[Senate Hearing 112-590, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-590, Pt. 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3254
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
----------
PART 4
AIRLAND
----------
MARCH 27 AND MAY 8, 2012
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-540 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN CORNYN, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Ann E. Sauer, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Airland
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Army Modernization
march 27, 2012
Page
Lennox, LTG Robert P., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army (G-
8); Accompanied by LTG William N. Phillips, USA, Principal
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and Director,
Acquisition Career Management; LTG Keith C. Walker, USA, Deputy
Commanding General, Futures, and Director, Army Capabilities
Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command;
and LTG John F. Campbell, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff of the
Army (G-3/5/7)................................................. 5
Tactical Aircraft Programs
may 8, 2012
Venlet, VADM David J., USN, Program Executive Officer, F-35
Lightning II Program........................................... 42
Wolfenbarger, Lt. Gen. Janet C., USAF, Military Deputy, Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition....... 50
Skinner, VADM Walter M., USN, Principal Military Deputy, Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition................................... 55
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2013 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012
U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
ARMY MODERNIZATION
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:58 p.m., in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Lieberman, Blumenthal,
Brown, and Inhofe.
Majority staff member present: William K. Sutey,
professional staff member.
Minority staff member present: Paul C. Hutton IV,
professional staff member.
Staff assistant present: Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Brian Burton,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Ethan Saxon, assistant to
Senator Blumenthal; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator
Inhofe; and Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, CHAIRMAN
Senator Lieberman. The hearing will come to order.
This is my first time in the refurbished room. It is quite
beautiful, isn't it? This is meant to be progress, I am sure.
Do you remember how long and hard Senator John Warner
worked to design that previous table, and it was grand.
Senator Brown. It was.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. I know.
I apologize to our distinguished panel of witnesses. We,
and I particularly, were held up on the floor because there is
a bill on the Postal Service, and it comes out of the other
committee that I am privileged to serve on. But we thank you.
Senator Brown. We are cosponsors on it.
Senator Lieberman. Senator Brown and I, marching in tandem.
Senator Brown. Lockstep again.
Senator Lieberman. Lockstep again. Yes. He is a courageous
man to put himself in that position.
Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Airland will come to
order.
We meet today to receive testimony on Army modernization,
as we do every year before we go into markup of the National
Defense Authorization Act at the full committee level. This
happens to be my last annual Army modernization hearing as a
Senator. Don't be shocked, Senator Brown.
In 1993, I became a member of this subcommittee, which was
then called the Coalition Defense and Reinforcing Forces
Subcommittee, chaired at that time by none other than Senator
Carl Levin of Michigan. The following year, I attended my first
hearing on the Army long-term modernization requirements and
modernization programs.
In 1995, the subcommittee was renamed Airland Forces, and
since 1999, I have had the great privilege of being either the
subcommittee's ranking member or chairman. I must say in that
capacity, I have had the really high honor of getting to know a
succession of leaders of the U.S. Army and members of the U.S.
Army who really are the best of the best. So it has been one of
the great parts of my service here in the Senate.
As I recall, the first Army modernization hearing I
attended in 1994, the subcommittee was pursuing a better
understanding of the Army's plans for improvements in equipment
and joint operations based on the lessons of the First Gulf
War. At that time, the Army was beginning a very large end
strength reduction from the Cold War high of 780,000 soldiers
to 530,000. Subsequently, even lower, finally stopping at
480,000 soldiers in 2001 before September 11. Rising again in
recent years, and now the target of 480,000 sounds vaguely
familiar, close to that for end strength reduction in the
current Future Years Defense Program.
The Active Army force structure went from 18 divisions down
to 10. At that time, we were already 7 years into what was a
13-year decline in Army procurement spending.
Today, as I sit in this last Army modernization hearing, it
is ironic that we find ourselves for very different reasons in
a very similar situation. I hope we have learned some of the
lessons of the past 10 years about how unpredictable future
threat environments can be.
Because the budget submitted to us this year for fiscal
year 2013 I think includes unacceptable levels of strategic
risk, mostly brought about by compliance with an act of
Congress, which was the Budget Control Act (BCA). But as I keep
saying, part of our responsibility, I think, as we go through
the authorization process, is to decide whether everything we
did in the BCA makes sense or whether we want to adjust some of
the numbers. Of course, I hope we do because the obvious fact
is we face an uncertain and dangerous global security
environment.
The Army fiscal year 2013 budget request includes several
program cancellations, earlier than planned completions, or
delays of equipment modernization that not only would increase
strategic and operational risk, in my opinion, but could
undermine the health of our national combat and tactical
vehicle industrial base.
This is particularly concerning, given the real progress
that the Army has been able to make in stabilizing its
requirements and modernization efforts under the leadership of
former Secretary of Defense Gates, but really to give credit
where it is due, former Vice Chief of Staff for the Army,
General Peter Chiarelli, who launched the Army's comprehensive
review of its investment strategies across the capabilities we
need and expect the Army to have.
The subcommittee today looks forward to an update on the
progress achieved in what came to be known under General
Chiarelli as the Capability Portfolio Review (CPR) process,
also how you will sustain the momentum of this important part
of your requirements determination process, and how portfolio
reviews are leading changes in the acquisition strategy.
The top three modernization efforts identified in the
Army's fiscal year 2013 budget request are the tactical
network, which will conduct the various communications data,
video, and applications systems used by the Army, which I think
there is broad support for and consensus about; the Ground
Combat Vehicle (GCV), a developmental program to replace some
of the armored infantry fighting vehicles in the Army's armored
Brigade Combat Teams; and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
(JLTV), another developmental program to replace some of the
Humvees that do not provide sufficient crew protection to
operate adequately in an improvised explosive device (IED)
environment.
I do want to ask our witnesses today whether the higher
costs of those two new vehicle programs are justified by
increased capabilities they will buy, as opposed to sustaining
current programs for the Bradley fighting vehicle and the
Humvee.
I am going to jump around a little bit in deference to the
time. I do want to make this point finally. I am very
encouraged that the Army has taken pains--and I mean it,
pains--in this fiscally difficult environment to protect its
investments in aviation.
One of the most important lessons, I think, from the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan is Army aviation provides unique
capabilities that are absolutely essential to our soldiers in
the field. I am pleased that even amidst all the planned cuts
to end strength and force structure, the Army is going to
continue to expand its aviation force to 13 brigades.
Though it represents a significant investment, I think it
is a necessary one, and essential, I think, to see that this
process goes to completion. I say that because I am sure that
the Army is going to be under pressure to cut into aviation
funding to pay for other modernization areas.
We have a great panel of witnesses here with extraordinary
experience. I will introduce them when we get to that point.
At this point, I am delighted to call upon my friend and
colleague and ranking member, Senator Scott Brown, whose own
military experience, as well as his personal insights, have
proven extremely valuable to the work of this subcommittee. We
will again work together to produce our mark for the full
committee this year.
Senator Brown.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT P. BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your service and your leadership. Out of all
the committees, I have truly enjoyed this one the most. I know
we have tackled some really good issues, and what you did on
the insider trader bill has showed a lot of courage.
Thank you all for your service. I know we spoke earlier. I
am not going to do a long and extensive opening, but I do
recognize that the Army faces great challenges in the fact that
in the Army, change is a constant because the threats against
our country are constantly changing. We need to adjust and
adapt.
I know that. You know that, probably much more than I do.
You have an unprecedented history, and you are ready for any
mission that comes forth. I understand that, and I appreciate
that.
I am concerned about the role of the Guard and Reserve. In
particular, I am concerned about the sequestration cuts and how
that is going to affect our military preparedness. I want to
make sure that we can respond professionally and provide the
tools and resources to our men and women to serve, serve well,
serve safely, and then come home. That is very important.
Then what do we do with them thereafter? Being a member of
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I take that role very
seriously as well.
The success or failure of the Army's efforts to realign and
become the most effective possible fighting force depends on
what we do in this committee, what we are doing here today, and
what we do in the markup. I think it is critically important to
try to wrestle with a lot of these challenges, these budgetary
restraints, and the like.
It is our responsibility here in this committee to
understand what those challenges are so we can better advocate
for you and make sure that we do the things as they should be
done with the limited budgets that we have.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Brown.
The witnesses before us are Lieutenant General Robert P.
Lennox, who is Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army G-8; and
Lieutenant General William N. Phillips, who is Principal
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the Director,
Acquisition Career Management.
Appearing for the first time before the subcommittee, and
we welcome you with thanks, is Lieutenant General Keith C.
Walker, Deputy Commanding General, Futures, and Director, Army
Capabilities Integration Center at U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command; and Lieutenant General John F. Campbell, who
is Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army G-3/5/7.
I gather that General Lennox will begin? Thank you, sir,
for being here, and we welcome your testimony at this time.
STATEMENT OF LTG ROBERT P. LENNOX, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
OF THE ARMY (G-8); ACCOMPANIED BY LTG WILLIAM N. PHILLIPS, USA,
PRINCIPAL MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR,
ACQUISITION CAREER MANAGEMENT; LTG KEITH C. WALKER, USA, DEPUTY
COMMANDING GENERAL, FUTURES, AND DIRECTOR, ARMY CAPABILITIES
INTEGRATION CENTER, U.S. ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND;
AND LTG JOHN F. CAMPBELL, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
ARMY (G-3/5/7)
General Lennox. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Brown,
Senator Inhofe, and all the members of the subcommittee, on
behalf of the Secretary of the Army, Secretary McHugh, and the
Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, and all of the 1
million plus men and women in the Army, we want to thank this
subcommittee for its enduring support and commitment to our
soldiers.
Chairman Lieberman, on behalf of all the members of the
subcommittee, we want to thank you for your support, your 24
years of service, your leadership, and your personal care and
commitment for our soldiers. I want to make sure we say that up
front.
In modernization, the Army really has two priorities, and
the first is to win today's fight. General Campbell has come
back from a year of command of Regional Command (RC) East.
General Phillips and I have had a chance to visit over there in
Afghanistan in the last month, and we bring insights as far as
what we are doing to support those soldiers today.
Our commitment to support them is number one. I want to
thank you all for your support in equipping those soldiers to
be successful today in combat.
Our second priority is to make sure we are prepared to win
in an uncertain future. The Secretary of Defense published in
January the new strategic guidance, and we have attempted to
shape our forces and our strategy to support that in a way for
the armed forces for the foreseeable future.
For the Army, we really have three priorities for the
future, and the first is empower, protect, and unburden
soldiers. We have tried to do that with a number of programs,
improvements to things like body armor, sniper weapons,
indirect fires, improved helmets, protective ballistic
undergarments, and things like that.
The second priority is to network the force, and we would
be happy to talk to you about any of those programs from Net
Warrior to the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T),
and any of the Joint Tactical Radio Systems that we think are
foundational to that approach.
The third priority is to be able to deter and defeat hybrid
threats by looking for improvements for our aviation, our
combat vehicle fleet, and our tactical wheeled vehicle fleet.
Chairman Lieberman, you mentioned some of those areas and those
programs.
One of the key facets for us is looking for parity across
all the components in the Army--the Active Force, the National
Guard, and the Reserve. We think we have achieved that, both in
equipment on hand. We have reached the high 80 percent level
for equipment on hand for all different components.
Then in percent modernized, and we are in the 70s for all
components. So we have reached parity, we think, in both those
aspects for all components for the Army.
We are facing tight fiscal challenges in the next couple of
years. In order to address that, we have looked at things like
incremental modernization, and we have really looked at our
acquisition processes and the tradeoff in requirements early on
in the process and then throughout the process to get
affordable modernization programs.
We would be happy to talk to you about areas like the JLTV,
and the GCV, where we think we have made good trades, and we
have yet to finish some of those trades in the way ahead. It is
a real tremendous effort led by Acting Secretary Shyu and
General Phillips in that regard.
In closing, the Army's goal is really to equip soldiers for
the current fight and future contingencies. Although we are a
force in transition in a period of declining resources, we have
to continue to provide our warfighters with modernized and
capable equipment so they can prevail on any battlefield
against any foe.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
thank you again for your steadfast and generous support for the
outstanding men and women of the Army, the Army civilians, and
their families. We look forward to answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of General Lennox, General
Phillips, General Campbell, and General Walker follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by LTG Robert P. Lennox, USA; LTG William N.
Phillips, USA; LTG John F. Campbell, USA; and LTG Keith C. Walker, USA
introduction
Chairman Lieberman, Senator Brown, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee on Airland, we thank you for this opportunity to discuss
the fiscal year 2013 budget request as it pertains to Army
Modernization. We are pleased to represent U.S. Army leadership,
members of the Army Acquisition workforce, and the more than 1e million
courageous men and women in uniform who have deployed to combat over
the past 10-plus years, and who have relied on us to provide them with
world-class weapon systems and equipment to ensure mission success. On
behalf of our Secretary, the Honorable John McHugh and our Chief of
Staff, General Ray Odierno, we would like to take this opportunity to
thank the members of this committee for your steadfast support and
shared commitment in this endeavor.
army equipment modernization strategy
Today we are faced with uncertain strategic and operational
environments coupled with declining resources. The Army's equipment
modernization strategy reflects the need to be able to support the
current fight, respond to uncertainties and implement the emerging Army
strategy for the force in 2020. The President's budget 2013 Research
and Development request reflects the Army's priority materiel programs
and highlights the critical capabilities we need to give our soldiers
and units the decisive edge in the range of military operations. This
strategy is focused on equipment needed to: (1) empower, unburden, and
protect our soldiers; (2) network the force; and (3) replace, improve,
or transform our combat platforms in order to deter and defeat hybrid
threats.
We recognize we must shape the Army with an understanding of both
our national security obligations and current fiscal constraints. The
equipment modernization strategy for the Army aligns the ends, ways,
and means to develop and field a versatile and affordable mix of the
best equipment available to enable soldiers to succeed in current and
future complex operational environments. This entails four lines of
effort:
Modernize. Develop and acquire new equipment or
improve, upgrade or adapt existing equipment to meet identified
capability gaps and to achieve dominance in core capabilities
while evaluating modernization efforts for redundancy.
Sustain. Close capability gaps or avoid creating them
by extending the useful life of existing equipment and divest
or store equipment providing less value.
Mitigate. Procure mission-specific equipment for
immediate capability needs.
Distribute. Provide the appropriate quantity and type
of equipment to soldiers and units at the proper time in
accordance with the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) readiness
model and Army priorities to enable training, preparation and
employment for mission success.
To meet the challenges of strategic, operational, and fiscal
realities, the Army is working toward a truly collaborative process for
requirements, resources and acquisition. The Army aims to develop and
field a versatile and affordable mix of equipment to enable soldiers
and units to succeed across a full range of missions today and tomorrow
and to maintain our decisive advantage over any adversary we face.
``Versatile'' encompasses the characteristics of adaptable (to changing
missions and environments); expansible (able to add, update or exchange
capabilities in response to changed circumstances); and networked (to
enable interoperability within our formations and with those of our
partners). ``Affordable'' relates to making fiscally informed decisions
that provide greatest capability value in accordance with senior leader
priorities, within projected resources and within acceptable risk
parameters. To achieve that goal, the Army is transforming its
Requirements and Acquisition processes.
requirements transformation
Our future is filled with uncertainty with respect to operating
environments, adversaries, resources, and other constraints; the Army
continues to evolve its requirements generation process to find
improved ways to shape future requirements.
The Army has vigorously implemented processes and procedures to put
the most capability in the hands of our warfighters. We are
consistently challenging costly, duplicative, or unrealistic
requirements and embracing innovation and warfighter feedback.
Synchronization of our analytical efforts with combatant commanders,
Combat Developers, Capability Portfolio managers, requirements
generators, analysts and analytical agencies, and the acquisition
community is leading to refined, realistic, and innovative
requirements. Our goal is to have the'' right'' requirement at the
start of a program.
acquisition transformation
Over the past year, the Army has continued to make progress on
changing the paradigm for acquisition to one that emphasizes
affordability and agility throughout the acquisition cycle. We are
challenging costly or unrealistic requirements, implementing systems
engineering, and cost estimating, early in the acquisition cycle backed
up by developmental testing and operational assessments. We are also
embracing incremental modernization, commercial innovation and soldier-
industry feedback to deliver improved capabilities as technology
matures, or resources are available. Integrated Portfolios are used to
align the modernization community to ensure integration across
requirements, acquisition, resourcing and sustainment. We are also
actively supporting increased competition and rewarding technological
maturity during the developmental cycle followed by open competition
during the procurement cycle, to the maximum extent possible. The men
and women of the Acquisition Corps are working hard to deliver
capability to our warfighters and they are doing outstanding work.
This approach is evident in several programs, to include JLTV, Nett
Warrior and GCV, where we have already shown success in revising
military requirements to avoid unnecessary cost and to develop
executable strategies. For instance, in the JLTV program, a thorough
review enabled us to revise our Acquisition Strategy which reduced the
schedule for the next development phase from 48 to 33 months while
reducing the projected cost of the vehicle by $400 million, a 50
percent reduction.
The Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) program is yet another example, In
the DVH program, we partnered with the testing community to efficiently
conduct simultaneous test and production on an expedited basis. By
taking a more collaborative approach, we provided soldiers with
critical improvements and enhanced protection on a timely and effective
basis. In a recent trip to Kandahar, Afghanistan, we saw and heard
first-hand from soldiers the remarkable capability the DVH provides.
priority army programs in fiscal year 2013
Based on the Equipping Modernization Strategy, the priority
equipment modernization programs in our President's budget 2013 request
are:
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
Provides the broadband backbone communications necessary for the
tactical Army. It extends an Internet Protocol (IP) based satellite and
line-of-sight communications network through the tactical force,
supporting voice, data, and video. Increment 1 fielding is completed in
fiscal year 2012 and will begin Increment 1b Engineering Change
Proposal (ECP) implementation for interoperability with increment 2.
Increment 2 extends the network to the Company and provides on-the-move
IP communications for the first time. It begins fielding in fiscal year
2013. President's budget 2013 will procure 7 new Brigade Combat Team
(BCT) sets and funds fielding Increment 2 systems to 9 BCTs and
procuring upgrades for 32 additional brigades to provide
interoperability with Increment 2 systems.
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)
Provides the future deployable mobile communications family of
tactical radios. It provides advanced joint tactical end-to-end
networking data and voice communications to dismounted troops, aircraft
and watercraft platforms. President's budget 2013 procures Handheld/
Manpack Small Form Fit (HMS) and Rifleman Radios to provide voice/data
communications to eight BCTs. These radios will link mounted and
dismounted soldiers and leaders into a robust, integrated network. The
Ground Mobile Radio (GMR) was the primary JTRS vehicular radio. This
program was restructured in favor of a more competitive Non-Development
Item (NDI) program called the Mid-Tier Networking Vehicle Radio (MNVR)
using the government-owned programmable waveforms developed as part of
the JTRS program. This change in acquisition strategy will allow rapid
delivery of capabilities (fielding in fiscal year 2014) at lower cost
while meeting the mobility requirement of the restructured GMR program.
In fiscal year 2013, the Army will field the PRC-117G as a bridge
solution for the MNVR.
Joint Battle Command-Platforms (JBC-P)
Provides a foundation for achieving information interoperability on
current and future battlefields and will be the principal Command and
Control/Situational Awareness system for the Army and Marine Corps at
the brigade-and-below level. Leverages our investment in 88,000 Force
XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) systems (all maneuver
formations) with improved situational awareness capabilities. JBC-P is
the incremental improvement to the already fielded Blue Force Tracker
(BFT) family of systems.
Nett Warrior
Provides an integrated situational awareness system to the
dismounted leader which allows for fast and accurate decisions in the
tactical fight. As a result of Network Integration Evaluations and
soldier feedback, the Army rebaselined the program to achieve a
smaller, lighter handheld capability at significantly reduced cost to
the Army. President's budget 2013 funds delivery of this capability to
maneuver BCTs in support of next deployers.
Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A)
Provides integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
processing, exploitation, and dissemination of data from airborne and
ground sensor platforms. DCGS-A satisfies 100 percent of the Army
intelligence enterprise requirements by pulling data from over 300
Department of Defense (DOD) and national databases. No other system
completely addresses the broad range of intelligence requirements
satisfied by the DCGS-A program. President's budget 2013 funds
development of the Army Common Operating Environment and Command Post
Environment and procures equipment for 1 Army Service Component
Command, 10 theater commands, 3 division headquarters, 14 BCTs, one
Special Forces Group, and 15 support brigades.
Ground Combat Vehicle
The Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) is the U.S. Army's replacement for
Infantry Fighting Vehicles in Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCTs).
Modernization imperatives include improved protection, mobility and
sustainment; built-in growth capacity; and network integration.
President's budget 2013 funds two competitive Technology Development
(TD) contracts leading to a Milestone B decision in first quarter 2014
and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase. The
Milestone B decision will be informed by a comprehensive analysis, an
examination of nondevelopmental vehicles, and progress made during the
current TD phase.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)
Provides Army and Marine Corps Warfighters more payload, protection
and network capability than High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
(HMMWV), and more fuel efficiency than the HMMWV or Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP). President's budget 2013 fully funds JLTV
Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) using an acquisition
strategy that maximizes full and open competition opportunities for
interested companies and reduces EMD costs and schedule. The program is
scheduled for a Milestone B decision in July 2012.
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)
The PIM program replaces the current M109A6 Paladin and M992A2
Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle by incorporating Bradley
common drive train and suspension components. PIM addresses a long
standing capability gap in the self-propelled artillery portfolio
brought about by an aging fleet and the termination of prior
modernization efforts. President's budget 2013 funds continued
development and integration of Bradley common components (Engine,
Transmission, and Suspension System) into prototype vehicles for
government testing. The program remains on schedule to meet a Milestone
C in June 2013.
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)
The AMPV program is an essential element of the Army's Combat
Vehicle Modernization strategy to replace an aging M113 fleet that
lacks protection, mobility, and the ability to accept future upgrades.
The AMPV addresses critical capability gaps in protection, networking
interoperability, and mobility for critical enablers (mortars, medical
evacuation and treatment, mission command, and company command and
control) of the combined arms team. The current M113 fleet has reached
its growth margin in these areas and a new design is needed.
President's budget 2013 funds development of the competitive source
selection package. The AMPV program is an essential element of the
Army's Combat Vehicle Modernization strategy.
Kiowa Warrior
President's budget 2013 funds continued development of the Cockpit
and Sensor Upgrade Program (CASUP) and procurement of fielded fleet
upgrades and CASUP long lead items. CASUP replaces the OH-58D's
outdated systems with a new onboard processor, communications suite,
and navigation equipment along with a lighter, more capable sight to
fill the immediate interoperability gaps existing in the fleet today.
The fielding of these improvements begins in fiscal year 2016 and will
be complete by fiscal year 2021. A decision to pursue either the
development of a new aircraft to replace Kiowa Warrior or a Service
Life Extension Program (SLEP) of Kiowa Warrior will be made in fiscal
year 2013.
other programs of interest
Support to the Warfighter in Afghanistan
President's budget 2013 fully funds priority warfighter equipment
requirements and supports efforts toward a successful conclusion of
Army missions in Afghanistan. President's budget 2013 Overseas
Contingency Operations funding procures replacement aircraft, missiles,
rockets and C4I equipment; specialized Distributed Common Ground
System-Army (DCGS-A) equipment for Intelligence units; Carl Gustav
Recoilless Rifles for selected units; Enhanced Combat Helmets, and OEF
Camouflage Pattern clothing for deployers. The President's budget 2013
Base funding procures seismic/acoustic intrusion devices for deploying
Military Police and Engineer Companies, BCTs and Special Operations
units; Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence equipment for
Civil Affairs units; Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) Radars and Lightweight
Counter Mortar Radars; M2 and M240 Machine Gun modifications; and
Precision Guided Artillery Fuzes for example.
Lightening the Load
The Army is committed to a continuous, holistic effort to lighten
the individual soldier's load. We have continued to reduce the weight
of individual protection equipment while improving the level of
protection provided. The weight of crew-served weapons like machine
guns and mortars has also been reduced. We are expanding the scope of
our weight reduction efforts to address consumable items. For example,
we are developing case-less ammunition which will reduce the weight of
ammunition. A lightweight solar battery charger is under development to
reduce the number of batteries a soldier carries on patrol.
Combat Vehicle Programs
Two Combat Vehicle Programs are Priority Programs in fiscal year
2013 and discussed above. They are the GCV and the Advanced Multi-
Purpose Vehicle. Other combat vehicle programs include:
Stryker Family of Vehicles. Provides an integrated
combined arms team with maximum versatility across Unified Land
Operations. The Stryker fleet has emerging capability gaps in
Protection, Network Interoperability, and Mobility due to a
lack of space, weight, power, and cooling capabilities (SWaP-
C). Modernization of the Stryker Fleet is focused on an ECP
that will buy-back SWaP-C to integrate future protection
technologies, provide the electrical power to integrate the
future network, and regain some mobility lost through wartime
protection enhancements.
M1 Abrams. Provides the main battle tank capabilities
to defeat armored vehicles in Unified Land Operations. The
capability to integrate future protection improvements,
integrate network technologies and regain mobility lost through
wartime protection improvements is needed. Modernization
efforts are currently focused on engineering changes that will
provide increased space, weight, power, and cooling
capabilities.
M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Provides the current
Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, and
armored fire support, engineer and reconnaissance capabilities
with the Bradley Fire Support Team Vehicle, Engineer-Bradley
Fighting Vehicle. Capability gaps exist with respect to SWaP-C
to integrate future protection improvements, integrate network
technologies and regain mobility lost through wartime
protection improvements. Modernization is currently focused on
engineering changes that will provide increased space, weight,
power and cooling capabilities.
Army Aviation Programs
The Kiowa Warrior, OH-58D is a Priority Program in fiscal year 2013
and discussed above. Other Aviation programs include:
Apache, AH-64D. Fiscal year 2013 funds the
continuation of the Block Three incremental modernization
strategy which includes the remanufacturing of block one and
block two aircraft along with a small number of new build
helicopters. Fielding of the first Block Three unit began 1st
quarter of fiscal year 2012 and remains on schedule to be
complete by the first quarter fiscal year 2013. Apache Block
Three will ensure the Apache remains a viable combat multiplier
well into the future.
Armed Aerial Scout. The Army strategy is to pursue a
replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior through the Armed
Aerial Scout (AAS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) and a
voluntary flight demonstration to inform the acquisition
process. If it is determined in mid fiscal year 2013 that an
affordable alternative does not exist, the Army will apply a
Service Life Extension Program. Should the Army determine that
an affordable Kiowa Warrior replacement is available; the
Defense Acquisition Executive will determine the milestone
entry point for the AAS program.
Chinook, CH-47F. This program is currently in the last
year of its first 5 year, multiyear contract. The current
budget request includes a second multiyear contract that would
complete the modernization fielding in 2018 with a fleet end
state of 533 aircraft.
Transformation for Network Capabilities
In support of the transformation of our requirements and
acquisition processes, the Army is designing a suite of network systems
and equipment to answer the projected requirements of a 2-year cycle.
Every year, we integrate the next capability set, reflecting any
changes or advances in technology. This incremental modernization
allows the Army to buy fewer capabilities, but more often, to ensure
that we leverage industry advancements and provide our formation the
most up-to-date capabilities. These Capability Sets are aligned to
units in the queue for deployment or in the available pool to provide
mission command capability from the command post, commander on the
move, to the dismounted soldier.
We have and will continue to encourage industry to participate in
the acquisition process by submitting material solutions to solve
capability gaps on a semi-annual basis. This allows for large and small
scale industry involvement and leads to increased competition and lower
costs.
Capability Sets are a break with tradition in another very
important way. Rather than conducting limited user tests of individual
systems, the entire Capability Set undergoes two operational
evaluations prior to fielding to assess the collective functionality,
compliance with architectural standards, and interoperability with
existing network capabilities.
The Army will assess capability gaps, rapidly form requirements,
solicit mature industry solutions, and perform laboratory and field
evaluations in order to inform acquisition decisions semi-annually
through the Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) construct. The intent
of the NIE construct is three-fold: (1) reduce/eliminate the
integration burden on operational formations; (2) develop/integrate
network enabled mission command Capability Sets (CS); and (3) provide a
forum to leverage industry innovation and to rapidly acquire promising
capabilities that solve operational gaps. Fiscal year 2013 President's
budget fully funds the semiannual NIE which provides a venue to
evaluate new commercial technologies and network capabilities, in an
operational environment, for possible inclusion into the Network.
Resources have been added to the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
request to allow procurement of commercial products evaluated and
recommended for fielding based on NIE results.
major program changes in fiscal year 2013
Fiscal realities caused us to make significant changes in almost
100 programs. Nevertheless, the Army is committed to maintaining the
most capable Army in the world with the resources the American people
provide us through Congress. In order to do so in an era of decreasing
resources, we must make hard choices to maintain balance. To that end,
we continuously examine programs to find where we may have overlapping
or joint capabilities that meet the need, or where programs are simply
unaffordable or where the resulting capability risk is acceptable. We
believe that even with these changes, we still have balance in our
equipping strategy and are on track to equip the Army of 2020. However,
further reductions run the risk of upsetting that balance and force us
to make very hard choices about where we sacrifice capabilities for the
Army of 2020.
Among the changes in our President's budget 2013 request is the
restructure of over 20 programs, primarily due to affordability issues,
honed requirements or availability of off-the-shelf items. These
include Nett Warrior, JTRS, Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense
Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS), Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and JLTV.
In more than 50 programs we accepted risk by slowing deliveries of
systems based on the current operational environment. These include EQ-
36 radars, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks, and Apache III
Attack Helicopters. Finally, funding will cease for eight programs.
These include: Mounted Soldier System; Long Range Advanced Surveillance
Systems; Knight Targeting Under Armor; Liquid Logistics Storage and
Distribution (Camel); HMMWV Recap; Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles;
Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems; and Airborne Common
Sensor and Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance
System.
We also accelerated 11 programs to provide new capabilities to our
warfighters faster. Examples include: Improved Target Acquisition
System for Soldiers, Patriot PAC-3 Missiles, and Combat Communications
for Casualty Care (MC4).
equipping strategy
The goal of our Equipping Strategy is to ensure soldiers are
equipped for the current fight and for future contingencies as we
transition the Army. With the support of Congress, the Army
significantly improved the Equipment On Hand (EOH) and modernization
levels for the Army National Guard (ARNG), the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR)
and the Active components (AC). The EOH levels for the individual
components as of November 2011 are as follows: the AC 87 percent, ARNG
87 percent and the USAR 86 percent. Based on planned procurements and
assuming the inventory in theater and depot is made available for
redistribution, EOH levels have the potential to be AC 94 percent, ARNG
92 percent and the USAR 90 percent for fiscal year 2013. The
modernization levels for the individual components as of November 2011
are as follows: AC 70 percent, ARNG 71 percent and the USAR 66 percent.
Modernization has the potential to be AC 76 percent, ARNG 74 percent
and the USAR 69 percent for fiscal year 2013, if theater and depot
stocks are made available for redistribution. Although we are a force
in transition during a period of declining resources we must continue
to provide the Army with the best equipped most modernized and most
highly capable units that will prevail on any battlefield against any
foe.
closing comments
These continue to be challenging times for our Nation and for our
military. We can assure the members of this committee--your Army's
senior leaders remain focused and are working hard to address current
challenges and the needs of the Army now and in the future enable
continued readiness and expansion should the Army be needed. We will do
this with affordability as our watchword as we endeavor to remain good
stewards of our Nation's resources.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we thank you again for
your steadfast and generous support of the outstanding men and women of
the U.S. Army, Army civilians, and their families. We look forward to
your questions.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, General Lennox.
General Phillips? Am I right that the three of you are
prepared to, at least for now, accept General Lennox's
statement as your own?
General Phillips. Sir, that is correct.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. Thank you.
We will proceed to the questions. We will have 7-minute
rounds. I want to welcome my colleague from Connecticut and
fellow member of the committee and subcommittee, Senator
Blumenthal.
I mentioned in my opening statement my concern about the
GCV and the JLTV programs, and the unit costs of those new
systems, which are projected to be double or triple that of the
upgraded current generation Bradley fighting vehicles and
Humvees that they are replacing.
Obviously, the two new programs bring some improvements.
The broad question I want to ask you first is to elaborate, if
you would, on the operational need for those new development
systems. Why, given the tremendous fiscal restraints we are all
under, you think that the incremental money we are spending on
the GCV and the JLTV is worth it, essentially, as opposed to
maintaining and upgrading the two existing programs.
General Lennox. If I could start, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Please.
General Lennox. I think others on the panel may want to
join in.
In the infantry fighting vehicle, we found over the last 10
years that there is a number of shortfalls that we are aiming
to correct with the GCV program. The Bradley is underpowered,
cannot carry a full squad, has limited growth potential for the
future, and has a number of shortfalls along those lines.
Right now, we are right after Milestone A. So we have just
really launched the GCV, and I think we are on a very good path
of investigating whether we have our requirements right, is our
cost range right or not.
We are also looking at nondevelopmental vehicles by other
countries, and we are experimenting with them as part of our
network evaluation at Fort Bliss, TX, this spring.
Finally, we are looking at what industry has been able to
provide us in terms of technical development, the new starts,
by both the two industry partners. We are evaluating those to
see if we have our requirements right and if this is the right
path ahead.
I think we are taking a very prudent, measured approach to
making sure we have our requirements right for the GCV.
For the JLTV, we have spent the last year really working
with the Marine Corps to make sure that we have the
requirements right in that regard. We have driven down the
price substantially. It was about $450,000 a copy. We now think
in the request for proposal it is around $250,000 a copy.
We think it has the capabilities we need for the future.
The Humvee is not a vehicle that soldiers can operate in today
outside of the fence line. We desperately need a replacement
for that, and we think we are on a good path for that as well.
Senator Lieberman. So why don't you talk just a little more
about the advantages of the two new programs over the two
existing ones, the Humvee and the Bradley fighting vehicle?
Particularly, what potential is there to upgrade the two
existing programs so they could do better than they are doing
now for our troops?
General Lennox. I would be happy to be joined by anybody
who has thoughts on this. But for me, the Humvee, for example,
is incapable of going off the forward operating base.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Lennox. It doesn't provide the protection for
soldiers today. We have overburdened it with the weight and
things on that frame. There are roles that it is probably
suitable for, and we are going to have a number of them in the
force for probably 10 or 15 years.
Senator Lieberman. We have a large number, don't we?
General Lennox. Yes, sir. So they will probably remain in
there for Homeland defense, those kind of mission areas. Or if
the environment is permissive, we could use those vehicles.
What we found with the Bradley based on an analysis of
alternatives (AOA) is that the price is much closer to a new
vehicle for fixing up the Bradley, to give it the growth
potential and protection that we would need in a similar
version.
We are not done with that analysis. Improving the Bradley
is an option for the Army in the future, and it is being looked
at as well.
Senator Lieberman. General Walker, did you want to add
anything?
General Walker. Sir, you had asked about what we do for
risk mitigation, given the uncertain future. We do our concepts
work based on strategic guidance we receive and informed by
joint concepts. We have a broad mission set.
But there is a part of that mission set that remains, and
that is our ability to conduct combat operations. When we look
at ways that we might mitigate risk, that capability is
fundamental, and only--the Bradley does not have the
maneuverability and the protection for our rifle squads that we
believe we might encounter for those adversaries that would
employ hybrid-like tactics against us.
I am reminded of the fight in Fallujah in November 2004.
Three Army task forces led three axes of advance with the
Marine Corps. We talk about the counterinsurgency (COIN)
operation; but it was a tank fight, protected by riflemen in
Bradleys.
If we did that again today, given the advances that we have
seen in IEDs and explosively formed penetrators, we would lose
a lot of people. I think we can expect more of that in the
future. So this does mitigate risk.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. I appreciate that.
What I am hearing is that it is hard to, at this point,
conceive of a sensible upgrade to the Humvee to meet the
challenges. But on the question of the GCV, although as you
have just said, there are problems with the Bradley, that that
is still a question that is being pursued. Am I hearing it
right?
General Phillips. Sir, if I could just add?
Senator Lieberman. Please.
General Phillips. You are absolutely right, sir. We think
we have the absolutely right strategy going forward for GCV. We
call it the three-pronged strategy. We have the two contractors
in the technology development phase that General Lennox
mentioned that are actively looking at, through modeling and
simulation, how to build this vehicle. At the same time, we are
looking at what a stretch Bradley might look like or what it
might be able to do.
We are also looking at potential foreign systems, like the
Namer. Other systems, like Puma, we will look at as well. That
is going to inform us going into the Milestone B about 20
months from now the exact right vehicle that we will enter into
Milestone B through engineering, manufacturing, and
development. So we think we have it about right.
In terms of cost, sir, if I could just add, we refined the
cost of the GCV as we pulled back the original request for
proposal (RFP) and then reset. We think we can bring this
vehicle in, and we are pretty confident, somewhere between $9
million and $10.5 million.
As General Lennox mentioned earlier, that is not far above
what it would cost to do a stretch Bradley to give it the
capability of the GCV.
Senator Lieberman. Just a final question because my time is
up. You are looking at the German Puma and the Israeli Namer.
What is possible there? That we would adapt those designs to
our own use, or that we would actually purchase from them?
General Phillips. Sir, I will start and then turn it over
to General Walker to finish. What we want to do going into
Milestone B is to make sure we get our requirements documents
as right as we can. We learn as much from those systems to
include what the two contractors are doing and to make sure
that we are fully informed so the Army can make the best
decisions.
Senator Lieberman. Gotcha.
General Walker. Sir, to follow up, by putting those
vehicles in the hands of soldiers in a brigade operational
context at Fort Bliss and White Sands, what we can do is we can
dynamically adjust our requirements if we have the requirements
wrong. It is a way to really ask ourselves do we have it right,
based on seeing some other alternatives.
Senator Lieberman. Very good. My time is up.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The reduction in end strength will not only impact the
availability of soldiers, it is going to affect the Army's
equipping plan. There are going to be some excesses which
include modernization of tanks and fighting vehicles.
What does the excess in vehicles mean for the continuation
in production of tanks, trucks, and Bradleys? How do you plan
to distribute the excess equipment caused by the reduction in
end strength? For example, do the Guard and Reserve play a role
in that?
General Lennox. Senator Brown, we are undergoing analysis
right now on what the future force structure will look like. So
what is our actual force design as we draw down from 547,000 to
490,000 in the Active Force?
That final decision, to be made by the Secretary of the
Army and Chief of Staff of the Army, will drive whether or not
we do have excess or whether or not we are employing our
Bradleys and our Abrams tanks today. It will help us define
whether or not we do have excess.
We don't see a lot of excess, frankly, in tanks and
Bradleys. We do see some excess tactical wheeled vehicles,
trucks in particular. Our plan is to make sure that we get rid
of the oldest trucks in all our formations, Active and Guard,
first and then divest the excess trucks. Make them available
for divestment.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
The Guard and Reserve's more active role in the President's
new national security plan is evident. How does the Army intend
to resource training and equipping of the Reserve components? I
am a little unclear. Are the Army Reserve and National Guard
sufficiently funded to support the current and prospective
missions?
General Campbell. Sir, I can take a shot at that. First
off, sir, thank you, and the members of the committee, for your
continued support.
Senator Lieberman, thank you very much for your service.
Sir, we have what we call now the Army Force Generation
(ARFORGEN) model, and that has been used for the last several
years to make sure we provide manned, equipped, and trained
ready forces for the combatant commanders. We are going through
a process right now to make sure that we take all the lessons
learned from the last 10 years and apply that as we revamp the
ARFORGEN process. Included in this is the National Guard,
Reserve, and the Active component.
As we go through that, we will determine how many brigades
are required to combatant commanders over a certain amount of
time, and we can provide those resources at that time. We have
really gone from a tiered readiness piece to a progressive
readiness piece with the ARFORGEN getting supply/demand, and
now we are looking hard, as we move forward, how many National
Guard brigades and Reserve brigades we will actually need in an
operational reserve concept versus strategic reserve.
We talked earlier, sir. In Afghanistan, I had two National
Guard brigades underneath my command and control. They had
battle space just like the Active components. You couldn't tell
the difference unless you knew the patch that was on their
shoulder.
They are manned, equipped, and trained just like the Active
brigades. They perform excellent, and we have to make sure that
we can do everything we can to maintain that capability we have
had in the past.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
General Walker, in regard to the new weapons programs, they
sometimes seem to be weighed down with unaffordable or in some
cases, technologically unrealistic requirements. In some
circumstances, requirements change in the middle of program
development and, as a result, generate poor cost and schedule
outcomes and increase the chances that a program will be
canceled prior to fielding it. We all know instances of that.
What is the Army doing to improve the requirements
generation process, and what could the Army acquisition
community do to assist in this area?
General Walker. Senator Brown, to start at the beginning of
when we do requirements, we have adjusted how we go about it.
We formed integrated capability development teams with all
stakeholders early in the process so that we don't come up with
something that might defy the laws of physics or not make
sense. That is one thing that we have started doing routinely
that helps the process.
The other is we have adjusted the way we write requirements
so that the requirements have a more open architecture, and we
don't end up painting ourselves into a corner early in the
process when we don't know enough about that capability that we
seek to develop.
The other thing we are doing is not being so resistant to
changing a requirement once we write it, and we can do that by
getting that capability in the hands of the soldier earlier in
the process and let them try it in an operational context and
give us some feedback. I like to say that we can dynamically
adjust the requirement as we go.
Those have already started helping a lot as we get into the
trades process when that time comes, working with my partner,
General Phillips.
General Phillips. Senator, I would just add that we are
very serious about changing the acquisition paradigm. I used to
call it acquisition reform, but I really now refer to it as
acquisition transformation. Ms. Shyu and I are both really,
really focused on that aspect.
We are teamed with our partners to my left and right. We
are serious about teaming with the requirements generation,
Keith Walker and his folks. We now have program executive
officers and program managers embedded with those that are
looking at the requirements not only to review the
requirements, to make sure that we have cost analyst folks,
smart folks that have modeling and simulation to make sure that
we know the cost of those programs as they come forward.
Two of the programs that have been critical for the way
that we changed the acquisition paradigm have been the GCV and
the JLTV. In the case of GCV, we went from the original RFP
that was going to cost about $20 million per vehicle, through
cost-informed trades, looking hard at the requirements, looking
at how we can do it faster and bring it in within 7 years, and
we went to a cost of about $9 million to $10 million per
vehicle.
For the JLTV, it was well over $400,000 per copy, and we
got it down to about $250,000, working with our Marine Corps
counterparts, bringing forth mature technologies, using
competition, and using fixed-price incentive fee or cost-plus
incentive fee type contracts.
One of the key aspects, sir, that I want to emphasize is
industry builds these systems. So, in the past, we have
probably not listened to industry to the extent we could, and
now we are listening to industry and taking their feedback to
make sure that we build our requirements and our acquisition
strategies appropriately.
Senator Brown. Just one final question. If Congress doesn't
do anything with regard to sequestration, when do you need to
start planning for sequestration?
General Lennox. Tough question, Senator Brown, and a good
one. It really doesn't take much planning for us to know that
there is a catastrophe coming with sequestration.
For us, it is about manpower first. That is relatively
fixed. In the Army, you can get rid of it very quickly. But if
you get rid of the manpower quickly, you have to pay
unemployment, and you have to pay for people to go. So you
won't get any savings in manpower. We will come back and ask
for reprogramming money to pay those bills.
We can't close our installations very quickly. You can't
put a padlock on them and send people home. We will have to pay
those bills, and we will have to come back and ask for help.
The billpayers for those have to be modernization. They
have to be training accounts, and the cost of those is that
will very quickly have hollowing effects on the Army. I don't
want to predict the outcome.
So it doesn't take a lot of preparation or mathematics to
know the impacts for us are going to be catastrophic in this
case.
Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Brown.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will make this quick because I have a time conflict. I
will direct this question to both General Phillips and General
Lennox, since I know what your answer is going to be.
As an old Army guy, you have heard me talk about before I
came to the Senate my last year in the House on the House Armed
Services Committee. I remember we had expert witnesses that
came in, and they said that in 10 years we would no longer need
ground troops.
As time went by and we looked forward, it seemed like that
was an attitude at that time we were not modernizing our ground
capability. Other countries around the world were. I remember
the Crusader came along. That was going to be the answer to all
this. We were all excited about that.
As a Republican, I readily admit it was a Republican
President that axed that program.
Senator Lieberman. So noted.
Senator Inhofe. So noted is right.
Then the non-line-of-sight came along. Then, of course,
Shinseki was there. We had the Future Combat Systems. They just
axed all these things.
Now we are down to the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)
program, recognizing the Paladin was actually just a little
after World War II technology. But still, this PIM system is a
good one. I have been watching it very carefully. After seeing
the others slide by, I just want to see what level of assurance
the two of you would give us that this program is going to be
seen through, and then also why it takes so long to do it?
General Phillips. Senator Inhofe, I will start off, and
then turn it over to General Lennox to add to my comments. But
upfront, I can tell you that PIM is a critical part of our
modernization strategy.
Senator Lieberman, you mentioned upfront the value of the
CPRs and how General Chiarelli brought that into fruition
inside the Army. That was absolutely critical for us to take a
critical look at our programs and figure out which ones are
most important. One of those that rose to the top was PIM.
Since that time, about 2 years ago when we started working
PIM harder than we had in the past and putting more resources
against it, it was 2 years ago we brought a new strategy
forward for PIM. We have kept Milestone C as June 2013, and we
are highly confident that we will make that date, and we
thanked Congress last year for adding money into PIM that
allowed us to keep the milestone on track.
We have two critical paths between now and Milestone C to
really finalize PIM and the way ahead. One is the business case
analysis that needs to be done in case of determining do we
proceed with a sole source, or do we go competitive? We expect
that to be done probably within the next 30 days. Senator, we
will come back and make sure that we brief you on that
strategy.
The second would be as we drive toward the Defense
Acquisition Board (DAB) review with Mr. Kendall, the Acting
Defense Acquisition Executive, that we get all the testing
completed prior to that milestone event so we are ready to go
into low-rate initial production and soon after there into
full-rate production. It is a high priority for us, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Thank you very much.
General Lennox. Senator, I don't know that there is much
more that I could add. I want to echo your original comment
that we do often get our strategies wrong. In those cases, you
have to have a modern Army.
What we are trying to do is do incremental modernization to
the extent possible so we are not going out on a limb, but that
the things we undertake are achievable and affordable.
Senator Inhofe. When we are out on the stump and talking to
people, there is an assumption that the United States, or
specifically the Army, has the best of everything. When their
kids go out, they have the best equipment.
But there are some areas where that is not true. I think
that should be a goal for those of us who are looking into the
future, to make sure that that does happen.
I appreciate that assurance. If you would, General
Phillips, in the next month or so, update us. Perhaps me in my
office or give me a ring so we can talk about that.
The only other area I was going to ask you about is the
reset issue. We haven't experienced this before in our country,
being out there in battle for 10 years, and we have all been
over there. We have all seen the condition of our equipment.
We know that reset is going to have to happen. We know that
the Overseas Contingency Operations funding is going to stop.
How are you going to handle that?
General Lennox. Senator, I think all Army leaders have been
very consistent about needing to have some sort of reset
funding for several years after the end of any conflict. We are
out of Iraq, as you well know. But the equipment is not yet
completely out of Kuwait.
Some is on ships coming home. Some has just shown up in our
depots. It will probably take 2 to 3 years for us to clear the
backlog of equipment out of Iraq and get it into the hands of
our soldiers.
Afghanistan will be even more challenging, and we are going
to need the support of Congress to help us make sure that we
get the equipment home, get it reset, and get it into the hands
of soldiers. We have been pretty consistent, as I said. I think
it will take about 2 or 3 years after the last soldier is out.
We will need that kind of support.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I appreciate that very much, and thank
you for your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, and thank you
for your extraordinary service to the country.
I want to focus first on the defense against IEDs. I know
that each of you knows about and cares about this issue at
least as much, certainly more than I do. But I note in your
testimony, General, that in the section dealing with support to
the warfighter in Afghanistan, at least so far as I can see--I
may be missing it--there is nothing in reference to the
protective gear or to better detection and the various series
of devices and so forth that can be mounted in that regard.
I notice enhanced combat helmets is part of what you list,
and I am just wondering whether there is more that you might
say about that problem?
General Lennox. I would ask the entire team to help me here
because I know they have lived it and have been challenged with
this from the beginning, Senator. So if I did leave it out of
the opening statement and written remarks, it is a complete
oversight.
It is a top priority and commitment to overcome this. There
has been a series of different items that we have fielded to
soldiers in Afghanistan to help deal with the threat, from the
Self-Protection Adaptive Roller Kit System mine rollers to go
in front of the vehicles to protective ballistic undergarments
to help those that are struck with the ability to better
survive those kinds of effects.
We have had a series of upgrades to our mine-resistant
ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles and MRAP all-terrain vehicles
to include underbelly protection. General Phillips and I
visited the facility while we were over there a month ago to
watch the progress of this new and improved vehicle. A number
of hand-held devices that help dismounted soldiers find the
threat and get in front of the threat.
It is top priority investment, a top area, and if I
neglected to mention it, it is my oversight.
Senator Blumenthal. My question was not to ask whether you
have done everything you can. I know that you have and you are.
I am wondering whether there is another iteration of gear,
detection devices, that you are developing because from
everything I know--and I am new to this committee, new to the
Senate--this will be one of the threats to our Armed Forces
going forward for years to come, unfortunately and tragically.
Is there anything we can do to help you, and I am wondering
whether there are other program areas that you are developing?
General Phillips. Senator, I would just add that we
continue to look hard at this. IEDs are something that we are
putting a lot of science and technology (S&T) effort into, and
research and development (R&D). One of those areas that we
continue to improve is body armor which also helps to protect.
We have done nine improvements.
When we have gone forward to ask for funding, whether it
has been Congress or working with the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD), no one said no when it comes to IED
protection or soldier protection. We have the resources that we
need, and we have to continue the investment in S&T and R&D as
we go forward.
One of those that we have just recently learned about from
England, as a matter of fact, are two systems. One is pelvic
protection and then the Goldie Detection System that is used to
detect command wire. Those are systems that we are fielding
today.
Pelvic protection, this is probably first generation.
Senator Blumenthal. Right.
General Phillips. But we also have other generations. Sir,
General Campbell has an organization called the Rapid Equipping
Force (REF) that works with them, and they do some remarkable
work in this area.
General Campbell. Yes, sir. The REF for the last several
years gets out in front, is able to provide equipment to
soldiers working through the Joint IED Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) to get it out very quickly to the soldiers.
Where we are making the turn now, just this year, is we are
finally getting some of that equipment back here to stateside
so that soldiers are able to train on that before they go over
to Afghanistan. So, in the past, our policy, our strategy, is
really to get it into theater very quickly, get it into the
hands of the soldiers that are in harm's way.
But a lot of times, that is the first time they have seen
it. Now we are finally getting it back here. So each post,
camp, and station has a set of training equipment. They are
able to use that before they go. That has been with the help of
Congress providing additional funds to do that.
Senator Blumenthal. Right. I am hopeful that there will be
iterations and development in the future that will be even more
effective. Obviously, it all depends on the troops using it,
which I understand they are doing so more and more.
I would be happy to follow up on this. I have been in touch
with JIEDDO, but any way that I can be helpful, I would like to
be.
On the Black Hawk UH-60M, the procurement is down. I think
the numbers are 72 to 59. Are you satisfied that you will have
enough of those helicopters not only to equip, but also to
train and maintain the skill sets of your pilots?
General Lennox. Senator, I think that the key issue for us
is that we are able to continue modernizing in this constrained
fiscal environment. So the key for Black Hawk is to keep
improving and keep replacing things like the body and the frame
of the aircraft, and the UH-60M model does that.
So we are able to keep that going and hope to have a
multiyear contract completed, I think, in the next several
months that will allow us to keep producing the Black Hawks.
They are performing phenomenally in combat. General Campbell
can give firsthand experience.
Apache also, the Apache Block III is a question of first
giving you enhanced capabilities and then also finally
replacing the frame on that vehicle. We have flown these things
to no end over the last 10 years, and we have tried to keep
them up through reset, but now it is time to replace the frame
and to actually get a long-term replacement.
So we have been able to continue that in our strategy,
although at a lower level.
Senator Blumenthal. Did you have anything you wanted to
add, General Campbell?
General Campbell. Sir, General Lennox was right on point.
What I would add is just the courageousness of the pilots and
the crews and the performance they have both in Afghanistan and
Iraq in probably the hardest conditions that you can ever fly
in, whether it is the weather or the terrain. They continue to
perform superbly.
We are very, very fortunate. We need to continue to
modernize the Black Hawks.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
General Phillips. We have worked hard to sustain the
multiyear procurement contract. So thanks for supporting us on
that.
I would also add to what General Campbell just said, that
there have been 5.1 million combat flight hours for Army
aviation. Today, there are 569 aircraft in theater serving in
combat operations in the most austere environment that General
Campbell just described. It is remarkable what our aviation
forces have done in this war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senator Blumenthal. The helicopter has performed well under
very difficult conditions, matched by the courage and expertise
of our pilots.
I have one more area, but my time has expired.
Senator Lieberman. Senator Blumenthal, go right ahead.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman. It is just you and me, and I am going to
be here a while. [Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I wanted to ask about the Kiowa. You mentioned it in your
testimony, General. I know that a decision will have to be made
either to replace it or to use the Service Life Extension
Program (SLEP). I wonder what is being done, in essence, to
prepare the industry to adapt to your decision, which I guess
will be made sometime in fiscal year 2013?
But are your industry partners being kept informed, and
will they be prepared to adapt to whatever your decision is on
that?
General Phillips. Sir, we are quite excited about how
industry has come back to the Army and expressed interest in
the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS), as well as the Kiowa program,
working with Bell and the potential to upgrade that aircraft or
to go through a SLEP.
Last year, at the Army Aviation Association of America, I
spoke to industry, and I will do that again here in about
another 10 days. It wasn't too long ago that General Lennox and
I were on a stage together, and we spoke to a host of industry
partners here in Washington, DC, that were interested in this
program as well. So we have gotten extraordinary feedback.
We think there is probably somewhere around six or seven
industry partners that are interested in the AAS program. I
will just quickly describe our way ahead. It is really twofold.
We are doing the Kiowa Warrior cockpit and sensor upgrade
program today. That is going well, actually, working with Bell
Helicopter. It is not a SLEP, though. It is not a formal SLEP.
It is simply putting in a new cockpit and sensor, which
upgrades the capacity of the Kiowa and reduces weight. So we
will continue that program.
At the same time, we expect an acquisition decision memo
(ADM) from OSD around April 23 that will allow us to go forward
with a formal AAS flight demonstration. That will occur
sometime this summer within 4 months of receipt of the ADM from
OSD.
Then shortly after that, we expect to have a DAB around
April of next year. So it will be fiscal year 2013, sir. We
will make a decision on whether we have a good enough solution
with industry and what they can provide based upon the flight
demonstration, or is the Kiowa Warrior SLEP good enough for us
to go forward with?
I think our dual path strategy sets us on the right course,
sir. Again, we are getting great feedback from industry.
Senator Blumenthal. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, for those
important questions.
I just want to follow up on the Black Hawk. Am I correct
that the Army is still committed to the full planned multiyear
procurement buy of 511 aircraft, though the acquisition is down
for this year?
General Lennox. Senator, I would have to take for the
record the exact number. We are committed to continue buying
the Black Hawk beyond the program. So what we have done is just
slip it to the right. We aren't going to stop at the end of the
program.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Army is still committed to procure 511 UH-60M aircraft in the
Multiyear Procurement VIII Contract. The contract is structured to
procure 318 aircraft for the Army and 193 for the Navy.
Senator Lieberman. Right. I appreciate your checking to
confirm that that is the still the buy.
I was going to ask about the multiyear negotiations with
Sikorsky, when you thought that would conclude. But what I
heard you say, I think, is that it is going to be sometime in
the next period of months?
General Phillips. Senator, I think we sustain the
multiyear. I will go back and check on that and make sure that
we get you the correct response for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Currently, the Army is still committed to the full planned buy of
511 aircraft (318 Army/193 Navy) during the Multiyear Procurement VIII
(MYP-8) Contract. The fiscal year 2013 budget was reduced by 12
aircraft, but the other years have increased accordingly. The Army
still has a requirement for a total of 2,135 H-60 L/M aircraft and will
continue to procure UH-60M aircraft through the 5-Year Defense Plan and
beyond to meet those modernization requirements, 1,375 UH-60M and 760
UH-60L. The currently scheduled award date for the MYP-8 Contract is
June 29, 2012.
General Lennox. The funding is there, Senator, but I think
they haven't resolved it yet. So I think it is within a matter
of months.
Senator Lieberman. Am I right that there are going to be
certain price advantages for us, for the Army, for the
Government, as a result of that?
General Phillips. Yes, sir. We normally look for about a 10
percent advantage for going with a multiyear, and actually,
Sikorsky and the president of Sikorsky have committed to at
least a 10 percent savings, sir. That is good for the Army and
good for our aviators and our soldiers.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. That is what I had heard. I
appreciated Senator Blumenthal's questions about the Kiowa
potential replacement. Major General Ben Hodges was in
Connecticut the other day and visited Sikorsky. I happened to
be in the State. So I spent some time with him.
But it was also a first opportunity for me with him to get
a briefing on the proposed aircraft at Sikorsky, other
proposals that Sikorsky will make for what they call the
Raider, the S-97 variant of their X2. It is a fascinating
aircraft, and it will just be something to watch how it
develops because it has a combination of capabilities. It is
quite remarkable.
I wanted to go back and look a little bit more broadly
based on the study that was done in 2010, the Decker-Wagner
study, which was, as you remember, quite critical of Army
acquisition programs, saying that since 2004, the Army had
spent $3.3 billion to $3.8 billion annually on weapons programs
that ultimately were canceled.
There was pretty critical language there. ``The Army lacks
a credible quantitative model and process for determining
realistic, achievable requirements for modernization and
recapitalization, given reduced budgets.''
I put that into the record because I viewed the work that
has been done over the last year, as we referred to the work
that has been done under General Chiarelli, as a response to
that report and to the general concern about the cost of the
programs and the amount of money that was being spent for
programs that didn't materialize.
So could you analyze the fiscal year 2013 request in the
context of the Decker-Wagner criticisms and perhaps what I will
generally refer to as the Chiarelli reforms? In other words,
what did you do differently this time based on that experience
and that report?
General Phillips. Sir, I will from an acquisition
perspective, and then I will let General Lennox and our
partners join in. But we really used something that Congress
gave us in terms of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
and the ability to execute configuration steering boards.
We in acquisition had the authority for the first time to
sit with those that had the requirements and the resources. So
all of us together, through the CPR process that you defined,
sir, and the Configuration Steering Boards (CSB), could really
look hard at everything from requirements generation to what we
are bringing forward, all the way through to the acquisition
strategy.
Through some very tough discussions in and among the Army
family, we were able to come to closure on what requirements
were. Do we have them right? Can we refine them? Do we have
cost-informed trades? Do we have the right strategy? What did
we no longer need that we can divest in terms of systems that
might be in a given portfolio?
But we tied that together in a way that it really allowed
us to make sure that we are buying what we should be buying
and, at the same time, leveraging Decker-Wagner, which was a
blueprint for us to improve. Really, we looked at all 76
findings, and we have already implemented about 42, which a
part of that has been the CPRs and the CSBs being tied
together.
It has been very positive for us, sir, and I think you see
that reflected in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
Senator Lieberman. That is great to hear. Anyone want to
add? General Lennox?
General Lennox. If I could? A precursor to that, sir, is
that we lost about $2 billion in buying power from fiscal year
2012 to the fiscal year 2013 budget submission. From our plan,
it was even higher than that.
If we did not have the portfolio review process, we would
have really been awash, I think, and it is that portfolio
review process that helped us prioritize what inside each
portfolio was more important than the others.
General Campbell's job then is to give an independent
prioritization for the Army, and what he helped us do is
determine where we had to take those cuts. We ended up killing
8 programs and delaying almost 80 others not because of
performance; some of those programs were performing well. It
was a function of whether or not you could afford to do it and
what priorities you had to give up in order to do this.
So I think the entire process you talked about, set in
stage by General Chiarelli, continued by General Lloyd Austin,
in this portfolio review look, is enabling us to help
prioritize.
Senator Lieberman. Either of you want to add anything?
General Campbell. Sir, I was just going to add to what
General Lennox said at the end there that when General Austin
came onboard, the first thing he did was say, ``Let us look at
the CPR business and really take and work that.'' So we will
continue with that. I think the discussions that we have as a
group are very open, candid, and really looking hard toward the
future. What General Walker and his unit does down in the Army
Capabilities Integration Center is look out at the Army of 2020
and really determining where we need to go in the future.
Combining that with the CPR business, it is going to give us
the best solution in the end.
Senator Lieberman. Good. General Walker?
General Walker. Sir, I talked about a few of the
requirements procedures we are doing differently. But
specifically, with regard to Decker-Wagner, Training and
Doctrine Command was asked to look at some areas specifically
with regard to staffing on ways to speed up staffing processes
requirements. So we did that.
We were asked to look at key performance parameters that
were mandatory versus nonmandatory and the same thing for key
system attributes and provide recommendations on how to
quantify those to speed the process so they didn't get out of
control. We were also asked to look at the threshold and
objective key system attributes on policies we could establish
about just using low-risk ones so we didn't invent things that
were so risky because, I used the term before, it might defy
the laws of physics and engineering.
We worked those responses in the Decker-Wagner
recommendations up with DOD.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that response because I
think you took that report seriously. I know it is never
possible to guarantee anything, but is it fair to say that you
present this budget this year, for fiscal year 2013, with a
sense of confidence that we are not going to be spending a lot
of money on programs that are going to be canceled? I guess I
would put it that directly.
General Lennox. Senator, I think so. We have really only
two transformative programs, I think, in our entire portfolio.
One is the network.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Lennox. We have network evaluations designed to
help us learn and iterate through that process. We are relying
more on commercial off-the-shelf capabilities than leap-ahead
technologies.
The other one is the GCV. Because we have put in a 7-year
requirement there, we are not looking at miracles in terms of
armoring and armoring capability. We are looking at what
industry can do for us today.
Those are really our two big leap-ahead programs. Most of
the rest of the Army's modernization portfolio involves
incremental improvements. I do think we come with much more
confidence this year to you, that I think our proposals are
well-grounded, and there has been a lot of work done.
I don't want to tell you that we haven't made a mistake,
but I think we are in better shape this year than we have been.
Senator Lieberman. I must say in my 24 years here, no one
has ever told me they haven't made a mistake.
Let me ask some general questions about the defense
industrial base. The defense strategic guidance set it as a
major tenet to protect the Nation's defense industrial base,
which can be problematic at a time of diminishing budgets.
Specifically, DOD funding reductions for fiscal year 2013
have reduced, as we have said, Army's modernization investment
accounts and acquisition strategy. I wanted to ask you, given
that and the fact that we are going to continue to operate for
some period of time in this resource-constrained environment,
what, in your view, are the major risks, if any, to the defense
industrial base?
General Phillips. Senator Lieberman, I will start off and
then turn it over to my colleagues.
As we look across all the portfolios, I think the one that
we have to look hard at, and we are looking hard at, is the
combat vehicle portfolio. When you look at the way the Army has
made some great progress in the past of upgrading Bradleys and
upgrading Abrams tanks and what that means in terms of not just
the prime contractors, but also the sub-tier contractors.
We are worried about all portfolios. We are looking across
all of them, whether it is thermal weapons sites, soldier
systems, or tactical wheeled vehicles. But the one that rises
to the top for me is combat vehicle portfolios.
I would add that we are a team with OSD as we look at
sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier, and sub-tier contractors to
figure out where the great risks are so we can work on the
single points of failure to make sure that we sustain the
important sub-tier vendors not only for combat vehicle
portfolios, but for other systems as well.
General Lennox. I think General Phillips has hit on it,
Senator. These are tough choices for us, and if you cover down
on something you don't need, are you then exposing another
industry?
Senator Lieberman. Yes. I agree. You can't do it all. So
the challenge, of course, is to minimize risk. You can't
eliminate it here.
Let me ask you, in that regard, to talk about what the
logic is behind the Army's plans for 3- to 4-year production
gaps for M1 Abrams tanks and the M2 Bradley fighting vehicles.
General Lennox. Sir, the big one is that both the Abrams
fleet, about 3.5 years in average age, because we have been
able to reset the fleet as it has come out of Iraq, because we
have produced and have been producing new vehicles, the Abrams
fleet is very young. We have a very good strategy accepted by
both the Guard and the Active Force to field with a two-variant
fleet, and we have reached that objective.
Buying additional tanks is something that we deemed less
important than investments in aviation, and investments in some
of the other areas for the future. As you mentioned, it is a
question of where do you want to take your risk? Because it is
all risky.
In the case of the Bradley vehicle line, York, PA, and the
Bradley plant there, we have tried to mitigate that in our
fiscal year 2013 budget proposal by proposing to upgrade the
M88A1 Hercules to an A2 variant. We think we may need that in
the future not only for recovering tanks, but for the GCV. So
we have attempted to mitigate that in fiscal year 2013.
Senator Lieberman. You answered the next question, which is
how do you deal with the potential loss of industrial
capability or capacity associated with those two production
gaps? Do you want to add anything to that, General Phillips?
General Phillips. Sir, I would add just a couple of
comments to the Joint Services Manufacturing Center, better
known as Lima.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Phillips. Some of the things that we are working
with General Dynamics (GD) is to better understand the sub-tier
contractors that support the production at that facility. We
know that there are about 790 or so workers that are there.
Working with GD, we know that about 49 of those are very
critical workers that are engineers that are involved in
tooling and design and other aspects of engineering tasks.
There are another 439 or so that are manufacturing workers
that are involved in welding of ballistic holes, understanding
how to put classified armor on the Abrams, and being authorized
to execute those tasks. There is a host of those as well.
Working with our international partners and working with
GD, one thing that we want to do is leverage foreign military
sales (FMS) as much as possible. There are no guarantees, but
it looks more promising today than it did just several months
ago in terms of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others
who have shown an interest in upgrading Abrams tanks or buying
new Abrams tanks.
We are working hard to make sure that we can do everything
possible to sustain the critical skills.
Senator Lieberman. That is a great point and, obviously,
very helpful, using FMS.
Let me ask you a last series of questions about
reversibility because in the full committee's hearings on the
budget for next year, in posture hearings, a number of the
witnesses have described the concept of reversibility as
enunciated in the defense strategic guidance.
What are the Army's specific objectives with regard to
reversibility? How much of the force would the Army be able to
reconstitute and in what amount of time if you were called upon
to do that?
General Campbell, maybe that is a good place to start? Then
General Walker as well.
General Campbell. Yes, sir. Great question. The
reversibility issue is key for us as we take down to 490,000,
not knowing what we will face in the future, how do we raise
that force back or grow the Army. So what we are looking at in
reversibility is having policies and procedures in effect that
we can put into place things now that will enable us to move
forward that way.
Then expansibility would be actually growing the Army to
meet that demand. I don't think we know exactly the number that
we need to grow to, to be able to work that piece. We will
continue to work that hard.
I think there are ways that we can enable ourselves to be
in position to do that better, whether it is through having
more officers in position. So cadre-type led organizations that
can bring in new recruits because it is a lot easier to bring
in a new recruit, to train him, as opposed to having a senior
noncommissioned officer (NCO) or an officer. It takes more time
to grow that.
We will be a little bit more officer or senior NCO heavy in
some organizations. We have to continue to take a look at those
types of policies, put those in place, and make sure that we
can look for the future.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you.
General Walker.
General Walker. Sir, what I would like to add is that
reversibility goes with expansibility. The idea being should
the Nation need the Army to grow again, will we have the
capacity to do that? So, in that context, reversibility for us
becomes everything we invest in the Army now so that should the
Nation call upon us, we can do that.
A couple of points I would like to highlight in that
regard. One is the type of investment we need to do, it is all
about readiness and investment in our people, and that is more
than just equipment modernization, which we have talked about
now, particularly in this environment.
We are taking a very broad look across doctrine,
organization, and training. Yes, we still look at materiel, but
aspects of leader development are huge, and our personnel
policies and facilities that would help us do that. Perhaps
most importantly we think is the investment in our mid-grade
leaders so that should we have to expand, we can do that.
When we grew the Army a few years ago, we showed the
ability to recruit about 15,000 soldiers a year, should we have
to do that in the future.
But of course, if there are no captains and majors and
sergeants with which those new recruits can form units around,
we won't be able to expand. So a real holistic approach is
critical, and investment in our mid-grade leaders is critical.
Senator Lieberman. That is a really important point and one
I have worried about. How do we not only invest in the mid-
grade leaders, but sustain their involvement in the Army, their
reenlistment in the kind of context we are going into?
General Walker. I think one of the things Army leaders have
really asked themselves is with our young leaders right now,
who have had a lot of freedom of action, independence in
combat, how are we going to keep them interested when we get
them back from combat and put them in Fort Hood or Fort Benning
or what have you?
Senator Lieberman. Right. That is exactly my question.
General Walker. Maybe I have the benefit of having kids who
are serving. When I talk to them about it, the blinding flash
to the obvious becomes that, ``Dad, we didn't join the Army for
a new piece of equipment, or we didn't join the Army for some
newfangled technology or software. We joined it for the
opportunity to lead soldiers.'' Those opportunities exist here.
Now our challenge in leader development is we talk about a
leader development triad of training, education, and
experience. We are real high on the experience right now. We
have to rebalance as part of our investment strategy to pull up
the education and training piece to balance that experience so
we can take the Army forward.
Senator Lieberman. You obviously did a good job at raising
your children.
General Walker. Their mother did well, sir.
Senator Lieberman. I think you both did, I am sure.
Notwithstanding what your children said, and of course, I
admire it, I want to now turn just briefly to those gadgets and
to ask General Lennox and General Phillips how the Army is
going to seek to incorporate the concept of reversibility into
your modernization strategy?
General Lennox. Senator, I have been thinking while my
folks here at the table have been discussing leader
development. What we have tried to lay out for senior leaders
in the Army is where are the best places to take risk? Where
can you best take risk? If you guess wrong, then how
challenging is it to recover?
For example, we have sustained our investment in things
like attack helicopters. If you stop the line, it is incredibly
challenging to build a new attack helicopter from scratch. We
build the best ones in the world. We don't want to do that.
We did take risk on things like our tactical wheeled
vehicles. We are going to ramp down the number of medium
trucks, for example, that we are buying. We are going to reset
our heavy fleet rather than buying new.
The Nation does this very well, and if we guess wrong, that
is an area that we can ramp back up in. So it is that kind of
calculus that we tried to set out for senior leaders, and I
think we have been able to accomplish in the fiscal year 2013
proposal that we have taken risk in areas that we can recover
from if we guess wrong.
General Phillips. Sir, I would just add that the key for us
is the industrial base, which is what General Lennox is
discussing. If we want to double the production of any given
system, whether it is a weapon or a vehicle or a tank or
whatever it might be, do we have the capacity to actually
expand and to meet those requirements?
So the industrial base becomes critical for us, sir.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate the answer. I appreciate
your testimony. You have been very responsive. You are really
an impressive group of leaders. We are lucky to have you
serving our country, serving the Army.
I thank you for your testimony and for what you have had to
say today and what you have done over the years.
The record of the hearing will be held open until this
Friday, March 30th at 5:00 p.m., to allow Senators to submit
additional statements or questions for our witnesses.
Gentlemen, we would be grateful if you would respond to any
of those that the subcommittee members might submit as soon as
possible.
The date for the markup has not been set yet, but it is
probably sooner than later. So the sooner you can respond, the
better.
Do you want to add anything, any of you, to the record?
General Lennox. One more shot, if we could, just to thank
you, Senator, for your patience, your support of Army
modernization, and your service to the Nation.
Senator Lieberman. That is not why I gave you one more
opportunity to speak. [Laughter.]
But nonetheless, I appreciate it very much.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
army science and technology and investments
1. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox, the Army's science and
technology (S&T) budget is down by approximately $600 million relative
to last year's requested levels; of particular concern is the reduction
in investments in combat vehicle research. I know that the Army vehicle
modernization program is critically dependent on advanced technologies
in armor, energy, power, and networks and communications. In general,
what are your top areas of budget risk in the Army's S&T program?
General Lennox. The fiscal year 2013 budget request submitted to
Congress provides the correct levels of investment for the Army S&T
enterprise. The Army S&T program request for Budget Activity (BA) 1-3
for fiscal year 2013 is $2.2 billion--a 3.2 percent, or $73 million,
decrease from the Army's fiscal year 2012 request. BA3 programs
decrease by $86 million, while BA1 and BA2 programs increase by $7
million and $6 million, respectively.
In fiscal year 2013, the Army is placing increased emphasis (and
investment) on ground and aviation vehicle survivability, research in
focal plane arrays, and alternative fuels for ground vehicles. Due to
budgetary pressures, we will accept some greater risk (reducing
funding) in lethality, unmanned/autonomous ground vehicles, and
military engineering. We are not accepting greater risk in technology
areas critical to Army vehicle modernization. Specifically, some of the
areas of Army S&T with a reduced investment in fiscal year 2013 are:
(1) Lethality, including the delay of a laser ruggedization
demonstration, reduction to 6.3 mortar lethality/precision efforts and
a reduction in 6.3 investments in the Small Organic Precision Munition.
(2) Unmanned/autonomous ground vehicles, including the termination
of Small Unit Unmanned Aerial Vehicle radar and the delay of tactical
command and control for robotic technology demonstrations.
(3) Military engineering, including geospatial products for
tactical units and military technologies for installations.
2. Senator Lieberman. General Phillips, do you feel that the Army
is adequately investing in military construction (MILCON) and
sustainment of its laboratories and research and engineering centers?
General Phillips. The Army laboratories and research, development,
and engineering centers do not compete well with other priorities for
MILCON funding, although many have benefitted from the Base Realignment
and Closure, congressional earmarks, minor MILCON authority and the
authority provided in section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Making improvements to our
infrastructure and facilities like this at the margins is not a long-
term solution. The Army does not find that this is a sustainable model,
and is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its S&T
infrastructure and facilities to quantify the most serious areas of
concern and develop a priority list for needed repairs and upgrades.
3. Senator Lieberman. General Phillips, I understand that the Army
is working to optimize materiel development as a result of the Decker-
Wagner report. While I applaud efforts to save money, I am concerned
that recommendations involving the S&T community have not considered
the full impacts on the ability of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(ASA) for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics staff to manage S&T,
or the impacts on Army Medical Command labs, Army Corps of Engineers
labs, and other non-Army Materiel Command (AMC) Army organizations
involved in S&T. Please comment on this effort to optimize and the
recommendations that are currently under consideration.
General Phillips. The Decker-Wagner Army Acquisition Review
recommended the disestablishment of the Research, Development, and
Engineering Command (RDECOM) because in the study group's view, RDECOM
``has not added enough value to be continued.'' The Army did not concur
with this assessment. RDECOM provides a valuable service by integrating
research and development (R&D) efforts across different RDECOM Centers.
Currently, the Army is studying how to optimize materiel development
and sustainment efforts, to include research, across the Army
acquisition and materiel communities. This study is considering how
best to leverage the R&D headquarters to efficiently apply S&T across
the community to solve critical Army problems. This effort, which is
primarily focused on improving processes, is ongoing.
4. Senator Lieberman. General Phillips, I understand that the Army
staff is in the process of developing their recommendations for MILCON
projects for fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2018. Over the past
several years, the priority has rightfully been on meeting the needs of
a growing Army and the needs of the warfighter in general. As a result,
our research facilities took a back seat and are in need of upgrades to
ensure they can support the needs of the future. Will you ensure that
the fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2018 MILCON Program Objective
Memorandum (POM) considers the needs of our laboratories and begins to
recapitalize the Army's laboratory S&T infrastructure?
General Phillips. The Army is committed to recapitalization of its
laboratory/S&T infrastructure along with recapitalization of other
critical facility types such as barracks, training ranges, industrial
production facilities and Reserve component readiness centers. Fiscal
year 2013 investments in laboratory infrastructure included two Army
Material Command projects: a $47 million Flight Activity Facility at
Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Center, NJ; and a $10.2 million
Ballistics Evaluation Center at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ.
Commands involved in Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation,
to include the Army Materiel Command, the U.S. Army Medical Command,
the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, have submitted requirements for recapitalization and
modernization of their respective laboratory infrastructure throughout
the United States. The Army is carefully reviewing these requirements,
and the Commands' project prioritization, as they compete for funding
against all of the Army's other facility recapitalization needs in the
fiscal year 2014-2018 POM process.
force structure changes
5. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, the Army
has been reassessing its modular armored and infantry brigade
structures and will soon decide to add a third maneuver battalion
(infantry or armor) to each. Under the Army's current modular design,
armored and infantry brigades have only two maneuver battalions. The
combination of end-strength reductions and adding a third maneuver
battalion will likely drive manpower realignments that result in an
additional reduction in the total number of Active Duty combat
brigades. These reductions will be in addition to the 8 brigades
reduction announced with the new Defense Strategic Guidance, and press
reports suggest the reduction could be as many as 13 total or from 45
Active Army combat brigades down to 32. What are the Army's plans to
reduce the current structure of 45 Active Duty Brigade Combat Teams
(BCT) and to change the current mix of Armored, Infantry, or Stryker
brigades?
General Campbell and General Walker. The Army announced during the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget release that a minimum of 8 BCTs
and other force structure totaling 57,400 would have to be reduced over
the course of the 13-17 Future Years Defense Program to achieve the
Active component end state of 490,000 by the end of fiscal year 2017.
Additionally, the Army continues to assess the design and mix of BCTs
based upon the lessons from the last 10 years of war. This analysis
could lead to a decision to reorganize BCTs within the 490,000 Active
component end strength, into more capable and robust formations,
requiring further BCT reductions to increase overall versatility and
agility for tomorrow's security challenges. Within its currently
planned reduced end strength, the Army continues to assess the best mix
and quantity of BCTs (Heavy, Infantry, Stryker, Airborne) required to
provide the necessary mix of combat power and capabilities for
projected future obligations. An announcement on specific force
structure actions is expected sometime before, or in conjunction with,
submission of the fiscal year 2014 President's budget in early February
2013.
6. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, how will
Army plans and execution of the reductions account for different
equipment requirements?
General Campbell and General Walker. The Army continues to assess
the best mix and quantity of BCTs (Heavy, Infantry, Stryker, Airborne)
required to provide the optimal blend of combat power and capabilities
for projected future obligations within its currently planned reduced
end strength. The Army intends for the reorganization to be cost
neutral to the extent possible, and so equipment inventories have been
factored into recommendations on the quantity, as well as design, of
the different types of brigades. The emerging force structure plans are
being closely coordinated with the Army acquisition community to ensure
impacts to modernization programs are identified and accounted for in
transition timelines. Equipment requirement adjustments will be
dependent on the specific force structure actions expected to be
announced in conjunction with submission of the fiscal year 2014
President's budget in early February 2013.
7. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, where is
the Army in its analysis and decision process with respect to adding a
third maneuver battalion to the Infantry and Armor brigades?
General Campbell and General Walker. The Army continues to assess
the design and mix of BCTs based upon the lessons from the last 10
years of war. This analysis could lead to a decision to reorganize BCTs
within the 490,000 Active component end strength, into more capable and
robust formations, requiring further BCT reductions in order to
increase overall versatility and agility for tomorrow's security
challenges. An announcement on specific force structure actions is
expected sometime before, or in conjunction with, submission of the
fiscal year 2014 President's budget in early February 2013.
8. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, how
would such a change enhance the Army's warfighting capabilities?
General Campbell and General Walker. Reorganized BCTs with a third
maneuver battalion and an engineer battalion will be more capable; this
will result in a more agile and versatile Army and BCTs that are
properly resourced to meet mission requirements. This major transition
for the Army involves shifting from a force focused on
counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and advising and assisting to one
that actively prepares to effectively conduct a fuller range of
potential missions. The reorganization preserves combat power by
increasing the number of combat battalions in the force over the
unreorganized BCT. The Army has conducted extensive analysis and has
determined that this reorganization retains a sufficient number of more
capable BCTs to meet the New Defense Strategy.
9. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, when
will the Army make a decision and announcement?
General Campbell and General Walker. An announcement on specific
force structure actions is expected sometime before, or in conjunction
with, submission of the fiscal year 2014 President's budget in early
February 2013. The Army will develop a plan that will provide detailed
information regarding the drawdown and address notification of affected
congressional districts and Army installations prior to the decision
going into effect.
10. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, given
that requirements assessment and development processes now include cost
estimates, what are the Army's estimates of the potential incremental
increase in costs to implement such a decision, particularly with
respect to modernization and equipment distribution?
General Campbell and General Walker. The Army intends for the
reorganization to be cost neutral to the extent possible. There may be
some one-time costs to move equipment, move soldiers on Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) orders, and provide appropriate facilities for
larger formations. These costs are entirely dependent on the final
stationing outcomes. Equipment modernization and distribution for the
reorganized BCTs will occur in accordance with emerging Army
priorities.
11. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, given
the capability that the current brigade structure has demonstrated in
combat and the potential increase in costs to implement a major
reorganization, what would be the basis for justifying the additional
expense?
General Campbell and General Walker. Reorganized BCTs with a third
maneuver battalion and an engineer battalion will be more capable; this
will result in a more agile and versatile Army and BCTs that are
properly resourced to meet mission requirements. The Army intends for
the reorganization to be cost neutral to the extent possible. There may
be some one-time costs to move equipment, move soldiers on PCS orders,
and provide appropriate facilities for larger formations. These costs
are entirely dependent on the final stationing outcomes. An
announcement on specific force structure actions is expected sometime
before, or in conjunction with, submission of the fiscal year 2014
President's budget in early February 2013.
12. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, what
factors would drive the urgency of such a change?
General Campbell and General Walker. The Army faces a more
ambiguous future, one in which it must be prepared to fight and win
major combat operations while potentially facing a wide range of other
foundational missions. This major transition for the Army involves
shifting from a force focused on counterinsurgency, counterterrorism,
and advising and assisting to one that actively prepares to effectively
conduct a fuller range of potential missions. These BCTs must possess
the versatility necessary to meet demands across a very wide range of
foundational missions. Now in 2012, our Nation's leaders are adopting a
national strategy that states ``forces will no longer be sized'' for
the types of operations conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
armed aerial scout
13. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, a
recent press report portrays the Army's Armed Aerial Scout (AAS)
analysis of alternatives (AOA) as finished, submitted to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and that it recommends updating the OH-
58F Kiowa Warrior and teaming them with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
I understand, however, that the AOA is an interim product provided to
OSD to inform an acquisition decision memorandum supporting a voluntary
flight demonstration of existing helicopters with the potential--if
effective, suitable, and affordable--to replace the Kiowa. What is the
current status and plans for the AOA and the AAS program?
General Lennox and General Phillips. As a supplement to the
completed AOA, the Army is conducting market research by releasing a
Request for Information (RFI), conducting discussions with industry,
and giving industry an opportunity to voluntarily demonstrate potential
solutions to help determine what technologies are available from
industry that may contribute to a potential material solution option.
The Army does not intend to compare individual results from the
voluntary flight demonstration against each other, but rather assess
their capability against the capability gaps identified in the initial
capabilities document and utilized for the AOA. The end state is to
identify an affordable, achievable, moderate risk material solution
option and requirements based on the current state of technology in the
market. If the results of the voluntary flight demonstration(s)
determine that a material solution option that delivers greater
capability is not affordable, then the Army will consider pursuing a
Service Life Extension Program of the Kiowa Warrior fleet.
Affordability will be a major factor in the capabilities determination
decision at the end of the market research effort.
14. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, has the
Army settled on what capabilities and requirements it wants in an AAS
helicopter?
General Campbell and General Walker. There are no specific
requirements for the AAS as we have yet to enter into a formal
acquisition process. The July 2009 AAS Joint Requirements Oversight
Council validated and approved the Initial Capabilities Document,
identifying the capabilities being sought in a new Scout helicopter.
Those capabilities included the ability to respond across a division
area, able to operate with a combat load of Hellfire missiles or
rockets, and 50 caliber weapons appropriate to the threat at a baseline
environment of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
On April 25, 2012, the Army received approval to release the AAS
RFI soliciting input from industry regarding cost, production schedule
and performance data for their armed Scout helicopter. The RFI
describes the capability shortfalls listed in the 2009 AAS ICD that
continue to exist in the Kiowa Warrior fleet with respect to speed,
range, endurance, performance in high/hot conditions, and lethality.
These capabilities are being used as the baseline in evaluating any
potential armed Scout helicopter.
15. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, with
the proven capability of unmanned systems to conduct armed
reconnaissance missions and the major investment the Army is making in
the Kiowa Warrior fleet and other existing systems, has the Army
definitively concluded that there is still a requirement for a manned
armed reconnaissance type aircraft like the AAS?
General Campbell and General Walker. The AAS AOA clearly determined
that unmanned aircraft are not yet fully capable of replacing manned
aircraft in an armed reconnaissance role. The practice of teaming
unmanned aircraft in a reconnaissance roll with either lightly armed
Kiowa Warriors or more heavily armed Longbow Apaches has proven to be
very effective in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recent
Combat Training Center rotations with the first Shadow-equipped Full
Spectrum Combat Aviation Brigade continues to show the synergy achieved
when teaming unmanned systems with manned systems. However, unmanned
systems are extremely limited in every other mission required of an
AAS, to include security of mounted and dismounted ground forces as
well as close combat attack missions. Additionally, our unmanned
systems have operated in Iraq and Afghanistan at altitudes out of the
range of threats such as small arms, RPG, and hand-held IR guided
missiles; however, they are very vulnerable to any modern threat
employing radar guided air defense systems.
16. Senator Lieberman. General Campbell and General Walker, could
the armed reconnaissance capability be met with existing legacy
upgrades and an unmanned system, and, if so, would a new developmental
aircraft effort be needed at this time?
General Campbell and General Walker. The airframes in the current
fleet of Kiowa Warriors are 40 years old. The Cockpit and Sensor
Upgrade Program will modernize communications, navigation, and weapon
processors to address obsolescence and safety issues in the Kiowa
Warrior. However, these upgrades do not improve the performance of the
Kiowa nor extend the service life of the aircraft, which is currently
2025. The ongoing research we are conducting with the AAS RFI and
Voluntary Flight Demonstration will help determine if there is an
affordable replacement to the Kiowa Warrior or whether we need to
invest in extending its service life and improving the performance.
uh-60m black hawk
17. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, the
justification for a multiyear procurement (MYP) for UH-60M helicopters
was based on the production of 511 aircraft for the Army over 5 years.
Last year's fiscal year 2012 budget request projected the procurement
of 71 aircraft in fiscal year 2013, however, the actual fiscal year
2013 budget request received in Congress reduces the planned buy from
71 to 59. Is the Army still committed to the full planned buy of 511
aircraft?
General Lennox and General Phillips. The Army is still committed to
procure 511 UH-60M aircraft in the MYP VIII Contract (MYP-8). The
contract is structured to procure 318 aircraft for the Army and 193 for
the Navy.
18. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, does
the reduction of 12 aircraft in fiscal year 2013 have any impact on the
UH-60M MYP such as cost per helicopter or total value of the MYP?
General Lennox and General Phillips. The MYP-8 contract is
structured to provide flexibility each year to procure from 100 percent
to 80 percent of the President's budget 2012 annual quantity without
breaking the MYP-8 contract. The reduction of 12 aircraft in fiscal
year 2013 is within this 80 percent boundary and therefore does not
affect the contract. Prior to the final MYP-8 negotiation settlement,
82 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) were added to the contract which
supplemented the base Army quantity, thereby offsetting any increased
unit cost due to base quantity reductions.
19. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, is
there any impact or risk to achieving the 10 percent savings projected
in the MYP authority justification?
General Lennox and General Phillips. Based on completed
negotiations of the Multi-Service MYP-8 contract, the risk is low for
achieving the projected 10 percent savings. Substantial savings will be
achieved during the MYP-8 timeframe based on savings realized during
negotiations and through the realization of FMS aircraft prior to
negotiations, which allow an offset to increasing unit costs should the
base quantity decrease due to budget reductions.
improved turbine engine program
20. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, the
Army Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) envisions a more fuel
efficient and powerful engine for the UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64 Apache
helicopter fleet. Please describe the Army's development and
acquisition strategy for the ITEP.
General Lennox and General Phillips. The ITEP will be initiated
with a Materiel Development Decision planned in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2012. Contract award is planned to two competitors for the
design, development, and qualification effort. A competitive down
select to a single vendor will be made following qualification and
testing for Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP). After the completion of
LRIP, a sole source contract will be awarded for the Full Rate
Production.
Two additional contracts will be awarded to Sikorsky, manufacturer
of the Black Hawk, and Boeing, manufacturer of the Apache, for Airframe
Integration and Qualification of the ITEP engine.
21. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, will
there be competitive prototyping for this program through a technology
demonstration phase and into an engineering, manufacturing, and
development phase?
General Lennox and General Phillips. Yes. Currently the competition
involves two contractors, General Electric-Aviation and Advance Turbine
Engine Company (a joint venture between Pratt & Whitney and Honeywell),
developing demonstrator engines during a S&T program through the Army
Aviation and Applied Technology Directorate, Fort Eustis, VA. The S&T
program is expected to culminate with component technology being
demonstrated at Technology Readiness Level, level 6. The Improved
Turbine Engine Program intends to leverage results of the S&T program
and continue competition through engineering, manufacturing, and
development.
small arms/carbine procurement
22. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, over
the years there have been many assertions that the Army's current basic
rifle and carbine should be replaced. The Army has started a phased
approach to a competition for a potential carbine replacement. Please
outline the Army's current plan regarding the individual carbine (IC)
competition.
General Lennox and General Phillips. The IC competition consists of
a three-phase down-selection approach that will result in the selection
of a single weapon. Upon completion of the IC competition, the Army
will conduct a Business Case Assessment (BCA) that will determine
whether the Army will procure a new IC or stay with the M4A1. The
competition is currently in progress:
a. Solicitation period began in June 2011 and closed in October
2011.
b. Phase I of the IC competition, which began in October 2011, is
complete.
c. Phase II is scheduled to begin in May 2012. Phase II, a down-
select evaluation, will result in up to three competitors remaining in
the competition and is scheduled to conclude in October 2012.
d. Phase III begins in the second quarter of fiscal year 2013 and
concludes in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. A BCA of the
successful IC candidate occurs at the end of Phase III and the results
will inform the Army leadership decision of proceeding with the IC or
the M4A1 in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014. Pending the results
of the BCA, a Milestone C decision will be made at the end of the first
quarter of fiscal year 2014.
The decision to procure the IC or remain with the M4A1 will be
followed by a decision concerning the mixed fleet of weapons and
quantities which the Army will sustain.
23. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, how has
the current M4 carbine performed in theater?
General Lennox. The M4 Carbine has performed exceptionally well in
theater with almost 95 percent of our soldiers approving of its
performance. It exceeds standards for reliability and lethality by 200
percent to 300 percent. There have been over 60 modifications to the M4
since 2001 which further enhance its reliability, maintainability, and
performance. The base design of the weapon and the modifications to it
make the M4 an extremely lethal instrument for our soldiers.
General Phillips. The M4 Carbine has performed very well in
theater. It meets or exceeds standards for reliability and lethality as
our soldiers' individual weapon. There are several modifications that
are being applied to the M4 which enhance its reliability,
maintainability, and performance. These modifications improve an
individual weapon that is already considered one of the best in the
world.
24. Senator Lieberman. General Lennox and General Phillips, in your
view, is there a clear requirement for a new IC?
General Lennox and General Phillips. The Army has an approved
requirement for an IC which provides the basis for conducting the IC
competition. The purpose of the competition is to identify the best
carbine that industry has to offer. The single best of the competition
will be compared with our current individual weapon and a business case
analysis will determine if the competitive winner is significantly
better and would justify the expense of replacing the Army's current
carbine.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Scott P. Brown
impact of personnel reductions on strategy and readiness
25. Senator Brown. General Campbell, the President's new defense
guidance has abandoned the national security goal of having enough
forces to be successful in two major regional conflicts. In a time of
reduced defense budgets, it has been replaced by a plan for enough
forces to conduct a combined arms campaign, including securing
territory and populations and facilitating a transition to stable
governance on a small scale for a limited period using standing forces
and, if necessary, for an extended period with mobilized forces. The
forces under the new plan are also theoretically able to simultaneously
deny objectives of an opportunistic aggressor in a second region. How
will the proposed end strength reductions for the Army support this new
strategy?
General Campbell. The Army will implement the new defense guidance
while effecting end-strength reductions. While we reduce our presence
in Afghanistan and decrease force structure, we will train contingency
forces for a broad range of missions. We will use a progressive force
generation model to monitor and resource readiness, ensuring units are
ready for unified land operations to meet conventional and hybrid
threats in support of combatant commanders' needs. The Army will rely
on Reserve component forces to surge for major contingencies and
maintain the proper deployed/home-station balance for the Total Army.
We will also ensure the Army capitalizes on the investments of the past
decade--Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities,
Special Operations Forces, and leader development to support the new
strategy, as we decrease the Army's end-strength. Investment in
readiness and reliance on Reserve component forces will allow the Army
of 2020 to quickly expand, if necessary, while remaining flexible and
able to meet requirements and support long duration operations.
26. Senator Brown. General Campbell, what planning factors did the
Army use to support this assessment?
General Campbell. The Army uses a combination of factors when
planning the use of forces: war plans, approved Defense Planning
Scenarios in conjunction with the Joint Staff, and known and projected
steady-state activities. These ranges of force demands are used in
conjunction with force structure and end strength analysis to help the
Army and senior leaders determine the risk associated with any course
of action.
27. Senator Brown. General Campbell, will the proposed force
structure allow the Army to meet its goal for a dwell period of 2 years
at home for every year deployed?
General Campbell. The proposed force structure will allow the Army
to meet our Boots-on-the-Ground (BOG):Dwell goals. Attaining sufficient
dwell time is critical to ensure the progressive readiness of a unit
before it is prepared to deploy again. The Army will achieve a 1:2
BOG:Dwell for Active units and 1:4 BOG:Dwell for Reserve units in 2015.
This is predicated upon a balanced requirement to reduce force
structure and end strength while simultaneously returning forces from
Afghanistan. Dwell time will increase, and readiness will increase for
the range of potential future contingencies. Reductions beyond 490,000,
however, will challenge the Army's ability to meet timelines for
current, identified requirements and to maintain necessary dwell for
units and soldiers, thereby imposing a significant readiness risk to
the force and strategic risk to the Nation.
28. Senator Brown. General Campbell, the current unit readiness
reports for the Army still reflect the impact of 10 years of sustained
deployments. How will the reduction in personnel affect the current
unit readiness of the Army's combat units?
General Campbell. The Army will carefully balance capability and
risk as we size the force to meet national security demands when
challenges arise. With the directed drawdown of Army end strength, our
ability to provide future forces is heavily dependent upon how we
source units in accordance with Army's priorities-resourcing and
prioritization must be synchronized. We intend to focus on addressing
readiness across all of our formations while decreasing the Army's end
strength, still maintaining expertise and leader competencies as well
as retaining the ability to regenerate the force and expanding to meet
large demands, if necessary.
29. Senator Brown. General Campbell, what do you consider to be an
acceptable level of current unit readiness in order to meet the force
generation requirements of the updated strategy?
General Campbell. An acceptable level of unit readiness is the
level which allows Army units to respond to the needs of the Nation.
Under the Army's force generation model, units progress through
training events over time, meeting established aim points that ensure
their readiness peaks in the year of execution. The Army uses this
training model to monitor and resource readiness, ensuring every unit
is ready to perform the full range of operations from humanitarian
assistance to combat operations. The readiness focus of our force
generation model allows the Army to prepare its forces to meet the new
security strategy and any emerging threats facing our Nation.
30. Senator Brown. General Campbell, what are your most urgent
requirements in order to restore current unit readiness in the Army
back to acceptable levels?
General Campbell. The demand from 11 years of conflict in Iraq and
Afghanistan has stressed the Army and its core competencies. Repeated
deployments have significantly impacted the core readiness of the three
components of unit readiness--Manning, Training, and Equipping.
1. Manning. The Army will require sustained Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) funding through fiscal year 2017 to ensure manning
levels are commensurate with our drawdown objective of approximately
490,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2017. Any premature or accelerated
funding reduction below 490,000 without OCO funding will jeopardize the
Army's ability to meet combatant commander operational requirements.
2. Training. Soldier dwell time and training resources are
critical to allow commanders to train units to execute Unified Land
Operations (ULO) and Decisive Action (DA) in order to rebuild core Army
competencies. Eleven years of sustained counterinsurgency (COIN) and
stability operations have eroded the Army's ability to train on the
full suite of our core competencies.
3. Equipment. The Army forecasts a need for reset operations to
continue for several years following the end of Operation New Dawn and
Operation Enduring Freedom. The reset phase of Army Force Generation
(ARFORGEN) is critical to ensure equipment is refitted, redistributed,
and/or fielded as new equipment to units. This will require OCO funding
for at least 2 to 3 years upon retrograde of equipment from the U.S.
Central Command theater assuming no additional or unforeseen major
contingency operations.
31. Senator Brown. General Campbell, what measurements or
assessments will you use to determine whether there is a trend towards
a hollow force? Please provide your definition of hollow force with
your answer.
General Campbell. The Army will use personnel readiness metrics
that measure our ability to man units based on available Army
inventory. We'll also measure our ability to recruit and assess the
number of quality soldiers needed each year, including metrics to
measure retention rates of soldiers that decide to remain Army strong.
A balanced force maintains a proportional distribution of available
resources against three equally important components: manpower,
modernization, and readiness. A hollow force occurs when decisions are
made that take a disproportionate share of resources from one or more
of those components, or that take too many resources too quickly so
that reductions are forced at a pace not maintaining force readiness.
One key to remaining in balance and avoiding hollowing the force is
ensuring the resources to continue leader development, modernization,
and readiness.
reduction of brigade combat team
32. Senator Brown. General Lennox, the Army's reduction of at least
13 BCTs will affect a number of military bases overseas and
domestically. Which bases will be impacted and to what extent?
General Lennox. The Army announced during the fiscal year 2013
President's budget release that initially 2 brigades in Europe would be
inactivated to achieve the Active component end state of 490,000 by the
end of fiscal year 2017. The Army continues to assess the design and
mix of BCTs based upon the lessons from the last 10 years of war. This
analysis could lead to a decision to reorganize BCTs, within the
490,000 Active component end strength, into more capable and robust
formations, requiring further BCT reductions in order to increase
overall versatility and agility for tomorrow's security challenges. An
announcement on specific force structure actions is expected sometime
before, or in conjunction with, submission of the fiscal year 2014
President's budget in early February 2013.
33. Senator Brown. General Lennox, what analysis went into the
determination of bases to be impacted?
General Lennox. The Army considers a broad array of criteria when
assessing which forces and which installations will be impacted by
inactivations. Criteria will be based on strategic considerations,
operational effectiveness, geographic distribution, cost and the
ability to meet statutory requirements.
Strategic considerations: aligns Army force structure
to the new defense strategy and forthcoming Defense Planning
Guidance with a priority on the Pacific region.
Operational considerations: seeks to maximize training
facilities, deployment infrastructure and facilities to support
the well-being of soldiers and their families, and aligns
appropriate oversight/leadership by senior Army headquarters
for better command and control.
Geographic distribution: seeks to distribute units in
the United States to preserve a broad base of support and
linkage to the American people.
Cost: considers the impacts of military personnel,
equipment, MILCON, and transportation costs.
Statutory requirements: complies with the provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act as appropriate,
including an environmental and socio-economic analysis.
34. Senator Brown. General Lennox, will you have excess
infrastructure and bases as a result of the reduction in forces?
General Lennox. The Army considers a broad array of criteria when
assessing which forces and which installations will be impacted by
inactivations. This criterion includes consideration of geographic
distribution of forces and availability of training facilities,
deployment infrastructure, and other facilities to support the well-
being of soldiers and their families.
[Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2013 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Airland,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:07 p.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Lieberman, Blumenthal,
and Brown.
Majority staff member present: Creighton Greene,
professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Bryan D. Parker, minority
investigative counsel; and Christopher J. Paul, professional
staff member.
Staff assistant present: Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Brian Burton,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to
Senator Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; and Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, CHAIRMAN
Senator Lieberman. Good afternoon. The subcommittee meeting
will come to order.
I want to extend a welcome and thanks to each of our
witnesses for being here today.
On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to thank each of you
who represent the men and women of our Armed Forces for the
exceptional job as a force all of them and you are doing around
the world today. I want you to know that we keep all those who
are serving now in our thoughts and prayers and remember that
both they and their families are serving and sacrificing every
day.
In some sense, it is actually against this backdrop of
wonderful service that we meet today to discuss the present
status and future of tactical aviation programs. Every year, we
are challenged to make decisions balancing a number of
competing demands for resources, including resources for
current operations and investment in future modernization. But
ultimately the number one standard has to be what is best for
our troops, what is best for the men and women in uniform.
Central to our discussion today is the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program. Obviously, we all know it is an
important program. It has been central to the long-term
modernization plans for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps
for more than 15 years now. Any perturbation in the cost
schedule and performance of the JSF program sends shock waves
through the Department of Defense (DOD) and well beyond and, of
course, raises questions about whether we can achieve the
balance that I just described between the demands of
maintaining readiness in the near term and those of modernizing
for tomorrow.
We are going to examine a number of issues today but
primarily we want to understand how DOD has defined a new
baseline for the JSF program since last year, how the Services
are responding to the additional delays in the JSF program, and
what effects those delays may have on our Armed Forces. We look
forward to hearing what DOD has found in various reviews of the
JSF program after the Nunn-McCurdy certification 2 years ago,
what actions DOD has taken to ameliorate the problems that it
found in the program, and what levels of risk remain in the
development and fielding of the program since DOD conducted a
technical baseline review and announced additional delays in
production since last year's budget request.
The delays in the F-35 program have led to worrisome
developments for the future of tactical aviation programs,
particularly in terms of having the numbers of aircraft we need
to keep from hollowing out our tactical aviation forces. We
have been following your progress in trying to mitigate or
close those gaps, and I will have some questions about that as
well.
For example, the Navy has been attempting to reduce the
strike fighter shortfall to manageable levels. Four years ago,
the Navy was estimating that we would be facing a shortfall in
2017 that optimistically would amount to 125 tactical fighters
needed to outfit our 10 aircraft carrier wings and 3 Marine
Corps air wings. Three years ago, based on further analysis,
the Navy was estimating that the maximum shortfall could be
nearly twice that large or roughly 250 aircraft. Since last
year, the Navy's estimate of the problem has been more stable,
fortunately. The Navy believes that with certain actions, such
as reducing squadron size, conducting service life extension
programs (SLEP) on some aircraft, and reducing the time
aircraft spend in the depots, they could reduce gaps to roughly
50 to 60 aircraft, which is encouraging.
Unfortunately, there has been a similar story regarding the
Air Force. Previous Air Force witnesses at our aviation
hearings have also projected a potential shortfall of Air Force
tactical fighters in excess of 800 aircraft by 2025. This year,
the Air Force, as a part of the New Defense Strategy, has
planned to reduce fighter force structure. It is not clear to
me, at least, to what extent this change in demand for tactical
fighters has actually ameliorated the shortfall that the Air
Force has been projecting, but I hope to hear more about that
this afternoon.
Last year, the Air Force was also investigating ways to
extend the service lives of A-10, F-15, and F-16 aircraft to
help mitigate the gap between requirements and aircraft that it
foresees. This year, we see that the Air Force wants to retire
roughly one-third of the A-10s and conduct a SLEP on some of
the F-16 fleet. I would like to ask about that too.
We would also like to get an update on the F-22 life
support and hypoxia problems, including a brief description of
what the Air Force has done about these problems, what it has
concluded in its own investigation of these problems, and what
action that you are taking, have taken, or will take to
minimize the risk to F-22 crews. That takes me back to the
beginning, which is to make sure we give our fighting forces
the safest, most effective military equipment systems we can.
So we have a lot to cover this afternoon, and I thank the
three of you very much for being here.
I would now call on the ranking member of this subcommittee
with whom I have worked very closely and productively across
party lines because on this subcommittee or in the committee
generally, they really do not exist. Senator Scott Brown of
Massachusetts.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT P. BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of our witnesses as well.
I am not going to reiterate the very relevant and valid
points that you made, but I do want to focus on, obviously, the
JSF program and the increases that we have seen since its
inception. It is slated to receive billions of dollars per year
over the next 2 to 3 decades. Quite frankly, that is
unprecedented for a single tactical aviation program. So I am
concerned, as many others are, about the disconnect between how
many F-35 jets DOD has signed on for and the lack of the
program's progress in developing and testing. Why should we
keep purchasing the jets when we fail to test them? As we know
all about the overruns and cost problems, I want to make sure
we can touch on that a little bit.
On readiness, we learned DOD estimated that the cost of
owning and operating the JSF could amount to about $1.1
trillion over its life cycle. I know DOD is trying to drive
down the costs. That is obviously a good thing.
The F-22 Raptor, while capable when it does fly, costs
about $1 billion each year just to operate, and that is
unprecedented as well. I am hopeful that General Wolfenbarger
could address that.
On the F-22, the problems you just referenced, Mr.
Chairman, the unexplained physiological incidents which caused
the Air Force to stop flying for nearly 6 months and pilots who
have refused to fly because of questions of safety. I am
hopeful that, ma'am, you can also address those very real
issues.
On the strike fighter shortfall, while your testimony
states that the JSF shortfall for the Navy and Air Force is
manageable, the 2013 budget proposes additional cuts to the
tactical air (TACAIR) forces in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force. The witnesses, I would hope, would comment on these cuts
and the effect they will have on the strike fighter shortfall.
Then we all know the big gorilla in the room is
sequestration, and we know what the Secretary of Defense has
said about it. I am hopeful that our witnesses can provide us
with their assessment of how these cuts would affect our TACAIR
forces and military strength.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Brown.
We will begin with Vice Admiral David J. Venlet of the U.S.
Navy, Program Executive Officer of the F-35 Lightning II
Program. Thanks very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF VADM DAVID J. VENLET, USN, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, F-35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM
Admiral Venlet. Thank you, sir. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking
Member Brown, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to discuss the F-35 JSF.
My observations and assessments over the past year give me
reason to believe the basic aircraft and engine designs are
sound and will deliver. Schedule and resource adjustments that
have been made to the remaining development program underpin a
realistic plan to deliver the required capability.
While there is still risk in the program, it is risk-
balanced rather than low risk. I have confidence in the
resilience of the plan to absorb expected further learning,
discovery, and stay on track.
There has been very good engine and airframe contractor
responsiveness and progress in many areas over the last year.
Short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) flight tests
exceeded plans and expectations and completed a highly
successful initial sea trial aboard the USS Wasp. In addition
to the impressive stability, control, and performance of the
STOVL in slow flight and vertical landing, the F-35 has flown
to its maximum speed and hardest turn limits. Carrier test
pilots are highly complimentary of the carrier version handling
characteristics, flying precise carrier approaches at Patuxent
River, MD. It is a testimony to the very effective and
impressive marriage of engine and airframe.
Software development, coupled with flight test execution,
will remain the major focus of program execution in the coming
year and through the completion of the development program.
I have observed performance by industry on software that
gives me some concern about delivering full capability within
the current schedule without improvement in performance. I will
continue to closely examine progress and seek the changes
needed to gain the required performance. I have a solid program
baseline. It ensures the program has the resources, tools, and
processes in place to make proactive, disciplined decisions
regarding the development and delivery of incremental
capabilities to the F-35 fleet. However, industry must
understand that this new schedule, with all of the margin and
realism, will not execute itself. A rededication to the
characteristics of systems engineering fundamentals is crucial,
and I continue to speak bluntly to industry on this issue.
Concurrency is a transient issue that the program is
dealing with right now but which will lessen over time. I
recognize DOD would prefer to not be in this highly concurrent
program situation. It is now my responsibility to navigate
through this and deliver the most capable aircraft at the best
price.
I believe the procurement strategy for low-rate initial
production (LRIP) 6 and 7 will allow DOD to control production
quantity based on the performance of the development program.
It is important that Lockheed Martin performs dependably and
sustains confidence that the F-35 is a stable and capable
platform.
As in any complex development program, there are
challenges, but I believe the enhanced capability of the JSF
will provide the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for
years to come. The program's management over the past year has
put in place the right fundamentals and realistic plans using
sound systems engineering processes. I am monitoring tracking
performance with detailed metrics.
Technical and cost issues certainly exist. The helmet
system has three critical characteristics that need to
demonstrate fixes. The carrier hook system, electronic warfare
antenna quality, and buffet loads in flight are all being
worked. There are leading program issues that occupy my focus
for 2012, the critical and significant few that, if
successfully advanced, will bring beneficial tailwind for the
entire program and genuine value for DOD and our partner
nations.
These leading issues are: one, software development
performance and its dependable delivery of capability; two,
concurrency change incorporation improvement and delivery of
affordable full-life jets; three, production quality and its
ultimate result on affordable price for the United States and
our allies; and four, continued sustainment estimate cost
reduction.
All of these have a common fundamental that will advance
the external result in performance and keep reality clearly in
view. Systems-based analysis and corrective action with a
specific eye on impacts to early fleet training operations will
be required in steady and committed execution throughout the
industry team, primes, and suppliers. Rigorous management
control by the Joint Program Office (JPO), supported by the
service systems commands, will be applied with the development,
dial-on production, and focus on affordable delivery
capability, our only meaningful external result.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Venlet follows:]
Prepared Statement by VADM David J. Venlet, USN
Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this
subcommittee regarding the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The JSF is the Department of Defense`s (DOD) largest acquisition
program, and its importance to our national security is immense. The
JSF will form the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for
generations to come. It will replace the legacy tactical fighter fleets
of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole,
fifth-generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power and
deterring potential adversaries. Furthermore, the JSF will effectively
perform missions across the full spectrum of combat operations. For our
international partners and foreign military sales customers who are
participating in the program, the JSF will become a linchpin for future
coalition operations and will help to close a crucial capability gap
that will enhance the strength of our security alliances.
The multirole F-35 is the centerpiece of DOD's future precision
attack capability. The JSF is designed to penetrate air defenses and
deliver a wide range of precision munitions. This modern, fifth-
generation aircraft brings the added benefit of increased allied
interoperability and cost-sharing across Services and partner nations.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $9.3 billion for continued system
development, test and procurement of 29 F-35 aircraft.
It is our duty to produce the next generation fighter jet for the
United States and our and allies, understanding that we live in a
resource constrained world. Holding fast to the three pillars I
embraced when I joined the JSF team--a commitment to fundamentals, a
firm grasp on reality, and transparency in all we do--remains key to
the successful completion of development, and delivery of critical
capability.
program accomplishments in the last year
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments over the
past year, including the delivery of 13 aircraft, 4 test aircraft to
test bases and the first 9 production jets to Eglin Air Force Base. The
F-35B sea trials conducted on the USS Wasp marked a high point in the
year. The F-35B conducted 72 vertical landings and short take-offs
while exhibiting aircraft handling performance that met all expected
standards. The program completed F-35C static structural testing and
improved the schedule and cost performance of assembled wings and
forward fuselage deliveries to the production line mate station. The F-
35C conducted ship suitability events at Lakehurst, conducting 65
catapult launches, including 1 on the new Navy Electromagnetic Aircraft
Launch System (EMALS). The production F-35A has started local area
flights at Eglin AFB.
In January 2011, Secretary Gates placed the F-35B on ``probation''
because of the existence of several unique short takeoff and vertical
landing (STOVL) aircraft design issues. All F-35B test issues in view
now are comparable to those being encountered with the other F-35
variants and there is no reason at this point to single out the F-35B.
Secretary Panetta made the decision to remove STOVL from probation on
January 20, 2012.
An Operational Assessment released in the fall of 2011 expressed
concern about the risk associated with several design issues that had
surfaced during the F-35 JSF test program. After the F-35 Operational
Assessment was released in October 2011, the acting Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L))
commissioned a Quick Look Review (QLR) of the F-35 program. The review
found that, while the overall F-35 design is sound, there is
significant risk remaining in the program. Resolving key technical
issues is important to address concerns about the F-35's operational
capabilities and to having confidence in the design so that production
rates can be increased. The Department used the result of the QLR to
inform the fiscal year 2013 Future Years Defense Program, which holds
U.S. production at 29 per year through 2014 to reduce concurrency and
permit additional progress on the test program before increasing
production. The technical issues are all being addressed in the
restructured System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the F-
35 program.
The original MS B, approved in October 2001, was rescinded
following a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach in March 2010. The Defense
Acquisition Board reviewed the F-35 development, production, and
sustainment technical status and cost estimates in February 2012 and on
March 28, 2012, the Office of USD(AT&L) signed an Acquisition Decision
Memorandum that officially recertified the program and granted MS B
approval.
international partnership
The F-35 program continues to be DOD's largest cooperative program,
with eight Partner countries participating under Memorandums of
Understanding for SDD and for Production, Sustainment and Follow-on
Development. The eight partner countries include the United Kingdom,
Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway.
The partners recently met and all expressed their continued commitment
and support for the program.
In October 2010, Israel signed a letter of agreement to purchase 19
F-35A aircraft for $2.75 billion, with deliveries scheduled to begin in
2016. In December 2011, Japan selected F-35 using a competitive
process. Japan signed a $6 million agreement to conduct F-35 studies on
February 1, 2012. Japan is expected to sign an agreement to purchase
the first 4 of a planned acquisition of 42 conventional take-off and
landing (CTOL) aircraft in the summer of 2012. Deliveries will begin in
2016. On January 20, 2012, the Republic of Korea released a competitive
request for proposal for acquisition of its future fighter. The F-35
team is developing a proposal that will be delivered in June 2012.
development program restructure
The F-35 development program has been replanned and is now
resourced with realistic planning factors to complete the required
Block 3 capability testing by the end of 2016. Key activities that
created the replan include the development of an integrated master
schedule (IMS), execution of a Schedule Risk Assessment, and completion
of the Integrated Baseline Review. These efforts incorporated the 2010
Technical Baseline Review's recommendations including revised flight
test rates, longer software development spans, new systems engineering
processes, and reestablished technical performance measurement. This
plan provides the time and resources realistically required for the
development program to deliver Block 3 capabilities.
F-35 SDD flight test program exceeded overall test point and flight
goals in 2011. The overall test point progress was 7 percent above the
2011 plan. The Integrated Test Force (ITF) achieved 972 test flights, a
137 percent increase from the total flights in 2010. The ITF also
executed 7,823 unique test points, a 93 percent increase from that
achieved in 2010.
Key 2011 achievements included the completion of F-35A and F-35B
flight science testing to support the Block 1 Training envelope; the
accomplishment in 2011 of 268 F-35B vertical landings, 395 short
takeoffs and 156 slow landings; the completion of the first F-35B ship
trials aboard USS Wasp; initial land based F-35C ship suitability
testing, consisting of jet blast deflector testing and catapult
Structural Survey and Steam Ingestion testing; the first test of the F-
35C launched by the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS);
completion of radar cross section baseline testing on 3 aircraft and
the completion of Block 1A mission systems maturity testing. The 2012
F-35 flight test plan calls for the execution of 1,001 flights and
7,873 test points and we are currently ahead of plan on all fronts. We
expect to see this high level of performance continue through 2012.
Pratt & Whitney F135 engines have completed a total of 21,857
operating hours, 9,106 hours on flight-test and production engines, and
a total of 2,908 hours of flying time on all three variants of F-35
aircraft.''
Pratt and Whitney is currently supporting flight test on all three
variants at three locations. Based on the total F-35 program
restructure, the Pratt and Whitney contract is being adjusted to
support the extended ground and flight testing required to complete SDD
and to resource the resolution of integration issues currently in view.
In 2011, Pratt and Whitney F135 engines helped flight test exceed
all goals. Various engine ``firsts'' were also achieved including a
maximum speed demonstration (1.6 Mach).
production program restructuring
The F-35 aircraft manufacturing plan, as adjusted in September
2010, continues to exhibit dependable aircraft assembly up to the point
of aircraft rollout to the flight line. Current production performance
to the September 2010 baseline is about 14 days behind schedule to
aircraft roll-out from the factory, and about 4 months behind for
aircraft roll-out to government acceptance. In 2011, the production
program finished deliveries of the remaining SDD test aircraft (one
CTOL, one STOVL, and two CV). One more Navy test aircraft, CF-5, is
scheduled to deliver in 2012 as part of the low rate initial production
(LRIP) 4. Included in the 2011 deliveries were 9 LRIP aircraft (LRIP 1
and part of LRIP 2), for a total of 13 aircraft delivered out of 20
planned.
During the last year we have increased attention to manufacturing
quality metrics, including supplier quality, assembly and test.
Additionally, we have incorporated oversight into the contractor's
supplier risk management process to ensure timely awareness of problems
in the supply chain.
Pratt & Whitney has delivered 41 F135 Production propulsion
systems. From early 2011 to the beginning of 2012, Pratt & Whitney has
improved their delivery rate, increasing from one per month to now two
per month consistently, staying ahead of aircraft deliveries. Spare
engines have also been delivering to Eglin to support current flight
and sustainment efforts.
DOD established the F-35 program in 2001 with a planned measure of
concurrent development and production that attempted to balance cost,
risk, and the need for tactical aircraft modernization. That plan had
unfounded optimism in time and resources, driven by assumptions about
design stability through the test program. The development program is
taking longer and costing more to overcome technical issues that have
been discovered. Concurrency generated impacts. Changes that must be
made to the production aircraft due to problems found in testing are
very real and affect schedule and cost in hardware, software, test and
production. However, concurrency is a transient issue in which risks
progressively decline through the end of SDD and the test program.
Concurrency changes have also been taking an unacceptable time, two to
three production lots, to incorporate into the build baseline. These
issues are being addressed with the incorporation of strong contract
incentives to the prime contractor and by slowing the rate of
production in 2013 and 2014. Concurrency risk will progressively recede
between now and 2015, when second-life fatigue testing should complete
for all variants and flight test will be through 80 percent of the
loads envelope.
development risk mitigation and control
The three F-35 variants are encountering the types of development
problems historically encountered on highly sophisticated state-of-the-
art high performance aircraft development programs at this stage of
maturity. While risk does remain in the balance of the development and
flight test program, there is no known design issue that cannot be
overcome by effective engineering. There is also margin in the SDD plan
to account for discovery during the balance of the test program. This
section summarizes the major risks and the steps that are being taken
to address them.
Software development and flight test of mission systems are the
primary drivers to completion of the SDD program. These program drivers
were highlighted in the 2010 Technical Baseline Review and were a major
focus of efforts to restructure the SDD program. Some of the solutions
in the restructured program include additional planning for software
rework and integration, as well as increasing lab capacity, which comes
on-line in October 2012. The program plan includes three basic
capability steps in this concurrent development. Block 1 is for initial
training, Block 2 is for initial warfighting capability and Block 3 is
the required full warfighting capability for the Services. Each year of
production delivers a version of one of these software blocks at
government acceptance. Technical difficulties encountered in Block 1
and initial Block 2 development resulted in schedule delays. The
performance in software development is under intense scrutiny by the
program, and industry performance must improve to deliver within the
boundaries of time and funding in the replanned program.
The pilot's helmet for the F-35 is a major technological advance
and a design challenge. Three helmet technical risks affecting the
original helmet design are night vision acuity, stability of the
symbology or frame ``jitter'', and the latency of the displayed
information. The second generation of the original helmet is the
desired solution for its capability to display all information on the
visor, day and night, without goggles. As a result of testing, the
program now understands the measured latency that is acceptable for
pilot tasks and this understanding is leading to cost effective system
adjustments. Improved night vision acuity will be evaluated with new
camera technology and visor symbology jitter will be evaluated with
small inertial measurement units embedded in the helmet itself. As risk
reduction, the program has funded development of a night vision goggle-
based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development
will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in the three risk
areas. A system-level design review will occur in the fall of 2012
where the program will evaluate the development performance of both
helmet designs.
During land-based ship suitability testing, the F-35C tailhook did
not catch the arresting wire. Comprehensive system improvement is
ongoing and involves damping of hook bounce and hook point shape
adjustment. Testing will be conducted in 2012 to evaluate the new
design.
Early fuel dump testing revealed that fuel was migrating within the
wing during fuel dumping and the fuel was impinging on the underside of
the wing. Improved seals within the wing will mitigate the migration
issue and the program is pursuing improvements in the fuel dump system
to resolve the fuel impingement issue.
The flight test program continues to address known aero performance
issues like transonic roll-off (TRO); TRO is an issue every swept wing
fighter has to deal with. We continue to refine our flight control laws
to minimize the impact of TRO. At this point in testing, we're
confident we have reduced TRO to an acceptable level for the F-35A and
F-35B. The F-35C TRO testing is underway at this time.
Durability testing for the F-35B was restarted in January 2012. The
test was halted to correct the bulkhead design in November 2010 and was
one of the reasons cited for the F-35B ``probation''. This delay in the
testing does not directly impact the flight test program or production
schedules.
Aircraft are experiencing higher than predicted buffet during
flight test and have not yet reached areas of highest predicted buffet
loads. Flight testing in 2012 will assess the operational impacts to
aircraft tracking and other requirements affected by buffet at low
angles of attack. Future flight test will include higher buffet loads
where the program will evaluate structural and systems fatigue impacts.
cost risk mitigation and control
The December 2011 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) reflects the
new approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) which sets the program
cost, schedule and performance baseline. SAR 2011 has been updated from
base year (BY) 2002 dollars to BY 2012 dollars. SAR 2011 and the APB
reflect two sub-programs: F-35 Aircraft and F-35 Engine.
There are two facets of inflation that impact the SAR. First, the
F-35 baseline costs have increased approximately 22 percent as the
program transitioned from SAR 2010 (BY02) to SAR 2011 (BY12). Second,
inflationary assumptions have a significant impact to the operating and
support (O&S) cost estimate as it is applied over the next 50+ years.
The SAR 2011 total program cost estimate in then-year (TY) dollars
includes both the acquisition and the operating and support cost; these
include the research, development, test and evaluation estimate--$55.2
billion, the procurement estimate--$335.7 billion, the military
construction estimate--$4.8 billion and the O&S estimate--$1,113.0
billion. The total cost estimate for the program is $1,508.7 (TY$B)
over the life of the program which began in 1994 (70+ years).
Control of production costs is being achieved in part by movement
from cost plus to fixed price contract types. The F-35 LRIP Lot 4
aircraft and F135 engine contracts purchased 30 air systems for the
United States, plus 1 for the United Kingdom and another for the
Netherlands. The Lot 4 contracts were negotiated as fixed-price-
incentive-fee (firm target) (FPIF) type contracts. The prime
contractor, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM Aero), is projected
to overrun LRIP 4 costs by approximately 7 percent. This overrun
percentage is approximately half the overrun experienced on the F-35
LRIP Lots 1 to 3 cost-reimbursement-type contracts. On the LRIP Lot 4
contracts, overrun costs on the aircraft and engines are shared equally
between the government and the contractor until the overrun exceeds 20
percent of the target cost, at which point the contractor is
responsible for all additional overrun costs.
Fiscal Year 2011 Lot 5 Fixed-Price Airframe and Propulsion System
Production Contracts
The fiscal year 2011 airframe and engine contracts for Lot 5 were
initiated via undefinitized contract actions (UCA) in the month of
December 2011. The UCAs incorporate FPIF terms for the procurement of
30 aircraft and engines (21 F-35A, 3 F-35B, and 6 F-35C) but are being
modified to procure one additional F-35A for the U.S. Air Force and one
additional F-35C for the U.S. Navy, for a total fiscal year 2011
purchase of 32 air systems. This brings the total number of air systems
procured on the program to 95.
In Lot 5, the government's cost risk is being mitigated by
transferring some responsibility for concurrency cost risk to the prime
contractor for the first time. The terms of the UCA include a ``cost-
sharing/no fee'' contract arrangement for known concurrency changes
identified at the time of UCA award. The Government and LM Aero will
share equally (50/50) in these costs (estimated at $150 million) with
no fee for the known concurrency changes specified in the UCA. Newly
discovered concurrency changes will be added to the contract as
engineering change proposals (ECPs) and will cause a renegotiation of
the target cost of the aircraft, but with no profit.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) Director of Defense
Pricing led an F-35 LRIP 5 ``should cost'' effort from the contractor
proposal submittal in late April 2011 through early October 2011.
Following an OSD Peer Review, LRIP Lot 5 negotiations commenced on
December 9, 2010 and are heavily informed by the F-35 LRIP Lot 5
``should cost'' conclusions which are based on actual experienced
costs. Negotiations on the definitized contracts for Lot 5 are
anticipated to conclude in late spring.
An effective Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is critical to
monitoring performance and controlling costs. In 2007, a Defense
Contract Management Agency (DCMA) review found the LM EVMS to be
noncompliant with EVM guidelines. Although both parties engaged in a
focused effort to bring the LM Aero EVMS into compliance, appropriate
corrections were not completed and DCMA decertified the LM Aero EVMS in
2010. LM Aero has been working to complete its EVMS corrective action
plan (CAP). LM CAP actions include development of new tools and
processes as well as modifications to core management processes. A DCMA
EVMS compliance validation review is underway and is scheduled to
finish in the next few months. DCMA continues to work with LM to bring
the LM EVMS to full and sustainable compliance.
In accordance with DOD Federal Acquisition Regulations, the DCMA
imposed a 2-percent withhold against F-35 LRIP 5 Progress Payments as
part of last year's UCA. This 2 percent withhold is a result of the
disapproved status of LM Aero's EVMS. The withhold will remain in place
until LM Aero's EVMS deficiencies are corrected and the system regains
approval status.
Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013 Contracts
The JSF Program Office will obligate the majority of fiscal year
2012 and fiscal year 2013 procurement dollars to fixed-price-type
contracts for F-35 aircraft and F135 engines. The JSF Program Office
will ensure that future U.S. aircraft and engine procurements comply
with section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2012, which provides: `` . . . [t]he Secretary of Defense
shall ensure each of the following: (1) That the contract is a fixed-
price contract. (2) That the contract requires the contractor to assume
full responsibility for costs under the contract above the target cost
specified in the contract.''
The F-35 Lightning II JSF Program is implementing an event based
contracting strategy for low rate initial production (LRIP) Lots 6 and
7 that buys aircraft production quantities based upon development and
test progress. This strategy provides a means to have control (a
``dial'') on production that is informed by demonstrated development
performance against the 2012 plan and concurrency cost risk reduction.
The Department will request Lockheed Martin provide a consolidated
proposal for LRIP Lots 6 and 7 based on the following structure:
- Award 25 fiscal year 2012 Lot 6 aircraft (31 are authorized/
appropriated)
- Provide flexibility to procure 0 to 6 remaining fiscal year
2012 funded Lot 6 aircraft concurrent with the Lot 7 contract
award in 2013
- Link total aircraft quantity ultimately procured in Lot 6 to
development performance and concurrency cost risk reduction
The Department will decide to award the additional aircraft based
on progress expected in 2012, as planned and resourced in the
development program IMS. This schedule is executable, appropriately
resourced, includes sufficient margin for issues that are normal in a
development program, and has been agreed to by both Lockheed Martin and
the F-35 program office.
Specific decision criteria include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Planned 2012 system engineering technical reviews for Block 3
software
2. Lockheed Martin progress improving concurrency change
incorporation, both forward into production and back fit post delivery
modification engineering.
3. Planned 2012 progress in F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C durability
testing
4. Planned 2012 progress in flight test
5. Planned 2012 line replaceable units (LRU) qualification
These criteria will enable the Department to determine that the
additional quantity of six Lot 6 aircraft can be in optimum
configuration. Each successive contract will include sharing of known
concurrency changes, until concurrency change generation recedes, as we
have on contract now with LRIP 5.
Currently appropriated fiscal year 2012 funding is necessary to
implement this contracting strategy. The variable quantity of up to six
Lot 6 aircraft will be paid for with the fiscal year 2012 funds
originally authorized and appropriated for their purchase; however,
these funds will not be obligated on contract until fiscal year 2013.
The Department intends to award Lot 7 aircraft and the Lot 6
variable quantity aircraft through fully definitized contract actions
in fiscal year 2013. The initial Lot 6 contract award for 25 aircraft
will require an UCA to ensure production flow is not disrupted.
However, the Department does not intend to award a UCA for the 25
aircraft in Lot 6 until essential agreement is reached for Lot 5.
The strategy outlined in this testimony continues the Department's
rigorous management control of the F-35 Lightning II JSF. Ensuring
sufficient discipline and progress in development will deliver aircraft
that last their required service life, come with the required mission
capability, and reduce the need to modify delivered aircraft.
Operations and Sustainment Costs
F-35 Sustainment costs are a concern across the Department. While
the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Services made progress in 2011
toward reducing its estimate, there is more work to do in this area,
and this is an area of increasing focus. The Services and the
Department will continue to support the F-35 JPO in its disciplined
approach to analyzing and reducing sustainment costs. Over the next 12
months the JPO will complete the F-35 business case analysis (BCA). The
results from the BCA will assist the PEO in refining the current F-35
support strategy by identifying the best mix of existing Service/
Partner organic capabilities with that of the industry team to develop
the optimum long term best value F-35 support solution.
This year, the Services and OSD, working in concert with the JPO,
will analyze options outside of the PEO's span of control to reduce
operating cost. These include reviewing basing options and the
sequencing of those actions, unit level manpower/squadron size and
discrete sustainment requirements. Through these efforts, the
Department believes the PEO and the Department can converge on a more
affordable F-35 sustainment strategy. The past year was largely about
making progress in testing, moving toward a stable design, and
controlling the cost and risk in the production program with an initial
review of sustainment costs. The next year will continue those efforts,
but the focus will shift more to identifying and implementing
opportunities to reduce sustainment costs.
conclusion
My observations and assessments over the past year give me reason
to believe the basic aircraft designs are sound and will deliver. The
remaining development is focused on testing and integration. Schedule
and resource adjustments that have been made to the remaining
development program underpin a realistic plan to deliver the required
capability. While there is still risk in the program, I have confidence
in the resilience of the plan to absorb expected further learning and
discovery and stay on track, so long as it remains properly resourced.
Software development, coupled with flight test execution, will
remain the major focus of program execution in the coming year and
through the completion of SDD. I have observed past and current
performance by industry on software that gives me concern about the
ability to deliver full capability within the current schedule without
improvement in performance. I will continue to closely examine progress
and seek the changes needed to gain required performance. I have
developed a solid program baseline, ensuring the program has resources,
tools, and processes in place to make proactive, disciplined decisions
regarding the development and delivery of incremental capabilities to
the F-35 fleet. However, industry must understand that this new
schedule with all of the margin and realism will not execute itself. A
rededication to the characteristics of systems engineering fundamentals
is crucial and I continue to speak bluntly to industry on this issue.
Concurrency is a transient issue that the program is dealing with
right now, but which will lessen over time. I recognize that while DOD
would prefer to not be in this concurrent program situation, it is now
my responsibility to navigate through this and deliver the most capable
aircraft at the best price.
I believe the plan for negotiations for LRIP 6 and 7 will allow DOD
to control production quantity based on the performance of the
development program. It is important that Lockheed Martin dependably
perform and establish confidence that the F-35 is a stable and capable
platform.
As in any complex development program there are challenges, but I
believe the enhanced capability of the JSF will provide the backbone of
the U.S. combat air superiority for generations to come. The
technological capabilities of the aircraft are sound. The program's
management over the past year has put in place the right fundamentals
and realistic plans using sound systems engineering processes, and I am
monitoring and tracking performance using detailed metrics. Overall,
there is much work still ahead of us, but through the multiple reviews
and adjustments in the past year I believe the Department has put the
program on sound footing for the future.
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the F-35 JSF
Program. I look forward to answering any questions you have.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Admiral. It is a good
beginning.
General Janet C. Wolfenbarger, Military Deputy, Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition,
thanks so much for being here. I just would be remiss if I did
not say for the record that you are also about to become an
historic figure, which is very exciting and well-deserved. Upon
your pending promotion, as you well know, you will become the
first woman Air Force officer to wear four stars. So,
congratulations.
General Wolfenbarger. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JANET C. WOLFENBARGER, USAF, MILITARY
DEPUTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
ACQUISITION
General Wolfenbarger. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member
Brown, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide you with an update on the Air
Force's tactical aviation programs.
Today, the Air Force is fully engaged in operations across
the globe, participating in joint Overseas Contingency
Operations, and providing support to the combatant commanders
to enable them to successfully execute their missions.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget request aligns with these
standing operational requirements and with the future needs of
the Air Force as we shift implementation of the new National
Security Strategy.
I understand your focus today is on the Air Force
investment plans to ensure that our tactical aviation
capabilities are adequate for executing the National Military
Strategy with an acceptable level of risk. Our rapidly aging
aircraft fleet drives the urgent need to balance procurement of
new inventory with sustainment of our current fleet. I look
forward to discussing how the Air Force has matched our
requirements with available resources in order to execute the
National Military Strategy.
In light of recent media attention regarding the F-22 and
its life support system, I would like to briefly address what
the Air Force is doing to protect the health and safety of Air
Force pilots, as well as the importance of the F-22 to our
Nation's capabilities. Our pilot safety is of utmost concern
and a top priority. Our Air Combat Command-led Life Support
System Task Force has joined with experts from across
government, academia, and the scientific community to work on
root cause analysis until this issue has been completely
resolved.
In the meantime, we have initiated 17 life support
enhancements to the F-22 as direct risk mitigation steps. Many
of these enhancements are already fielded, including a
modification to the emergency oxygen activation handle and an
air crew blood oxygen sensor. All these mitigation steps help
reduce safety risks and permit F-22 operations that deliver
unique stealth and range capabilities ideal for countering
advanced integrated air defenses in known trouble spots around
the world.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for the invitation
to testify today and for your continued support of the Air
Force.
I would like to request that my written statement be
submitted for the record. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Wolfenbarger follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger, USAF
Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this
committee regarding the Air Forces' tactical aviation programs. The Air
Force remains fully engaged worldwide, supporting the combatant
commanders' requirements and executing our National Strategy.
Finding the proper balance between force structure, readiness and
modernization is our guiding principle. While we will be a smaller
force, we will maintain the agility, flexibility and readiness required
to meet our commitments to the combatant commanders as well as continue
to modernize and grow more capable in the future. The Service protected
our distinctive capabilities fundamental to the priorities of the new
strategic guidance: control of air, space, and cyberspace; global
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; rapid global mobility
and global strike--all enabled by effective command and control.
current environment and operations update
Today, the Air Force flies and fights in air, space, and
cyberspace--globally and reliably--as a valued member of our Joint and
coalition teams. Over 30,000 airmen are deployed across the globe,
including over 23,000 in the U.S. Central Command Area of
Responsibility, with another 134,000 ``committed in place'' to defend
the homeland, command and control our nuclear forces, operate remotely
piloted aircraft, and support other combatant commander requirements.
The Air Force is an active partner in Defense Department planning that
will shift our emphasis from today's wars, to the broader range of
challenges and opportunities posed by the President's strategic
guidance, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Be assured that
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who deploy in support of our
global commitments will do so with an Air Force that is agile,
flexible, ready, and technologically advanced. Last fiscal year alone,
Air Force global precision attack aircraft flew over 24,000 sorties and
110,000 hours in support of Overseas Contingency Operations.
Since September 11, 2001, your mobility air forces have executed
more than 440,000 airlift sorties, moving more than 3.6 million tons of
cargo and nearly 6.9 million passengers in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and then New Dawn. Your
combat air forces simultaneously provided top cover and weapons on
target with another 162,000 sorties supporting those same operations.
Aeromedical evacuation crews surged to complete nearly 180,000 patient
movements, averaging 52 per day. On the homefront, Air Force fighter,
air refueling, and early warning aircraft have flown almost 62,000
total sorties supporting Operation Noble Eagle. As a testament to the
capability of our Total Force, the Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve have flown more than 65 percent of these sorties with the Air
National Guard currently operating 17 of 18 Aerospace Control Alert
sites across the United States.
As we transition to support the New Defense Strategy, we must
carefully balance our force between the Active and Reserve components
to maintain what will be a smaller Air Force at a higher state of
readiness. One part of the solution will be to pursue Active
Associations with many Air Reserve component units, combining Active
Duty and Reserve component airmen on the same operational team.
The Air Force continues to work towards meeting the current
strategy laid out by the President and the Secretary of Defense, while
operating in a more fiscally constrained environment. The fiscal year
2013 PB retains critical core capabilities and maintains the Air
Force's ability to rapidly respond to global mission demands. It
requires the Air Force to balance risk, modernization and force
structure reductions with a commitment to maintain readiness and take
care of our people. We stand ready to support the Department's efforts
to meet the demands of the U.S. National Security Strategy.
fighter force structure and modernization
In 2011, Air Force analysis indicated a fighter force structure of
1,200 primary mission aircraft and 2,000 total aircraft were required
to execute the National Military Strategy (NDS) with some risk. The new
strategic guidance combined with new fiscal constraints required the
Air Force to balance risk across its core functions. Current analysis
estimates fighter force structure demand at approximately 1,100 primary
mission aircraft and approximately 1,900 total fighter aircraft to
carry out the NDS with increased risk. Additionally, the Air Force
previously reported a fighter force shortfall in both the near- and
mid-term. We aggressively pursued mitigating efforts to meet force
structure requirements. The most significant efforts involved closely
monitoring F-35 production and increasing production as capability
matures, and fourth generation sustainment and modernization. The F-35
program status remains the key variable in the fighter force structure
as the Air Force transitions to a fifth generation fighter force.
Current Air Force mitigation options preserve decision space as we
carefully monitor program status and impending decision points.
As directed, to develop the fiscal year 2013 PB the Air Force
accepted risk in our Combat Air Forces by retiring or reclassifying
aircraft from seven squadrons: five A-10 squadrons, one F-16 squadron,
and one training/support coded F-15 Aggressor squadron. We chose to
retire more A-10s as a result of guidance to size our forces for one
large scale combined arms campaign with sufficient combat power to also
deny a second adversary, without conducting a large scale, prolonged
stability operation. The A-10 remains essential for combined arms and
stability operations and we retain enough A-10s to meet the
requirements of the new strategic guidance, but multi-role platforms
provide more utility across the range of the potential missions for
which we are directed to prepare. After reductions, we retain 54
combat-coded fighter squadrons and maintain the capabilities and
capacity required to meet the requirements of new strategic guidance at
increased risk while providing a bridge to the F-35.
Fifth generation fighters such as the F-22A and F-35 are key
elements of our Nation's defense and deterrent capability. These
aircraft are necessary to maintain a margin of superiority which
permits our air, sea, and ground forces freedom of maneuver and attack.
They each possess unique, complimentary, and essential capabilities
that provide synergistic effects across the spectrum of conflict.
Legacy fourth generation aircraft simply cannot survive to operate and
achieve the effects necessary to win in an integrated, anti-access and
area denial (A2/AD) environment.
f-35
During fiscal year 2012 the Air Force will continue the balanced
approach across the global precision attack portfolio used in fiscal
year 2011, by prioritizing investment in fifth-generation aircraft
while sustaining legacy platforms as a bridge to the F-35, Joint Strike
Fighter.
The multi-role F-35A is the centerpiece of the Air Force's future
precision attack capability. In addition to complementing the F-22's
world class air superiority capabilities, the F-35A is designed to
penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range of precision munitions.
This modern, fifth-generation aircraft brings the added benefit of
increased allied interoperability and cost-sharing across Services and
eight partner nations. The fiscal year 2013 PB includes approximately
$5 billion for continued development and procurement of 19 F-35A,
conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft. In response to
continued program cost growth, lagging production performance, and
escalating concurrency modification costs, we reduced the program of
record by 179 aircraft, 98 of those are USAF F-35A CTOL aircraft, over
the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) in the fiscal year 2013 PB. The
reduction of F-35 quantities in the FYDP realigns the pace of
production to balance the need for a stable industrial base with the
realities of increasing concurrency modification costs and a resource-
constrained fiscal environment. Finally, the fiscal year 2013 PB
suspended F-35 dual capable aircraft (DCA) funding until the program is
mature enough to support DCA integration.
Flight Operations at Eglin recently commenced. In close
coordination with Air Force staff and the DOD Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation, the Air Force Technical Airworthiness Authority
(ASC/EN) signed a Military Flight Release (MFR) for F-35A aircraft on
February 28, 2012, which allowed the Commander of Air Education and
Training Command (AETC/CC) to approve the start of local area
operations (LAO) at Eglin AFB for F-35A aircraft. LAO will build
familiarity with the aircraft, exercise the logistics infrastructure,
and measure the maturity of the air system. These flights will be
conducted within the restrictions and limits of the MFR. AETC will
continue LAO at Eglin until they judge that training operations are
ready to begin.
During calendar year 2011, the F-35 program team achieved a number
of significant milestones, including: delivery of six training aircraft
to Eglin AFB; achieving the 1,000th CTOL flight hour; performing the
first successful fuel transfer from a KC-10 tanker; reaching over 450
CTOL flights for the year; rolling-out the first partner nation (UK)
short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft from the
production line in November 2011; and completion of academic and
simulator requirements by the first two U.S. Air Force pilots at the
Academic Training Center (ATC). They performed instructor pilot
monitored engine runs in AF-9 to become the first operational, engine
run qualified CTOL pilots.
f-22
The F-22 is the only fielded U.S. fighter capable of operating in
anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) environments. F-22 attributes of
stealth, super cruise, integrated avionics and sensors combine to
deliver the Raptor's unique operational capability in A2/AD
environments. F-22 modernization is required to counter threat
advancement efforts that specifically target F-22 attributes in order
to degrade U.S. ability to operate in A2/AD environments. Accordingly,
F-22 modernization is consistent with DOD Strategic Guidance to
``invest as required to ensure [the] ability to operate effectively in
(A2/AD) environments''.
Focused on maintaining operational superiority against the
advancing threat, the fiscal year 2013 PB request for F-22
modernization investment includes $512 million RDT&E plus $333 million
procurement in fiscal year 2013. Modernization increment 2.0 is fielded
now on the combat-coded F-22 fleet and will be the final (very capable
warfighting) configuration of the F-22 training fleet at Tyndall AFB.
Increment 3.1 initial operational capability (IOC) is scheduled to
occur in 2012, delivering advanced air-ground capabilities including
SAR ground mapping, threat geolocation, and SDB carriage. Increments
3.2A/B, fielding in 2014/2018 respectively, will deliver advanced
electronic protection and combat ID, AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, and
significantly-improved ground threat geolocation.
F-22 production is complete--the last Raptor is scheduled to be
delivered in early May 2012, completing the program of record of 187
aircraft. The final F-22 fleet will include 139 combat coded Block 30/
35s, 32 training Block 20s, 12 Developmental Test/Operational Test
Block 20/30/35s, and 2 pre-block test aircraft. The production line is
shut down with no plan for restart at any time. Accordingly, all
government-owned production tooling is being stored for F-22
sustainment purposes only.
The F-22 fleet stood down May-Sept. 2011 while safety issues
associated with delivery of adequate breathing oxygen to pilots were
investigated. Safety Investigation and Scientific Advisory Board (SIB/
SAB) investigations were not able to determine root cause but informed
development of technical and procedural mitigations which enabled a
safe return to flight (RTF). Over 7000 sorties have been flown since
return to flight. RTF mitigations allowed eight in-flight oxygen-
related incidents to be resolved safely. The F-22 fleet transition from
production to sustainment has been marked by a solid improvement in
operational availability (Ao)--growing from 59 percent Ao for calendar
year 2011 to 66 percent Ao in January 2012.
a-10
The A-10 provides our Joint Force Commanders responsive, lethal,
precise, and persistent firepower for close air support and combat
search and rescue. It has been a steady, stellar performer in all
recent conflicts. Notably, the A-10s very high operations tempo and
advanced age present substantial sustainment challenges. Reflecting
this, the A-10s fiscal year 2011 aircraft availability rate was 59
percent.
The Air Force plans to retain 242 A-10s through 2030. The fiscal
year 2013 PB invests approximately $205 million across the FYDP to fund
A-10 modernization, sustainment, and life extension programs. Following
completion of the Precision Engagement modification in fiscal year
2011, all previously designated ``A'' model aircraft were designated as
the A-10C. The Precision Engagement upgrade gives the venerable A-10
the ability to deliver the newest and greatest complement of weapons
than was ever available before, through the integration of targeting
pods, digital data links and global positioning systems. Installation
of the Helmet Mounted Cueing System, beginning in fiscal year 2012,
will provide increased situational awareness to the pilot. Further,
installation of the first of the new replacement wings began in fiscal
year 2011, an essential program for the long-term structural longevity
of the airplane. Other updates include a replacement portable
maintenance tester and improved turbine and aircraft monitoring systems
used to monitor structural fatigues and stresses. Emphasis on the
continued health and upgrades will ensure the A-10 excels at close air
support for the next 2 decades.
f-16
Our primary multi-role F-16 comprises 50 percent of the current
fighter fleet. The fiscal year 2013 PB invests approximately $1.4
billion across the FYDP for F-16 modernization, life extension, and
continued sustainment to meet critical warfighter needs to 2025 and
beyond. The majority of the efforts to accomplish this across the FYDP
will focus on the service life extension program (SLEP) and Combat
Avionics Programmed Extension Suites (CAPES) modernization program for
300 aircraft, with the intent of reaching 350 aircraft. The requirement
for the legacy SLEP is highlighted by bulkhead cracks found in
approximately 73 percent of our Block 40/52 F-16 aircraft.
Legacy SLEP will extend airframe structural service life by
approximately 25 percent from the current 8,000 hours to 10,000+ hours,
adding 6 to 8 years. The fiscal year 2013 PB request adds $8.8 million
to continue design and development of structural modification kits for
the Block 40/52 fleet to be responsive to the Air Force's total fighter
requirement. Additionally, the Falcon Structural Augmentation Roadmap
(STAR) program, which replaces known life-limited structural components
and maintains the original design airframe life of 8,000 actual flight
hours, has been rephrased to complete in fiscal year 2015.
The fiscal year 2013 PB adds $69.7 million in development, with a
total of $526 million in development and procurement funding laid in
across the FYDP for F-16 CAPES. This will allow for the development of
capabilities for active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, a
new center cockpit display unit, data link enhancements and electronic
warfare defensive suite upgrades. These avionic upgrades will keep the
F-16 Block 40/52s relevant in the threat environment beyond 2025 until
replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Currently the F-16 aircraft availability is 64.9 percent and in
fiscal year 2011 was 66.1 percent. F-16 fleet aircraft availability
dropped 4.9 percent since fiscal year 2005. Drivers to the reduced
availability include the Falcon STAR (all blocks) structural integrity
program, engine inlet ram (all blocks), lower wing skin cracking
(blocks 25/30/32), and aft cockpit corrosion for two seat aircraft. We
expect these drivers to continue to impact aircraft availability
through fiscal year 2015.
f-15 c/d
The fiscal year 2013 President`s budget (PB) invests approximately
$1.7 billion across the FYDP on modernization and sustainment programs
for the F-15C/D fleet. We project the F-15C/D fleet will remain viable
until 2030-2035 with potential for an airframe service life extension
following full-scale fatigue testing. This test is underway and will
conclude in 2014. The Air Force manages the fleet through scheduled
field and depot inspections under an individual aircraft tracking
program. In fiscal year 2011, the F-15C/D`s aircraft availability was
55.9 percent.
We continue to modernize our F-15C/D fleet with AESA radars, and a
more capable aircraft mission computer. We expect these efforts to
enable 175 F-15C/D aircraft to operate safely and effectively through
at least 2035 as determined by the full-scale fatigue test. We may
extend the long-term status to the entire 249 aircraft inventory based
on requirements of the future force structure.
f-15e
The F-15E fleet continues to provide support for ongoing
operations. Aircraft availability for the F-15E in fiscal year 2011 was
64.9 percent.
The fiscal year 2013 President`s budget investment across the FYDP
is approximately $2.1 billion for F-15E modernization and sustainment
programs. This includes integrating the latest precision weapons to hit
targets accurately and reduce collateral damage, and adding a helmet
mounted cueing system for all front seat cockpits that will reduce the
F-15E`s time to engage a target. Finally, we are adding a state-of-the-
art AESA radar system that advances capabilities to identify and engage
targets. The Air Force expects the F-15E to be an integral part of the
Nation`s force through at least 2035. A full-scale fatigue test, due to
be complete in 2015, will provide data regarding the feasibility of a
service life extension.
conclusion
The Air Force stands ready to win today's joint fight as we adjust
to the challenges of tomorrow. While the environment we are in
necessitated difficult choices, we remain committed to working together
to manage risks and determine a fiscally sound procurement, sustainment
and retirement strategy to remain prepared for the current fight as we
posture for the new strategic guidance. The dominance of air, space,
and cyberspace continues to be requisite to the defense of the United
States. We appreciate your continued support and look forward to
working in concert to ensure our decisions enable us to strengthen our
force.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, General. Without objection, your
statement and the statements of the other witnesses will be
included in the record in full.
Vice Admiral Walter M. Skinner, Principal Military Deputy,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, thanks for being here. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF VADM WALTER M. SKINNER, USN, PRINCIPAL MILITARY
DEPUTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION
Admiral Skinner. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking
Member Brown, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is
my honor to appear before you today to discuss the Navy's
tactical aviation procurement programs.
The fiscal environment and the Budget Control Act (BCA) of
2011 required hard choices to be made. In response, the Navy
deferred procurement of F-35s, P-8s, E-2Ds, F-18 Es and Fs, and
MV-22s, and terminated the Medium Range Maritime Unmanned
Aerial System program and Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
investment in the President's budget request. We are facing
challenges: the budget reductions necessitated by the BCA and
aging aircraft inventory and significant threats. During these
austere times, we must persist in modernizing and
recapitalizing our naval aviation forces and increase our
capability through force multipliers such as the Navy
integrated fire control counter air and using should cost/will
cost processes to bring more affordable systems to our
warfighters.
Affordability will be our business focus over the Future
Years Defense Program (FDYP) so we can continue to deliver the
capabilities to meet the warfighters' needs. With your
assistance, we are leveraging our buying power with the
successful multiyear procurements on the F-18, B-22, and H-60,
and together we are saving the taxpayers over $1.5 billion.
Last year, we commemorated our historical past as naval
aviation celebrated its centennial. This year, Marine Corps
aviation will do the same. New history has also been written
over this past year when we conducted F-35 shipboard operations
aboard the USS Wasp and flew the first F-35C formation flights
at Patuxent River and deployed the first E/A-18 Growler
expeditionary squadrons to Iraq and then redeployed the
squadron on short notice to support Operation Odyssey Dawn. We
commenced E-2D Advanced Hawkeye initial operational test and
evaluation (OT&E), and we delivered the first P-8 Poseidon and
the 500th Super Hornet Growler on cost and on schedule. The
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) hired 155 wounded warriors
into the acquisition workforce.
We also continue to actively manage our TACAIR inventory.
The first Hornet will be inducted into our SLEP later this
year, and both SLEP and future aircraft procurements must
continue on schedule to mitigate the strike fighter shortfall
through 2028. The Navy will transition three Navy F-18 Charlie
squadrons to F-18Es, and the Marine Corps will reduce their
force structure by four squadrons and delay the retirement of
the AV-8B Harrier until 2030.
Thank you and we welcome your questions on the Department
of the Navy's tactical aviation procurement programs.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Skinner follows:]
Prepared Statement by VADM W. Mark Skinner, USN
Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown, and distinguished members of the
Airland Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the Department of the Navy's (DoN) Aviation
programs. My testimony will provide background and rationale for the
Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request for aviation programs
aligning to our strategic priorities and budgetary goals.
The United States is a maritime nation with global
responsibilities. For 236 years, our Navy and Marine Corps' persistent
presence and multi-mission capability have been the representation of
U.S. power across the global commons. Our naval tradition informs our
decisions today, as the Navy and Marine Corps remain firmly in a
forward posture for engagement and action, continuing to build on our
ability to come from the sea to conduct our missions rapidly across the
range of military operations. The Navy and Marine Corps is an agile
strike and amphibious power projection force in readiness, and such
agility requires that the tactical aviation arm of our naval strike and
expeditionary forces remain strong.
The fiscal year 2013 DoN budget request, while less than was
requested in fiscal year 2012, aligns with the new strategic guidance
for the Department of Defense (DOD) and provides the Department with
the best balance of naval aviation assets. Guided by the Defense
Strategic Guidance, the Navy-Marine Corps team is built for war,
capable of operating forward to preserve the peace, respond to crises
and protect United States and allied interests. The force will be
leaner, agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced.
The Navy and Marine Corps are committed to the Joint Strike Fighter
program in both the F-35B and F-35C variants. We have reduced the
quantity of the fiscal year 2013 aircraft procurement request to
minimize the number of aircraft the Department will have to modify for
concurrency. This action funds the costs associated with concurrency
from within the JSF program as well as reduces the Department's overall
investment in the JSF Program. The budget also has optimized unmanned
aerial systems (UAS) investments across the DoN's portfolio and is
developing a comprehensive and flexible portfolio of unmanned systems
to meet a variety of maritime reconnaissance requirements. In 2012, the
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS)
development program began; while the MQ-8B Fire Scout aircraft
demonstrated in-theater capability and follow-on MQ-8C upgrade have
superseded the need for the Medium Range Unmanned Aerial System
(MRMUAS) which was terminated in the fiscal year 2013 request. The Navy
and Marine Corps continues to optimize our buying power through the use
of multi-year procurements (MYP) of the F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, MV-22 and H-
60 programs. We are recapitalizing our aging fleet of E-2C, EA-6B and
P-3 aircraft with more capable and more supportable aircraft--the E-2D,
EA-18G and P-8A. We are exploring alternatives and concepts for the
recapitalization of the Executive Helicopter, the C-2A and the F/A-18E/
F--we will do so with lean acquisition and optimized technology at an
affordable cost.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests funding for 94
aircraft including 10 F-35 JSFs for both the Navy and the Marine Corps,
13 P-8As to replace the aging current anti-submarine warfare and
maritime patrol squadrons, 17 MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, 26 F/A-18E/F
fighter attack planes, 12 EA-18G to complete the replacement of the EA-
6B, 5 E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes, and 11 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
The DoN has also requested funds for the continued development of the
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) unmanned system and for the
demonstration of the Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial System (N-UCAS). The
DoN fiscal year 2013 aircraft program budget request is funded for
planned program execution throughout the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP).
tactical aviation (tacair)
TACAIR Inventory Management
In 2010, we estimated the DoN strike fighter shortfall (SFS) to be
about 100 aircraft, but the net effect of the fiscal year 2013
President's budget, which includes restructuring the F-35B/C ramp,
along with the impact of reduced operational rates and force structure
requirements, put the DoN's projected shortfall at a manageable level
below 65 aircraft in the 2020s.
While the SFS continues to fall within the manageable levels
throughout the DoN, the Marine Corps may experience elevated
operational risk in the 2020s if the predicted shortfall comes to
fruition. Over the past two Presidential budgets, the Marine Corps
TACAIR transition completion has extended from 2023 to 2031. This 8-
year slide has forced the Marine Corps to evaluate inventory
availability amongst its Harrier and Hornet fleet in the later years
and adjust its transition priorities and timing. The last active Marine
F/A-18 squadron is currently scheduled to transition in 2027, and the
current F/A-18 Reserve squadron does not receive its F-35s until 2030.
The Harriers were expected to complete their transitions in 2022 in the
fiscal year 2011 President's budget, and then 2026 in fiscal year 2012
President's budget. The Harriers are now planned to remain in service
through 2030 due to reduced F-35 ramp rates and the fact that they have
more flight hour life remaining than the Hornets.
As legacy F/A-18 squadrons are reduced, the service shortfall
number must be considered in proportion to the primary mission aircraft
inventory requirement. Due to a lower number of F/A-18 squadrons in the
2023 to 2026 timeframe, the shortfall number associated with the Marine
Corps will have a more significant impact on their few remaining F/A-18
operational squadrons.
Additionally, the AV-8B will operate with a shortfall of 10
aircraft in fiscal year 2012, reaching 12 aircraft during fiscal year
2013, based on attrition. One AV-8B squadron will be retired at the end
of fiscal year 2013 to meet USMC manpower reductions, allowing the
remaining squadrons to operate without a shortfall. The Navy will
transition three additional squadrons from F/A-18C to F/A-18E and then
redistribute those F/A-18C aircraft amongst the DoN requirements.
The DoN continues to meticulously manage the fatigue life and
flight hours of our tactical aircraft. Since 2004, we have provided
fleet users guidance and actions to optimize aircraft utilization rates
while maximizing training and operational opportunities. The inventory
forecasting tool (IFT) projects the combined effects of transition
plans, attrition, and pipeline requirements on the total strike fighter
aircraft inventory. The IFT is updated in conjunction with budget
submittals to provide forecasts of the strike fighter inventory
compared to the requirements. The tool utilizes these critical
variables to project future inventories--F/A-18E/F and F-35B/C
deliveries, force structure, aircraft usage rates, structural life
limits, depot turnaround time, fatigue life expenditure (FLE), arrested
and field landings, and catapult launches.
F-35B/F-35C Lightning II
The Department of the Navy (DoN) remains firmly committed to both
the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant and the F-
35C carrier variant (CV) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, as
they are essential to our immediate and long-range Navy and Marine
Corps aviation strategy and the Nation's security. F-35 will supplant
the DoN's aging tactical aviation (TACAIR) fleet by replacing the Navy
and Marine Corps legacy F/A-18A-D Hornet and the Marine Corps AV-8B
Harrier and EA-6B Prowlers. The incorporation of F-35B and F-35C
aircraft into our naval force will provide the dominant, multi-role,
fifth-generation capabilities that are essential across the full
spectrum of combat operations to deter potential adversaries and enable
future naval aviation power projection.
The F-35B STOVL variant combines the multi-role versatility and
strike fighter capability of the legacy F/A-18 with the basing
flexibility of the AV-8B. The Marine Corps will leverage the F-35B's
sophisticated sensor suite and very low observable (VLO) fifth-
generation strike fighter capabilities, particularly in the area of
data collection and information dissemination, to support the Marine
Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) well beyond the abilities of today's
MAGTF expeditionary attack, strike and electronic warfare assets.
Having these capabilities in one aircraft will provide the joint force
commander and the MAGTF commander unprecedented strategic and
operational agility. Similarly, the F-35C CV complements the F/A-18E/F
Block II and EA-18G in providing survivable, long-range strike
capability and persistence in an access-denied environment. Together,
the F-35B and F-35C will provide the expeditionary strike group and
carrier strike group commanders a survivable, ``day-one'' strike
capability in a denied access environment with the tactical agility and
strategic flexibility to counter a broad spectrum of threats and win in
operational scenarios that cannot be addressed by current legacy
aircraft.
The overall F-35 development program has been re-planned and is now
resourced with adequate margin and realistic planning factors to
complete system development and demonstration (SDD). Key activities
that supported the replan included the development of an integrated
master schedule (IMS), execution of a schedule risk assessment (SRA),
and completion of the integrated baseline review (IBR). Under these
efforts, the Department of Defense revised flight test rates,
established longer software development spans, included revised systems
engineering processes, and established new performance measurements.
This plan has strong support within the Department of the Navy as we
believe it places the development program on sound footing towards
delivering full Block 3 capabilities.
In January 2011, Secretary Gates placed the F-35B on probationary
status because it was experiencing significant unique technical issues.
F-35B testing was decoupled from the other two variants, allowing the
program to increase focus on F-35B-specific development issues while
testing on the other variants progressed. All three variants improved
their testing performance in 2011. In particular, the F-35B
successfully completed more flights and more test points than planned,
including the first F-35B shipboard suitability test and operations
with BF-2 and BF-4 aboard the USS Wasp. The F-35B is now demonstrating
development, test, and production maturity comparable to and not
substantially different from the other F-35 variants. With this data,
the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) made the decision to lift STOVL from
probation on January 20, 2012. As with the other variants, some
additional technical issues have been identified on the F-35B since
probation began. However, none of these issues rises to the level of
significance of those that placed STOVL on probation, and they are
consistent with the kind of discovery to be expected in any complex
tactical aircraft development program. Similar F-35A and F-35C
technical issues being discovered in test have been proactively
addressed and are being resolved concurrent with flight test. The
decision to lift probation will result in absolutely no reduction in
DoN F-35B oversight or the level of attention given by the Department
of Defense (DOD) to each of the JSF variants going forward.
DOD established the F-35 program with a planned measure of
concurrent development and production that balanced cost, risk, and
need for TACAIR modernization. Concurrency, however, is a transient
issue in which risks progressively decline through the end of SDD. The
F-35 program is currently experiencing changes driven by design
maturity discoveries as ground test, flight test, and overall system
qualification efforts proceed. As more testing is completed,
concurrency risks are progressively reduced as the design is confirmed
or issues identified requiring changes are incorporated. Earlier
aircraft are open to a greater need for changes, and as succeeding low-
rate initial production lots are built, their cumulative requirements
for retrofit modifications decline.
F-35 sustainment costs remain a concern. The DoN continues to
support the F-35 Joint Program Office in its disciplined approach to
analyzing and reducing sustainment costs. While the JPO and the
Services made progress in 2011, there is more work to do in this area
and the focus remains. For example, over the next 12 months the JPO
will complete the F-35 business case analysis (BCA). The results from
the BCA will assist the PEO in refining the current F-35 support
strategy by identifying the best mix of existing Service/Partner
organic capabilities with that of the Industry team to develop the
optimum long term best value F-35 support solution. The DoN, working in
concert with the JPO, will analyze options outside of the PEO's span of
control to reduce operating cost such as; reviewing basing options and
the sequencing of those actions, unit level manpower/squadron size, and
discrete sustainment requirements. Through these combined efforts, the
Department believes the PEO can increase convergence on an affordable
F-35 sustainment strategy that both meets the required level of
Service/Partner performance and lowers the total life cycle cost of the
overall program.
The initial operational capability (IOC) for F-35B and F-35C have
not yet been established and will be determined by each service, based
on both the program's performance and how the service defines IOC. In
general terms, for example, the Marine Corps F-35B IOC is defined as a
squadron of 10 aircraft able to execute the full range of TACAIR
directed mission sets and to deploy and operate from F-35B compatible
ships and austere expeditionary sites. The Marine Corps plans to
achieve IOC with a multi-mission capable Block 2B aircraft as described
in the JSF Operational Requirements Document (ORD)/Change 3. For the
Navy F-35C, IOC is defined as a squadron of 10 ORD compliant Block 3F
aircraft that are ready to deploy and operate from CVNs after having
completed initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). The Marine
Corps IOC for the F-35C will follow the Navy's lead to ensure
capability symmetry onboard carriers.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $1.5 billion in
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy (RDT&E,N) to continue
the F-35 SDD program and $2.7 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Navy
(APN) for 10 F-35 aircraft (6 F-35B and 4 F-35C) with associated
aircraft hardware and spares. These resource requirements fully align
to the SECDEF's F-35 program replan. Maintaining this rate, and an
eventual optimum production ramp rate, is critical towards achieving F-
35 affordability goals and preventing excessive expenditures on
aircraft with limited service-life and decreasing operational
relevance.
The DoN is aware of the many challenges that remain on the F-35
program. However, this aircraft is an essential future Navy/Marine
Corps aviation capability and the DoN is fully committed to the F-35B
and F-35C variants of this program. The DoN continues to closely
monitor all F-35 development, production, and sustainment to ensure
that this capability is obtained at the lowest cost, at the earliest
date possible, to meet our national security obligations.
F/A-18 Overview
The F/A-18 Hornets have consistently met readiness and operational
commitments. There are 22 Navy Super Hornet squadrons with 440 F/A-18E/
Fs; deliveries and squadron transitions will continue through 2016.
There are 15 Navy and 13 Marine F/A-18 A-D squadrons with 625 legacy A-
D Hornets. While the F/A-18A-Ds transition to the F/A-18E/F and F-35,
the current inventory of F/A-18A-Ds will comprise more than half of the
DoN's strike fighter inventory well into 2013. Super Hornets and legacy
Hornets have conducted more than 148,000 combat missions since
September 11, 2001. While deployed ashore and aboard our aircraft
carriers at sea, F/A-18s have brought significant precision ordnance
and laser-guided munitions to the fight, and have employed thousands of
rounds of 20-millimeter ammunition supporting forces during strafing
runs. These aircraft continue to provide vital overwatch and direct
support to our troops on the ground in combat overseas.
Both the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet were procured with an
objective of 20 years' time in service. The average legacy Hornet has
exceeded that goal, while the Super Hornet is already at almost 30
percent of its expected 20 year life. It is reasonable to conclude,
based on current trends that most aircraft will substantially exceed 20
years in service.
F/A-18 A/B/C/D (Legacy) Hornet
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget request is $79.6 million in
APN for the continuation of SLEP, systems upgrades and obsolescence
programs for the inventory of 625 legacy F/A-18 Hornets. Funds
requested will procure and install center-barrel modifications and
service life extension program (SLEP) kits required for extending the
service life to 10,000 flight hours of select candidate F/A-18A-D
aircraft. The high flight hour (HFH) inspections and SLEP modifications
can extend the F/A-18A-D service life to 10,000 hours and mitigate the
impacts of the SFS. Continued investment in program related engineering
(PRE) and program related logistics funds within the Operations and
Maintenance, Navy accounts is critical for sustaining the combat
relevancy of the DoN's legacy platforms through the TACAIR transition.
The Service Life Management Program (SLMP) monitors and improves
the health of the F/A-18A-D fleet through analyses of TACAIR
inventories and management of usage rates at the squadron level.
Seventy-four percent of the F/A-18 A-D fleet have over 6,000 flight
hours while 32 aircraft have over 8,000 flight hours. To meet our
operational commitments through mid 2020s, we will be required to
extend the service life of at least 150 F/A-18A-D to 10,000 flight
hours. The F/A-18 A-D Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) has
completed and we are identifying all of the inspections and
modifications necessary to extend the airframe service life to 10,000
flight hours. Based upon those results, we are midway through a three-
phased SLEP. SLEP Phase A identified the critical safety of flight
locations that needed immediate inspection and identified notional
repair concepts. SLEP Phase B categorized parts by criticality, and
upgraded analytical tools for use by the Naval Air Systems Command
(NAVAIR) and original equipment manufacturer engineers to design
repairs. SLEP Phase C will finalize all remaining Phase B work and
develop inspections and modifications required to extend the service
life of 150 legacy F/A-18s. Efforts to extend the life of the F/A-18 A-
D's major subsystems and avionics, independent of the airframe, are
also underway.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget request includes SLEP
requirements for 150 airframes. The first aircraft were inducted in
early fiscal year 2012. Although risk is inherent in extending the
service life of an aircraft, the technical risk in developing
modification kits to achieve the goal of 10,000 flight hours is low.
The Fleet Readiness Centers have the capacity to execute the required
number of HFH inspections and SLEP modifications. Material availability
and engineering disposition turn-around times influence depot
efficiencies.
In order to maintain a tactical advantage, we will continue to
procure and install advanced systems such as Joint Helmet-Mounted
Cueing Systems (JHMCS), Multi-Function Information Distribution System
(MIDS), APG-73 radar enhancements, Advanced Targeting FLIR (ATFLIR)
upgrades, and LITENING for the marines on selected F/A-18A-D aircraft.
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $2.0 billion in
APN for procurement of 26 F/A-18 E/F Block II (Lot 26-38) aircraft. The
F/A-18E/F continues to transition into the fleet, improving the
survivability and strike capability of the carrier air wing. The Super
Hornet provides increased combat radius and endurance, and a 25 percent
increase in weapons payload over the legacy Hornets. The President's
budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes $276.7 million in APN to
implement commonality, maintain capabilities and improve reliability
and structural safety of the Super Hornet fleet. The Super Hornet uses
an incremental development approach to incorporate new technologies and
capabilities: the JHMCS, ATFLIR with shared real-time video, Shared
Reconnaissance Pod System, MIDS data-link, multi-sensor integration,
and continued advancement of the APG-79 active electronically scanned
array (AESA) radar.
The program continues to deliver on-cost and on-schedule and the
last year of procurement to complete the program of record (POR) of 565
aircraft is planned for 2014. Production shutdown begins in mid-2012 at
the subvendor level and concludes in 2016. A MYP contract for 124
(fiscal years 2010 through 2013) F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G
Growlers was signed on September 24, 2010. In December 2010, SECDEF
added 41 E/F aircraft to the fiscal year 2012 President's budget
request in fiscal years 2012 through 2014. All Lot 30 (fiscal year
2006) and beyond F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs have the APG-79 AESA radar
system installed in production, and a retrofit program exists to modify
133 Lot 26-29 Block II aircraft with the AESA radar. More than 300 APG-
79 AESA radars have been produced to date. The Navy plans to equip all
419 Block II Super Hornets with AESA radars, providing the Super Hornet
a significant increase in detection range, lethality and survivability
over the legacy Hornets. Successfully deploying since 2007, AESA radar
equipped squadrons are highly valued by fleet commanders because of
their ability to share tactical battle space management data with the
non-AESA radar tactical aircraft in the carrier battle group. The F/A-
18E/F and EA-18G with the APG-79 are force multipliers.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget includes a request for
$11.0 million RDT&E,N to support the F/A-18E/F SLAP study requirement.
Currently, the F/A-18 E/F fleet has flown approximately 30 percent of
the available 6,000 total flight hours; the remaining service life will
not be adequate to meet operational commitments through 2035. In 2008,
the Navy commenced a three phased F/A-18E/F SLAP to analyze actual
usage versus structural test data and identify the feasibility of
extending F/A-18E/F service life from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours via a
follow-on SLEP. The F/A-18E/F SLAP will define the necessary
inspections and modifications required to achieve 9,000 flight hours
and increase total and arrested landings, and catapults beyond
currently defined life limits and is currently assessed as low risk.
The SLMP philosophy has been applied to the F/A-18E/F fleet at an
earlier point in its lifecycle than the F/A-18A-D, which will optimize
FLE, flight hours and total landings aligning aircraft service life
with fleet requirements.
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA)/EA-6B Prowler
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget request includes $19.7
million in RDT&E,N for electronic warfare (EW) counter response; $187.0
million RDT&E,N for Next Generation Jammer (NGJ); $10.6 million RDT&E,N
for MAGTF EW, $50.0 million in APN for common airborne electronic
attack (AEA) systems; $30.1 million in APN for all EA-6B series
aircraft; and $34.1 million APN for MAGTF EW.
Currently, 69 EA-6Bs in the Navy and Marine Corps support 64
operational aircraft in 13 Active squadrons and 1 Reserve squadron.
This includes 37 Navy and Marine Corps Improved Capability (ICAP) II
aircraft and 32 ICAP III aircraft. Following the final Navy EA-6B
transitions to EA-18G in 2015, all ICAP III EA-6Bs will transfer to and
be operated by the Marine Corps. The final retirement of the EA-6B from
the DoN inventory will be by the end of 2019.
Marine aviation is on a path towards a distributed AEA system of
systems that is a critical element in achieving the MAGTF EW vision: a
composite of manned and unmanned surface, air, and space assets, on a
fully collaborative network providing the MAGTF commander control of
the electromagnetic spectrum when and where desired. In development are
the ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger II communications jammer, UAS EW payloads, a
software reprogrammable payload and an EW Services Architecture to
facilitate collaborative networked electronic warfare battle
management.
The Intrepid Tiger II is intended to be carried on the AV-8B and
eventually other fixed and rotary wing platforms and will provide
direct AEA support to ground troops engaged in combat operations.
Intrepid Tiger II development and procurement is in response to Marine
Corps requirements for increased precision EW capability and capacity
across the MAGTF and provides EW capability directly to tactical
commanders without reliance upon the limited availability of the low-
density/high-demand EA-6B Prowler.
The NGJ is new electronic warfare technology that replaces the 40-
year-old ALQ-99 system and is designed to provide modified escort power
in support of joint and coalition air, land, and sea tactical strike
missions. NGJ is critical to the Navy's vision for the future of
airborne electronic attack strike warfare. Funding is vital to maintain
schedule, allowing the program to transition to the technology
development phase and ensure timely start of the EA-18G long lead
integration activities.
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA)/EA-18G Growler
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget request is $1.1 billion in
APN for procurement of 12 EA-18G aircraft and $13 million in RDT&E,N
for correction of deficiencies. The first EA-18G squadron deployed in
an expeditionary role in November 2010 to Iraq and subsequently
redeployed on short notice to Italy in March 2011 in support of
Operation New Dawn (OND) and Operation Unified Protector (OUP). The EA-
18G received accolades from both U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe for the AEA's enabling
contribution to the battlespace.
In 2009 the Navy began transition from EA-6Bs to EA-18Gs. The first
carrier-based EA-18G squadron deployed in May 2011. All three Active
component Navy expeditionary squadrons and two of the 10 carrier based
squadrons have completed transition to the EA-18G. The Navy will be
divested of EA-6Bs by 2015. The program of record is for 114 EA-18G
aircraft, of which 90 have been procured to date. The final procurement
of EA-18Gs is planned for 2013. As directed by the Quadrennial Defense
Review in 2009, SECDEF added 26 EA-18G aircraft to the program of
record across the FYDP to increase joint force capacity to conduct
expeditionary electronic attack. The EA-18G fleet has flown
approximately 5 percent of the 7,500 total flight hours per aircraft
and are meeting all operational commitments.
The Navy has completed an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to
determine the best path forward for the NGJ. The NGJ system will
replace the aging and limited inventory of ALQ-99 electronic warfare
pods currently flown on the EA-18G and EA-6Bs and provide the DOD with
the advanced comprehensive electronic attack capability required to
outpace the threat.
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE)
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $119.1 million in
RDT&E,N for continuation of SDD and $1.040 million in APN for five Full
Rate Production (FRP) Lot 1 aircraft and advance procurement (AP) for
fiscal year 2014 FRP Lot 2 aircraft.
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is the Navy's carrier-based airborne
early warning and battle management command and control system. The E-
2D provides theater air and missile defense and is capable of
synthesizing information from multiple onboard and off-board sensors,
making complex tactical decisions and then disseminating actionable
information to Joint Forces in a distributed, open-architecture
environment.
Utilizing the newly developed AN/APY-9 mechanical electronic scan
array radar and the Cooperative Engagement Capability system, the E-2D
works in concert with surface combatants equipped with the Aegis combat
system to detect, track and defeat air and cruise missile threats at
extended range and provide battle group commanders required reaction
time. This system-of-systems architecture, known as Naval Integrated
Fire Control-Counter Air, provides vital force protection and allows
the Navy to safely project forces into the littorals and overland to
ensure access in contested areas.
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program is in the production and
deployment phase after the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) approved
Milestone C in June 2009, at which time the program received
authorization for procurement of the first two lots of LRIP aircraft
(LRIP Lot 1 is two aircraft and LRIP Lot 2 is three aircraft). The SDD
flight test program is 100 percent complete and all key performance
parameter thresholds have been met. An operational test readiness
review was successfully conducted on February 1, 2012, certifying entry
into Initial IOT&E, and IOT&E will continue through August 2012. Both
LRIP Lot 1 aircraft were delivered in 2011, and delivery of the three
LRIP Lot 2 aircraft will be completed in 2013. A DAB for approval to
procure the final two lots of LRIP aircraft, Lots 3 (five aircraft) and
4 (five aircraft), as well as AP for FRP Lot 1, was successfully held
on in March 2011 and the respective contracts have been awarded. LRIP
Lots 3 and 4 aircraft will be delivered in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
From a cost standpoint, the estimate at complete has been stable for
over 54 months and the program is on schedule for an FRP Decision in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2013. All major acquisition milestones
have been achieved on or ahead of schedule since program inception in
2003.
AV-8B Harrier
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $38.7 million in
APN funds to continue development of the AV-8B Readiness Management
Program, Operational Flight Program and avionics weapons systems
development and integration, and Engine Life Management Program. The
fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $42.2 million in Overseas
Contingency Operation (OCO) procurement funding for Marine Corps
expeditionary LITENING targeting pod upgrades installation of OCO-
procured ALE-47 kits (improved aircraft self protection, expendable
system).
The AV-8B continues to be deployed heavily in support of
operational contingencies. Each Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) deploys
with embarked AV-8Bs. As of 2012 the AV-8B, equipped with precision
weapons, LITENING targeting pods with a video downlink to ROVER ground
stations, beyond visual range air-to-air radar missiles, is a proven,
invaluable asset for the MAGTF and joint commander across the spectrum
of operations. In 2012, the AV-8B has received the H6.0 Operational
Flight Program enabling full integration of the ALE-47 suite and
Digital Improved Triple Ejector Rack increasing the smart weapon
carriage capability from 4 weapons to 10. The Harrier out-of-service
date has been extended from 2022 to 2030, based on current F-35B
transition plans. As a result, the AV-8B program must focus on
sustainment efforts to mitigate significant legacy inventory
shortfalls, maintain airframe sustainment and address reliability and
obsolescence issues of avionics and subsystems. Additionally, this
aircraft must be funded to maintain combat relevance to include
tactical datalink and sensor improvements in order provide continued
operation in support of operational contingencies and transition
qualified aircrew to the F-35. The current digital aided close air
support (CAS) technology installed on the AV-8B is obsolete.
Operation Odyssey Dawn confirmed the expeditionary advantages of
STOVL capabilities by placing the Harrier as the closest fixed-wing
asset to Libya. Such dynamic support slashed transit times to the
battlefield by two-thirds and kept close air support aircraft on
station without strategic tanking assets. Capability upgrades,
obsolescence mitigation and readiness initiatives must be funded to
ensure the AV-8B remains relevant, healthy and sustained through 2030.
assault support aircraft
MV-22
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $54.4 million in
RDT&E, N for continued product improvements and $1.5 billion in APN for
procurement of 17 MV-22Bs (Lot 17) and $95.9 million for continuation
of follow-on block upgrades. Fiscal year 2013 is the first year of the
planned follow-on V-22 MYP contract covering fiscal year 2013-2017. The
funds requested in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget fully fund
Lot 17 and procure long lead items for Lot 18 as well as Economic Order
Quantity buys for Lots 18-21. The Marine Corps continues to field and
transition aircraft on time. The APN request includes $95.9 million to
support the ongoing Operations and Safety Improvement Programs (OSIP),
including correction of deficiencies and readiness.
The MV-22B has been supporting the Marines continuously since
October 2007, in extreme environmental conditions during thirteen
deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and aboard amphibious shipping. In
February 2011, the V-22 fleet exceeded a total of 100,000 flight hours.
The MV-22B squadrons in Afghanistan and the MEU are seeing mission
capable rates in the 70 percent range and are performing every assigned
mission. Additionally, the Osprey has the lowest Class A flight mishap
rate of any USMC-fielded tactical rotorcraft over the past 10 years.
The effectiveness and survivability of this revolutionary, first-
of-type MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor has been repeatedly demonstrated in
combat. The rescue of a downed F-15E airman during Operation Odyssey
Dawn was an example of what the Navy and Marine Corps' expeditionary
force brings our Nation. As an integral part of that seaborne presence,
the MV-22B was able to perform its part of this mission with
unprecedented speed and agility. Twenty minutes from the time he was
evading capture in hostile territory, the rescued pilot was safely back
on American territory aboard USS Kearsarge.
Under the existing MYP, Ospreys have been delivered under cost and
on time. The fifth and final buy under the multiyear occurred in fiscal
year 2012; the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request includes
provisions for a second MYP which builds on the successes of the first.
This second MYP will procure 91 MVs over 5 years and will produce
significant savings when compared to single year procurements. The
stability it provides supports the Marine Corps' need to retire old
aircraft and field new and better capabilities. Additionally, the
stabilization of the supplier base encourages long-term cost reduction
initiatives on the part of the prime contractors and their suppliers.
The introduction of this new tiltrotor capability into combat has
provided valuable lessons with respect to readiness and operating
costs. Improvements to both continue and are having a clear effect on
increasing aircraft availability and decreasing flight hour costs. At
the close of fiscal year 2011, the mission capability rate of the MV-22
was up 19 percent over fiscal year 2010 and the cost per flight hour
decreased 13 percent in the same period. Due to these cost reduction
efforts, the V-22 program received the prestigious David Packard
Excellence in Acquisition Award which recognizes exemplary performance
and innovation acquiring and delivering products and capabilities to
the warfighter.
To keep these improvements on track a readiness OSIP was introduced
into the fiscal year 2012 President's budget. This OSIP provides a
stable source of crucial modification funding as the Ospreys continue
to improve readiness and reduce operating cost.
The MV-22B capability is being increased and fielded over time via
a block upgrade acquisition strategy. The great benefit of a fly-by-
wire rotorcraft was very clear recently when the Osprey increased
airspeed and lift by simply modifying the flight control software. Such
improvements require thorough testing; fiscal year 2013 RDT&E,N funds
will be utilized to complete a fully-instrumented test aircraft which
will replace the existing test aircraft. The current test aircraft is
five iterations behind the V-22 being flown today and requires hundreds
of maintenance man-hours per flight hour to operate and maintain.
fixed wing aircraft
KC-130J
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $942 million in
APN across the FYDP for procurement of eight KC-130Js and continued
product improvements. Targeted improvements include propeller and air-
to-air refueling hose reel reliability, aircraft survivability through
advanced electronic countermeasure modernization and replacing Vietnam-
era flare dispensers used for battlefield illumination, greatly
enhancing mission effectiveness.
The KC-130J Hercules achieved IOC in 2005 and has been fielded
throughout our active force, bringing increased capability, performance
and survivability with lower operating and sustainment costs to the
MAGTF. Forward deployed continuously in support of Operations Iraqi and
Enduring Freedom since 2005, the KC-130J continues to deliver marines,
fuel and cargo wherever needed. In 2011 the KC-130J continued to be a
force multiplier for the Marine Corps through its support to combat
operations in Afghanistan, humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in
Pakistan, Tunisia and Japan, tactical recovery of downed aircrew in
Libya, and support to Marine Expeditionary Units worldwide.
In September 2010, the Marine Corps fielded the first bolt-on/bolt-
off Harvest Hawk intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)/
weapon mission kit for the KC-130J, expanding the role of the MAGTF's
tanker. With the mission kit installed, the KC-130J is capable of
providing persistent close air support and multi-sensor imagery
reconnaissance for our Marines in harm's way. Three mission kits have
been fielded to date, with three more expected to field in fiscal year
2013.
The USMC has procured 47 KC-130Js, 32 aircraft short of the 79
aircraft program of record. Procurement of the program of record will
allow us to fully outfit our Active and Reserve Force with this unique,
multi-mission assault support and refueling platform. The Reserve
component is programmed to begin transition from the legacy KC-130T
aircraft to the more capable, more efficient KC-130J aircraft beginning
in fiscal year 2015. This Reserve component transition will begin with
the aircraft requested in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget.
Delays in procurement would force the Marine Corps to sustain the KC-
130T aircraft longer than planned at an increased cost.
P-8A Poseidon
The P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the maritime patrol anti-submarine
warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASUW) and armed ISR capability
currently resident in the P-3C Orion. The P-8A combines the proven
reliability of the commercial 737 airframe and avionics with an open
architecture that enables integration of modern sensors and robust
communications. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $421
million in RDT&E, N for integrated development and associated testing
and $2.837 billion for procurement of 13 FRP P-8A Poseidon aircraft
which are scheduled to begin delivery in May 2015. APN funding supports
AP for the subsequent FRP procurement lot. The program is on track for
IOC in late 2013 when the first squadron will have completed transition
and is ready to deploy. The P-8A program is meeting all cost, schedule
and performance parameters in accordance with the Acquisition Program
Baseline.
In August 2010 the P-8A program surpassed Milestone C, authorizing
the Navy to proceed with procurement of LRIP Lots 1, 2, and 3 for 6
aircraft in fiscal year 2010, 7 aircraft in fiscal year 2011 and 11
aircraft in fiscal year 2012. The Navy awarded the LRIP Lot 1 contract
in January 2011 and LRIP Lot 2 contract in November 2011. On March
2012, the first LRIP aircraft was delivered to Patrol Squadron 30 at
NAS Jacksonville, FL. The first three flight test aircraft are being
flown at NAS Patuxent River, MD, in support of integrated operational
test and evaluation (IOT&E). Two of three production representative
aircraft have been accepted by the Navy to support IOT&E. The third of
these aircraft has been supporting integrated test and training in
preparation for IOT&E and will be formally accepted by the Navy prior
to commencement of IOT&E.
P-3C Orion
The legacy P-3C fleet continues to provide ASW, ASUW, and ISR
support for Joint and Naval operations worldwide. In fiscal year 2013,
$148.4 million is requested for P-3C airframe and mission systems
sustainment. Nearly one third ($41.4 million) is for wing modifications
to support the CNO's P-3 Fleet Response Plan, as well as supporting EP-
3E requirements, which are executed within the P-3 Airframe Sustainment
Program. Mission systems sustainment and modernization totals $107
million to address numerous safety of flight and obsolescence issues.
The P-3C is being sustained to maintain warfighting capability and
capacity until completion of P-8A transition in fiscal year 2018.
The aircraft is well beyond planned fatigue life of 7,500 hours for
critical components, with an average airframe usage of over 17,000
hours. Since February 2005, 14 aircraft grounding bulletins have
impacted 118 P-3 aircraft. In December 2007, NAVAIR's ongoing RDT&E
funded P-3 Fatigue Life Management Program determined that in addition
to existing structural fatigue issues associated with the forward lower
wing section (Zones 2-4), the lower aft wing surface (Zone 5) of the P-
3 aircraft showed fatigue damage beyond acceptable risk resulting in
the grounding of an additional 39 P-3 aircraft. As of February 2012, a
total of 75 aircraft have been grounded for Zone 5 fatigue. P-3
groundings due to known material fatigue will continue for the
remainder of the P-3 program, and unknown fatigue issues will continue
to present persistent risk until P-8A transition is complete. A return
to pre-December 2007 aircraft availability numbers was achieved in
December 2010; 83 P-3C mission aircraft are available today. Preserving
funding for Zone 5 and outer wing kits and installations is critical to
sustaining the minimum number of P-3Cs until replaced by the P-8A. The
Navy will continue to manage closely the service life of the P-3C
through transition to the P-8A Poseidon.
EP-3 Aries Replacement/Sustainment
The EP-3E ARIES is the Navy's premier manned airborne intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (AISR&T) platform. The
joint airborne SIGINT common configuration includes signals
intelligence (SIGINT) spiral upgrades, which, in conjunction with
SECDEF and the ISR Task Force (ISR TF) surge efforts, are fielding a
robust multi-intelligence (INT) capability inside the FYDP. Multi-INT
sensors, robust communication, voice over IP and data links employed by
the flexible and dependable P-3 air vehicle help ensure effective
AISR&T support to conventional and non-conventional warfare across the
current range of military operations. Operating around the globe, the
EP-3E continues to satisfy critical Joint, Combatant Commander, and
Service airborne ISR priorities and requirements.
In fiscal year 2013, the President's budget request is $79.4
million in APN, including $13.0 million for OCO to address EP-3E SIGINT
and communications capability upgrades and obsolescence. The APN
request supports the FRP installations and procurements for
communications intelligence modifications necessary to keep pace with
the evolving threat. The EP-3E program continues to modify aircraft
with multi-intelligence capability to meet emergent classified
requirements. Modifications are necessary to keep the platform viable
until the EP-3 capabilities are recapitalized.
The Navy is in the process of developing the AISR&T family of
systems construct to recapitalize the EP-3 AISR&T capabilities within
existing of Program of Record platforms; BAMS, VTUAV, UCLASS, P-8, H-
60, and E-2D. The strategy has been further refined to focus on module
systems and payloads required for the Navy to conduct AISR&T on a
variety of vehicles, providing the COCOM with scalable capability and
capacity. An inclusive full spectrum approach of the Navy sea and shore
based manned and unmanned platforms align with the CNO's priorities.
assault support helicopter
CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $606 million
RDT&E,N to continue SDD of the CH-53K. Since completing its critical
design review in July 2010, the CH-53K program began system capability
and manufacturing process demonstration, and started fabrication of the
first test aircraft. During fiscal year 2013, the program will continue
work on manufacturing the various test articles needed to support
developmental test activities to achieve the planned first flight of
the CH-53K in 2014.
The new build CH-53K will replace the legacy fleet of CH-53D/E
helicopters with an aircraft that provides the performance necessary to
support our future warfighting requirements. The CH-53E Super Stallion
provides unparalleled combat assault support to the MAGTF and is one of
the Marine Corps' most-stressed aviation communities. CH-53s, providing
vital lift of heavy equipment, supplies and troops, are currently
deployed in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and onboard ship with our
MEUs. Since May 2011, CH-53D/Es have flown over 19,000 hours; carried
more than 73,000 passengers and moved over thirteen million pounds of
cargo in support of coalition forces in Afghanistan and the Horn of
Africa while flying well above their programmed rates in austere,
expeditionary conditions. The need for heavy lift support has increased
substantially when compared to last year's numbers over the same
reporting period. The only heavy lift helicopters deployed to
Afghanistan, CH-53D/Es have performed combat external recoveries of
five coalition helicopters during this period. Forward-deployed
aircraft have been operating at up to three times the peacetime
utilization rates.
To keep these platforms viable until the CH-53K enters service, the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $61.4 million for both
near- and mid-term enhancements, including Integrated Mechanical
Diagnostic System, T-64 Engine Reliability Improvement Program kits,
directed infrared countermeasures, critical survivability upgrade, and
sustainment efforts such as Kapton wiring replacement. While these
aircraft are achieving unprecedented operational milestones, they are
nearing the end of their service life. The CH-53E is approaching 30
years of service and the CH-53D is scheduled to retire from active
service in late 2012, after operating for almost 40 years.
The new-build CH-53K will fulfill land and sea based heavy-lift
requirements not resident in any of today's platforms, and contribute
directly to the increased agility, lethality, and presence of joint
task forces and MAGTFs. The CH-53K will transport 27,000 pounds of
external cargo out to a range of 110 nautical miles, nearly tripling
the CH-53E's lift capability under similar environmental conditions,
while fitting into the same shipboard footprint. The CH-53K will also
provide unparalleled lift capability under the high altitude, hot
weather conditions similar to those found in Afghanistan, greatly
expanding the commander's operational reach.
Maintainability and reliability enhancements of the CH-53K will
improve aircraft availability and operational effectiveness over the
current CH-53E with improved cost effectiveness. Additionally,
survivability and force protection enhancements will increase
protection dramatically, for both aircrew and passengers, thereby
broadening the depth and breadth of heavy lift operational support to
the joint task force and MAGTF commander. Expeditionary heavy-lift
capabilities will continue to be critical to successful land- and sea-
based operations in future anti-access, area-denial environments,
enabling seabasing and the joint operating concepts of force
application and focused logistics.
attack and utility aircraft
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $31.1 million in
RDT&E,N for continued product improvements and $824.1 million in APN
for 28 H-1 Upgrade aircraft: 15 UH-1Y and 13 AH-1Z (includes one OCO)
aircraft. The program is a key modernization effort designed to resolve
existing safety deficiencies, to enhance operational effectiveness, and
to extend the service life of both aircraft. The 85 percent commonality
between the UH-1Y and AH-1Z will reduce lifecycle costs and logistical
footprint significantly, while increasing the maintainability and
deployability of both aircraft. The program will provide the Marine
Corps 349 H-1 aircraft through a combination of remanufacturing and new
production.
The H-1 Upgrades Program is replacing the Marine Corps' UH-1N and
AH-1W helicopters with state-of-the-art UH-1Y and AH-1Z aircraft. These
legacy aircraft have proven enormously effective over decades of heavy
use, and as they reach the end of their service lives, we look forward
to expanding utility and attack helicopter capabilities. The new
``Yankee'' and ``Zulu'' aircraft are fielded with integrated glass
cockpits, world-class sensors, and advanced helmet-mounted sight and
display systems. The future growth plan includes a digitally-aided,
close air support (CAS) system designed to tie these airframes, their
sensors, and their weapons systems together with ground combat forces
and capable DOD aircraft. Low-cost weapons such as the Advanced
Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) will increase lethality
while reducing collateral damage.
The UH-1Y ``Yankee'' aircraft achieved Initial Operating Capability
(IOC) in August 2008 and full rate production (FRP) in September 2008.
The ``Yankee Forward'' procurement strategy prioritized UH-1Y
production in order to replace the under-powered UH-1N fleet as quickly
as possible. The AH-1Z completed its operational evaluation (OT-II3C)
in June 2010 and received approval for FRP in November 2010. As of
April 6, 2012, 81 aircraft (58 UH-1Ys and 23 AH-1Zs) have been
delivered to the Fleet Marine Force; an additional 50 aircraft are on
contract and in production. Lots 1-5 aircraft deliveries are complete
and Lot 6 deliveries are progressing on schedule. To date, all aircraft
deliveries since Lot 3 have been completed ahead of the contracted
schedule date.
The AH-1Z achieved IOC in February 2011 and in November 2011, the
first all-Upgrades (UH-1Y/AH-1Z) MEU departed on November 15, 2011 with
the USS Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group. The UH-1Y completed its
first overseas deployment with the 13th MEU in July 2009 and has
supported sustained combat operations in Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) since November 2009. The fourth OEF UH-1Y deployment (nine
aircraft) is ongoing, and aircraft continue to meet required readiness
goals. This deployment marks 2 years in OEF with the UH-1Y flying
nearly 11,500 hours in support of combat operations. The aircraft
continue to fly three times the normal continental United States
(CONUS)-based utilization rate in OEF, and increased sortie rates are
expected in support of the 11th MEU. The combined UH-1Y/AH-1Z fleet has
flown over 44,000 hours since first delivery in January 2007.
In December 2011, to address existing attack helicopter shortfalls,
the Marine Corps decided to pursue an all AH-1Z build new (ZBN)
procurement strategy and leave AH-1W airframes in inventory rather than
removing them to begin the remanufacture process. The transition to an
all ZBN airframe strategy is planned to begin with Lot 10 (fiscal year
2013) as reflected in the current USMC program of record. The previous
mix of 131 remanufactured AH-1Z and 58 ZBN aircraft has been revised to
delivery of 37 remanufactured AH-1Z and 152 ZBN aircraft. The total
aircraft procurement numbers remain the same at 160 UH-1Ys and 189 AH-
1Zs for a total of 349 aircraft.
antisubmarine and support helicopter
MH-60R and MH-60S
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $843.1 million for
19 MH-60R aircraft including Advanced Procurement (AP) for 19 fiscal
year 2014 aircraft and $6.9 million RDT&E,N for continued replacement
of the Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System MK III SH-60B and carrier-
based SH-60F helicopters with the MH-60R. The RDT&E,N funds will
continue development of the Mode V interrogation capability for the
identification friend-or-foe system. The Automatic Radar Periscope
Detection and Discrimination program, a fleet-driven capability upgrade
to the APS-147 Radar, is scheduled for IOC in fourth quarter, fiscal
year 2013.
The MH-60R is used in both ASW with its dipping sonar, sonobuoys
and torpedoes and in the surface warfare (SUW) role with its
Electronics Surveillance Measures system, multimode radar with inverse
synthetic aperture radar, Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) system and
Hellfire missiles. It has demonstrated significant improvement in
capability in the ASW and SUW capability roles over legacy systems. The
MH-60R program achieved FRP in 2006 and the fifth MH-60R operational
deployment is currently underway with HSM-77 aboard the carrier USS
Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). There are five operational carrier air wing
squadrons and two fleet replacement squadrons operating the MH-60R.
Three additional air wing and two Expeditionary operational squadrons
will transition to the MH-60R by the end of fiscal year 2013.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $456.9 million in
APN for 18 MH-60S aircraft including AP for 18 fiscal year 2014
aircraft and $29.7 million in RDT&E,N funds for the MH-60S to continue
development of the Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM) (Block
II) and the Armed Helicopter (Block III) missions. The MH-60S is the
Navy's primary combat support helicopter designed to support carrier
and expeditionary strike groups. The MH-60S has replaced three legacy
Navy helicopter platforms. The basic MH-60S reached IOC and FRP in
2002. The Armed Helicopter configuration reached IOC in 2007 and OAMCM
is scheduled to reach IOC with the LCS Mission Module in 2014. The
fifth MH-60S operational deployment is currently underway with HSC-12
aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). MH-60S helicopters currently
operate with self-defense equipment, crew-served weapons and Hellfire
missiles. MH-60S configuration enhancements include fixed forward
firing weapons that will begin fielding in 2012. There are five
operational carrier air wing squadrons, six Expeditionary squadrons,
and two fleet replacement squadrons operating the MH-60S. One
additional air wing squadron will transition to the MH-60S by the end
of fiscal year 2013.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Consolidated Appropriations Act included congressional authority to
enter into the joint Army UH-60M/HH-60M and Navy MH-60R/S helicopter
MYP contract (MYP8) and the Navy MH-60R/S Mission Systems and Common
Cockpit contract (MYP2).
executive support aircraft
VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopters Series
The VH-3D and VH-60N are safely performing the executive lift
mission worldwide. As these aircraft continue to provide seamless
vertical lift for the President and Vice President of the United
States, the Department is working closely with HMX-1 and industry to
sustain these aircraft until a Presidential Replacement platform is
fielded. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests an investment
of $58 million to continue programs that will ensure the in-service
Presidential fleet remains a safe and reliable platform. Ongoing
efforts include the Cockpit Upgrade Program for the VH-60N,
Communications Suite Upgrade, Structural Enhancement Program and the
Obsolescence Management Program. The VH-3D Cockpit Upgrade Program, a
fiscal year 2012 new start program, will provide a common cockpit with
the VH-60N and address obsolescence issues. Continued investments in
the in-service fleet will ensure continued safe and reliable execution
of the executive lift mission.
VH-71/VXX Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget includes $61.1 million for
continuing efforts on VXX, the follow-on program for presidential
helicopters. The fiscal year 2013 request reflects a funding adjustment
that is a result of rephasing the VXX program.
The requirement for a replacement Presidential helicopter was
validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council; the details and
specifications on how the requirement will be met safely and affordably
have not yet been finalized. VXX activity in 2012 will focus on
completing the update to the AoA, and to continue to develop an
acquisition strategy that targets affordability, cost control and
reduction of risk prior to the award any major contracts. The Navy will
leverage the results from the risk and cost reduction activities
associated with maturing technologies to not only improve the
functionality and sustainment of the in-service Presidential helicopter
fleet, but to also position the replacement program for optimal
execution.
unmanned aerial systems
MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAS
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $657.5 million
RDT&E,N to continue SDD of the BAMS UAS, $51.1 million in APN for
procurement of long-lead materials for the first lot of low-rate
initial production aircraft, and $70.9 million in Military Construction
to construct a main operating base at NAS Jacksonville, as well as a
forward operating base and a maintenance training facility to support
IOC. The Milestone B decision for the BAMS UAS program was achieved on
April 18, 2008. The program is on schedule and will complete first
flight this year, with Milestone C planned for fiscal year 2013. The
BAMS UAS program will meet the Navy requirement for a persistent ISR
capability. BAMS UAS is a large Group-5 system that will greatly
enhance situational awareness of the battlespace and shorten the
sensor-to-shooter kill chain.
The Navy procured two Air Force (USAF) Global Hawk (Block 10) UASs
in fiscal year 2004 for demonstration purposes and to perform risk
reduction activities for the BAMS UAS Program. This effort is known as
the BAMS-Demonstrator (BAMS-D) program. In April 2011, Navy accepted
three additional Block 10 aircraft from the USAF to be utilized as
spare parts assets. BAMS-D UAS has been deployed to the CENTCOM theater
of operations for over 3 years.
MQ-8B Vertical Takeoff and landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) and
associated Rapid Deployment Capability (RDC) efforts
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is an autonomous vertical takeoff and landing
tactical UAV (VTUAV) designed to operate from all air-capable ships,
carry modular mission payloads, and operate using the Tactical Control
System and line-of-sight Tactical Common Data Link. Fire Scout has
completed over 200 autonomous ship board take-offs and landings. The
fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $99.6 million RDT&E to
continue development of an endurance upgrade (MQ-8C), integrate radar
and integrate weapons on the MQ-8B, and $133.8 million APN for the
production of six Fire Scout MQ-8C aircraft and ship control stations.
The RDT&E budget includes funding to increase endurance and integrate
specialty payloads to support the Special Operation Forces (SOF)
mission using the RDC process (Approved AFRICOM JUONS) and satisfy a
NAVCENT Urgent Operational Needs Statement 18-month Rapid Deployment
Capability for the weaponization of the MQ-8B. The MQ-8B aircraft
quantity supports Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) missions, near-term SOF
missions until the MQ-8C endurance upgrade is fielded and ISR TF
demands in Afghanistan. Procurement of ship-based control stations is
aligned with both the LCS mission and outfitting frigates (FFGs) and
other ships to support the SOF missions. The ship-based control station
and other ship ancillary equipment is common between MQ-8B and MQ-8C.
Production of the MQ-8C was included in the APN budget starting in
fiscal year 2012. Commonality of avionics, software, and payloads
between the MQ-8B and MQ-8C is being maximized. The primary difference
between the MQ-8B and MQ-8C is in the commercial airframe provided for
each variant. The MQ-8B uses the Schweitzer 333 helicopter while the
MQ-8C uses the Bell 407 helicopter. The MQ-8C will almost triple the
MQ-8B endurance and greatly increase the payload capacity. At least 28
MQ-8C aircraft Endurance Upgrades are required to support the SOF
mission and are included in the RDC. The MQ-8B system has performed a
military utility assessment (MUA) aboard USS Halyburton to evolve fleet
concepts for operation of the system and successfully completed a 2
month SOF proof of concept evaluation in an operational environment.
Fire Scout has been integrated into and is currently deployed aboard
USS Simpson and deployments are in work for USS Klakring, USS Bradley,
and USS Samuel B. Roberts to support SOF and Navy operations in 2012
and 2013. Fire Scout was deployed to Afghanistan in April 2011 to
support the ISR Task Force with 300 hours per month of ISR video from
an expeditionary facility. As of February 2012, Fire Scout has provided
over 2,100 ISR flight hours in Afghanistan. The Afghan 90 day user
assessment gave Fire Scout its highest grades in all categories, and
the user has requested additional Fire Scout aircraft and spares to
grow the requirement to 600 hours per month. The Fire Scout program
will also continue to support integration and testing in all LCS-based
mission modules. Navy continues to cooperate with the Coast Guard for
their ship-based UAS planning.
Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $142.3 million
RDT&E to continue the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier
Demonstration (UCAS-D) efforts to research a tactical jet-sized,
carrier-suitable, low-observable-relevant, unmanned aircraft system.
The UCAS-D program will demonstrate UCAS carrier operations and
autonomous aerial refueling (AAR), and mature required technologies to
technology readiness level (TRL)-6 in support of potential follow on
unmanned acquisition programs. The aviation/ship integration portion of
the program is meeting all technical objectives, with surrogate
aircraft flights in vicinity of aircraft carriers (CV) completed in
2009 and 2010. In July 2011, the first ever unmanned coupled approaches
to CVN landing were completed and integration data was gathered during
F/A-18 surrogate testing aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). The
UCAS-D contract was competitively awarded to Northrop Grumman in August
2007. The program was re-baselined in 2010 due to delays in the
original contract schedule which was focused on early completion of
UCAS-D objectives. The re-baselined schedule is executable within
existing resources; completion of the carrier demonstration is planned
for fiscal year 2013. The first X-47B (AV-1) completed its first flight
February 4, 2011 and has flown a total of 16 envelope expansion flights
at Edwards AFB, CA. AV-2 completed its first flight November 22, 2011.
AV-1 completed transport to NAS Patuxent River, MD, in December 2011 to
begin check-outs and testing in support of carrier suitability and
operations. Shipboard X-47B deck handling operations and flight
operations in the vicinity of an aircraft carrier are scheduled to
begin in the fourth quarter of 2012. Actual catapult launches, arrested
landings and additional flight operations in the vicinity of a CV are
scheduled to be completed in 2013. The latest AAR testing period was
completed in January 2012 utilizing a manned surrogate aircraft, and
AAR development and testing will continue throughout 2012 and 2013. The
program is constrained by USN CVN schedules and planning. Currently the
program is working closely with USN and CVN leadership to reduce risk
and align program and CVN operational schedules to best accommodate
demonstration objectives. UCAS-D is an essential first step toward
full-scale development of a carrier-suitable unmanned ISR/strike
platform. Successful UCAS-D sea trials will set the stage for potential
follow-on acquisition programs.
Medium Range Maritime UAS
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget indefinitely defers the
Medium Range Maritime UAS (MRMUAS) prior to initiation of Milestone A.
OSD (AT&L) approved the MRMUAS Material Solution Analysis and
authorized the start of an AoA and a draft capability development
document (CDD) in fiscal year 2011. The AoA and CDD drafting will be
completed in fiscal year 2012. These documents will support the Navy's
next generation of sea based Group 4 UAS and identify technology
investments needed to improve the Navy's sea based UAS systems.
Tactical Control Station
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $9.1 million RDT&E
for the Tactical Control Station (TCS). TCS provides a standards
compliant, open architecture, with scalable capabilities for command,
control, of the VTUAV system. TCS completed the software transition
from the Solaris operating system to the Linux operating system in
2011. The Linux operating system conversion will overcome hardware
obsolescent issues with the VTUAV Solaris-based control stations and
provide lower cost software updates using DOD common application
software. In addition, the TCS Linux upgrade will enhance collaboration
with the Navy's future UAS common control station. The TCS program is
also supporting the VTUAV weaponization, radar, and MQ-8C endurance
upgrade RDC efforts. The TCS program has continually met schedule and
cost goals over the last 5 years while delivering quality software. In
fiscal year 2013, TCS will continue the VTUAV RDC efforts, support
transitioning the Linux operating system software to a technology
refreshed control station, enhance the VTUAV Ocean Surveillance
Initiative for ships Automatic Identification System and sensor track
generation, and develop an interface to an ISR Process Exploit
Dissemination (PED) system. The PED system will facilitate imagery
analysis and utilization by the host ship.
Cargo Unmanned Aerial System
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget is not requesting funding
for continued Cargo Unmanned Aerial System (CUAS) deployment in fiscal
year 2013. The previous effort supported the USMC operational
requirements captured in a CUAS Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONS).
The Marine Corps is assigned the lead service. Two vendors were awarded
contracts in support of Cargo UAS development. The CUAS initiative is a
MUA which will inform a follow-on program of record.
Lockheed Martin/Kaman KMAX Cargo UAS completed the quick reaction
assessment on time and was selected for the RDC. CUAS operations were
started in November 2011 and are planned for 6 months with priced
options for an additional 6 months. The CUAS is meeting the RDC goals
and is also supporting the development of UAS concept of operations
(CONOPS).
The purpose of the Cargo UAS capability is to develop CONOPS to
``get trucks off the roads'' in combat zones, minimizing the improvised
explosive device threat to logistics convoys. The CUAS will provide a
low risk, persistent, 24-hour capability for dispersed forces on the
battlefield. This capability mitigates the requirement for manned
ground vehicles to resupply forces in remote locations. The CUAS will
also augment manned aviation assault support assets and airdrop methods
when the weather, terrain, and enemy pose an unsuitable level of risk.
Aerial delivery of cargo by the CUAS, between main logistical hubs and
remote ``spokes,'' is being executed under the control of a ground
control station at a main operating base and a remote terminal at the
drop-off zone.
RQ-21A Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS)
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $33.9 million in
RDT&E,N ($9.73 million Navy, $24.2 million Marine Corps) and $9.6
million in APN and $27.6 million in PMC for 15 (5 USN, 10 USMC) RQ-21A
Integrator STUAS that will address Marine Corps and Navy ISR capability
shortfalls currently supported by service contracts. This Group 3 UAS
will provide persistent, ship and land-based ISR support for tactical-
level maneuver decisions and unit level force defense/force protection
missions. Milestone B and contract award occurred in July 2010.
Milestone C and LRIP decisions are scheduled for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2013. STUAS will enter into IOT&E 3rd Qtr fiscal year 2013.
RQ-7B Marine Corps Tactical UAS (MCTUAS)
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $0.9 million RDT&E
to continue development efforts and government engineering support and
$49.3 million in APN to support the continuation of congressionally
mandated TCDL retrofits for RQ-7B Shadow units. USMC Shadow squadrons
have seen continuous service in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2007. The
USMC received its 13th RQ-7B Shadow system in first quarter fiscal year
2012, completing baseline fielding for four squadrons. The USMC Shadow
systems are identical to Army Shadow systems, bringing interoperability
and commonality between Army and Marine Corps unmanned aircraft units
operating side-by-side in Afghanistan. An 18-month initiative to
weaponize two USMC RQ-7B systems with a laser-guided projectile was
started in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012.
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $122.5 million
RDT&E for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS) System efforts. The UCLASS system will enhance carrier
capability and versatility for the Joint Forces commander through
integration of a persistent and mission flexible unmanned aircraft into
the carrier air wing. In April 2011, the UCLASS initial capabilities
document was approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. The
UCLASS system will provide persistent intelligence surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) with precision strike in a range of mission
including irregular warfare and major combatant operations
environments. It will be sustainable onboard an aircraft carrier, as
well as ashore, and will be designed to minimize increases in the
logistics footprint of the current carrier air wing. The UCLASS system
will have the ability to pass command and control information along
with sensor data to other aircraft, naval vessels, and ground forces.
Sensor data will be transmitted, in either raw or processed forms, at
appropriate classification levels, to exploitation nodes afloat and
ashore. Interfaces will be provided with existing ship and land-based
command and control systems, including ISR tasking, as well as
processing, exploitation, and dissemination systems. The UCLASS system
will achieve these capabilities through the use of a carrier-suitable,
semi-autonomous, unmanned air segment, a control system and
connectivity segment, and a carrier segment.
weapons programs
Tactical Tomahawk BLK IV Cruise Missile Program
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $308.97 million of
Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for procurement of an additional 196
BLK IV weapons and associated support, $34.9 million of OPN for the
Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS), and $8.8 million in
RDT&E for capability updates of the weapon system. WPN resources will
be for the continued procurement of this versatile, combat-proven,
deep-strike weapon system in order to meet surface and subsurface ship-
fill load-outs and combat requirements. OPN resources will address the
resolution of TTWCS obsolescence and interoperability mandates. RDT&E
will be used to complete engineering, test, and transition of the Joint
Multi-Effect Warhead System into the program production baseline. Since
the submittal of the President's budget request for 2012, Congress
approved the fiscal year 2011 Omnibus reprogramming request for $310
million to replace the 221 missiles expended in Operation Odyssey Dawn.
These additional missiles will be procured in fiscal year 2012. Due to
constraints in the ceiling in the fiscal year 2012 contract, 56
missiles funded with fiscal year 2012 procurement funds will be added
to quantities funded with fiscal year 2013 procurement funds (196) and
will be ordered under the fiscal year 2013 contract.
Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center
Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC) is the mission
planning segment of the Tomahawk Weapon System. Under the umbrella of
TMPC, Tomahawk Command and Control System (TC2S) develops and
distributes strike missions for the Tomahawk Missile; provides
precision strike planning, execution, coordination, missile control and
reporting; and enables Maritime Component Commanders the capability to
plan and/or modify conventional Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile missions.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $2.5 million RDT&E and
$42.9 million OPN for continued TMPC system upgrades and support. These
resources will complete fielding of TC2S version 4.3, complete the
upgrade and testing to TC2S versions 5.0, begin the redesign of legacy
software code in the Tomahawk Planning System, a TC2S component, to
increase system security, and initiate the upgrade to TC2S version 6.0.
These planned upgrades will improve joint interoperability, mission
planning time and system usability. These resources are critical
towards supporting 125 planning sites, to include Cruise Missile
Support Activities; Tomahawk strike and mission planning cells; carrier
strike groups, command and control nodes and labs/training classrooms.
Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X)
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $21.1 million of
RDT&E and $80.2 million of WPN for this joint DoN and USAF program.
RDT&E will be applied toward AIM-9X/BLK II developmental/operational
tests and requirements definition for Joint Staff-directed insensitive
munitions requirements, as well as initial AIM-9X/Block III development
activities. WPN will be for production of a combined 150 all-up-rounds
and captive air training missiles and missile-related hardware. The
AIM-9X Sidewinder missile is the newest in the Sidewinder family and is
the only short-range infrared air-to-air missile integrated on USN/
USMC/USAF strike-fighter aircraft. This fifth-generation weapon
incorporates high off-boresight acquisition capability and increased
seeker sensitivity through an imaging infrared focal plane array seeker
with advanced guidance processing for improved target acquisition; and
advanced thrust vectoring capability to achieve superior
maneuverability and increase the probability of intercept of adversary
aircraft.
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-120)
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $2.9 million for
continuing RDT&E efforts and $102.7 million for production of 67
captive air training missiles and missile-related hardware. AMRAAM is a
joint Navy and Air Force missile that counters existing aircraft and
cruise-missile threats. It uses advanced electronic attack capabilities
at both high and low altitudes, and can engage from beyond visual range
as well as within visual range. AMRAAM provides an air-to-air first
look, first shot, first kill capability, while working within a
networked environment in support of the Navy's theater air and missile
defense mission area.
Small Diameter Bomb II
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $31.1 million of
RDT&E for the continued development of this joint DoN and USAF weapon
and bomb-rack program. Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) provides an
adverse weather, day or night standoff capability against mobile,
moving, and fixed targets, and enables target prosecution while
minimizing collateral damage. SDB II will be integrated into the
internal carriage of both the Navy (F-35C) and Marine Corps (F-35B)
variants of the Joint Strike Fighter and will be compatible with the
BRU-61/A miniature-munitions carriage. The Joint Miniature Munitions
Bomb Rack Unit (JMM BRU) BRU-61A/A is being developed to meet the
operational and environmental integration requirements for internal bay
carriage of the SDB II in the F-35B and F-35C. SDB II entered Milestone
B in August 2010 and successfully completed its Critical Design Review
in January 2011. JMM BRU will enter technology development in May 2013.
Joint Standoff Weapon
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $5.5 million of
RDT&E for continued Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)-C-1 test activity and
$127.6 million of WPN for production of 280 all-up rounds. The JSOW-C-1
variant fills a critical capability gap by adding maritime moving-
target capability to the highly successful baseline JSOW-C program.
JSOW-C-1 targeting is achieved via a data-link and guidance software
improvements.
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $7.0 million of
RDT&E for the follow-on development and test program and $86.7 million
of WPN for production of 100 all-up rounds and captive air training
missiles. The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)
development program transforms the legacy High-Speed Anti-Radiation
Missile (HARM) into an affordable, lethal, and flexible time-sensitive
strike weapon system for conducting destruction of enemy air defense
missions. AARGM adds multi-spectral targeting capability and targeting
geospecificity to its supersonic fly-out to destroy sophisticated enemy
air defenses and expand upon the HARM anti-radiation missile target
set. The program was approved for its third LRIP contract in October
2012. IOT&E restarted on August 10, 2011 and fired the last live test
shots in March 2012. IOC on the F/A-18C/D aircraft is planned for the
third quarter of fiscal year 2012. A full rate production decision is
planned for the second half of fiscal year 2012.
Hellfire Weapon System
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $91.5 million,
including $17.0 million of OCO funding, for 1,210 Hellfire all-up-round
weapons. Hellfire procurements are a mix of thermobaric, blast/
fragmentation, and anti-armor warheads, to provide maximum operational
flexibility to our warfighters. This procurement quantity will bring
the inventory total to approximately 60-percent of the munitions
requirement and will increase our training assets. The DoN continues to
support legacy Hellfire weapons as well as procure and support
technology enhancements that will provide the warfighter the
flexibility to prosecute new and emerging threats. The Hellfire missile
continues to be a priority weapon for current military operations as it
enables our warfighters to attack targets in the caves of Afghanistan,
as well as to prosecute military operations in urban environments.
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $42.1 million of
PAN&MC, including $17.9 million of OCO funding, for procurement of
2,358 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) Precision
Guidance Kits. After the DoN assumed program authority from the Army on
September 30, 2008, Congress appropriated funding and approved a DoN
above-threshold reprogramming (ATR) request in fiscal year 2008 to
complete APKWS II development. Milestone C was achieved in April 2010
and LRIP contract award in July 2010. IOT&E was successfully completed
in January 2012. IOC was achieved in March 2012. The program is on
track for a full rate production decision the third quarter of fiscal
year 2012. APKWS II will provide an unprecedented precision guidance
capability upgrading our current unguided rockets, improving accuracy
and minimizing collateral damage. The program is on schedule to meet
the needs of our warfighters in today's theaters of operations.
Direct Attack Moving Target Capability
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $15.4 million for
the second FRP order of 1,069 weapons. Direct Attack Moving Target
Capability (DAMTC) was initiated as a fiscal year 2007 RDC in response
to an urgent requirement identified by the combatant commander
overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RDC has now
transitioned to a formal program of record, designated Joint
Integration, entering the Department's formal acquisition system at
Milestone C. DAMTC provides a flexible, dual-mode weapon capable of
precision guidance and attack on stationary targets through the
weather, as well as reactive targeting and attack of moving and
maneuvering targets in clear weather. The material solution for the
DAMTC program is the Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition. The Laser JDAM
leverages proven baseline JDAM technology and the existing JDAM
logistics infrastructure mitigating life-cycle support costs.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget provides no funding for the
Joint Air-to-Ground (JAGM) Program. The JAGM system is currently a
Joint Department of the Army/Department of the Navy pre-Major Defense
Acquisition Program with the Army designated as the lead service. The
Government utilized full and open competition to initiate the
technology development (TD) phase of the JAGM program. In the TD Phase,
the two contractors completed a preliminary design review, wind tunnel
and ground testing, and flight testing in support of initial Navy
platform integration activities. The originally planned 27-month TD
phase is complete and OSD AT&L recently provided approval to extend the
JAGM TD Phase. The Services recognize that Hellfire capability and
inventory issues need to be addressed and that the requirement for JAGM
remains valid. The extended TD Phase is addressing affordability
concerns with the JAGM missile, and discussions continue between the
DoN, the Army and OSD on the path forward.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Admiral.
We will have 7-minute rounds for each of the Senator's
questions, and I would ask that we would be notified when we
hit that 7 minutes.
General Wolfenbarger, let me just ask a few follow-up
questions on the F-22 problems in part for the record but,
obviously, because I am interested. Describe what some of the
problems have been from the pilots' point of view with the life
support systems and hypoxia.
General Wolfenbarger. Sir, we have had about 14 incidents
of hypoxia-like symptoms prior to standing down the fleet, and
that lasted about 4 months. We then began to fly again, and we
have had 11 incidents since. Each individual is different in
terms of their own unique symptoms, but there is generally
disorientation, perhaps some dizziness, a feeling of nausea in
some cases.
Senator Lieberman. Obviously, there are symptoms
experienced in air in the plane.
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Have the pilots been left with symptoms
after they leave the aircraft?
General Wolfenbarger. At times, yes, sir, and when they
land, they are highly encouraged on the first onset of a sense
that something does not feel right, that if there is any doubt
in their mind at all, they have been counseled to return to
base and to immediately report the incident, at which point
they are screened, various samples are taken and sent to the
medical experts so that we can collect the data associated with
these incidents when they do occur.
Senator Lieberman. Have any of the pilots been left with
lasting disabilities as a result of these problems?
General Wolfenbarger. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
Senator Lieberman. Proceed then with the additional
information you were going to offer.
General Wolfenbarger. Sir, over the last few years in
operation of the F-22, as we started to realize we were having
these incidents, we have had a number of safety investigations
that we have undertaken. Most recently, we had asked our
scientific advisory board to do a very in-depth study. Through
all of that work, we have yet to determine what the root cause
is of that hypoxia-like reaction.
We have, however, in each one of those investigations
collected a body of recommendations and risk mitigation types
of activities that we could undertake. As we went through the
process of standing down the fleet and did as much data
collection as we could do on the ground to facilitate that
analysis, and as we began to contemplate the need to return to
fly, this is our only fifth generation aircraft in our
inventory.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. That is what is so critical.
General Wolfenbarger. Our combatant commanders are
requesting it be deployed, if for nothing else, the deterrence
value of that asset. As we stood down, we realized that our
pilots were beginning to be impacted in terms of their
proficiency not being in the cockpit and being in the air.
We went through five rigorous steps in determining we were
ready to return to fly.
We started off by doing a full fleet inspection. We did a
comprehensive first one-time inspection and then we have
continued to inspect since to determine if there were any
indicators that there are issues with the life support system.
We trained the crews, so we educated them on everything
that we knew up to that point. We also shared with them the
concept of operations that we ask them to operate to, which is,
again if you have any doubt, any sense that there is something
not right with you or with your airplane, there is no penalty
for returning to base and informing the leadership that there
has been an incident.
We then took several steps to protect the crews. I
mentioned that there are 17 things that we have either fielded
or have underway or have ahead of us. As I mentioned, the
existing system in the airplane is an emergency oxygen system.
We had some feedback from the pilots that reaching for the
handle was difficult to do with some of the cold weather gear,
particularly up in the Alaska arena. So we took steps. In fact,
that mitigation has already been fielded, as well as asking
each one of our pilots to wear pulse oximeters on their finger
as they fly so that they can monitor their own oxygen levels
and when it reaches a point at which they would be concerned,
then that is an indication that they need to return to base.
There are several others. There are 17 in total.
Then we began to collect the data as we returned to flying,
and we have been analyzing the data ever since.
We are determined to get to the root cause. We have all of
the best minds on this that we can find, and that is across
DOD. Certainly we have had Navy participation in this effort.
We have had National Aeronautics and Space Administration
participation. We have had academia and industry experts as
well trying to core to what the root cause is. We started with
hundreds of potential root causes as we went through the
failure tree analysis. We have cored to two primary limbs in
that tree. Either it is an issue with a contaminant getting
into the system or it is an issue with not having enough oxygen
coming to our pilots. There are a number of different things
that we are reviewing for each of those different categories of
root causes.
We have some recent data that we are starting to believe
that we are coming to closure on that root cause. We are
realizing that we operate this aircraft differently than we
operate any of our other fighter aircraft. We fly at a higher
altitude. We execute maneuvers that are high G at high
altitude, and we are on that oxygen system at those high
altitudes for periods of time.
Senator Lieberman. So that may be part of the problem.
General Wolfenbarger. That is what we are coring to, sir. I
am not ready to say yet that we are ready to declare a root
cause. But we do feel that we, through all of those mitigation
activities and through the training of the air crews, believe
that we are safe to fly with the stipulation that when an air
crew member feels as though there is an issue, they know
exactly what to do.
Senator Lieberman. I just want to clarify. You said that
since the fleet went up in the air again, we have had 11 more
cases. I presume that is a very small percentage of the
missions flown.
General Wolfenbarger. That's .1 percent, yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Did you say less than 1 percent?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, .1 percent.
Senator Lieberman. Point 1 percent.
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. But still, I presume that our goal is
zero.
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate the effort that you put
into this.
Are the manufacturers of the life support systems involved
in all this work?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Lieberman. I presume it is critical to fly at the
altitudes that the plane is being flown at. So if that is the
problem, what might the solution be?
General Wolfenbarger. I think we have to finish that root
cause analysis, sir, and get to what those mitigations would be
to completely eliminate the problem.
I would tell you that we have found in the work that we
have done that these hypoxia-like incidents with an on-board
oxygen generation type of a system are not unique to the F-22.
There are other fleets that we have experienced hypoxia-like
incidents in as well. We are incorporating feedback from all of
those other communities and we are getting to what the root
cause might be and certainly sharing what we discover.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. I presume that there are no common
physical characteristics in the pilots that have experienced
this. I know they are all in good shape, but have you checked
for that as well?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir. That is part of that data
collection that is ongoing, although I will tell you that our
Air Combat Command is running this task force that is doing all
of that data collection and analysis. So I would need to, if
you are interested, come over and sponsor a full-blown briefing
on that.
Senator Lieberman. Yes, I would be interested in having
that happen.
My time is up, but for now, I want to thank you. Obviously,
it is an unfortunate situation. That is the last thing that you
want and the Air Force wants. I appreciate the very thorough
response. Obviously, I hope and I am confident that you will
stay on it until you figure out what is wrong so we make sure
that no other pilots experience this. Thanks very much.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good questions.
Ma'am, first of all, congratulations as well. I know we met
privately and I know you are going to be overseeing the bases
that are in Massachusetts. So I look forward to having a long
and productive relationship with you.
I want to commend you for taking the necessary steps to
find the cause of this very serious problem. I guess I am left
with the question: Is the F-22 safe to fly?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, we feel it is. Through
having taken all of those risk mitigation activities and
through that, education and training of the air crews, the Air
Force's position is that it is safe to fly. That does not mean
that we are done with all of the activity to get to that root
cause and to fix it.
Senator Brown. I know the F-22 pilots who raise safety
concerns and decline to fly on that basis. Will you ensure that
retaliation against them is not going to be part of what is
happening in the future?
General Wolfenbarger. Absolutely, sir. There is clearly the
whistleblower protection, the statute that protects those
folks.
Senator Brown. Do you consider them whistleblowers?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, we do. They are fully
protected, and our Chief and our Secretary have made that
understood in our Air Force.
Senator Brown. Do you know if the Air Force or the Virginia
Air National Guard are considering taking any administrative or
disciplinary actions against the pilots that came forward in
the 60 Minutes piece? Are they also protected?
General Wolfenbarger. It is, sir, a little out of my lane,
but I would tell you that my understanding is that the Chief
and the Secretary and the Air Force have issued direction that
these individuals are protected and that no negative action be
taken.
Senator Brown. How about you, Admiral? Do you think the
program is still stable in your view, the F-35?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir, Senator. I believe that in
response to your opening remarks, the description of what has
gone on in the last 2 years in the briefings we have presented
and the questions that have been asked, there have been a lot
of changes and adjustments to the program, but I would cast the
last 2 years as a very detailed 2-year adjustment to the
program.
There was one change to the test program that began in the
spring of 2010 when the breach to the Nunn-McCurdy thresholds
was declared, and it was concluded when the Under Secretary of
Defense approved our new baseline which took us 2 years to get.
I believe it was a necessary amount of time. We added money. We
added time to the schedule. So there has been one adjustment to
the test program, and I believe we have a schedule and a budget
that says we should deliver the full capability.
Senator Brown. As required in last year's defense bill
language, will the 12 and 13 jets be procured under a fixed-
price contract?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir, absolutely they will.
Senator Brown. So the contractor would be responsible for
all costs that go above the target costs specified in the
contract?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir, beginning with our lot 6 in 2012,
absolutely.
Senator Brown. We still have no idea when the operational
jets will be delivered to any of the Services. Is that a fair
statement?
Admiral Venlet. Sir, at Eglin Air Force Base, which is the
initial training base, there are six Air Force conventional
takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant and they commenced flight
ops there in April.
Senator Brown. They commenced? They are flying?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir, they are.
Senator Brown. So how is that going?
Admiral Venlet. They have over 30 flights. It is a growing
time of maturity for the airplane, and we are collecting good
information. They are very pleased.
Senator Brown. What type of information do you think you
will need to establish the initial operation capability (IOC)
dates for the Navy's carrier variant and the Marine Corps'
STOVL?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. After we completed the baseline
for the test program, what is going on now is the detailed
planning for the operational test. The Air Force has described
the completion of the initial operational test is desired for
them to declare IOC. I will present a test and evaluation
master plan to the Under Secretary this fall with that detailed
planning in it.
All three Services understand when Block 3 capability will
be delivered. We have three blocks: initial training; initial
warfighting; and Block 3 is the full capability. That will
finish development testing in 2016 and be released to the fleet
in 2017. So the Services see our confidence in that schedule.
They are very pleased with the performance of the program last
year in 2011, but they would say, ``Dave, we would like you to
be more than a 1-year wonder.'' Let us string a couple years of
good performance together, get that operational testing plan
done, and then we will declare IOC after that.
Senator Brown. Admiral Skinner, can you provide an update
on the arresting hook challenge that has delayed the delivery
of the Navy variant and how much rework will it require and how
much will it cost? Is the contractor or the taxpayer left
footing the bill on that?
Admiral Skinner. Senator, it is true that when we did the
initial field carrier arrestment testing, that we did not
engage the hook with the cross deck pendant. It has happened to
other aircraft besides the F-35.
The engineering team in the JPO supported by NAVAIR experts
in the area have gone through the initial fault trees for that
occurrence. They are still in the analysis phase for that. They
are supposed to bring those findings forward at a preliminary
design review at the end of next month, at which time we will
be able to ascertain the follow-on, the scope of the fix, and
how much the fix will cost, and if there will be a schedule
penalty associated with implementation of that fix.
Senator Brown. That will include who is responsible and how
much it will cost and who is paying for it?
Admiral Skinner. Yes, sir.
Senator Brown. Okay.
Ma'am, once again back to you. On the adaptive engine
technology development, why is this important for the Air Force
to continue with the program? I understand it has the potential
to reduce our energy dependence. I am wondering if that is an
accurate statement. Do you believe it is important to maintain
our industry's competitive edge in the aircraft industry?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, absolutely. That is why we
wanted to press on with that program. It is a follow-on program
to the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program
which is looking at the next generation of turbine engine
technology. It is intended to be a competitive acquisition. We
are opening up the opportunity to all of our industry partners
to participate in that source selection. The intention is to
certainly protect the industrial base in this vital area for
this Nation, but to also reduce specific fuel consumption, as
you noted. A 25 percent reduction is what the goal is with this
new technology.
It is purely technology maturation. It is not the start of
an engineering, manufacturing, and development program. The
intent is to mature the technology so that we are ready should
there be an engine program in the future that requires that
technology.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Admiral Skinner, I just have one final question. I know the
Navy has been forced to extend the lives of the F-18s. It still
faces, however, a tactical aircraft shortfall with respect to
the need. Has the SLEP kept the tactical aircraft shortfall
within manageable numbers for you?
Admiral Skinner. Senator, we manage our tactical aircraft
shortfall, or strike fighter shortfall, within the Navy via an
inventory forecasting tool. One component of it, which is a
SLEP, which is an additional demand, a supply side. So we are
looking at a couple of things in order to ensure the strike
fighter shortfall stays below manageable levels. One is the
procurement of additional 50 Super Hornets that we had last
year in last year's budget. The addition of 150 SLEP'ed
aircraft will also contribute to that, and then there is a
myriad of other things that will contribute to keeping the
strike fighter shortfall manageable.
Senator Brown. So you are adjusting and adapting and you
feel you are okay?
Admiral Skinner. Yes, sir.
Senator Brown. That is really all I wanted to know. Thank
you.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Brown.
Senator Blumenthal, thanks for being here and I call on you
now.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to each of you for being here today and for your
service to the country. Congratulations, General Wolfenbarger.
I am very encouraged, Admiral Venlet, by your testimony
that the JSF is on track and that the design is sound and will
deliver, which is very good news to the Nation. Maybe I should
not say news, but it certainly is a very solid endorsement of
the program which I believe is vitally important to the future
of our country. You very persuasively attest to the
technological marvel that it will be once it is achieved. Like
any such highly technologically advanced system, there are
bound to be issues along the way, hiccups, and bumps in the
road, and I gather your feeling is that we are overcoming those
kinds of software issues and other kinds of problems that are
bound to arise in any such highly complex and advancing system.
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. Every issue that we have in view
today is very much in the category of normal development for a
fighter tactical aircraft. Good old-fashioned engineering is
going to take care of every one of those, and we will work on
each of them hard enough and long enough until they are deemed
good enough by the fleet, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. One point that I think is often lost on
the public and maybe on some in this body is that the JSF is
replacing a litany of legacy aircraft across the Services. The
cost of maintaining those aircraft and training separately for
each of them in, I think, the view of many of us would exceed
the eventual cost of the JSF. I wonder whether there is any way
to depict those costs for the American people so that they
understand that the JSF in a sense is not really or cannot be
viewed on its own. It has to be viewed comparatively to what
the costs would be of maintaining other aircraft.
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. We are looking very hard at the
sustainment costs and the cost to own this aircraft because it
is a large fleet that we aspire to own, as well as for our
partner countries around the world, which are very important to
contributing to the body of F-35s in the world that will be
supported. There is great opportunity to leverage that. We are
looking at the categories of cost that industry can affect, the
category of costs that the Services affect by the requirements
that we have, and then the category of costs that are affected
by the strategies of the acquisition program by DOD. Each one
of these is getting great scrutiny.
The F-35 is coming with tremendous capabilities. It is
coming with a tremendous software system that will help its
maintenance, its operation. It is integral to the air system.
It cannot operate effectively without it. It is something that
maintainers and squadron operators have aspired to for a long
time. It is very complex, and it has some difficulties early in
development. But again, those deviations are relatively small
in the big picture of the program, and by attacking them now,
we will be able to keep them on track.
Senator Blumenthal. Is there an estimate on what it would
cost to maintain and continue the existing aircraft or the
combination of aircraft without the F-35?
Admiral Venlet. Sir, I cannot speak with authority on the
existing fleet, but what I can say is when those cost
comparisons are made, the challenge predominantly arises that
you are comparing a decade mature fleet in any Service that has
lived with the realities of the constrained resources of each
budget that it gets. In the F-35, since we have not got a body
of experience in the fleet, we are estimating the full
requirement for the future without the constraints of short
budgets that will eventually be assigned to it. So it makes
those comparisons difficult. It will cost more to operate and
sustain than our existing fleet, no doubt. But it comes in the
balance of the value that it brings for the country.
Senator Blumenthal. You make the point in your testimony
that you think that the remaining problems can be solved if the
program is properly resourced. Are you satisfied that the
President's budget provides those resources in a sufficient
amount?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir, absolutely I am.
Senator Blumenthal. On the concurrency risk, is there
anything that could have been done to lessen those costs and
risks of concurrency looking back, and also looking forward,
can you explain perhaps in somewhat greater detail why you
think those risks will lessen as we go forward?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. Let me start with the last part.
What generates changes to the aircraft are the discoveries
that we have, again, normal discoveries in flight test, and it
is the overlap of aircraft that have already been built after
those discoveries are manifested, that those jets then have to
be changed and modified after we deliver them. The extension of
the test program was not paced by a change in the beginning of
the production program. So that overlap of test and production
is greater than what was originally intended.
The characteristic that will lessen the discovery of
changes will come about in early 2015. We test the durability
or the fatigue life of the structures, all three of them, and
we test out to two and three lifetimes so that you have margins
to operate safely for the one lifetime that is required. You
discover most of those changes in the first two lifetimes of
ground testing. That will complete for all three variants in
early 2015.
The flight test contribution is principally the loads that
are experienced in flight. So all three variants will get to
about 80 percent of their loads envelope tested in early 2015.
Our experience shows in fighter aircraft development that you
learn most of your discovery about the structure and the life
of the jet from 80 percent loads in flight, two lifetimes of
fatigue, and after that, we expect that is also an important
use for partners where most of their procurement is beyond that
window, and it is predominantly a burden that we will bear. I
am funded in these near-years for the critical ones that have
to be put in.
Senator Blumenthal. I gather the engines are doing well.
Admiral Venlet. The engines are doing very well, sir. We
are very pleased. The performance of the STOVL was a marvel to
watch aboard the USS Wasp. I was privileged to go with the
Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant one weekend while that
testing was going on and to see two STOVLs wildly exceed the
expectations of that flight test in that period. I have done
initial sea trials in aircraft, and you generally get portions
of the expected test done. That completed everything expected.
It was wonderful, and the propulsion system was a pleasant site
to behold.
Senator Blumenthal. You have just answered my last
question. I thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Admiral, to put this in context for those who are in the
room or watching, the F-35 JSF is a really important program to
our military. It is a big program. It is expensive, but it is
critical. So the delays and cost increases that have occurred
are troubling, but I appreciate the seriousness with which you
have responded. The Nunn-McCurdy breach, to state it in
simplistic terms, was a critical breach. That meant that the
program was heading to a point where it was 50 percent more
costly than the original baseline.
So you have now done a technical baseline review of the
program and you are implementing changes which you described
today.
Let me ask you a tough question but it is one that is on
our minds. Are you confident that with the changes you have
implemented, it is unlikely that there will be additional
delays in development or production of the JSF?
Admiral Venlet. Sir, thank you. That is a very appropriate
question and one that I think about nearly constantly with the
team and the program.
I speak frequently about software and the complexity of the
software. That will be the leading risk in successfully
delivering a Block 3 capability.
My basis for the confidence in my opening statement lies
here. When we did the technical baseline review, sir, in 2010
after the Nunn-McCurdy breach, we recognized that the program
had advanced to a point where those first two iterations of its
capability, Block 1 and Block 2, initial training and initial
warfighting, were already far enough along the line.
Unfortunately, they did not get off on a sound requirements
baseline and a stable foundation. So, we predominantly added
margin for those to complete successfully. There were resources
in money and there were resources in time for those.
The Block 3 capability, sir, which is really what the fleet
needs to have, is going to begin on a very rigorous and sound
design review basis so that it will have the best possibility
to succeed. We have time and money to do that. I have lived in
the acquisition domain long enough to know how disappointing it
is to my fleet shipmates and Air Force and Marine Corps to come
up short or late with a capability. I think it was very
determinedly done to set this program on a foundation with
money that it needs and the time it needs to succeed, sir, like
you are asking me if it will.
We have a plan that is resourced with time and money. It
has been scrutinized independently by the systems commands'
experts in scheduling and schedule risk assessments and master
schedule building. They have looked me in the eye and confirmed
for me they believe we have what it takes in time and money to
absorb the further learning. We have the remainder of 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 for flight tests. There will
undoubtedly be learning and discovery. If it all stays within
the family of normal fighter development, we have the ability
to absorb that learning, make changes, and stay on schedule and
cost.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. So, bottom line, you are
confident, encouraged at this moment, based on the changes that
you are implementing after the technical baseline review, that
there will not be additional delays in the development or
production of the JSF.
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that.
Let me ask another one of those bottom line questions,
which is whether the cost of concurrency for each successive
lot of aircraft is coming down or rising or remaining
essentially the same?
Admiral Venlet. Sir, the cost of the concurrency impact on
each year's production steadily declines. It is higher in these
earlier years. We can speak about it in the cost per jet. That
is one view of it. But the other view is each year you are
buying more aircraft, and so that total bill gets bigger. The
cost per aircraft goes down each year. But, the first year we
bought two. Then we bought 12, 17, and 30. So we are buying
more. So the magnitude of the total bill goes up.
We are working very hard to analyze every one of those
changes, categorize them into must-do because they affect short
service life or those that could be deferred and done with
modification budgets later in the life or possibly handled by
inspection. So we are applying that rigor to it to maintain and
manage those costs.
Senator Lieberman. One of the steps that you have taken
that was strong and I appreciate was that you told the
contractor that you are withholding award of six of the fiscal
year 2012 aircraft with the intent to award these six with the
2013 contract, and that will be based on performance from the
contracting team. That is a tough move but one that is
justified by both the facts of what has happened and the demand
for the program.
Can you describe for the subcommittee the measurable
criteria against which the contractor will be judged when you
decide whether to award these six 2012 aircraft with the 2013
contract?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, Senator. Let me begin saying I feel my
duty to the Secretary is to manage the program so that we
succeed and we do buy those jets. So we are withholding them,
but I am definitely looking for success in this. My viewpoint
from here, a third of the way into the year, is that of the
categories that I have described to the committee, several of
them are on track and doing fine. The others are not off track,
but they have more to be revealed before we can say. Those
issues are, number one, the software, and principally the
design review activity of Block 3 software must occur
successfully this year. I have promising signs in view right
now of that intent and behavior by industry.
The management of the concurrency change is very important.
The time from initial discovery to when the engineering is
available to cut it into production, it reduces the
modification after delivery. So we want that span time to go
down. We will be tracking that specifically. It is a time from
discovery to cut-in of a change.
The qualification of the components, the actuators and the
other boxes in the airplane when they go through their
reliability qualifications, through the environmental testing,
that is on a path that very much determines the reliability of
the aircraft and its cost of ownership. That is tracking very
well at this point.
Flight test overall is another one which is on track. These
are discussed frequently with industry, and we will provide an
enhanced description of those as the year progresses, sir.
Senator Lieberman. We would appreciate hearing about that.
Just a final quick question. Are you considering some award
option other than all or nothing of the six aircraft that we
have discussed?
Admiral Venlet. Sir, yes. Something between zero and six is
certainly within the consideration.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Admiral Skinner, just to follow up where I left off, if the
F-35 is delayed again, say, by 2 years due to developmental
issues, how would this affect your ability to continue
extending the service lives of the F-18s?
Admiral Skinner. Senator, if the F-35 is delayed 2 years,
we will have the ability to extend the service life of 150 of
our aircraft. That is the current program of record for the
SLEP. The population of jets that are available for SLEP
exceeds those 150. So in the future, we would have the
opportunity, if the need arose, to SLEP additional jets if we
had to.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Admiral Venlet, with regard to the software, let me just
make sure I do not misstate. In the most recent version of the
selected acquisition report (SAR) for the JSF, it says that the
software risk is the top developmental issue for the program,
and you are aware of the challenges. What concerns do you have
about the pace of the progress and development of software for
the program?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. The deviations in the software
are relatively small in the big picture of the program, and
that is why we are fortunately going to work very hard to keep
those from growing. Specifically in the Block 2A release to
flight test, just to help you understand the time I am talking
about, there is about a 3-month pressure of delivery in a
particular release of Block 2 in the flight test. That is going
to have an impact on training but not a large impact and is, in
the big picture of the program, not going to pressurize Block
3.
In the full air system, the ground system software, we call
it the Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS). The
particular version with Block 1 has about a year impact to it.
That was in view when we did the technical baseline review.
That is not a new revelation, but we will have about 80 percent
of the capability of the eventual Block 3. So by absorbing that
year on ALIS, the ground system, we will have a sound
foundation to get the last 20 percent out by Block 3.
Senator Brown. Then just to shift gears just a little bit,
could you describe how the developmental dial strategy will
work and describe the specific decision criteria that were used
to award the manufacture of more F-35 jets if they reduce
concurrency and build jets on cost and on schedule with good
quality without requiring in- or post-assembly line changes?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. Those are the criteria of
software performance this year in the Block 3 design reviews:
the improvement of concurrency change management; the progress
in the flight test program in total; the line replaceable
units; and the qualification test of the components. There is
one more that just flew out of my head that I can find here in
a letter, sir. But essentially it was the same description I
gave to Senator Lieberman a moment ago.
Senator Brown. I just wanted to make sure I did not miss
anything. Thank you.
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir.
Senator Brown. Ma'am, just one final question. Under the
current structure retrofit program, over the next few years the
Air Force will need more than $100 million to retrofit the F-22
fleet just to ensure that they can meet the required 8,000
hours of service life. Over the last 2 years, the Air Force
sole-sourced to the F-22 prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, two
contracts totaling almost $1.4 billion for sustainment of the
F-22 fleet for just those 2 years. The Air Force recently
completed a sustainment strategy for the F-22 and concluded
that a joint contractor-government approach could save over $1
billion in sustainment costs of the aircraft.
How far along is the Air Force in adopting this study's
recommendations and transitioning to joint sustainment with the
contractor, and to what extent is the Air Force actively
exploring opportunities to bring some competition to the
sustainment work in the future, if at all?
General Wolfenbarger. Senator Brown, we are executing that
strategy. It was approved in the middle of last year. I believe
it was May 2011. We have currently transitioned, I believe it
is, 19 hardware types of workload. We have several others in
the dozens ahead of us. That is on the hardware side.
We also are in the process of working on the software
transition as well. One of the integration laboratories that
had been part of the prime contractor's development activity
has been now relocated up to Hill Air Force Base, and it is
going through its checkout now to be used to execute the
organic activity associated with the software portion of that
study.
You are absolutely right. It is more than $1 billion of
anticipated savings. We are into the execution of that plan. It
is going to take us through fiscal year 2019 to get to all of
those different steps in that plan, and we will continue to put
a spotlight on where we can compete.
Senator Brown. Despite the Raptor is in sustainment,
subject to modernization, will the Air Force continue to
include the program in its SAR to afford Congress sufficient
visibility into the program?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir. One of the recommendations
that came out of a recent Government Accountability Office
study was that we should break out the next major modification
effort and characterize that as its own acquisition category
program. We have agreed to do that. So what we will see in the
future is actually two different SAR reports, one for the
baseline program and one for that next increment of added
capability.
Senator Brown. Thank you, ma'am.
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Brown.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Going back to the JSF and going through
some of the issues that I think remain outstanding, you are
fairly confident that the software problems are on their way to
solution and will be solved.
Admiral Venlet. Sir, I would say you can never take your
eye off the software, and there will be that diligence by the
Aeronautical Systems Center and the NAVAIR engineers working
with industry. It will take that concerted, combined effort to
succeed. I believe, if that is applied appropriately, it will.
What we are fortunate in is that the involvement of those
independent systems commands with that expertise to guide this
is very much involved in the program, more so than it was
before. That is my basis for believing that, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. The weight management issue you are
confident is solved or on its way to being solved?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. Weight has been very well
controlled in these last couple years in the program.
Senator Blumenthal. The thermal concerns, are those still
an issue?
Admiral Venlet. There are several thermal concerns. I am
not exactly sure what you have in mind, but I will speak to a
couple of them.
There was the temperature at the roll post for the STOVL
where the actuators needed some extra protection. That has been
added. There has been temperature control of the fuel in the
aircraft that would impact it. That has been improved by a
dual-vane boost pump. Those are the two initial thermal issues
that come to mind.
Senator Blumenthal. The logistics information system?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. ALIS is what I was speaking
about. It is a very powerful, good thing for the program that
the fleet will get tremendous benefit out of. It is a very
software-intensive system that is as challenging to develop and
adjust as the mission system on the aircraft, the radar, and
the other sensors. It is being managed just as rigorously as
the mission system software.
Senator Blumenthal. To what extent would those issues or
others that have already been encountered be subject to the
requirement that we wrote into the last defense authorization
act that anything above the fixed cost be held accountable to
the contractor?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. That provision will be complied
with in the production contracting. When we negotiate the lot 6
and the subsequent contracts, we will negotiate a target cost,
and the terms and conditions of the contract will require that
any costs incurred above that target will be fully borne by
industry, and that will be both in the aircraft and the engine
contracts.
Senator Blumenthal. How about the costs to date?
Admiral Venlet. The costs in the previous programs--we have
the first 3 years of production--were cost-plus contracts, and
we are paying those costs and there is a share line of those
overruns. In lot 4, the 2010, and lot 5, those were our first
two fixed price incentive contracts, and so there is a target
cost, and those overruns are shared, but they have a ceiling
that bounds the Government's exposure.
Industry's performance on those has improved steadily year
by year. There was 11 to 15 percent on those early ones. Lot 4
is about 7 percent. So I am very pleased with that. That 7
percent is shared 50/50 with industry. In lot 5, we began
sharing these concurrency costs, to the benefit of the
Government. That will continue as well, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Looking forward to the economies of
scale that will be achieved over the 5-year defense procurement
program, over that 5-year period, a lot of those economies of
scale will be achieved as a result of foreign partners or
foreign military sales by the contractor. If economically those
countries are unable or unwilling to make those purchases that
are projected, will that significantly impact the costs of the
program for us?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. Every country that buys an F-35
contributes to the benefit of quantity for cost control or cost
reduction. Right now, every one of the original partners is
solidly in the program. Certainly Italy did reduce by 41 jets.
Australia is talking about an adjustment to the right. But
those countries are still in, and so, I think, the success news
is that they have stayed in the partnership. They have reacted
to macro-economic conditions in their own country, and their
recent adjustments will be because of that less than it is
their confidence in the program.
We are in somewhat of a plateau here in these near years in
the 2029 to 2030 range. My view is that the attainment of
affordability in this plateau range does not need to be
postponed. We can still work and expect and seek industry to
achieve affordability even when this plateau is flat by paying
attention to quality and getting the costs of quality down. We
are tracking those metrics. The engine quality numbers are in
single digits. The aircraft are above that at this point. We
are discussing that with them. Processes throughout the
supplier base can still show improvement. I am not saying there
are any glaring problems. But we will work hard to improve
affordability even while we are on this plateau.
Senator Blumenthal. My reason for asking was not a concern
that they do not want to be a part of the program, but that
they will feel that their economic challenges may preclude,
just as the United States has those challenges. Obviously,
European countries even more so. My worry, and it may be shared
by others, is that they may just decide they cannot afford it,
that their militaries cannot pay for it, not that they do not
want it. That was my reason for asking this question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Let me just follow up on that line of questioning by my
colleague from Connecticut.
The JSF program from the beginning was envisioned to be an
international program. Just for the record, remind us, if you
would, Admiral, how many other countries are participating in
the JSF program?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. There are the United States plus
10. The original eight--Turkey, Italy, The Netherlands,
Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, and Australia--are all
solidly in, as they have been. In 2010, Israel signed a letter
of offer and acceptance for their initial 19 to 20 aircraft. We
were very pleased with that and they are a very committed
partner of the program. Japan has chosen in a competition, and
next month we expect a formal signature on their letter of
offer and acceptance. We are in the midst of preparing a
proposal to deliver in response to South Korea's fighter
competition.
Senator Lieberman. Good. First, let me say I am impressed
that you remembered all 10 by name.
Their participation, to say the obvious, is not minimal.
Their participation is important to the fiscal viability of the
program. Right?
Admiral Venlet. Absolutely, yes, it is.
Senator Lieberman. I just want to draw out a little because
I appreciated what you said in response to Senator Blumenthal's
question. First, what is the process by which you keep our
international partners informed of ongoing developments of the
program? Has there been no time, as we have had the discussions
quite publicly here in Congress and elsewhere, the media about
the increase in cost and delay in production, have there been
any concerns expressed to you by the international partners?
Admiral Venlet. Absolutely, sir. They watch the reactions
of the program and they do express those concerns. Let me speak
to the interaction and how they stay involved and informed.
Senator Lieberman. Yes.
Admiral Venlet. Embedded right in my program office team
right here in Washington are senior level officers from each of
those countries, and several of those countries have people
actually embedded into our teams and are contributing to
engineering. The thing I forgot a minute ago on the criteria
for deciding was durability and fatigue testing. That connects
to this statement. There is an Australian Air Force officer who
is the deepest expert on service life issues, and so when I am
asking questions and I see him stand up in response, it is
really comforting because there is a long history between the
United States and Australia on the F-18 program. So those
officers are embedded in the program.
Twice a year we have a joint executive steering board where
we meet with the partners at the one- and two-star military and
civilian level. In fact, we head to Hartford tomorrow for a day
and a half with our partner countries at the National Armament
Director, which is equivalent to our Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and industry Chief
Executive Officers. Those are formal interactions. We have
requirements working groups. We have sustainment working groups
that the partners all attend with U.S. Services.
Every time we have an adjustment we see coming in the
program, as soon as our budgets are delivered to Capitol Hill,
we immediately take the impact of that budget and push it to
the countries as well so they have an impact. They are not
being affected by changes in the development program costs
anymore. It is about the procurement changes and the flyways.
Senator Lieberman. Bottom line, except for the case you
mentioned about Italy, which may have more to do with their
budget problems, all 10 are on board.
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. Each country has different
situations going on with a level of parliamentary support, but
they are all solidly on board.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. They all want to buy.
Am I correct that they were aware of or perhaps even
involved with you in the judgment you made about holding back
the six 2012 aircraft?
Admiral Venlet. We did not involve them in the creation of
that strategy, sir. We do not intend that strategy to affect
any of their aircraft.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Admiral Venlet. This is really just in the lots 6-7
timeframe. That will be analyzed year after year whether we
will continue with that, and it does not affect any of their
aircraft.
Senator Lieberman. But obviously they are aware of it now.
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir, they are.
Senator Lieberman. Are they generally supportive?
Admiral Venlet. In the sense that we find the support here
for the protection of the capability. The real fundamental
about that strategy, sir, is to assure that the jets we buy
have the maximized capability and service life, and so we
observe the 2012 test program and get that confidence. They are
appreciative of that.
Senator Lieberman. I am glad to hear that, and that is what
I would assume. You have done a lot after your technical
baseline review to bring this program onto schedule and within
reasonable costs. But I think holding back those aircraft was
really important and I am glad that the international partners
agreed.
General Wolfenbarger, I wanted to ask you a different kind
of question, which you actually referred to a bit earlier. This
is the decision by the Air Force Research Lab to award a
contract for a program called ADVENT. You will forgive a little
bit of what may seem like paranoia, but I forgot the exact
Satchel Paige line here. But you know, if you are not looking
back, somebody actually might be following you. It is a
combination of two lines. You get what I am pointing to.
We just have gone through a multiyear battle here in
Congress about whether we would build one or two engines for
the JSF. Maybe you have already heard it. Probably you have.
But there is concern that this ADVENT program is actually the
beginning or an end run on the decision of Congress to have one
engine program for the JSF. I wanted to ask you flat out. Is
the Adaptive Engine Technology Development program actually an
alternative engine, a second engine, for the F-35?
General Wolfenbarger. No, sir, it is not. It is a
technology maturation program that takes the advances that we
have seen under the ADVENT program and takes them to the next
maturity level. This engine could be used in a whole host of
platforms should it ever reach the point of being a development
program. Right now, it is just a question of ensuring that we
are ready to go should we as an Air Force decide that we want
to embrace this opportunity to really reduce the fuel
consumption in future generations of either strike aircraft,
bomber aircraft, or tactical aircraft. This technology is
usable across all of those platforms in the future should we
transition to a development program. This is, as I said, purely
technology maturation.
Senator Lieberman. So the main purpose for this program is
in terms of fuel consumption. Is that right?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, and to keep our industrial
base active in this turbine engine business so that we keep
that intellectual capital that is so important to this country.
Senator Lieberman. One of the questions that I have heard
posed about it is, and I understand you said it is also, in
part, about the industrial base. But if the goal is to improve
fuel consumption and fuel efficiency, then why not invest in
improving some of the existing engine programs for aircraft? In
other words, are we heading down a road here with a new
program, at a time when all of DOD is under tremendous fiscal
pressure, that we cannot afford? In other words, is there a
better use for this money by putting it into improving existing
engine programs to improve fuel efficiency?
General Wolfenbarger. Sir, we would not be able to reach
those levels by just improving the existing engines. This
effort really does leverage off of some fairly exciting
technological advances under ADVENT and allows, as I think I
might have mentioned, the opportunity for all of industry to
participate. We had down-selected under ADVENT to two
industrial partners. This allows us to kick off yet another
technology maturation effort and open up that door to all of
industry that may want to participate.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. We will keep hopefully not totally
motivated by paranoia, but we will keep an eye on this and ask
you to continue to report to us about how it is doing.
I think one of the important points to make, and Admiral
Skinner, I will ask you to talk about this. General
Wolfenbarger, maybe you want to get involved. You have used
this term SLEP during the hearing. It is too close actually to
the word from a different language which is ``schlep.'' That is
something entirely different than the SLEP program.
Basically the SLEP program is an attempt to keep existing
aircraft flying longer than they might have been intended to
fly, and this is why I bring it up here. Is it true that some
of the delays anticipated in the JSF program force us to take
steps to extend the life of existing aircraft? I will start
with you, General Wolfenbarger.
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, that is true. For the F-16
program, we are looking at a bridge capability that is made up
of two activities. One is SLEP, which does allow us to ensure
that our service life for a portion of the F-16 fleet can be
extended from the 8,000 hours that it is today up to 10,000
hours. We have a sliding scale opportunity relative to the
numbers. Right now in the President's budget, we have funding
for 300 F-16 to extend that service life.
Senator Lieberman. It is a serious number.
How do you evaluate risk, which goes back again to the
question of safety. How do we minimize risk in aircraft that we
are attempting to keep going longer than they were originally
intended to?
General Wolfenbarger. Sir, we actually go through a very
rigorous testing process, a full-scale structural testing
activity, which we have undertaken on the F-16 fleet now, to
inform us what needs to be done to ensure that structurally we
can keep these aircraft sound.
Senator Lieberman. Admiral, do you want to get into this? I
must say that some of the numbers given at some of the posture
hearings before the full committee on the average age of some
of our aircraft were unsettling because they have risen
dramatically. Have they not?
Admiral Skinner. Yes, sir, they have. We have been flying
our aircraft quite a bit over the course of the last decade.
There is inherent risk in extending the service life of any
aircraft. We have folks who know how to do that.
But for the Navy, in our program to SLEP 150 legacy Hornets
in the fuselage area, we are at the very beginning of that
program, and so it is a matter of what we do not know as
opposed to what we know. Now, we have done a Service Life
Analysis Program (SLAP) so that we think that we have areas
identified that we can develop and produce at low risk kits to
fix those particular areas that the analysis shows, but until
we really get into the fleet and open up those aircraft and
look inside of them, that is when we will really know if that
analysis is accurate. So we start our first two aircraft later
on this fiscal year and follow on with additional aircraft next
year, and so we will know about where we are with that SLEP
program probably next year.
We have done some risk mitigation factors. We have done the
SLAP. We have looked inside the aircraft for our high flight
Arrow program that gets us up to 8,600 hours. We have a service
life management program that we manage the fatigue life as we
fly them, and we have a greater population of supplemental
aircraft than what we have to do in the program of record. So
if we open up an aircraft and it looks like it is beyond
economic feasibility to repair, then we can button it up and
get another one.
But there is inherent risk in extending the service life of
tactical aircraft because we fly them and operate them very
rigorously, as you are well aware, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. That is the point I appreciate you
are making and why there is such pressure, as you well know,
Admiral Venlet, on bringing the JSF in on schedule.
Give me some sense of what judgments you are making about
availability of the JSF and the number of aircraft that you
have decided to SLEP. In other words, is it based on the
current prediction of availability of the JSF? General?
General Wolfenbarger. Yes, sir, it is. It is based on the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget profile.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
The same, Admiral?
Admiral Skinner. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Obviously, any further delays would have
an impact on that, and in that sense, although I know you will
do everything you can to minimize risk, would both force more
investment in extending the service life of existing aircraft
and involve a risk that we can, I am confident, minimize with
the JSF.
Admiral, do you want to comment on that?
Admiral Venlet. Yes, sir. The F-35 program needs to deliver
our production jets to relieve the burden. So the most powerful
thing is for, first of all, the President's budget to be
supported and funded and then for those jets to deliver with
full life and full capability, and that is what my job is to
tend to.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. I thank the three of you very
much.
At the risk of being redundant, I just cannot say how
important this JSF program is. You know that. You work on it
every day. I think I am typical of most Members of Congress
which is that we strongly support this program because we know
how necessary it is, but we also are going to continue to push
to get it back on schedule and bring down the cost per unit.
I personally think you have taken some very strong steps in
the last couple of years, and I hope that our authorization
bill and the budget will reflect that in terms of our response
to the President's budget request. So anyway, keep it up
because there is a lot on the line.
The subcommittee and the full committee will mark up our
defense authorization bill for the coming fiscal year 2013 in
the final week of this work period which would be the week of
May 21. So your testimony today has been very timely and
helpful to the committee as we prepare that markup.
I thank you very much.
We will keep the record of the hearing open for another 5
days for any additional statements or questions that anyone
has.
With that, thank you, the three of you, for your
extraordinary service to our country.
General Wolfenbarger, somebody once said to me when a
barrier is broken by one person, it opens the doors of
opportunity wider for every other American. You are about to
break a barrier. Good luck. Congratulations. Thank you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
airborne electronic attack
1. Senator McCaskill. Admiral Skinner, as you are well aware, the
ability to control the electronic spectrum has become a critical
capability for today's warfighters. The Department of Defense (DOD) has
a growing demand for electronic attack platforms, and specifically,
airborne electronic attack (AEA) systems. However, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recently found that the Services are
pursuing the development of unique systems to satisfy their AEA
requirements, but some of these systems have overlapping capabilities.
This raises a real concern regarding a duplication of effort and a
waste of taxpayers' dollars.
GAO recommended that DOD, among other things, ``determine the
extent to which the most pressing AEA capability gaps can best be met--
using the assets that are likely to be available--and take steps to
fill any potential gaps.'' DOD concurred with this recommendation,
noting that plans were in place to have U.S. Strategic Command perform
an annual assessment of DOD electronic warfare capabilities. However,
this assessment has not yet been completed.
GAO, in its most recent report, noted that the ``Navy has fielded
EA-18G aircraft with limited cost and schedule growth to date.'' With
the near-term retirement of the last remaining EA-6B Prowler squadrons,
and the electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35 B and C variants
not projected to be fully available until well into the next decade,
there appears to be a pending shortfall in critical AEA capability.
With the success of the Navy's EA-18G Growlers in Afghanistan and
Operation Odyssey Dawn, and GAO's assessment, serious consideration
should be given to filling needed joint AEA capability with the EA-18G
aircraft. Given the fact that DOD has not yet completed its planned
assessment of electronic attack capabilities, does the Navy's budget
request for EA-18G Growlers take into account joint AEA requirements?
Admiral Skinner. Yes. The budget reflects the Navy's plan to
recapitalize the Navy AEA force structure of 10 carrier air wings, 3
Active component expeditionary squadrons, and 1 Reserve squadron with
the EA-18G. The three Navy Active component expeditionary squadrons
have completed their transition to the Growler along with three of the
carrier-based squadrons. The Navy will be completely divested of all
its EA-6Bs by the end of fiscal year 2015 and complete its transition
in fiscal year 2016. The Marine Corps plans to replace its EA-6Bs with
the Marine Air Ground Task Force Electronic Warfare (MAGTFEW) system of
systems capability that will directly support the MAGTF commander. This
combination of Navy and Marine Corps systems is a holistic service
approach that addresses the full spectrum of electronic warfare
requirements. The joint AEA requirement is under review by DOD to
determine if the force structure meets total combatant commander
capacity requirements.
2. Senator McCaskill. Admiral Skinner, has the Navy engaged in
planning or preparation for additional procurement of Growlers if
required to maintain joint AEA capacity?
Admiral Skinner. No, the Navy has not made preparations for
additional procurement of Growlers to maintain the current joint AEA
capacity. As always, the Navy keeps its options open on how to man,
train, and equip its forces to meet joint requirements. The Navy
believes the capability in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
supports the joint AEA requirements with 10 carrier based EA-18G
squadrons, 3 Active component expeditionary EA-18G squadrons, and 1
Reserve component EA-18G squadron. As Marine Corps Prowlers retire, the
MAGTFEW will provide the joint forces with a scalable, flexible, and
cost effective approach to irregular warfare and MAGTF-type missions.
DOD is examining this force structure to determine if adequate AEA
capacity will be achieved for the combatant commanders.
[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
