes PCS costs (transportation), moving costs, training,
tuition and the difference between OHA and CONUS housing allowance. No
additional funds were expended for facilities. There are 695 Air Force
families in Korea, including those supported in and around Seoul. We
are currently developing plans to further increase the opportunity for
accompanied tours, but no funds have yet been programmed for this.
There are currently no plans for Republic of Korea to contribute to the
cost of accompanied tours. The cost to the U.S. Government will depend
on several policy decisions and financial arrangements with local
developers, but will be a combination of construction costs for new
schools, housing and other support facilities, maintenance of those
facilities, and the cost of moving families to and from Korea and
supporting them there. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is
currently gathering data from the Services and will prepare a report
and recommendation to the Secretary of Defense not later than 31 March.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. RUNYAN
Mr. Runyan. I am very proud to represent New Jersey's Third
District, home to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. As you are aware,
the Joint Base is an Air Mobility Center of Excellence extending total
force global air mobility through the movement of troops and cargo.
Over the past 10 years, air mobility studies have lowered the number of
aircraft for the airlift capacity requirement even as world situations
are becoming more complex and we go into more hostile environments.
General Schwarz: Has the requirement for the number of mobility
aircraft been lowered because we have less equipment, people, and
missions or because this number is all that the Air Force can
``afford'' to provide?
General Schwartz. The current Million Ton Miles Per Day (MTM/D)
requirement is based on the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements
Study 2016 (MCRS-16), conducted by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and United States
Transportation Command, and utilizes current OSD approved wartime
planning scenarios for 2016. The previous Mobility Capabilities Study
2005 requirement was based on OSD wartime scenarios considered valid in
the 2005 timeframe.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GRIFFIN
Mr. Griffin. Can you provide us with the details on the business
case for the C-130 Avionics Modification Program (AMP)?
General Schwartz. An official Business Case Analysis was not
performed. However, the Nunn-McCurdy certification process was
performed in two phases. The first phase assessed five alternatives for
the Air Force C-130 fleet and determined the Air Force Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP program) provides the most military
capability at the lowest cost. The second phase identified an
affordable, low-risk acquisition program for certification.
The first phase assessment identified five alternatives based on an
extensive review of on-going and potential C-130 upgrades, as well as
procurement of new C-130J aircraft: 1) Global access and navigation
safety upgrade; 2) Global access, navigation safety, and survivability
upgrade; 3) Navy/Marine Corps AMP program; 4) Air Force AMP program;
and 5) Replacement with C-130J aircraft.
Additionally the alternatives were evaluated against four criteria:
1) Performance measured against Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC) validated capability gaps; 2) Number of aircraft modified during
the Future Years Defense Program; 3) Cost (acquisition and life cycle
cost); and 4) Program risk.
Only alternatives 2 and 4 met the criteria for further evaluation.
While the acquisition cost for alternatives 2 and 4 were nearly
identical, alternative 4 provided greater military capability at a
lower life cycle cost. Based on these results, the Air Force C-130 AMP
provides military capability equal or greater than alternative programs
and at less cost than those programs.
The second phase identified the subset of C-130 Mission Design
Series (MDS) that best met Department of Defense affordability and
acquisition risk goals. All C-130 MDS were evaluated using this
assessment to identify the lowest risk alternative within the total
acquisition cost. This alternative provides for upgrade of 222
aircraft, consisting of C-130H2, C-130H2.5 and C-130H3, and is the
basis of the certified program. The Department recognizes this program
covers only a portion of the JROC-validated capabilities deemed
essential to National Security and has directed the Air Force to
develop an investment strategy for the remaining 166 C-130 aircraft not
included in the certified program.
Mr. Griffin. Is it necessary that Congress pass an appropriations
bill to ensure the funding for the C-130 AMP?
General Schwartz. The C-130 Avionics Modification Program (AMP)
program would have required either an appropriations bill to legally
issue FY11 Aircraft Procurement Air Force (APAF) funds, or an exception
clause in a Continuing Resolution authorizing the C-130 AMP program to
expend APAF funds. The Air Force is grateful that the Congress passed
H.R. 1473 to provide appropriations for the remainder of Fiscal Year
2011.
Mr. Griffin. How many years of combat service will modernization
add to the C-130 fleet?
General Schwartz. The C-130 Avionics Modification Program (AMP)
modernization does not directly add any years of combat service to the
C-130 Fleet. C-130 AMP is primarily focused on capability enhancements
to enable C-130 aircraft to operate well into the future in compliance
with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and international airspace
mandates. AMP will allow the modified C-130 aircraft unlimited access
to United States airspace past 1 January 2020 when the FAA's NextGen
airspace access mandates take effect in United States airspace. Similar
international airspace mandates are anticipated. Although C-130 AMP
does not extend the service life of the aircraft, select C-130s are
receiving center wing box replacement modifications, extending expected
flight hours from 38,000 hours to 67,500 hours.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO
Mr. Palazzo. Remotely Piloted Aircraft have played a large role in
our ongoing military operations in the Middle East and are now being
used in a homeland security role. I believe it is extremely important
that we continue to develop this technology and train new operators.
What kind of partnership has the Air Force had with the FAA to
facilitate continuing training and testing here in the U.S.? Do you see
any specific problems with domestic access that you believe we must
change to ensure we are able to fully utilize these tools?
Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. The Air Force is working
closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Homeland Security, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), Department of Commerce, state aviation authorities and academia
to facilitate training and testing. The Air Force fully supports the
language in the FAA Reauthorization Bill that calls for establishment
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) training sites and Centers of
Excellence to move forward integration of UAS into the National
Airspace System (NAS).
During the last 18 months, Air Force, FAA, US Army, Customs and
Border Patrol and NASA worked together to develop an airspace access
plan supporting beddown of MQ-1 Predators at Grand Forks Air Force
Base, North Dakota. The Air Force also participated in two Certificate
of Authorization (COA) Working Groups that identified 24 specific
improvement areas. Those improvements will streamline the COA process
and result in more timely access to the NAS. Finally, the Air Force, as
a member of the interagency UAS Executive Committee, developed a
Congressionally directed joint FAA and Department of Defense UAS NAS
Access Plan. The plan established the roadmap for improving remote
piloted aircraft (RPA) access to the NAS. The Air Force is in the
initial planning stages to validate two of the access profiles,
vertical and horizontal.
While much work is being done to improve RPA/UAS airspace access,
the development of standards and procedures is hindered by the limited
number of areas to test and develop technical solutions. The Air Force
will continue to work with the FAA to increase RPA test sites.
Mr. Palazzo. On February 9th you offered some strong words to a
group of defense contractors regarding industry making promises that
they are not always able to keep. You were quoted as saying, ``If
industry makes a commitment you will have to deliver.'' We can all
agree that the system is being abused and some contractors are no
longer held to the same requirements that most businesses are. Do you
have any specific plans about increasing the accountability of
contractors?
General Schwartz. The Air Force Acquisition Community strives to
deliver warfighter requirements on cost and on schedule. For example,
we are complying with the Office of the Secretary of Defense's guidance
in being more deliberate with choosing contact type, like fixed-price
and incentive structures, which better share the risk with our
contactors and increase their accountability to the Air Force and our
tax payers. Additionally, we continue to incorporate our Services
Acquisition Post Award reviews (which assess contractor proposal
promises to actual performance) to a broader population of service
contracts.
Furthermore, part of holding our contractors accountable is
increasing our understanding of our contractor performance across the
enterprise. In October of 2010, by direction of the Secretary of the
Air Force, the Air Force stood-up SAF/AQXL, the Air Force Industrial
Liaison Office. Central to the mission of SAF/AQXL is improving the
knowledge and insight of the Air Force as a consumer, and to provide
Air Force senior leadership, program managers, contracting and other
acquisition organizations with actionable business intelligence to
improve the Air Force position as a consumer in the marketplace,
increasing Air Force buying power. Increasing our understanding of our
industrial counterparts enables our ability to incentivize corporate
behavior in the manner most advantageous to the Air Force.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
