[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-27]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 12, 2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-756 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DUNCAN HUNTER, California Georgia
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia RON BARBER, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DEREK KILMER, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Michele Pearce, Counsel
Michael Casey, Professional Staff Member
Aaron Falk, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Friday, April 12, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Air
Force.......................................................... 1
Appendix:
Friday, April 12, 2013........................................... 35
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.............. 1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 2
WITNESSES
Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force.............. 3
Welsh, Gen Mark A., III, USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Donley, Hon. Michael B., joint with Gen. Mark A. Welsh III... 42
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,''............................. 39
Smith, Hon. Adam............................................. 41
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Enyart................................................... 79
Mr. Johnson.................................................. 79
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Barber................................................... 93
Mr. Bridenstine.............................................. 91
Mr. Brooks................................................... 90
Mr. Carson................................................... 88
Mr. Enyart................................................... 89
Mr. Franks................................................... 87
Mr. Langevin................................................. 83
Mr. LoBiondo................................................. 83
Mr. Miller................................................... 83
Mrs. Noem.................................................... 93
Mr. Nugent................................................... 91
Mr. Palazzo.................................................. 92
Mr. Scott.................................................... 89
Mr. Shuster.................................................. 88
Mr. Turner................................................... 86
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Friday, April 12, 2013.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Good morning. The committee meets today to receive
testimony on the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request
for the Department of the Air Force. I am pleased to welcome
Secretary Donley and General Welsh.
It takes great leadership to guide people through the kind
of uncertainty we have been experiencing, and our Nation is
fortunate to have you as our Nation's flight leads. Thank you
for your outstanding service as you tackle the incredible
national security issues we face.
After reading your budget materials, I was struck by the
fact that in fiscal year 2013, your Active Duty end strength
was 329,500 men and women, a number which makes the Air Force
about the same size it was when it became a separate component
in 1947, and yet the world is certainly a different place
today.
Your fiscal year 2014 request reduces end strength to
327,600. I worry about this, especially as we consider the
strategic implications of recent events on the Korean Peninsula
where airpower plays such a critical role in assuring our
national security interests.
As you say in the budget materials, you are attempting to
trade size for quality, but quantity often has a quality all of
its own, particularly in the vast expanse of the Pacific. You
know, when Admiral Locklear was here a few weeks ago, he
pointed out to us that if you take the size of the Pacific, you
could put all the land mass in that space and still have room
left over for, I believe he said, Africa and Australia. Pretty
big area.
At some point we almost recognize that the assumption of
mission risk will be too great. I hope that you will highlight
your concerns regarding this issue in your testimony and
provide more detail about where you see this trend going into
the future. I also hope you will discuss the recent
announcement at unit standdowns across the Air Force and its
implications for force readiness.
You know, I think this committee is well aware of these
problems, but I don't think the whole Congress is, and I am
convinced that the Nation really doesn't understand the
severity of the cuts that we have been imposing. It could take
years to recover from this decision because your people won't
be able to train. This complicates an already seemingly
untenable situation after nearly two decades of procurement,
reductions, or deferrals for the Air Force and the resulting
risks of maintaining an aged fleet of aircraft.
With pilots not training, depot maintenance not being done,
and the continued reduction of new aircraft procurement, we
must ask ourselves where is the breaking point, and what we
need to do to prevent it, how much risk is too much.
I am encouraged by the request for the Air Force's three
most important modernization program, the KC-46A tanker, the F-
35A [Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter], and the Long-Range
Strike Bomber, but those programs are budgeted to stay on
track, but the effects of sequestration in fiscal year 2013
could result in a potential $1.6 billion bow wave in research,
development tests and evaluation, and a $1.3 billion bow wave
in procurement.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request does not provide any
margin to repay programs that will be sourced to pay for
critical readiness in fiscal year 2013. Air Force modernization
cannot wait for the next big uptick in defense spending. We are
in a difficult time, and we must make hard choices. Your
testimony today will go a long way to help this committee and
others in Congress make the right choices.
Again, thank you very much for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the
Appendix on page 39.]
The Chairman. Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the chairman has summed up quite well the
challenges that you face. And we are all familiar with the
impacts of sequestration, or I should say we are familiar with
the fact that it did make things very difficult. The particular
impacts are still being sorted out, I mean, literally on a day-
by-day, if not hour-by-hour basis by all of our Services, and,
of course, outside of the Department of Defense all aspects of
the Government that are impacted by sequestration, and that is
the great challenge. Given the defense threat environment that
we have out there, which is not shrinking, it may be shifting
and changing, but it is certainly not shrinking, how do we meet
those threats? How do we budget? How do we plan in this
uncertain environment?
We have heard some about some of the changes the Air Force
had made, the air wings, bomber wings that you have had to
stand down, and I think what we are going to be most interested
in throughout this hearing is how you plan to manage through
that process.
Again, I will just take this opportunity to emphasize that
as a Congress, we need to stop sequestration. However we put it
together, whatever the agreement is, mindless across-the-board
cuts is simply the wrong way to run a government, you know. We
can find ways to save that money, gosh, even within the
discretionary budget a lot smarter than we are doing so right
now, and I think a sense of urgency is simply not where it
should be with this Congress to fix that problem.
But we look forward to your testimony, Secretary Donley and
General Welsh. You have served this country very, very well. We
appreciate your hard work, and please let us know how you are
dealing with this challenge and what we might be able to do to
help.
With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Donley. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith,
members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here again
representing our Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian
airmen. I am also honored to be here with my teammate, the 20th
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Mark Welsh.
For fiscal year 2014, United States Air Force requests
$114.1 billion in our baseline budget. As with all budgets, our
fiscal year 2014 request represents a snapshot in time, our
best analysis of Air Force needs based on available
information, and especially given the budget turmoil over the
past year, this morning's discussion on the fiscal year 2014
budget needs to begin with where we stand this year in fiscal
year 2013.
First, I would like to highlight that throughout the
current budget turmoil, our Air Force priorities remain aligned
with the January 2012 defense strategic guidance. This includes
supporting combatant commanders in the current fight in
Afghanistan, maintaining a strong and stable presence in the
Pacific and Korea, supporting nuclear and regional deterrents,
counterterror, and other operations.
There is demand for airpower, and your airmen are busy
around the world. Today more than 35,000 airmen are deployed,
more than 57,000 are stationed overseas, and more than 132,000
are providing support to combatant commanders. And as the
fiscal constraints get tighter, we must tighten our alignment
with a new strategy and strengthen our commitment to joint
interdependent solutions to the Nation's military challenges.
You have heard many times that the implications of
sequestration reductions are dire. They are. That is why the
President has put forth a balanced deficit reduction proposal
that would allow Congress to repeal sequestration in fiscal
year 2013 and beyond.
While the Department is working full out to adapt to the
new fiscal realities, it was not possible, given the necessary
timelines, to turn around a new fiscal year 2014 budget based
upon new assumptions derived from the March 1st sequestration
and from the final Defense Appropriations Act, also approved
last month, nearly 6 months into fiscal year 2013.
We need to stipulate up front that the fiscal year 2014
budget does not provide funding to recover from the damage done
by even a partial year of fiscal year 2013 sequestration, much
less the full impacts that would hit the Air Force if the
President's proposal to replace sequestration for fiscal year
2013 and beyond is not enacted.
This morning I will summarize the state of the Air Force in
three broad areas: force structure, that is, the size and
composition of our Air Force; readiness, that is the training,
preparedness of our airmen and their equipment; and
modernization, the replacement of aging aircraft and
infrastructure, and our investment in future capabilities.
First, force structure. Last year in our efforts to meet
the requirements of the first half of the Budget Control Act
involving reductions of 487 billion over the--over 10 years,
the Air Force's fiscal year 2013 budget proposed a number of
force structure changes, including aircraft transfers,
retirements, and changes in unit missions that were the subject
of much controversy in our Reserve Components with the State
Adjutants General and congressional delegations.
Thanks to the work of this committee and others, we were
able to fashion a compromise, which you approved in the
National Defense Authorization Act. This year I can report that
the fiscal year 2014 budget proposes no major changes in force
structure. As compared to the levels enacted in the fiscal year
2013 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], the fiscal year
2014 proposal would reduce Active Duty end strength by about
1,800 Active Duty airmen, reduce Air Force Reserve end strength
by just under 500, and reduce National Guard end strength by
300.
We retain C-130 [Hercules tactical airlifter] and Global
Hawk Block 30 [RQ-4 surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle] force
structure, as you directed, through fiscal year 2014. Our
nuclear forces remain at current levels, pending future
decisions on implementation of the New START [Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty] agreement, and we are on track to achieve 65
medium-altitude combat air patrols with our remotely piloted
aircraft fleet.
We will focus in fiscal year 2014 on implementing the
retirements, transfers, and mission changes that you approved
in the NDAA, and then we have provided two reports to Congress
outlining implementation plans for each affected unit and
location.
Looking ahead, it has never been more important for the Air
Force to maximize the strength of our Total Force. Our Active,
Reserve, and Air Guard Components are increasingly integrated,
training, deploying, and conducting a full range of missions
together as a Total Force. We must continue to ensure that our
Active/Reserve Component mix correctly balances the strengths
of each Component and meets our strategic requirements and
fiscal demands.
We have made progress over the last year in our
governmental relationships, working with DOD [Department of
Defense] and the Council of Governors to formalize the
consultative process between DOD and the States to provide more
transparency in planning and programming.
Within the Air Force, working with our Guard and Reserve
Air Force leaders, General Welsh and I have established a Total
Force Task Force to provide strategic options on the
appropriate mix of Total Force capabilities, and to inform our
strategic planning for fiscal year 2015 and beyond. This task
force will also serve as a resource to the congressionally
directed National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
that is standing up this month.
In summary, our proposed force structure is relatively
stable for now, but, beyond fiscal year 2014, is dependent on
decisions yet to be made and especially on achieving a balanced
approach to deficit reduction to avoid further sequestration.
Turning to readiness. While the Air Force has met the
demands of a high operational tempo in support of today's
fight, this has taken a toll on our weapons systems and people.
Unit readiness declined significantly from 2003 onward, and
despite significant investments in the past few years, only
half of our combat air forces have met acceptable readiness
standards.
With the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and our continued
presence in the Middle East and Africa, we expect the demand
for Air Force capabilities will remain constant, perhaps even
increase over the next decade. We must improve readiness to
prevent a hollow force.
With respect to fiscal year 2013, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and Air Force leaders have already recounted the readiness
impacts we anticipated this year as a result of sequestration.
Passage of the final fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution,
which included defense appropriations, was helpful to DOD
overall, but did not improve the Active Air Force's operation
and maintenance budget, left shortages in the overseas
contingency operations accounts, and did not mitigate the
impacts of sequestration, which required approximately 10
billion in reductions to be taken in the last 7 months of
fiscal year 2013.
Except anticipating this challenge, we took steps to cut
back normal operations, including a civilian hiring freeze for
permanent, temporary, and term vacancies; canceling non-
mission-critical official travel and conferences; reducing
major command and combatant command O&M [Operations and
Maintenance] budgets by approximately 10 percent; and deferring
non emergency facilities sustainment projects. However, these
steps alone are not sufficient to absorb the full impacts of
sequestration without affecting readiness.
Collectively, the sequestration reductions and readiness
impacts are now being felt across the Air Force. This week
eight fighter and bomber units ceased flying operations, four
additional squadrons will completely stand down when return
from deployment in the next few weeks, and one additional
bomber squadron will stand down this summer when it returns
from deployment.
Flying hour reductions will halt training for the rest of
the year in many units and will take up to 6 months to restore
pilot proficiency. Other impacts include reductions in weapon
systems sustainment that will delay necessary maintenance,
increase costs and take potentially 2 to 3 years to recover
from repair backlogs. And there is the potential furlough of
our valued civilian workforce, significantly reducing their pay
and potentially devastating morale and slowing productivity.
Our main objective in the fiscal year 2014 budget mirrors
our objective for 3 years running: to slow and reverse the
erosion of Air Force readiness. To that end the fiscal year
2014 budget is aimed at setting the Air Force back on a course
toward full-spectrum readiness. The budget prioritizes funds
for 1.2 million flying hours, an increase of 40,000 hours from
last year, to ensure pilot proficiency and continue new pilot
production. It funds training ranges to enhance flying training
effectiveness and to restore infrastructure. It also adds 1.5
billion across the 5-year defense plan to weapons systems
sustainment to keep our aircraft and space systems ready.
Unfortunately, fiscal year 2013 sequestration now
jeopardizes the gains we had hoped to achieve next year. Even
assuming this budget is approved as proposed, and even if the
Congress acted sometime this summer to repeal and replace
sequestration in fiscal year 2013, we would almost certainly
begin fiscal year 2014 carrying forward a significantly
degraded readiness posture from this year.
The Air Force is working with DOD on a fiscal year 2013
reprogramming requests to indicate OCO [Overseas Contingency
Operations] and other O&M shortfalls and to address some of the
worst effects of sequestration. However, the budgetary transfer
authority available to DOD is not sufficient to address all our
known shortfalls. Even if such transfer authority were
available, we do not have sufficient internal resources to pay
for these shortfalls without digging far too deeply into
modernization programs, and there may not be sufficient time
left in fiscal year 2013 to repair the damage now immediately
ahead.
To sum up the readiness situation, we have been consuming
Air Force readiness for several years and will continue to
focus the resources available to meet combatant commander
requirements, but with the steep and late fiscal year 2013
budget reductions brought on by sequestration, the readiness
hole that we have been trying to climb out of just got deeper.
The full readiness and budgetary implications of this
situation could not be accounted for in the fiscal year 2014
budget and are still under review, and we will continue to work
with DOD and Congress to fashion a practical way forward.
Turning to modernization. As I previously testified to this
committee, the modernization challenge facing the Air Force is
pervasive and will, if unaddressed, seriously undermine our
ability to accomplish the missions the Nation asks us to
undertake. The average age of our fighter aircraft is now 23
years; rescue helicopters, 22 years; training aircraft, 25
years; bombers, 36 years; and tankers, nearly 50 years.
Satellites for missile warning, navigation, secure
communications, and other needs are also aging, and the
replacements must be built and launched on a schedule
consistent with the life expectancy of current constellations.
Our most significant Air Force priorities remain on track
in fiscal year 2014, the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, the KC-46 tanker, the Long-Range Strike Bomber. The
continued modernization of existing fleets, such as the B-2
[Spirit stealth bomber], the F-22 [Raptor fighter jet], F-15
[Eagle fighter jet], F-16 [Fighting Falcon fighter jet], and C-
17 [Globemaster III tactical airlifter], to name some, to keep
them operationally effective and to extend their service lives
is also key.
We request funding for preferred munitions as well as
critical space satellite assets, such as the Global Positioning
System, the Advanced Extremely High-Frequency, AEHF, Satellite,
and Space-Based Infrared System programs. We intend to maintain
science and technology funding in order to stay on the cutting
edge of technological innovation and sustain our airpower
advantage.
While we often face challenges with major acquisition
programs, we have recently achieved some notable success using
block buys and more efficient procurement strategies to drive
down the cost of three large space programs by over $2.5
billion. And the fiscal year 2014 request includes the first of
a multiyear procurement for the C-130J, which is expected to
save over 500 million over the next 5 years. We will need more
successes like these in the future because there is still
significant pressure on our modernization programs.
Last year, in programming the Air Force share of the first
$487 billion in DOD reductions over 10 years, the cancellation
or delay of modernization programs accounted for 65 percent of
total Air Force reductions across just the first 5 years. This
year each program was reduced by more than 7 percent in
sequestration. In the immediate years ahead, major programs
like the F-35, the KC-46, and the bomber are scheduled to grow
as the overall DOD budget declines, and some longstanding needs
like a new trainer and a replacement for the E-8 JSTARS [Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System] remain unfunded.
Looking ahead, if there continues to be resistance to force
structure adjustments, base closures, and constraining growth
and compensation, and given our current need to focus on
improving readiness, it is very likely that outyear reductions
in the Budget Control Act will require further disproportionate
cuts in our modernization programs.
As advanced technologies continue to proliferate around the
globe, these cutbacks in modernization would put at risk the
Air Force capabilities this Nation will need in the decade
ahead. The decisions ahead of us are extraordinarily difficult,
but Congress has the power to help the Air Force and the
Department of Defense maneuver through these unparalleled
budget challenges. In recent years Congress has placed limits
on the Air Force's effort to take tough, but urgently needed
actions to balance our readiness, modernization, and force
structure, and rejected some of DOD's proposals to help slow
the growth in military compensation.
As our DOD leaders have testified, these congressional
actions, if sustained, would add billions to our costs over the
next 5 years. We hope that in view of the serious economic
problems facing the Nation and our Department of Defense,
Congress will allow us to implement these and other important
changes.
It is now all the more critical that we get your support
for reductions in base infrastructure. The Air Force executed
BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] 2005 on time and under
budget, and those adjustments are today generating savings
estimated at $1 billion per year. We are looking at European
basing requirements with our DOD partners, and we are ready to
begin next steps in the continental U.S. We estimate that more
than 20 percent of our basing infrastructure is excess to need.
BRAC authority is a tool that we urgently need to allow DOD to
divest excess infrastructure and refocus resources to meet
other critical needs, including readiness, modernization, and
taking care of our people.
In the area of military compensation, we are committed, as
you are, to taking care of our airmen, but the impact of
increasing personnel costs continues to be a concern in the
Department and can no longer be ignored. Therefore, we support
DOD's efforts to slow the growth of personnel costs. We support
the modest 1-percent pay raise and the TRICARE [health care
program] fee and pharmacy copay changes included in the fiscal
year 2014 budget.
While these are some of the broad outlines of our request,
there is clearly more work to do as we assess the rolling
implications of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and beyond.
We will need your help to make necessary adjustments in our
force structure, to keep us ready, and to avoid a hollow force,
and to equip this Air Force with the modern capabilities it
needs for the future.
But perhaps one of the most helpful things Congress can do
is to return to regular order and approve the annual defense
authorization appropriations measures in a timely way.
Throughout history our Nation has effectively dealt with
strategic challenges and fiscal constraints, but our recent
track record of delay and uncertainty, continuing resolutions
that disrupt programs and budget planning, and midyear cuts
that impair readiness and threaten civilian furloughs must not
become the new normal. We sincerely appreciate the ongoing
commitment and efforts of this committee and its professional
staff to return to regular order.
Today's world is a dangerous place, and it is
counterproductive to generate problems of our own making when
so many other serious threats beyond our control demand
attention. Together we must do better for our men and women in
uniform and their families, our civilian workforce, and for our
national security.
Mr. Chairman, the American people have the world's best
airmen and the world's finest Air Force. Your Air Force
leadership team remains committed to you and the most
capability possible from whatever level of resources you
provide. We remain grateful for the support of this committee
and its unfailing support in providing to the Air Force and to
the men and women of our Armed Forces the best capabilities
available. We stand ready to assist in any way we can and look
forward to discussing our budget. Thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and
General Welsh can be found in the Appendix on page 42.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Welsh.
STATEMENT OF GEN MARK A. WELSH III, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S.
AIR FORCE
General Welsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, for letting
us be here this morning. It is always an honor, and it is a
special privilege to be here with my boss and partner,
Secretary Mike Donley, who is coming up on about 5 years
running our Air Force, a long road, and he has done it
tremendously well.
Despite the budgetary turbulence and what I hope will be an
atypical year, I believe we will see a continuing demand for
American airpower in the future. From the airlift requirements
of a responsible drawdown in Afghanistan to, as the chairman
mentioned, the vast distances and increasingly vocal
international actors in the Asia-Pacific region to growing
national reliance on space-based capabilities, America's
foreign policy choices reflect a conscious reliance on its Air
Force to help realize success.
These strategic choices followed 22 years of sustained
combat operations for your Air Force and a slow decline of
readiness that we simply must reverse. These choices are also
bounded by shifting fiscal realities that will force the entire
Defense Department to focus on those capabilities and missions
that are truly essential in the future.
As an indispensable part of that joint force, the Air Force
intends to continue operating in airspace and cyber, and to
prioritize those core missions that have existed since our
birth as a separate service in 1947: air and now space
superiority; rapid global mobility; intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance; global strike; and command and control at
the theater level. Our airmen perform these missions
exceptionally well, and, in doing so, they do provide global
vigilance, global reach, and global power for America.
Out fiscal year 2014 budget request does not fully account
for necessary recovery actions from the current budgetary
turbulence, nor does it fully incorporate the potential cuts
for sequestration in 2014 and beyond, but what it does do is
prioritize the effort to reverse our declining readiness trend,
recognizing that low states of readiness negate many of the
strategic advantages of airpower.
Flying hours are allocated to maintain and, in some cases,
incrementally improve readiness levels across the Total Force
in this budget. In the past we have relied on overseas
contingency operations funding to partially fund those flying
hour programs and to maintain our current and substandard
readiness levels. We will continue to reduce our reliance on
that OCO funding for the flying hour program through 2015, at
which point we should have as much as 90 percent of our
peacetime flying requirement back in our baseline budget, a
level we haven't reached in quite some time. We have also
restored emphasis on training ranges, funding about 75 percent
of the requirement in that area, up from recent lows of only 25
percent.
Our fiscal year 2014 budget request also seeks to corral
the force structure cost creep in both personnel and
infrastructure that we have been experiencing. After years of
trading quantity for quality, we now have fewer people in
aircraft in our Air Force than at any time since we became an
independent service in 1947.
Unfortunately, while the numbers have gone down, both the
real cost of personnel and their proportion relative to rest of
the budget has increased dramatically. Pay and benefits
continue to rise, as have the costs of the Defense Department
health care program, which has grown approximately 270 percent
over the last 11 years, and, as we all know, these are huge
cost drivers. They scream for more control.
We support the Defense Department's request to limit the
military pay raise to only 1 percent in this budget proposal
and to explore meaningful modifications in the TRICARE system.
As a side note, we may also realize personnel cost savings from
the Total Force Task Force that the Secretary mentioned. This
group was formed to examine the operational impacts and cost
factors associated with various approaches to Total Force
integration. By identifying and implementing the optimum force
mix of an Active, Reserve, and Guard Component, we should be
able to maximize operational effectiveness, better optimize
Total Force efficiencies, and provide better stability over
time to our Guard unit States and Reserve organizations. You
can expect to see the results of this work reflected in next
year's budget submission.
Our fiscal year 2014 budget request also restores military
construction investment to historic norms, following our
deliberate infrastructure pause in fiscal year 2013. The $1.2
billion proposal in this area prioritizes bed-down requirements
for the KC-46 and the F-35, for combatant commander nuclear
deterrent and cyber requirements, and for projects to
facilitate a rebalance of the Asia-Pacific region. We will look
to consolidate infrastructure and reduce excess capacity where
allowed, and we support the Defense Department's request for
further BRAC authority in fiscal year 2015.
As difficult as a BRAC would be for everyone, we can simply
no longer afford to retain unnecessary overhead that diverts
precious resources from readiness and modernization. Our fiscal
year 2014 budget request strives to protect that modernization
in order to support current defense guidance and to preserve
the ability to execute our core missions in the future.
The KC-46, F-35, and Long-Range Strike Bomber remain our
top three investment priorities. We need the F-35. It remains
the best platform to address the proliferation of highly
capable integrated air defenses and new air-to-air threats. The
Long-Range Strike Bomber will give our Nation a flexible,
credible capability to strike globally with precision on
limited notice should the national interest require.
The KC-46 is our highest modernization priority and will
ultimately replace a third of our current tanker fleet, most of
which is almost as old Secretary Donley. Hard to believe, I
know. That tanker fleet puts the ``global'' in global
vigilance, global reach, and global power. It provides
strategic options for our Nation. We simply must modernize it.
Four of the Air Force's 10 largest modernization programs
are space-based platforms. We plan to extend our streak of 58
consecutive successful launches, and expand and modernize our
constellations, like the Global Positioning System, the Defense
Meteorological Satellite program, and others upon which the
entire Nation and many of our allies and partners depend.
We will also continue to invest in our most important
resource, our airmen. We will provide the training, education,
and professional development opportunities they need to be the
best in the world at what they do. If we can't do that, they
will find other work.
We will continue to foster work environments that are safe
and respectful. We will develop leaders of character who
demonstrate operational effectiveness and innovation, but also
the selfless, caring approach required to lead America's sons
and daughters.
We will continue to do everything in our power to care for
our airmen and their families, while balancing the resources
required to do that with the understanding that our primary job
is to fight and win the Nation's wars.
My job is to help Secretary Donley field the most capable,
credible Air Force possible. I believe our 2014 budget request
moves us in that direction. It postures the Air Force to
improve readiness, to limit force structure cost, and to
protect vital modernization, and Secretary Donley and I stand
ready to answer any questions you may have about it.
Thank you again for the chance to be here, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I am glad the tankers are only as old as Secretary Donley.
If they were my age, we would really have problems.
Gentlemen, I am fully aware that without the equipment,
aircraft space systems and networks, we have no Air Force. Air
and space forces, more so than ground forces, require materiel
and technology to execute the mission. Investments in RDT&E
[Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation] and
procurement during the Cold War provided the Air Force with
much of the equipment that it is using today; however, all of
this equipment is aging out, and it is aging out
simultaneously, because many procurement and modernization
programs failed, were delayed, or were deferred during the past
15 years.
The Air Force needs to simultaneously recapitalize across
major categories of capabilities. There is great risk that the
effort is unsupportable in the current fiscal environment.
How is it that with all the efforts and emphasis on
reforming the acquisition process, to include Secretary Hagel's
recent remarks at NDU [National Defense University] on the
matter, we haven't had a confirmed senior acquisition executive
for the United States Air Force since 2009? All the while we
continue to see Air Force acquisition failures, such as over a
billion dollars wasted on a failed logistics program known as
ECSS [Expeditionary Combat Support System], more than $750
million wasted on C-27J [Spartan military transport] aircraft,
a DOD IG [Inspector General] investigation and subsequent
cancellation of the G222 airlifter acquisition for the Afghans
at a price of over $600 million, and GAO [Government
Accountability Office] protests and court proceedings on the
Light Attack Aircraft program for the Afghans.
Please tell me what your plan is to remedy this egregious
situation.
Secretary Donley. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, regarding the
absence of a confirmed acquisition official, we had had in
place a very capable principal deputy for 2 years of that
period, and since his departure last year, we have been looking
for a replacement. I do believe we have a candidate lined up
who will be in place within the next month or so. So, this has
been more a product of the personnel process than from a lack
of interest in filling the position on our part. We have had
several candidates. We have discussed who we have identified
along the way who have been unable to step up to the
requirements of leaving their corporate position to spend time
in Government. So it has been a lengthy process, certainly
longer than I would have liked.
We have undertaken a number of acquisition improvements in
the Air Force, as I offered. We have made great progress on
controlling the costs of our space programs over the past
several years, some of our largest programs and the ones that
had the largest cost growth in the early 2000s, so there has
been some progress there.
With respect to ECSS, which was one program that was
canceled last December, we have no apologies for that. We had
been working on the program for 7 years. We could have done
better up front in having the right technical expertise on that
program, more oversight from our logistics team and logistics
experts on the contractor team. That program went through
multiple restructurings over 7 years until we finally got to a
point where it was just unacceptable to proceed. So we have no
hesitation in canceling programs that are not performing.
The G222 falls in the same category. This was a version of
the C-27 program, earlier version of the C-20 program that had
been purchased for the Afghan Air Force, again at some expense
to the American taxpayers, where the contractor simply did not
perform over several years, and we reached a point where we
viewed that performance by that contractor and that airframe to
be unrecoverable. And, again, we have no hesitation in stopping
a program that we don't think is working correctly.
The Chairman. That is a good point, and I think it is very
important to stop programs that aren't performing. I think my
criticism would be--and this is not just the Air Force, it is
across the whole Pentagon--is sometimes we take too long to
make the decision to cancel it. If we could identify the
problems earlier, like the marine landing vehicle that we went
20 years, I think that is important.
The comment you made on the problem with getting people, if
there is something we can do to help you on that as we go
through our bill this year, if you can think of anything that
we could do that could make it easier to bring people into--I
realize it is a sacrifice for a lot of these people to come to
work, such as yourself. They can make more money on the
outside, and then the complications that they have to go
through, the things they have to comply with to work for the
Government makes it almost too big of a burden for--to even ask
people to undertake, but if there is something we could do,
please, please let us know on that.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just two questions, one on the KC-46. I know the new
tanker. I know there was an issue about whether or not the
contract, given sequestration, you would be able to continue
with the contract. That was really important that you got an
appropriations bill this year, which after a fashion we got. Is
the existing contract on that new tanker sustainable now based
on where we are at, admittedly not predicting for the future
here, but based on where we are at for fiscal year 2013?
Secretary Donley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And then on BRAC, you know, it is sort of
self-evident when you look at how the military is going to
change as the budgets have come down with sequestration, you
know, drawdown from Iraq, drawdown from Afghanistan, the
fundamental changes that are happening in our strategy, do we
need to realign our base structure? I don't think there is any
question about that. You know, Members are understandably
nervous about that because it affects individual districts in
unpredictable ways.
One of the criticisms of it--and I am a strong supporter of
base closure. You know, BRAC, however you want to get there, it
needs to be done in order to get our force in the right
structure and to save the money that needs to be saved. One of
the problems, of course, is that BRAC actually winds up costing
money in the first 5 to 6 years, depending on the BRAC. So
within the BCA [Budget Control Act] timeframe, if you do a 2015
BRAC, it doesn't actually save you money for those 10 years.
Can you please, you know, give us your justification for
doing a BRAC in that timeframe despite that reality, and also
what you might be able to do to make it less costly this time?
Secretary Donley. Well, sir, the costs of BRAC vary
significantly, depending on how you approach the problem. If
you are just trying to realign forces from point A to point B,
or if you are actually able to close locations, bring down
force structure at the same time, that involves much less cost.
So depends how you are able to approach BRAC----
Mr. Smith. So, do you envision then a BRAC process that
could save money within the BCA timeframe?
Secretary Donley. I don't see why not, if we get started on
it. Just to give you an example, on BRAC 2005, we spent about
$3.5 billion, and, as I indicated in testimony, it has
generated savings now of about a billion dollars a year, so
that will pay back in 3 or 4 years. So I think that is an
investment well worth making.
I also think that beyond the 10-year period, if you just--
--
Mr. Smith. Absolutely.
Secretary Donley. Yeah, if you just think about the places
you have never heard of, Castle, Williams, Hamilton, places
from deep in the Air Force's past, there are dozens of them
because DOD, Air Force, and congressional leadership stood up
to close those bases decades ago. If we were carrying that
overhead with us today, we would have enormous costs.
Mr. Smith. No, I think that is absolutely true. I think
long-term there is no question. The main thing you need to work
on in terms of making the pitch is to show how it--you know,
within the BCA timeframe, how you can do it more cost-
effectively.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here.
You have certainly got a very challenging situation. We all
do. I was very pleased to see that you followed the guidance of
the fiscal year 2013 NDAA and provided us with the budget
breakout for the air and space control alert mission. That was
really a long time in coming.
However, in the missions fiscal year 2014 budget, there was
no request for MILCON [Military Construction] projects, and I
find this concerning and troubling, because, as you may recall,
there was House report language for the fiscal year 2013 MILCON
and VA [Veterans Affairs] appropriation bill that stated
opposite. It pretty much said that the committee recognized the
strategic importance of Air Guard Components of the ACA
[Aerospace Control Alert] mission and their role in the
country's homeland defense, and the committee urges the
Secretary of the Air Force to reprioritize its investments and
place the maintenance facilities for legacy F-16 fighter
aircraft with ACA missions that are responsible for high-value
metropolitan areas at the top of the military construction
list.
Now, listening very carefully to your opening statement,
Mr. Secretary, you stated that it is a priority of yours to
keep operationally effective the legacy assets, and certainly
of all the alert missions in the country, the 177th Fighter
Wing fits your criteria for a prime metropolitan facility.
There is no other facility in the Nation that, when alerted,
can be over top of Washington, D.C., or New York simultaneously
if necessary in 9 minutes or less. So that having been said, I
have to believe that there was an oversight that in the MILCON,
the new fuel cell and corrosion control hangar was not put in
fiscal year 2014, but rather let go to fiscal year 2017,
especially since in the reprioritization of the F-16 fighter
aircraft, we looked at, because another base is going to be
drawing down, that the 177th will be receiving newer legacy
aircraft.
So, I am hopeful, in light of what I think is an oversight,
that you can agree to work with our office and work with the
wing commander to see if there isn't something we can do that
seems like it would meet with what your request in priorities
are.
Secretary Donley. Thanks for that input, sir. I will just
offer that we are way behind on MILCON, so the focus is new
mission capabilities that are right out in front of us, F-35,
tanker, some immediate operational things at locations like
Guam. And last year was our lowest year almost on record for
MILCON, so we are just in the process of recovery. We are not
nearly where we want to be, but we understand the priorities as
you see them.
Mr. LoBiondo. Can we count on at least some dialogue in
attempting to work together considering the high priority that
you placed on the metropolitan bases?
Secretary Donley. Sir, we have lots of MILCON priorities,
but we would be happy to talk with you and your staff about its
placement in fiscal year 2017.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. And just lastly, General Welsh, I would
be hopeful you can chime in here. When can the committee
finally expect to see a plan on paper that will address the
need for recapitalization of the Air National Guard's F-16
fleet in this coming year? It is something we have been asking
for and asking for, and I understand there have been
complications, but I am hopeful you can shed some light here.
General Welsh. Congressman, the Total Force Task Force, the
guidelines we have given them are to put together a proposal
for active ARC [Air Reserve Component] mix to include mission
assignments, the model we use, whether it is a proportional--a
percentage of the active mission set, resides in the Reserve
Component, whether it is specific missions that reside
exclusively in the Reserve Component, and what are both the
costs and the operational impacts of those courses of action
that they are going to review.
We have three two-star generals leading this effort, one
Guard, one Active, and one Reserve. We have two TAGs [Adjutant
General] advising them. They report out weekly to me, monthly
to the Secretary, monthly to the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, and then quarterly the intent is to work through OSD
[Office of the Secretary of Defense] to update the Council of
Governors.
The discussion on the options they look at and are assessed
by a common team of analysts will go on for the next 6 months
or so. At the end of that timeframe, we will bring a
recommendation to the Secretary for inclusion in the 2015
budget. That is where we intend to have this on paper.
Mr. LoBiondo. So, somewhat possible this calendar year?
General Welsh. Oh, I think the recommendations will clearly
be being discussed this calendar year, yes, sir, by this fall.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much, both of you, for being here.
You know, you said, and we all know this, that the strength
of our military lies in our people, and one of the most
difficult issues that I think we always address come back to
personnel.
There are recommendations in the budget that would increase
TRICARE fees and decrease the traditional way that we have paid
the military, the raises beyond 1 percent, and I know this is
difficult for everybody because we face our constituents and
the men and women who serve our country. If that change does
not come forth in the NDAA, where does it come from? Where do
those increases come from? How do they affect readiness? What
are the consequences of that? We know that there are certainly
consequences; there always are. How can you respond to that? I
think it is important for us to understand it.
Secretary Donley. Yes, ma'am, and I think they are pretty
clear, especially in the constrained environment in which we
live. Just again sort of the context for this on TRICARE. When
TRICARE was created in the mid-1990s, retirees paid about over
20 percent of the costs of their medical care.
Mrs. Davis. I think it is 27 percent.
Secretary Donley. Yes, ma'am, I believe it is 27 percent.
Today they pay 11 percent. So costs have moved up without
changes in the fees, so that certainly needs to be addressed.
If we don't address these issues, the dollars come out of
modernization, or they come out of readiness, or they make the
military smaller.
Mrs. Davis. Can you be a little more specific?
Secretary Donley. Actually, if you look at the historical
data, and I think you are familiar with this, ma'am, the U.S.
military has been getting smaller over the last 30 years, and
our personnel costs have been going up. So there has not been a
correlation between a declining size of the Department of
Defense and its military personnel and a decline in military
personnel costs. Even on an inflation-adjusted, that is kind
of--that costs have continued to rise for these kinds of
reasons. So if those personnel costs are left unaddressed, they
will squeeze out modernization, they will squeeze out the
readiness of the force.
Mrs. Davis. General, did you want to respond?
General Welsh. Yes, ma'am. I will admit freely to not being
the world's best researcher, but in research to try and
understand the problem we are in now with the drawdown from the
peak spending of a few years ago and where we are going, with
the potential of sequestration cuts over 10 years, the first
thing that became obvious to me is related to the Secretary's
point about personnel costs going up so remarkably over the
last 10 years.
One of things that has happened over time is that as we
built up force structure, our top-line budget in the Department
of Defense would rise, and then when it was time to draw it
down, it came down to just below where we started from
typically.
One of the differences this time is that in the past, when
that budget line went up, our force structure went up with it.
This time in the Air Force, our budget went up, but because of
that increase in personnel costs, our force structure went
down.
Mrs. Davis. Went down, yeah.
General Welsh. So now the lines are split, which is why we
are the smallest Air Force we have ever been since we became an
independent service. As we come down the topline curve, we will
come down in parallel in the force structure curve. That is the
thing that makes this noticeably different from a capability
perspective as I look at the operational end of the Air Force.
Everything we take from the capabilities side to fund the
people side is worth considering carefully.
Mrs. Davis. General, if I could interrupt because time is
running out, but one of the other areas that is so critical is
military professional education, and it is my understanding
from a previous hearing that about 8,000 airmen would not be
receiving the military professional education that they need to
be promoted and obviously to go on to be the great officers
that we need.
Is that the case, or with some changes in sequestration in
terms of the way you can move your dollars around a little bit
more, does that change, or are we still looking at that number
for the number of the airmen who might not be able to be
promoted?
General Welsh. Congresswoman, we are doing everything we
can to not have that happen. It all comes out of the same pot
of money. It is all out of the O&M account. And so one of the
things that we are trying to do is as we get reprogramming
authority, which the Congress has given us, the Department, and
we have gotten part of that, we have been able to shift money
back into flying hours to support combatant commanders who have
been able to minimize the impact on people's ability to go to
school. We will continue to work to do that, and, over time,
clearly that is money well spent. It is not something we should
stop doing.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Thornberry. [Presiding.] Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here.
I have two questions and only 5 minutes, so I am going to
throw them both out and for either or both of you to respond
to, if you would. The first one is the Air Force's bomber force
is aging rapidly, with the B-52 [Stratofortress strategic
bomber] and B-1 [Lancer strategic bomber] scheduled for
complete retirement by 2040 and the B-2 by 2058. What value
does the Long-Range Strike Bomber, the LRSB, offer the Air
Force as a replacement for these systems, particularly in the
antiaccess/area denial environments that we will be dealing
with? That is one.
And then the second one, a followup kind of on what Mrs.
Davis just asked. We know with the President's F-14 budget
failing to meet the restrictions of the Budget Control Act by a
reported $52 billion, there is a concern about sequestration
across-the-board cuts continuing to fiscal year 2014.
Could you address specifically how that might impact your
flight hours and training for less experienced pilots, and what
impact that would have on our long-term readiness? So either or
both of you on those two questions
Secretary Donley. Mr. Forbes, I will take the first one,
and I think the Chief is in a good place to answer about pilot
training.
With respect to the Long-Range Strike Bomber, you outlined
our challenge with the bomber force, which is aging. Even the
B-52 now is--excuse me--even the B-2, our most capable stealth
bomber, is 20 years old now, so we are particularly concerned
about the age of the B-52 and the B-1s.
Long-range strike has been a core function of the United
States Air Force since our inception, and it offers the
President options to strike any place on the planet at any time
if national interests require it. It is a good tool for the
U.S. military to have, and it is an essential capability for
our Air Force, so we need to get on with the LRSB.
It is especially important as we look to the Asia-Pacific
rebalance and as we consider the possibility of denied areas
and the anti-access/area-denial challenges that we may face in
the decades ahead. We need long-range and payload to deliver a
punch, and while our fighter force structure does this in many
different dimensions, it falls to the bomber force to be able
to do this at long ranges and with high payloads.
So it is a very valuable tool for national security. Got
supported in the defense strategic guidance. And we need to get
on with LRSB. It is a very important priority.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And, General, if you could address the training hours and
the impact sequestration might have on those flight hours and
how that impacts our overall readiness. Sometimes that gets
lost in what we are looking at here.
General Welsh. Congressman, thank you. It is a great
question.
As you know, with the abrupt and kind of arbitrary nature
of the mechanism of sequestration, flying hours became a
problem for us instantly. We are protecting basic flight
training, and we are protecting our flying training units that
transition new pilots into specific weapons systems, whether
they be fighters or bombers. They are going to be funded
through the rest of the year, at least until September, when we
may run out of flying hour money completely if something
doesn't change and we have more reprogramming authority. But
until then, we will protect those courses.
Our advanced training programs, instructor pilot upgrades,
the fighter weapons instructor courses we are shutting down. We
don't have the flying hours to operate them. That gift will
keep on giving throughout the 20-year career of the individuals
who did not attend. There is no way we have the capacity to
plus-up in the future years to go back and fix that. So it will
have an impact on our force for a while.
In 2014, we must prioritize money for flying hour training.
We recruit the best people we can. We have to train them better
than anybody else in the world does. We have to prioritize it.
Mr. Forbes. General, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, one of the things that not many of our
citizens would be comfortable with is putting their sons or
daughters on a commercial airliner where the pilot only had 70
percent of his training. We don't want to make sure our men and
women going to fight for us have anything less. So thank you
for fighting for both of those.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Donley and General Welsh, thank you for appearing
today and providing us with your testimony. And I look forward
to working together as one of the co-chairs of the Air Force
Caucus.
The island of Guam is very proud of the close relationship
that we share between Anderson Air Force Base and our local
community. And, as you know, Guam is very supportive of the
overall DOD efforts to rebalance forces to the Pacific.
Now, my first question is for both of you regarding Guam
Strike, or Pacific Airpower Resiliency, as I believe it is now
referred to. The Asia-Pacific region is the world's most
militaried region, with 7 of the 10 largest militaries and
multiple nations with declared nuclear arms. Instability in
this region will have a direct and immediate effect for our
entire Nation.
The current missile threat from North Korea highlights the
need for hardening and disbursal of Air Force assets in the
region. Now, unfortunately, the Senate has had a very unique
and interesting position on this matter, so I do appreciate the
Air Force's continued support of the effort.
Can either of you comment on the need for hardening of
structures on Guam, the funding and the technology improvements
for runway repairs, and elaborate on other aspects you see as
vital for the protection of Guam's forward defense assets.
Secretary.
Secretary Donley. Thank you, ma'am.
Guam is a very important anchor for the United States in
the Pacific and a very important anchor for the United States
Air Force. So Andersen Air Force Base gets a lot of attention
and a lot of business from our Air Force. We routinely use this
location in both fighter and bomber deployments into the
region. And, as you know, it is a joint area of operations of
interest to all of the military services.
We have five projects in our MILCON budget this year that
are focused on the kinds of improvements which you described.
We see ourselves at Guam in perpetuity. Andersen is a very
important asset to us. And as potential threats develop in this
region, we need to be prepared to respond to those threats.
And I think you put your finger on it. This is not a choice
between disbursal or hardening; it is a combination of factors
that will help make our bases, from which we fight, resilient
in any number of threat scenarios.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
And, General, do you have anything to add to that?
General Welsh. Congresswoman, I would just add that,
operationally, if we expect to be able to survive an attack
with the weapons that are now available to the enemy and
continue to operate from Guam, hardened facilities will be
mandatory.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
I have a second question. The Air Force has expressed
concerns about the current ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance] assets and their capability in a more contested
area. However, I believe that the Global Hawk remains a proven
platform with continued utility. The language in last year's
bill is very clear: Congress believes the Global Hawk program
should be continued.
Can you comment on how the Air Force intends to sustain the
Global Hawk Block 30 program past fiscal year 2014? Will the
Air Force use the funding provided in the appropriations bill
to procure the additional three Block 30 aircraft? And,
finally, what is the Air Force doing to work with the
contractor to address some of the cost and capability concerns?
I personally believe there are commonsense solutions that
enhance the Block 30 capabilities, like the transferring of
some of the equipment from the U-2s [``Dragon Lady''
reconnaissance aircraft] to the Global Hawk.
So could you answer that, either one of you?
Secretary Donley. Well, ma'am, this remains a difficult
area where we have been in disagreement with the Congress over
the past year. We have funded the force structure for the
Global Hawk Block 30s, as I indicated, through fiscal year
2014, and there is procurement money that has not been
expended.
Ms. Bordallo. Decided.
Secretary Donley. We went through this discussion again in
our Air Force leadership, concluded that the decision that we
had made last year to divest Global Hawk force structure is
probably the right one. We like the persistence of the Global
Hawk, but it does not have the sensor capabilities of the U-2.
Ms. Bordallo. Can you exchange equipment?
Secretary Donley. Not without cost and time. And at this
point, our outyear budgets do not include funding for
sustaining the Global Hawk force structure. So if we would add
that back, that would be a bill to the Air Force. The moving of
U-2 sensors onto the Global Hawk is another bill to the Air
Force. So----
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you. But I will continue my
interest in the Global Hawks.
I yield back.
The Chairman. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here again.
If I could be shameless at the very beginning, basically
since Korea, this country has maintained air superiority, which
is a fact we usually take for granted, which is too bad. In the
present situation, when the United States wanted to show a show
of force, it was missile defense, it was bombers, it was the F-
22 that was sent over there to illustrate the United States
commitment. So much for those outside the military that told me
that these were relics of the Cold War and we didn't need them
in the future. Not that I am bitter. I still wish we still had
200 more of those F-22s to be flying around here.
It also shows that the role of the Air Force is both
significant and--I am as frustrated as others with not only of
the impact of sequestration but the other two cuts to the
military that took place in these last 5 years. It is the three
cuts combined that have caused the significant problems that we
now face. And each of those cuts was a difficult one to handle.
So if I could ask you, General, just a couple of questions
that are probably more parochial than anything else, I would
appreciate it.
General Welsh. Sure.
Mr. Bishop. The Secretary of Defense was quoted in the
press the other day as saying that--and he said this yesterday,
as well--that we have to do some substantial reductions in our
civilian workforce.
Obviously, the air logistics complexes, we have a large
civilian defense population. With AFCM's [Air Force Materiel
Command] reduction in personnel over the last couple of years
as well as the reorganization that took place last year, is it
the contention that we still have a large number of civilian
workers that could easily or should be reduced at our air
defense depot sustainment programs or systems?
General Welsh. Congressman, I will tell you that that is
not my contention.
I believe we have taken a look at the problem. I think what
the Secretary of Defense has discussed, at least in the
meetings where I have been in the room with him, is the need
for us to take an honest look at the joint force of the future:
Pick the essential capabilities the Department will need; look
at everything, to include worst-case options if sequestration
is in place at max impact for 10 years; and then come up with a
realistic game plan for how we go from here to there. That move
will require reductions in lots of areas.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you.
I will try and get these last three in as quickly as I can.
Once again, parochial, the same time.
The FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] contract towers
reduction has had an impact on maybe only a couple of bases. I
think Congressman Fleming has Barksdale in Louisiana, and I
have Hill, Utah, where the bases are within 3 miles of the
airport. The airspace overlaps, and there is potential there
for conflict if this actually goes through.
I would simply like to ask if either of you have a problem
with allowing your local base commanders to communicate safety
concerns they may have with the FAA, either in letter or other
kinds of communication forms.
General Welsh. No, sir. And they have been doing that.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you. And they have.
Two other questions very quickly, if I could. You mentioned
briefly in there the total force integration. Is it your
contention that this so far has been a success? And do you have
the intentions of continuing that concept in the future?
Secretary Donley. Yes, it has been a success, and
absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. And this is probably the last one unless I can
get more to sneak in here. Other than what Congresswoman
Bordallo said about the Global Hawk, I agree with her.
The last one is, General Hostage the other day talked about
ranges, maintaining a couple of the long ranges but having
smaller ranges being some kind of jeopardy as this kind of
infrastructure, that we need it to be able to make sure that we
can drop bombs properly.
Would you just like to mention a couple of words about the
significance of the range infrastructure that we have and its
maintenance potential?
General Welsh. We cannot train our force to be the best Air
Force in the world without a range infrastructure. That is why
we are bumping our funding back up from 25 percent to 75
percent for the infrastructure and the people that support it.
We have to try and do even better in the future.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Gentlemen, once again, thank you for being here. And I
appreciate what the Air Force does to defend this Nation. And,
obviously, in recent weeks, we have seen the significance of
having a strong and powerful Air Force. I hope that we can
maintain that going into the future.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Donley and General Welsh, first of all, I want to
thank you for the work that you did in the last Congress
regarding the force structure change with the Air National
Guard. Obviously, there was a gap or a disagreement at the
outset of that process with Congress. But, again, the final
product in the defense authorization bill was obviously a very
positive step. And I know that wasn't easy, and I just want to
at least publicly thank you for that effort.
And just to follow up on that, you know, the 2014 budget,
which was released this week, I mean, can you comment about
whether or not the resources are there to implement that force
structure change for the Air Guard?
Secretary Donley. Yes.
Mr. Courtney. Okay. And, I mean, in Connecticut, we were
pleased to see and we are looking forward for welcome eight C-
130s to the State. There are a couple issues that we are trying
to work out in terms of that transition period. And, again, I
hope, you know, we can continue with the collaboration, you
know, that was the hallmark of last year to try and work
through those issues, and I hope I can get that commitment from
you here this morning.
Secretary Donley. Absolutely, we will continue to work
through those issues.
In the white paper that I referenced earlier in my
testimony, we have provided schedules for all the force
structure adjustments. And we are happy to respond to any
questions you or your staff may have on that.
Mr. Courtney. Great.
And as far as the C-130s are concerned, again, there was an
issue regarding modernization, which, again, ended up getting
referred to the Institute for Defense Analyses. And I was
wondering if you have anything you can share with us this
morning about where you see that headed and just the general
issue of C-130 modernization, which is going to be an issue, I
think, for the fleet.
Secretary Donley. It is important to us, but I would offer
that we have been trying to find ways to minimize the costs
there as we get squeezed on the budget front.
So we had a C-130 AMP [Avionics Modernization Program]
program that you are probably familiar with, which was a broad
Avionics Modernization Program for C-130s. It would have been a
$2 billion effort. That was terminated, and we dropped back to
something called an optimized CNS [Communication, Navigation,
and Surveillance], navigation upgrades. That was about a $650
million program. We have terminated that, backed off even
further.
And this year we are proposing a minimum program, a
minimized strategy, if you will, that will include only the FAA
upgrades to the C-130s that are required to meet FAA
requirements for the National Airspace System by 2020 and to
meet other international FAA-equivalent standards.
Mr. Courtney. Great.
Well, thank you. Again, I want to, again, just end by
applauding the work that you did with Congress last year, and
look forward to continuing it this session.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Donley, General Welsh, thank you for being here.
I want to echo the statements of Rob Bishop concerning the
importance of the Air Force as we look to the crisis that we
are currently in. I think it absolutely illustrates the need
for strong air superiority and air capabilities and for missile
defense.
And as chairman the Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee and,
of course, the co-chair of the Air Force Caucus and with
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in my backyard and the 30,000
people who work inside the fence, who contribute every day to
the national security, I know that you know that I appreciate
what the Air Force mission is.
And I want to commend General Wolfenbarger of Materiel
Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for her effort and
leadership with the workforce at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, considering the difficult time of sequestration. She has
raised the issue that sequestration, which I know both of you
gentlemen know that I opposed, the effects that this has on
individuals and that there are people who have kids in college,
house payments to make, family vacations that are being
cancelled, as you look to the almost 13,000 people at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base and the civilian workforce that would
be facing furlough. So I appreciate your dedication and
attention to those individuals as we go through the
sequestration implementation.
A few comments about the issue of sexual assault, which has
unfortunately been one that the Air Force has had to deal with
very frequently. I want to commend General Harding. He has done
an excellent job on the Special Victims' Counsel Program as a
result of legislation that came out of the House and this
committee trying to provide victims with legal counsel. General
Harding has, I believe, a model for DOD. And my co-chair, Niki
Tsongas, and I of the Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus are very
pleased with that.
And, General Welsh, thank you for your support for the
amendment of Article 60 as a result of General Franklin's, I
believe, inappropriate and improper setting aside of a sexual
assault conviction in the officer's court-martial conviction.
Congresswoman Tsongas and I are working on language that would
amend Article 60, and we think we have a good proposal that we
appreciate, General Welsh, your willingness to work with us on
your thoughts on that.
Mr. Secretary, we have talked before about NASIC [National
Air and Space Intelligence Center]. As we look to cuts in
budgets and we look to sequestration, I am always concerned
about the effect on our intel community. I believe that, you
know, as we look to reorganizations, BRACs, sequestration,
issues like that are always at risk. And I think you know that
NASIC is a high performer and is critical to our intelligence
community and certainly has played a significant role as we
look to the issue of the threats of North Korea.
I wondered if you might speak for a moment on the
importance of NASIC's function and the Air Force's recognition
that, as we go through this process, the importance to uphold
NASIC.
Secretary Donley. Well, NASIC is critical to our air and
space intelligence enterprise. It provides not just good
intelligence support to the Air Force and the joint team, but
this combination of intelligence and technical support that is
focused on aerospace matters is particularly important to the
Air Force right now, and especially in the space domain and in
the cyber domain as those areas grow in importance. So this is
a very important asset for the United States Air Force.
Mr. Turner. Great. Thank you.
General Welsh, as we look to sequestration and the effect
on our tactical fighter inventory, we have grave concerns as to
what those impacts will be in the short term, long term, and
also the effects of--as we look to inventory shortfalls,
productions, increased costs later as we try to respond. If you
could speak for a moment about the effects of sequestration on
that production, I would appreciate it.
General Welsh. Congressman, as you know, it affects us
near-term, and clearly it will affect the cost of modernization
and the cost of acquisition of new programs. Everything that
delays a program like the F-35 will add unit cost over time; it
will stretch the program out, which will add additional costs.
I think our focus has to be to minimize that, which is the
reason for some kind of predictable topline budget going
forward which allows us to do the long-range planning we need
to do to be able to do this the right way. Everybody
understands that we are going to have to take cuts in the
Department; we would just like to responsibly plan to get from
point A to point Z.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
And, gentlemen, as we look to sequestration, I would
appreciate your articulating very clearly the impacts on our
national security and how it affects our readiness. I know DOD
was restrained previously from doing that.
Unfortunately, the President, in his budget, as you know,
when he stated he was going to give us a sequestration
proposal, did not. There are things in here like ``have savings
in Medicare as a result of eliminating waste, fraud, and
abuse.'' This is not a proposal that could either go to the
House or the Senate and be passed and be implemented in any way
that would offset sequestration. I would appreciate you telling
the Administration they need to come up with a real proposal.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the outset, I would like to echo the comments of
Congressman Turner about the work that the Air Force is doing
on victims' counsel, providing access to counsel. I do agree it
is a model, and I appreciate all the work that General Harding
has put into it. And we continue to look forward to working
with you on the powers of the convening authority.
But I want to thank you both for being here as part of the
regular process. I am the daughter of an Air Force officer. He
was a survivor of Pearl Harbor, went on to serve for 20 years.
And I grew up on Air Force bases across this country and the
world, and it was quite a life.
And I believe it is vital for our committee to work with
you both to make sure we are providing the very best services
for our airmen and fielding peerless technologies to defend our
Nation. Clearly, as one of the country's preeminent high-tech
clusters of industry and academia, my State, Massachusetts,
plays a critical role with this latter responsibility.
So to get to an issue that is close to home, my office has
been working with the committee for the past year to look for a
path forward for a $450 million enhanced-use lease renovation
project for MIT's [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]
Lincoln Labs, which is located on the grounds of Hanscom Air
Force Base.
Lincoln, as I am sure you know, is one of the Nation's very
finest federally funded research and development centers. And
since the height of the Cold War, Lincoln has led the way in
long-term defense technology development as well as rapid
system prototyping and demonstration.
But, unfortunately, parts of the facility have run into
obsolescence issues. I view this as a critical project to
keeping Lincoln Lab on the cutting edge of technology and to
make sure it is able to continue to work to confront the
Nation's most complex technological challenges.
I appreciate the work both the Air Force and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense have been doing to develop a path
forward on this lease. But I would ask that you put a priority
on this project and that you keep me informed should you have
any issues or should you require the assistance of me or the
committee.
We included language in the last year's defense conference
report urging the proposal to move forward. We have to remember
there are no taxpayer dollars associated with this. This is a
commitment that MIT is making. And yet it has been too long in
the making.
So my question is a very simple one: Can I count on both of
your support with this request, that we work on this and
resolve it as expeditiously as possible?
Secretary Donley. Ma'am, I am aware of this problem. I
don't have a solution for you today.
As far as I can tell, this has to do with the scoring
mechanisms that are out there, which are prejudicial, in the
sense that the United States Air Force cannot stand behind a
loan without having it be scored by OMB [Office of Management
and Budget]. And if it has to be scored by OMB, it is the
equivalent of a MILCON project. In other words, it goes on our
books as a liability in that context, as a cost. We will
continue to work those issues with OMB to try to find a way
forward.
I am going up there in 2 weeks and expect to get briefed on
this project. I understand the larger scheme of the requirement
and the need to find a way forward.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. As I have learned in life, where
there is a will, there is a way. So let's harness the will so
we can find the way.
Another question, quickly. Another concern around Hanscom
Air Force Base is that fundamentally there is a lack of
appreciation for Hanscom's mission among many in the Air Force
and that some of the misconceptions about Hanscom could be held
toward other technical facilities as well.
By the Air Force's own admission, Hanscom's C4ISR [Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance] acquisitions portfolio is the most complex
in the service. It seems to me that the best way to better
appreciate that is if I could invite you, General Welsh, up to
Massachusetts to come to Hanscom with me so that we can begin
to better understand really the extraordinary offerings at
Hanscom and the extraordinary work it does on behalf of the Air
Force.
Could I invite to you come up there at your convenience?
General Welsh. I am honored that you would ask me. I would
love to do that.
Ms. Tsongas. Great. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.
General Welsh, I would be remiss if I didn't pass on the
fact that Carol Ann Bonds from San Angelo, Texas, sings your
praises every single time I am around her. So you have done
something to pull the wool over her eyes someway. I am not sure
how that is working.
General Welsh. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway. As I spoke with Secretary Hagel yesterday, I
am still keenly interested in the Air Force providing me and
the rest of the taxpayers of the United States with auditable
financial statements, systems that are sustainably auditable
over the infinite horizon kind of thing.
Can you talk to us a little about the struggles you are
going to face with all these budget cuts, all these challenges
to resources? And one of the easiest things to cut sometimes
would be something like this, that we still have to move it
forward in spite of everything else that is going on. So can
you talk to me a little about where you are currently standing?
Secretary Donley. We do have to continue to move this
forward as a priority.
I will say that it is more complicated as we make midyear
changes and budgets go up and down and we focus on--in the
Department of Defense and in the Air Force, we are spending
more and more time on shorter and shorter distances in front of
us. So we are very focused on just executing fiscal year 2013
right now, and a lot of other work has been pushed off.
But to your specific question about audit readiness, we are
still working this. We have had some progress. We have had some
challenging aspects to this.
Last year, we put out a bid for contractor support to get
independent auditors to help us work through our auditable
statements before they are submitted in their final form at the
end of 2014 and beyond, to help us get ahead of this and get a
professional look at what we are doing. That contract was
protested and has been under protest, so we have lost some time
there.
But we have extended the DEAMS [Defense Enterprise
Accounting and Management System], our new budgeting system at
Scott Air Force Base, which is getting off the ground there. We
did get a clean opinion recently on missile components, part of
our enterprise. And I think this was the first time that a part
of DOD's investment portfolio had gotten a clean opinion.
So there has been some progress, but this is still uphill
work for us. There is lots to do.
Mr. Conaway. Well, I recognize that. And just understand
that we are going to continue to push where we can.
Under the rubric, or under the category of if you are
faithful to small things, you will be faithful to big things,
my mail budget out of my congressional office has shrunk
considerably because I quit using all the slick, four-color,
five-color things and just try to communicate, trying to trim
it back wherever I could. I just got handed the fiscal-year-
something rollout. And we have pretty slick documents here that
I don't know what it cost to print them or prepare the data.
But as you look at trimming costs wherever you can, these
are the kinds of things that I think can--don't get read, quite
frankly, and are just--the taxpayer could put that--you, I
think, could put taxpayer money in better places than on these
slick documents, some of which are just duplicates of things
that have already been done.
So I appreciate your commitment.
General Welsh, I don't know if you had a comment. I need
your leadership, as well, on this audit thing. And getting a
few comments from you would be helpful to the team you lead to
make sure that I and they know how committed you and Secretary
Donley are to this auditability thing.
General Welsh. Congressman, I think we are on a well-
designed and aggressive path to getting where we need to be by
2014.
As you well know, the availability of IT [information
technology] systems that allow us to expose and share data
across system and functional lines is the biggest shortfall we
have. It is a big shortfall. And there are an awful lot of
people working awfully hard to figure out how to sneakernet and
manually overcome that while we develop the IT systems in the
future.
This is a huge task. We are working it as hard as we can.
Mr. Conaway. And you are committed to----
General Welsh. Absolutely.
Mr. Conaway. All right. Thank you, General.
Secretary, thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, what are the costs, the Air Force costs, of
forward-deploying nuclear weapons in Europe?
General Welsh. Congressman, there are several types of
costs that go into this. There are operations and maintenance
costs. There is the cost of maintaining the storage facilities.
There are the costs of the people that you train and station
overseas to protect those facilities. There are the flying-hour
costs to keep aircrews certified in the mission itself. There
is the cost to do integrated training with NATO [North Atlantic
Treaty Organization] because it is an integrated mission inside
the NATO structure. And then, of course, there are the costs
over time of upgrading infrastructure, like the weapons storage
vaults, upgrading weapons systems, upgrading command and
control systems to support it.
I couldn't even begin to give you a number off the top of
my head that incorporates all of that, but it is expensive over
time.
Mr. Johnson. Uh-huh. Approximately, per year, are we
talking about, what, $5 billion? $10 billion? Neighborhood.
General Welsh. Yeah, Congressman, I would have to get back
to you with that, unless the boss knows a number. There are so
many pieces of that are in different places, that we would have
to pull that together. I would be glad to try and do that and
give you a ballpark figure, though.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 79.]
Mr. Johnson. Okay.
You would not have anything to add to that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Donley. No.
Mr. Johnson. All right.
Well, what about cyberspace and the Air Force's ability to
operate within that space? Is the Air Force currently
addressing cyberspace as a part of its defense capabilities?
Secretary Donley. Absolutely. This has been part of our
force structure for some period of time. And it has been about
4 years since we established 24th Air Force, which is the Air
Force component of U.S. Cyber Command, which reports to
Strategic Command. So we have had a dedicated number at Air
Force to the cyber work. And there are other cyber capabilities
that we provide to the DOD and joint community that are
considered very high-value assets.
This is one area where it is not clear how big the cyber
workforce is going to be in the future. We all face manpower
constraints, and it is one where technology and expertise plays
a very big role. And so we are not quite sure yet what the
joint requirement will be or what the upper limit requirements
will be for Air Force personnel and force structure.
The chief, I think, has a little bit.
Mr. Johnson. Are you recruiting and training airmen with
cyber skills, and are you retaining them after the training?
Secretary Donley. Absolutely. There is cyber training at
three or four levels in our Air Force, from basic introductory
to journeyman to highly expert network warfare kinds of
training, takes place across our Air Force.
We have been able to retain airmen, generally. Where we
have had more difficulty in doing that at some of the more
highly skilled levels that are prone to having airmen leave and
go to work in the private sector, we have extended enlistments
and we have added dollars to our personnel accounts to induce
airmen to stay longer to provide extra benefits and extra pay,
if you will, to keep them longer.
Mr. Johnson. Is that something that you need any help from
this committee with?
Secretary Donley. If we do, we will be sure and tell you.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
And Mr. Bishop opened up the question of the long-range
strike bomber, and so, Mr. Secretary and General Welsh, I want
to return there. The home of Global Strike Command is in my
district. I was very pleased to hear you say very supportive
things about the fact that we need to continue funding the
development and, in fact, increase funding for development of
this valuable program.
I didn't get a chance to ask this question, though, to
Secretary of Defense Hagel. Can you give me an idea of, does he
share, Mr. Secretary, your feelings about the long-range strike
bomber and the need to develop it?
Secretary Donley. I would say over the course of the last
month the Secretary and I have not had an opportunity to talk
specifically about the long-range strike bomber. I believe he
understands the value of this capability. It got support in the
Defense Strategic Guidance, which remains an anchor for the
Department as we consider future alternatives and options going
forward.
So I believe he supports the program, but I have had no
direct conversations with him on that.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Yes.
One of the issues that pops up at times is this nuclear
triad, which, of course, has been a fundamental part of peace
through strength and nuclear deterrence. Mr. Secretary and
General Welsh, both, what is your feeling about maintaining and
continuing the concept of a nuclear triad?
Secretary Donley. Well, I would just offer and would like
the chief to chime in, as well, with his views.
My view is that, even if the nuclear enterprise gets
smaller, it is important that we remain committed to, we take
advantage of the diversity of the nuclear triad.
So each, the land-based, the sea-based, and the bomber-
based, leg of this triad has operational advantages and
disadvantages. And our task and our opportunity with the triad
is to complicate an aggressor's problem by presenting so many
problems and challenges that no one would contemplate using
nuclear weapons against the United States. And I think the
triad helps fulfill that.
Dr. Fleming. Extremely well put.
Yeah, General Welsh.
General Welsh. I would just like to add to that by saying,
in operational terms, what the triad gives us is flexibility,
responsiveness, and survivability. And those three things
together, I think, are kind of the strength of our nuclear
deterrence posture.
Dr. Fleming. Obviously, deterrence is the real bottom line
to nuclear weapons. We have them and we can deliver them so
that we never have to do that. And, certainly, I agree with
you; creating serious problems for potential adversaries in
that arena is really our goal here.
What about the ALCMs [air-launched cruise missile]? What is
our follow-on to our current ALCM, which is, of course, the
modern system by which we deliver both conventional and nuclear
weapons from our bombers?
Secretary Donley. Well, our plan is to sustain the ALCMs
through about 2030. There is a follow-on program, the long-
range standoff missile, which is early in development and is
part of the nuclear modernization plan that has been described
to Congress in the past.
Dr. Fleming. Uh-huh.
Anything else to add to that, General Welsh?
General Welsh. No, sir.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Great. With that, thank you, gentlemen,
and thank you for your service.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
It looks like votes are imminent, and we still have several
Members that haven't had the opportunity to ask questions. We
will try to get one or two in, and I think we can still make
the first vote. And there are three votes, so we would have to
have a short recess.
But I want to ask, any of the Members, will you be coming
back? One, two--okay.
Mr. Secretary, General, if you could be patient with us.
Let me ask again, will any of you return after the series
of votes that don't get to ask your questions first?
Okay. Then we will come back after the recess.
Mr. Gallego? No questions?
Mr. Gallego. I am happy ask after or submit them.
The Chairman. It is your turn now, if you want to ask.
Mr. Gallego. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to submit them for
the record, as well.
The Chairman. Okay.
Then, Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Donley, our national security space capabilities
provide a tremendous advantage to the warfighter, whether it is
GPS [Global Positioning System] signals navigating bombs to
targets or missile warning satellites keeping watch around the
globe 24/7. We invest billions in these capabilities. We rely
on our space launch infrastructure to provide us assured access
to space and these capabilities.
The Air Force's launch program, Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle, has a tremendous record of over 50 consecutive
successful launches. Can you describe what the Air Force's
plans are in fiscal year 2014 and beyond in regards to
maintaining the space launch capability?
Secretary Donley. Sir, I think we are very well-positioned
in that area. As you described, EELV [Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle] has been a very successful program. Our concern has
been that it has been growing in costs.
We now have potential alternatives to that that are coming
along through a group of companies that are described as new
entrants into space launch. Working with NASA [National
Aeronautics and Space Administration] and the National
Reconnaissance Office, the intelligence community, we have
crafted a strategy for how to bring in new entrants and certify
them in space launch.
At the same time we have been doing that, we have been
working with ULA [United Launch Alliance] to drive down the
costs of EELV and have developed an acquisition strategy to do
that through block buys. And so we are getting--I think we are
poised to get the best for the warfighter and the best for the
taxpayer at the same time.
So we will have block buys of EELV for the next few years.
And then in the midteens, there will be an opportunity for new
entrants to compete. And we will have the capability, subject
to their certification and their readiness to compete, we will
be able to have EELV and new entrants competing for launch
capability.
Mr. Coffman. Great. Let me just clarify, in your view,
should the EELV launch capability contract be phased out or
continue?
Secretary Donley. There is a separate contract, I think it
is referred to as the ELC [EELV Launch Capability] contract,
which involves ULA support at the east and west range. And we
recognize that this is an additional cost in EELV that needs to
be worked out in order to create a level playing field between
ULA and the new entrants when we get into a competitive
environment. So we are looking at how to work out that ELC
contract in the context of creating a level playing field.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Just a couple points on your budget and sequestration. You
know, obviously, your hands are tied. But we are going to rely
on you, in part, for your professional advice, General Welsh
and Secretary Donley, on how to reprioritize these cuts if, in
fact, these deficit-reduction targets are with us to stay.
And so a couple of the things I would like to look at are,
if we are going to do a base realignment and closure commission
and if--and I rely on you. If you say we have surplus capacity
that is driving unnecessary costs, I am going to support you on
that. But I really strongly believe that--and I think that
there was language passed in the previous National Defense
Authorization Act for you to look at foreign--I mean, overseas
basing, as well.
I really think that the notion of, you know, maintaining
permanent forward-deployed bases where, you know, we have all
the infrastructure there to support the military families and
the schools, dependent schools, and all those things, as
opposed to, you know, doing joint military exercises to
demonstrate our support for our allies and rotational forces
for shorter periods of time, moving units in and out, I think,
is a lot more cost-effective.
And especially when we are looking at closing bases down in
the continental United States, I think it is unfair not to take
that strong look in terms of our overseas bases.
Would any of you like to comment on that?
General Welsh. Congressman, I absolutely think we need to
be taking a hard look at overseas infrastructure. We are in the
process of doing that right now, both within the Air Force and
in conjunction the Department of Defense, which is taking a
broader look, and we are feeding that discussion.
I don't think we will find that end game that you can bring
everything home. I think the idea that everything can be done
rotationally----
Mr. Coffman. Sure.
General Welsh [continuing]. Is a nonstarter.
Mr. Coffman. Nobody is saying that.
General Welsh. But I think there are opportunities for
consolidation and closures in areas in Europe, for example. I
think we should do that. We are doing that this year to make it
very clear so that we have done that before we ask for a round
of BRAC in 2015.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Enyart.
Mr. Enyart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General Welsh.
General Welsh, in the fiscal year 2013 through 2017 FYDP
[Future Years Defense Plan], Scott Air Force Base, which
happens to be in my district, was positioned for three
construction projects, two of which are the building of a
TRANSCOM [Transportation Command] mission planning center for
fiscal year 2016 at a cost of $76 million, and in addition to
the 126th Refueling Wing, a squadron operations facility, that
also was fiscal year 2016, at a cost of $11.4 million.
Now, as you are well aware, Scott is, of course, the
headquarters for TRANSCOM as well as AMC [Air Mobility Command]
and other critically important missions. And the service they
provide there to our Nation is critical, particularly
considering the important work being done to transition our
forces out of Afghanistan and enabling our military and,
indeed, our Nation's global reach. Yet, in the President's new
budget, these projects have been removed.
Can you explain to me why they were a priority last year
but not a priority this year, according to DOD?
General Welsh. Congressman, I can't. I will ask the
Secretary if he can or I will take it for the record and get
you an answer very quickly.
Secretary Donley. Happy to do that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 79.]
Mr. Enyart. Thank you.
I would yield back the balance of my time and submit the
balance of my questions in writing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
And you spoke briefly about the JSTAR, Secretary Donley.
Obviously, that is in my district. I am very familiar with that
platform. It is time that we either have to re-engine or
replace. They are aircraft that continually fly. It is a
mission that is extremely important to the Air Force and our
national security. And I want to work with you in any way I can
to make sure that we do what the Air Force needs there.
My question is about the preferred approach to modernizing
these aircrafts. It is my understanding that you prefer to
replace it with a new platform. Is that correct? And could you
speak to that briefly?
Secretary Donley. Yes.
Mr. Scott. And so----
Secretary Donley. But right now that--the funds to do that
are not available.
Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
Just turning briefly to weapons system sustainment. We have
three depots left in the Air Force. Obviously, aircraft is what
we do in the Air Force, and we have to maintain a lot of them.
Are you comfortable with the current requirement that the
Air Force maintain the three depot strategy?
Secretary Donley. I am. I think the Air Force is about
right-sized at three depots. They are all very busy and have
plenty to do.
I am concerned in the near term about the impacts of
sequestration----
Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
Secretary Donley [continuing]. Which will defer about 60
aircraft, about 35 engines, and will create some backlogs for
us moving forward.
Mr. Scott. Yes, sir. I am extremely concerned about that,
as well, and want to work with you any way I can.
I hope to have both of you at Robins Air Force Base and
then in Moody Air Force Base, as well, in Georgia. I represent
both of those areas. And, gentlemen, thank you for your service
to the country, and thank you for your time.
I yield the remainder of my time back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We have 1 minute left. Mr. Nugent, if you want to take 1
minute?
Mr. Nugent. What I will do is give my question to the
record, you know, if they would answer.
We appreciate your time. Obviously, having been in the
blue, we appreciate what you do, both of you, in seeing you
just recently. So my question will come back in a form in
writing to you. Thank you so very much for your service.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I just don't want to see
you miss the vote, and we have 2 minutes left to get there.
And Mr. Langevin also had a question, and there may be some
others that would submit for the record.
But I don't want to have you sitting here and then have
them not come back.
So thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your
comments. I think this has been well worthwhile.
And this committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 12, 2013
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 12, 2013
=======================================================================
Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services
Hearing on
Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force
April 12, 2013
The committee meets today to receive testimony on the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department
of the Air Force. I am pleased to welcome Secretary Donley and
General Welsh. It takes great leadership to guide people
through the kind of uncertainty we have been experiencing, and
our Nation is fortunate to have you as our Nation's flight
leads. Thank you for your outstanding service as you tackle the
incredible national security issues we face.
After reading your budget materials, I was struck by the
fact that in fiscal year 2013, your Active end strength was
329,500 men and women, a number which makes the Air Force about
the same size it was when it became a separate component in
1947, and yet the world is certainly a different place today.
Your fiscal year 2014 request reduces end strength to 327,600.
I worry about this, especially as we consider the strategic
implications of recent events on the Korean Peninsula where
airpower plays such a critical role in assuring our national
security interests. As you say in the budget materials, you are
attempting to trade size for quality, but quantity often has a
quality all of its own, particularly in the vast expanse of the
Pacific. You know, when Admiral Locklear was here a few weeks
ago, he pointed out to us that if you take the size of the
Pacific, you could put all the land mass in that space and
still have room left over for, I believe he said, Africa and
Australia. Pretty big area.
At some point we almost recognize that the assumption of
mission risk will be too great. I hope that you will highlight
your concerns regarding this issue in your testimony and
provide more detail about where you see this trend going into
the future. I also hope you will discuss the recent
announcement at unit standdowns across the Air Force and its
implications for force readiness.
You know, I think this committee is well aware of these
problems, but I don't think the whole Congress is, and I am
convinced that the Nation really doesn't understand the
severity of the cuts that we have been imposing. It could take
years to recover from this decision because your people won't
be able to train. This complicates an already seemingly
untenable situation after nearly two decades of procurement,
reductions, or deferrals for the Air Force and the resulting
risks of maintaining an aged fleet of aircraft.
With pilots not training, depot maintenance not being done,
and the continued reduction of new aircraft procurement, we
must ask ourselves where is the breaking point, and what we
need to do to prevent it, how much risk is too much.
I am encouraged by the request for the Air Force's three
most important modernization programs, the KC-46A tanker, the
F-35A, and the Long-Range Strike Bomber, but those programs are
budgeted to stay on track, but the effects of sequestration in
fiscal year 2013 could result in a potential $1.6 billion bow
wave in research, development tests and evaluation, and a $1.3
billion bow wave in procurement.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request does not provide any
margin to repay programs that will be sourced to pay for
critical readiness in fiscal year 2013. Air Force modernization
cannot wait for the next big uptick in defense spending. We are
in a difficult time, and we must make hard choices. Your
testimony today will go a long way to help this committee and
others in Congress make the right choices.
Statement of Hon. Adam Smith
Ranking Member, House Committee on Armed Services
Hearing on
Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force
April 12, 2013
I think the chairman has summed up quite well the
challenges that you face. And we are all familiar with the
impacts of sequestration, or I should say we are familiar with
the fact that it did make things very difficult. The particular
impacts are still being sorted out, I mean, literally on a day-
by-day, if not hour-by-hour basis by all of our Services, and,
of course, outside of the Department of Defense all aspects of
the Government that are impacted by sequestration, and that is
the great challenge. Given the defense threat environment that
we have out there, which is not shrinking, it may be shifting
and changing, but it is certainly not shrinking, how do we meet
those threats? How do we budget? How do we plan in this
uncertain environment?
We have heard some about some of the changes the Air Force
had made, the air wings, bomber wings that you have had to
stand down, and I think what we are going to be most interested
in throughout this hearing is how you plan to manage through
that process.
Again, I will just take this opportunity to emphasize that
as a Congress, we need to stop sequestration. However we put it
together, whatever the agreement is, mindless across-the-board
cuts is simply the wrong way to run a government, you know. We
can find ways to save that money, gosh, even within the
discretionary budget a lot smarter than we are doing so right
now, and I think a sense of urgency is simply not where it
should be with this Congress to fix that problem.
But we look forward to your testimony, Secretary Donley and
General Welsh. You have served this country very, very well. We
appreciate your hard work, and please let us know how you are
dealing with this challenge and what we might be able to do to
help.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 12, 2013
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART
Secretary Donley. The Air Force is carefully positioning our most
urgent military construction requirements in the Future Year's Defense
Program. While there remains a requirement for the projects in question
at Scott Air Force Base, there is not enough funding to accommodate all
of the Air Force's requirements within the current Air Force Budget. We
will strive to include these projects in a future President's Budget as
funds are available and priorities permit. We look forward to your
continued support for military construction projects and other critical
Air Force priorities through the fiscal year 2014 budget cycle. [See
page 32.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
General Welsh. The current amount funded by the Air Force to
support forward deployed nuclear weapons in Europe is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year ($M) FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FYDP (FY14-18)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.8 37.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enlisted 64.9 66.2 67.8 69.1 70.8 71.8 345.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 12.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapon Storage Sys. 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 11.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Costs 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 14.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 79.6 81.1 82.8 84.4 86.3 87.6 422.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[See page 27.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 12, 2013
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER
Mr. Miller. The GAO High Risk Report identified ``Potential gaps in
environmental satellite data beginning as early as 2014 . . . have led
to concerns that future weather forecasts and warnings--will be less
accurate and timely.''
Is the Air Force considering commercial data purchases from
American companies as an alternative to some sensors on the next-
generation DMSP satellite to reduce cost and as a way of mitigating
this ``data gap?''
The Space Commercialization Act established incentives to build new
American companies to provide military and commercial space
capabilities. Are there additional authorities Congress could add to
the Space Commercialization Act authorities to assist the Air Force in
incentivizing American commercial sources of weather data as another
viable alternative for the DOD follow-on satellite program?
Secretary Donley. As part of the ongoing Department of Defense
Space Based Environmental Monitoring Analysis of Alternatives, we
considered commercial data purchases from American companies as an
alternative to sensors on the next-generation Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program satellite. Once the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
concludes its analysis, the Department will look for the most
affordable means to deliver those needed capabilities, including
commercial data
purchase.
At this time, the Air Force has no recommendations for additional
authorities to the Space Commercialization Act. We will reevaluate our
assessment as required based upon the outcome of the ongoing AoA.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO
Mr. LoBiondo. We have been told by U.S. Transportation Command that
some of the C-5 and C-17 overflight hours can be attributed to a lack
of availability of certain aircraft in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
What is the Air Force doing to preserve the service life of its
aircraft by shifting B747 eligible cargo to the CRAF carriers and
flying the C-17/C-5s only for outsize/oversize cargo?
Secretary Donley. The programmed flying hours we execute today are
based on steady-state, non-mobilized scenarios that for the most part
assume only voluntary participation from the Reserve Component. C-17/C-
5 over-flight is a direct result of organic oversize/outsize
capabilities and access to hostile environments that the Civil Reserve
Air Fleet (CRAF) cannot support. When U.S. Transportation Command
receives an air movement request, they flow the request through a
lengthy logic process to determine the most appropriate asset to
accomplish the task. The logic process is designed to optimize the
participation of our Commercial Augmentation and CRAF partners. CRAF
augments organic airlift, but we utilize CRAF carriers to the maximum
extent possible. All Department of Defense (DOD) commercial missions
are conducted in compliance with the Fly America and Fly CRAF Acts. The
``Fly CRAF'' statute (49 USC 41106) requires that DOD contracts for air
transportation of passengers and cargo on ``CRAF-eligible''
requirements be awarded to CRAF carriers if ``available'' (for flights
within the United States and between the United States and a foreign
country) or ``reasonably available'' (between two non-U.S. points).
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. Mr. Secretary, I continue to be concerned about the
overall strength and size of the Nation's cybersecurity workforce. What
type of education and training is the Air Force implementing to recruit
and provide our young airmen with the cyber skills they need to make up
the new teams that General Alexander announced during a recent
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing?
What is the Air Force doing to encourage them to stay in uniform to
maintain the Services' advantage?
Secretary Donley. Air Force cyberspace training programs develop
Total Force cyberspace professionals from numerous career fields. Core
training includes Undergraduate Cyberspace Training and Cyberspace
Defense Operations at Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi, and
Intermediate Network Warfare Training at Hurlburt AFB, Florida. We have
also developed an Intelligence Cyber Analyst course at Goodfellow AFB,
Texas, to train our digital network analysts. This analyst training is
complemented with a six-month follow on Joint Cyber Analysis Course at
Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida. Cyber personnel attend further
joint cyberspace and related courses based upon position requirements
and work roles. In addition, the Air Force Institute of Technology at
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, conducts graduate-level cyber curricula and
professional continuing education. Growth and change is constant in the
cyberspace domain, and these schools adjust as technology and tactics
evolve.
Currently, retention for Airmen in most cyberspace career fields is
healthy. Where we have challenges (e.g., digital network analysts), we
have increased the use of assignment availability codes to ensure
mission continuity and tour stability. We have also established active
duty service commitments to ensure a return on training investments.
Furthermore, the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program is one of
the Air Force's most flexible and responsive force management tools. It
provides monetary incentive to retain existing members in critical
skills that have low retention and/or low manning, as well as entices
Airmen from less critical skills to retrain into critical career fields
receiving SRBs. Cyberspace Airmen have multiple opportunities to
advance in their careers. They are deliberately force managed to
acquire breadth in their career fields and depth in the cyberspace
field. For example, certain specialties will serve consecutive
operations tours in cyberspace positions at different locations to
build depth as they progress through their career. This experience is
coupled with continuing professional cyberspace education to build
cyberspace experts.
Mr. Langevin. Mr. Secretary, as we negotiate these challenging
budgetary times, we must attempt to preserve the investments needed to
succeed in the future, even as we deal with the constraints of the
present. In particular, in your view, are we adequately protecting the
investments in advanced research and development, such as directed
energy, IT, materials, and other fields that we will depend upon to
maintain technological superiority in the future, as well as
investments in advanced education for the officers and airmen that will
become the leaders who must cope with future challenges that we cannot
yet envision?
Secretary Donley. Yes. The fiscal year 2014 President's Budget
reflects the Air Force's commitment to protecting science and
technology funding as a share of our total resources. This includes
investments in advanced research and development in many areas
including basic research, directed energy, information technology,
cyber, materials, aerospace systems, human effectiveness, sensors,
munitions, and space. Today's strategic environment presents a broad
range of threats and an unpredictable set of challenges, ranging from
non-state actors to nuclear armed nations. We must continue to invest
in our science and technology base to ensure that the future balance of
power remains in our favor.
To maintain an airpower advantage, we must ensure that we remain
the most technically proficient, best-educated, and best-trained air
force in the world. Changing trends in technology and a dynamic threat
environment dictate that we reserve resources for advanced academic
degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), nuclear,
and cyber education. These developmental educational requirements are
necessary to ensure the development of future capabilities. As such,
these educational programs will be protected to the extent possible.
Mr. Langevin. Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Air Force announced late last
year that certified New Entrants would be allowed to compete along with
ULA for up to 14 rocket cores through FY17. Given that the incumbent
provider currently receives over $1.2B annually in cost-plus payments
under the Launch Capability contract line, how does the Air Force
intend to ensure that the competition will occur with a level playing
field when the incumbent competes against New Entrants? What actions
will the Air Force take to ensure that the incumbent does not offer
artificially low prices in the competition, given that the Government
is providing payments for all of its fixed costs?
Secretary Donley. The specific method in which the current
incumbent Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) Launch Capability
(ELC) and EELV Launch Services (ELS) costs will be competed with new
entrants has yet to be determined, but will be addressed in the source
selection plan. The details of the competition are being developed and
will ensure the best value for the Government among all certified
providers and will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition
Regulations.
Mr. Langevin. The Launch Capability cost-plus contract structure
was instituted in 2006 as a measure to ensure ``assured access'' for
the Government by maintaining the industrial base capacity of the only
remaining domestic company capable of conducting space launch. However,
as the Air Force recognized by opening launches to competition, there
now exist new American providers in the market, providing redundancy
and lowering costs. Once multiple providers are competing for all
launches in the program, does the DOD have a plan to phase out the ELC
cost-plus contract after the current round of acquisitions?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. Given that the Air Force and,
to some extent, the National Reconnaissance Office currently fund
infrastructure and other facility support costs for the incumbent
provider, can you help us understand why the funding of fixed costs
requires a cost-plus contract? What requirements are unknown?
The Phase 1 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) Launch
Capability (ELC) efforts will continue under the cost plus incentive
fee (CPIF) construct. The EELV program requires operational flexibility
to meet its National Security Space (NSS) mission. ELC provides the
program flexibility to manage changes to mission requirements without
requests for equitable adjustments or schedule penalties. Potential
unknown requirements include launch slips due to satellite vehicle
acquisition issues, first time integration delays, and anomaly
resolution from a previous mission. The Air Force is examining options
to restructure ELC to allocate appropriately the discrete and
unambiguous costs to the launch vehicle and each individual payload
customer. Our plan is to incorporate these adjustments into the Phase 1
contract and consider them for future acquisition phases of the
program.
Mr. Langevin. General, in your view, what must the Air Force do
next in order to ensure the total force--the Active, Guard, and
Reserve--is coordinating the right cyber effects? Specifically, can you
speak to the interactions of how the Guard, such as the 102nd Network
Warfare Squadron in Rhode Island, can interact with the Air Force to
support the global fight in cyberspace?
General Welsh. The sudden growth in demand levied on all Services
based on increased dependence on cyberspace and emerging threat
profiles requires cooperation and innovative approaches to capitalizing
on expertise across the Total Force. Proper balance across the Total
Force will ensure sustained ability to meet mission requirements today
and in the future.
The Air Force already relies heavily on Guard and Reserve cyber
units and has integrated them into its operations run by the 24th Air
Force. For example, the Cyber Command Readiness Inspections conducted
by the 102nd Network Warfare Squadron (NWS) (Rhode Island Air National
Guard (ANG)) are a key pillar of the Air Force's network defense
posture, and are tasked and tracked by the 624th Operations Center at
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. The Air Force leverages the Guard to
fulfill its commitment to provide forces to U.S. Cyber Command's (USCC)
new Cyber Mission Force construct. This construct will be the primary
means through which USCC defends the Nation in and through cyberspace,
and it integrates cyber effects to meet the combatant commanders'
requirements. The 166th NWS (Delaware ANG), 175th NWS (Maryland ANG),
and 262nd NWS (Washington ANG) augment active duty forces to meet the
demand for these cyber teams. We plan to further develop this construct
to determine the optimal integration of the Total Force into USCC's
Cyber Mission Force. The Total Force Task Force (TF2) is exploring the
integration of the Total Force into USCC's Cyber Mission Force.
The Air Force also partners with the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in
multiple cyber missions including cyberspace defense, cyberspace
security, and cyberspace command and control. AFR is an integrated part
of the Air Force's commitment to USCC. The Air Force Personnel Center
and AFR are working together to identify the missions which best fit
AFR strengths. Currently, AFR believes that the missions of cyberspace
vulnerability assessment, cyberspace intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance, and offensive cyberspace operations are well-suited for
the AFR. These missions require a high level of experience that are
best suited to AFR's strengths of retaining highly skilled personnel,
low turn-over, and allowing members to leverage their civilian
experience.
Mr. Langevin. General, are you confident in the ability of our
networks, sensors, and datalinks to operate in the complex cyber and
electromagnetic environment likely to be a part of any future anti-
access/area denial battlespace, and are you satisfied with your ability
to train to cope with such challenges? What can we do to help the Air
Force train as part of the joint force to operate in such highly
contested environments?
General Welsh. The ideas behind anti-access/area denial are not
new. Adversaries have tried to keep each other out of areas since the
beginning of warfare. But what is new is that our adversaries (state
and non-state actors) can challenge us in the air, at sea, in space,
and on land simultaneously. They can use cyberspace independently as
well as to enhance attacks everywhere. Our operations will likely be
heavily and comprehensively contested--something that we have not faced
in decades. Meeting these challenges will require new capabilities and
tactics so that we can conduct missions across the range of military
operations. Together with the other Services, we are aggressively
preparing to operate in this future environment by investing in and
exercising new capabilities and tactics. I am confident that we can do
this with our planned investments, enhanced by the innovation of our
Airmen. This will help us meet our strategic mission to project power
in even the most challenging and contested environments.
Future adversary strategies could include both cyberspace and
electromagnetic attacks to disrupt and deny our networks, sensors, and
data links. We are working to field systems that seamlessly exchange
information across all joint platforms, sensors, and weapons in a
heavily contested environment. We will not be satisfied until we have
this infrastructure in place and have trained combat forces who can
conduct effective kinetic and non-kinetic fires against the most
capable adversaries, in the most challenging environments. This will
enable our Air Force, as part of joint forces, to provide an integrated
and war-winning response.
The Air Force recognizes the importance of developing capabilities
and tactics, techniques, and procedures to operate in contested
environments. The Air-Sea Battle concept was developed to meet the
challenges of operating in current and future contested environments
under heavily challenged conditions. Through implementation of this
concept, the Air Force is partnered with our sister Services to explore
the development of advanced capabilities and tactics in order to
prevail now and in the future. This effort involves the integration of
capabilities in the air, at sea, and on land, and includes cyber and
the electromagnetic environment. We are also actively involved in
integrating these capabilities into future exercises, including both
the Air Force's future capabilities and Unified Engagement wargames.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. We understand that the Air Force has a requirement for
1900 tactical fighter aircraft, and that that inventory would meet the
requirements of the National Military Strategy with moderate risk. Last
year, the Air Force did not predict any fighter inventory shortfalls
through 2030. However, with sequestration in fiscal year 2013, some
aircraft or engines that had been planned for depot modifications may
not be inducted. How will sequestration affect the tactical fighter
inventory and do you expect any near-term or short-term tactical
fighter inventory shortages as a result? We also understand that the
Air Force has requirements for both capability and capacity in its
tactical fighter inventory. Do you have any concerns about the
capabilities or capacities of the tactical fighter inventory to meet
the requirements of the National Military Strategy?
General Welsh. Sequestration itself will not affect the tactical
fighter inventory, but we are concerned that sequestration will result
in significant readiness shortfalls that will have an impact on our
ability to meet future warfighter requirements. Sequestration does
impact the fighter force by delaying field-level maintenance activities
and depot inductions, reducing depot production, and slowing down
modification and modernization efforts. We estimate that the existing
depot backlogs alone will take up to five years to correct. Analysis of
warfighting requirements in the defense strategy and increased aircraft
service life expectations allowed the Air Force to reduce fighter force
structure capacity from 2,000 total active inventory (TAI)/1,200
primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI, or combat-coded) to 1,900
TAI/1,100 PMAI. This force meets the National Military Strategy, but
with greater aggregate risk. The capability of this force against
potential future adversaries is reliant upon planned modernization
efforts to be able to meet high-end threat
scenarios.
Mr. Turner. In the FY budget request, there seems to be a
significant reduction in Air Force UAS accounts compared to last year.
This seems counterintuitive based on the critical role ISR performs and
the demand from the combatant commanders. In your opinion, does the FY
14 budget request meet combatant commander requirements for unmanned
aerial ISR systems?
General Welsh. The fiscal year 2014 budget request meets the Joint
Staff adjudicated requirements levied on the Air Force to support the
combatant commanders. This includes achieving the Secretary of Defense-
directed 65 combat air patrols by May 2014 and continuing Global Hawk
Block 30 operations through calendar year 2014. The remotely piloted
aircraft (RPA) systems are a key element of airpower, and we will
continue to ensure that we have the right mix of systems, both manned
and unmanned, as we continue to work through the challenges of
sequestration. The Air Force remains committed to leading the world in
all aspects of airpower, including RPAs.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS
Mr. Franks. To ensure that adequate aircraft are available for
training and operations at Luke, as well as to provide certainty for
the level of operations and investment at Luke for the F-35A mission, I
would ask the Air Force to reach a favorable decision in Calendar year
2013 on the assignment of Squadrons 4-6. This would allow environmental
reviews and infrastructure investment to be queued up. Would you
provide me with your thoughts, and hopefully assurances, that this
objective can be met this year?
Secretary Donley. The August 1, 2012, record of decision (ROD)
assigns 72 F-35A aircraft to Luke Air Force Base and stipulates that
the next basing decision will be made no later than December 2014.
Since the ROD was signed, several foreign nations have shown an
interest in purchasing aircraft through the foreign military sales
(FMS) program. These foreign nations have requested to base their
initial training programs in the United States. This drives another Air
Force basing decision, and is linked to the next training basing
decision for the U.S. Air Force aircraft. Given that the first FMS
aircraft is scheduled to be delivered in fiscal year 2016, it is not
appropriate to make the basing decisions for the FMS aircraft and the
additional U.S. Air Force training aircraft in calendar year 2013.
Mr. Franks. Secretary Donley and General Welsh, as you may know the
DOD relies on the commercial electric grid for 99% of its electricity
needs. That concerns me because the commercial bulk power grid is
incredibly vulnerable to EMP and severe space weather. Can you please
update me on what the Air Force is currently doing to protect your
assets and other aspects of the power grid from this growing threat?
Do you feel that the power and electricity needed to carry out your
mission is important enough to require those commercial providers of
the power grid to successfully harden their grid from severe space
weather or manmade electromagnetic pulse. Can the DOD require that of
commercial providers of the grid? Do you feel that this issue is
important enough that legislation is needed to force the hand of
industry to act?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. The deployment and sustainment
of military forces are increasingly a function of interdependent supply
chains and privately owned infrastructure within the United States and
abroad. However, in many cases, this infrastructure falls outside
Department of Defense (DOD) direct control. The Air Force's dependency
on the commercial power grid represents a critical asymmetric
vulnerability that must be addressed through partnerships with
industry, state, and local governments. The Air Force conducts critical
asset risk assessments (CARA) to identify key critical assets and
supporting infrastructure. Identification of critical assets focuses
within installation boundaries, and extends to the first critical
infrastructure nodes outside perimeters. The Air Force has identified
over 900 critical assets, and 62 of those are Tier 1 assets, where loss
or degradation of energy would impact strategic-level missions. Of the
62 Tier 1 assets, 22 of them are defense critical assets (DCA); the
loss of a DCA would result in mission failure for a DOD capability. The
Air Force is also a member of the Department of Defense's Energy Grid
Security Executive Council (EGSEC), which exists to discuss grid
concerns across the Services and coordinate with other federal
agencies. As the EGSEC chair, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense & Americas' Security Affairs would be in the best
position to provide information on the need for future legislation.
It does not appear that the Air Force can require commercial
providers to harden their grid from severe space weather or man-made
electromagnetic pulse. As discussed in its recent Energy Strategic
Plan, the Air Force supports the concept of improved resiliency and
increased energy security and will continue to work to ensure that it
has the ability to recover from energy interruptions and sustain the
mission. By reducing the energy needed and diversifying generation and
distribution options, the Air Force puts less reliance on an already
vulnerable electrical grid
system.
Mr. Franks. As the Air Force looks down range--is there a benefit
to have a blended wing of combat-coded and training F-35As at Luke AFB
to support both the F-35 training mission and contingency operations,
given that USAF is seeking increased efficiencies in this constrained
budget environment?
General Welsh. The addition of combat-coded F-35As at Luke Air
Force Base would drive different training requirements and different
weapons storage facility requirements, ultimately changing the use of
the range airspace and requiring a new environmental impact statement.
Combining both training and combat-coded aircraft at one location would
also force different inspection timelines and criteria onto an already
dynamic base with two F-16 foreign military sales squadrons. This adds
complexity for little benefit, and a blended wing at Luke AFB would not
result in increased operational efficiency.
In addition, future decisions concerning Luke AFB may expand
training operations to include three additional F-35A squadrons, which
would fall within the constraints of the environmental impact
statement. Luke AFB also is under consideration as the location of F-
35A partner pilot training, to include participants from seven
countries. This would make Luke AFB a critical component of U.S. Air
Force and international F-35A training. The Air Force's only other F-
35A training location is Eglin AFB, which is currently limited to 24 F-
35As. Program and service analysis shows that all of these squadrons
need to be used for pilot training in order to meet Air Combat Command
demands at combat units.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SHUSTER
Mr. Shuster. I understand that since 2001 at least 8 CRAF carriers
have gone out of business. In 2012 alone, 5 CRAF carriers declared
bankruptcy. I am concerned that if we lose these carriers, we may not
be able to accomplish our operational plans and objectives due to a
lack of available airlift capacity, particularly for cargo carriers.
What steps is the Air Force taking in conjunction with Air Mobility
Command to maintain this asset through decisions to increase cargo
movements for CRAF carriers whenever possible?
Secretary Donley. Air Mobility Command is in the final phase of a
two-phase post Operation ENDURING FREEDOM Civil Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF) study which we hope to complete in calendar year 2013. This
expansive body of work will assess the near-term health and future
viability of the CRAF program. Upon the study's conclusion, we will
have formulated the recommendations for the most effective methodology
for restructuring policy, practices, and procedures for the CRAF that
most accurately reflect the volatile business environment. We have
integrated our industry partners throughout this process to fully vet
their concerns, ensuring we maintain a collaborative approach.
Furthermore, we've been proactive by providing our industry partners
requirements and forecasts of the drawdown period via semi-annual
executive working groups.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARSON
Mr. Carson. With the F-35 plagued by continual cost overruns, some
suggest that we could achieve significant savings by cancelling the
``B'' variant. I strongly disagree with this argument. But I am
interested to know how cancelling a variant would change the load on
Air Force F-35s and whether you anticipate that such cancellation would
require additional procurement down the line. And how would such a
cancellation change mission cooperation between the Air Force and
Marine Corps?
Secretary Donley. The Air Force currently plans to procure 1763 F-
35As to replace F-16s and A-10s. The consequences of cancelling the the
``B'' variant are speculative, but could include an increased load on
Air Force F-35s and the need for additional procurement in the future.
Cancelling the ``B'' variant would result in the Department of the Navy
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Joint Program Office and the Air Force, determining the best way
forward to support Marine and Department of Defense requirements.
Specific changes to F-35A procurement numbers and mission cooperation
between the Air Force and the Marine Corps would flow from that
decision.
It is important to also note that if the Marine Corps canceled
production on the ``B'' variant, Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) costs
would increase for the remaining production aircraft for the Air Force,
the Department of Navy, international partners, and foreign military
sales partners. Additionally, development costs and production would
continue for the ``B'' variant, despite a withdrawal by the Marine
Corps, as the ``B'' variant is being purchased by the United Kingdom
and Italy. The ramifications of this decision, to include an increase
in URF, could cause these two partner nations to reassess their
commitment to the program.
Mr. Carson. While it is clearly past time for us to end our combat
mission in Afghanistan, we know that our departure will not also mark
the end of terrorist presence and operations in the region. So, it
seems likely that we will need to continue flying missions to target
terrorist leaders. How will the conclusion of combat missions in
Afghanistan impact our ability to fly drone missions in the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region? What efforts are being made now to
ensure our continued access to this region after 2014?
General Welsh. As demonstrated by the Chicago Summit in 2012, the
United States and our partners in the International Security Assistance
Force are committed to the goal of preventing Afghanistan from ever
again becoming a safe haven for terrorists that threaten Afghanistan,
the region, and the world. Our counter-terrorism mission in this region
will continue after the conclusion of our combat activities in 2014,
but any potential basing strategies and locations inside Afghanistan
are still being discussed as part of the ongoing bilateral security
agreement currently being negotiated between the United States and
Afghanistan. To ensure access and to provide the greatest number of
basing options in support of the counter-terrorism mission, we are also
investigating potential ways to increase the range and endurance of our
unmanned aircraft in the event in-country basing becomes an issue.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. We know the importance of our A-10 aircraft fleet which
provides close air support for ground personnel and the need for the
fleet to have new wings to complete this critical mission. In FY13,
Congress appropriated $226.5M for acquisition of wings for the A-10
aircraft.
a. How many wings did the Air Force acquire or intend to acquire
before the end of FY13?
b. When does the Air Force intend to purchase additional A-10 wings
with the remainder of the FY13 appropriation?
c. There are 283 A-10 aircraft in the Total Air Force inventory. It
is Congress' understanding that all aircraft require new wings, and the
current contract for wings expires in FY16. Through FY13, Congress has
appropriated funding for approximately 181 wings. What is the Air
Force's plan to acquire wings in order to refit the entire 283 aircraft
fleet?
General Welsh. In fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congress appropriated a
total of $251.1M (Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF)) for the A-10
program, PE 0207131F. Within the $251.1M (APAF) total, $161.2M was for
``retain A-10 force structure.''
a. The Air Force intends to acquire 50 enhanced wing assemblies
(EWA) in FY13, which is the maximum allowed annually per the existing
contract. This will bring the total number of EWAs procured to 167.
b. The Air Force intends to use the remainder of its FY13 APAF
funds to purchase 14 additional EWAs in FY14. These funds will be added
to FY14 APAF funds which are currently slated to purchase nine EWAs.
This will bring the total number of EWAs purchased in FY14 to 23, and
the total program to 190.
c. The Air Force plans to acquire a total of 190 EWAs by the end of
FY14. The Air Force's contract with Boeing allows it to acquire as many
as 50 EWAs in both FY15 and FY16. The Air Force has the option to
acquire the remaining 93 EWAs over those two years to complete EWA
acquisitions for the entire 283 aircraft fleet.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART
Mr. Enyart. The Air Force Energy Plan recognizes the need to
increase supply in light of the fact that avaiation in FY 11
represented 86% of energy consumption for the Air Force at $8.3
billion. With this in mind, would Air Force leadership be supportive of
legislative efforts to pilot a program at Scott Air Force Base to do
research and develop of effective biofuels for use throughout the
force? With Air Mobility Command being headquartered at Scott AFB this
would appear to make perfect sense.
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. The Air Force has a global
aviation mission and must have assured access to reliable supplies of
energy to meet operational needs. Alternative fuels are a critical part
of that effort and helps the Air Force address availability, price
volatility, and energy security. Since 2006, the Air Force has been
working to test and certify its fleet on alternative aviation fuels,
led by the Alternative Fuels Certification Office located at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio. Based on an evaluation of market
conditions and discussion with commercial partners, the Air Force has
evaluated three processes: Fischer-Tropsch (FT), hydro-processed
renewable jet (HRJ), and alcohol to jet (ATJ). FT and HRJ have been
evaluated in a 50/50 blend with traditional JP-8 and have been fully
certified for the entire fleet. With the current efforts already
underway at Wright-Patterson AFB, the Air Force does not feel a similar
program at Scott AFB is necessary and would not be the best use of
taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Enyart. During your testimony you stated there was 20% excess
capacity that needed to be addressed through a BRAC process. How much
of this excess capacity would come from the Active Duty versus the
Reserve and National Guard Component? In addition, how much of this
excess capacity would come from CONUS versus OCONUS installations?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. Parametric techniques used to
analyze aggregate assessment of excess capacity in 2004 indicated that
the Department of Defense had 24 percent excess overall relative to the
force-structure plan developed by the Joints Staff. Because BRAC 2005
eliminated only about 3 percent of the Department's capacity (very
little being Air Force infrastructure) and since then, the Air Force
has retired approximately 500 aircraft and reduced its total manpower
by approximately 7 percent, we believe we have significant excess
today. The Air Force has not conducted a capacity analysis and
therefore cannot specify a percentage of infrastructure reduction
needed from the Components or the locations from which that reduction
would come. The Air Force is participating in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense-led European Infrastructure Consolidation study
and will determine if there are opportunities for reducing its European
infrastructure. If legislation is enacted authorizing another round of
base realignment and closure for United States installations, the Air
Force will base its analysis on an approved force structure plan and
will evaluate all bases equally to determine what bases may be
candidates for closure or realignment.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROOKS
Mr. Brooks. The goal of the Air Force acquisition strategy is to
promote competition. While it may be fair to give new entrants an
opportunity to become certified, to what degree does the Air Force feel
it is the Air Force's responsibility to ensure that new entrants can
meet the certification requirements?
Does the Air Force intend to fund development of any changes
necessary for new entrants to meet certification or capability
requirements for EELV payloads?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. The Air Force does not intend
to fund the development of new entrant launch vehicle systems or
development of any changes necessary for new entrants to meet
certification or capability requirements for Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) payloads. Space vehicle (SV) mission specific
requirements, should they arise in the future, will be included as part
of any competitive launch service, and funded with procurement funding
by the SV program, as they are for current EELV missions. The New
Entrant Certification Guide (NECG) outlines the process and
requirements that must be met for new entrants to become certified to
compete for National Security Space missions on the EELV program. The
NECG makes it clear that the Government is not funding the development
of new entrants' launch systems.
The Department will issue an early integration contract with any
new entrant provider who has submitted a statement of intent in
accordance with the Air Force NECG and has successfully launched their
first launch vehicle of the configuration intended to meet
certification. These early integration efforts will help the new
entrant provider and the potential SV programs understand the
environments (shock, vibration, acoustic, etc.) and performance
capabilities of each system and begin development of interface control
documents.
Mr. Brooks. Does the Air Force believe a new entrant must meet all
requirements in the EELV Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and
Systems Interface Specification (SIS)? If not, what requirements are
new entrants being allowed to ignore and please explain the rationale?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. The Air Force published a New
Entrant Certification Guide that states, ``a new entrant must meet . .
. specific reliability and interface requirements,'' and comply with
the ``standard payload interface''. To encourage competition the Air
Force is planning to compete missions which can be potentially launched
by new entrants in the fiscal year (FY) 2015-2017 timeframe. Not all
ORD II key performance parameters (KPP) will have to be met for this
potential competition. In this timeframe, KPPs that new entrants may be
unable to meet are mass to orbit and standard launch pads. However, all
KPPs will have to be met in order to compete for the next phase
starting in FY18. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles standard
interface specification (SIS) outlines the standard mechanical and
electrical interfaces as well as the required launch environments to
include shock, acoustic, and thermal envelopes of multiple launch
vehicle configurations. Any new entrant must meet the requirements of
the SIS prior to certification completion. Therefore, existing space
vehicles (SV) that currently meet the SIS, such as GPS III, should not
require modification as the SV is already compatible with the SIS
requirements. In the event modifications need to be made to the launch
vehicle to accommodate a SV, those mission unique modifications will be
incorporated into the price of the launch service in a manner
consistent with how we procure launch services from the incumbent.
Mr. Brooks. Has the Air Force or DOD done an independent cost
estimate on new entrants to launch an EELV class mission? Please
provide the estimate.
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. No, neither the Air Force nor
DOD has done an independent cost estimate on new entrants to launch an
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class mission. The Government does
not yet have the necessary insight into the new entrant's costing/
accounting processes to complete a formal assessment of new entrant
costs.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT
Mr. Nugent. After 4 years and $40 million, the CHAMP program had a
Joint Capability Technology Demonstration last year. The Air Force
described this JCTD as ``a very successful flight test.'' You have
developed and now tested a working capability that can knock out all
the electronics of an enemy target without doing any physical damage to
the facility or people. This is a remarkable achievement that has
produced a nonlethal weapon with broad application that is cheap to
make and expensive for our potential adversaries to defend.
Why are you not requesting funding to get CHAMP beyond the research
phase and out to the Combatant Commanders? The FY14 budget request is
for $209,000 less than this year to conduct an Analysis of Alternatives
on a new reusable platform. Why are you not finishing development on
the platform that you have and works, while asking Congress for the
money to begin procurement?
Secretary Donley. As this was an S&T demonstration, the JCTD was
limited in scope and did not account for weapon survivability and
effects delivered in an operational relevant threat environment. A
CHAMP JCTD final report is currently being drafted by United States
Pacific Command. The Air Force will use this final report and any
additional information/data from the demonstration to feed the Air
Force's non-kinetic counter electronic (NKCE) weapon concept of using
HPM technology to affect real world electronic equipment in an
operationally relevant threat environment. The Air Force is completing
the NKCE comprehensive concept analysis (CCA) in fiscal year (FY) 2014.
The CCA will define the technological characteristics required to
integrate HPM technology into a weaponized platform and be survivable
in an operational relevant threat environment long enough to deliver
the intended effects. CHAMP, along with other potential solutions, will
be part of NKCE analysis of alternatives (AoA) notionally scheduled to
take place during FY15.
FY13 and FY14 funds supporting these analyses has been requested in
a system development and demonstration program element (PE) 0604429F,
Airborne Electronic Attack.
The referenced decrease of $209,000 occurs in PE 0603605F, Advanced
Weapons Technology. This S&T PE was the primary source of funding for
the CHAMP JCTD. Since the CHAMP S&T program has been completed, the S&T
funding requirements for further counter-electronics research and
technology development in FY14 are less than requested for FY13.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE
Mr. Bridenstine. The United States Government has performed four
independent studies on the C-130 AMP solution between 1998 and 2008 and
found it was the most cost-effective solution to modernize the C-130
fleet and at the same time, consolidate the multiple configurations and
increase equipment reliability and availability. It appears from the
FY14 President's proposed budget that a new start effort, named
Minimize CNS/ATM option, has been identified. Will this new start
provide less capability than the current program of record? Is the
current Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) study evaluating the C-130
AMP program of record against the Minimize CNS/ATM option identified in
FY 14 PB document?
Secretary Donley. The fiscal year (FY) 2014 Minimize C-130
communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/
ATM) program is a less robust avionics modification program than the
current program of record. The Minimize program is an airspace
compliance only program to ensure the C-130H fleet meets the Federal
Aviation Administration's January 2020 CNS/ATM mandate. The current IDA
study, which will be delivered to Congress in October 2013, will
evaluate all three C-130H modification alternatives: C-130 Avionics
Modernization Program, FY13 Optimize Legacy C-130 CNS/ATM, and FY14
Minimize C-130 CNS/ATM.
Mr. Bridenstine. At the Air Force posture hearing in FY 12, then-
Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Norton Schwartz commented that
``the Air Force C-130 AMP provides military capability equal or greater
than alternative programs and at less cost than those programs.'' What
requirement or mission changed that would allow for a change of
direction of this magnitude? Has an acquisition strategy been developed
for the FY14 Minimize CNS/ATM new start option?
Secretary Donley. The C-130 mission and requirements have not
changed. Many of the upgrades with Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
dealt with modernization of the aircraft and enhancing its viability.
Given the current fiscal environment and the impacts of sequestration,
the Air Force does not have sufficient resources to fund the AMP
program. The Air Force has decided to pursue a lower cost program that
provides the minimum required upgrades for communication, navigation,
surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) compliance.
The Air Force, in compliance with Section 143 of the fiscal year
2013 National Defense Authorization Act, has not taken ``any action to
cancel or modify the avionics modernization program for C-130
aircraft.''
Mr. Bridenstine. The FY14 President's Budget states, ``with
termination of C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), the Minimize
C-130 Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management
(CNS/ATM) option provides minimal airspace compliance focused program
to modify 184 C-130H aircraft.'' As directed by the FY13 NDAA, have you
begun the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) study and what is the
current status and projected completion date to report back to the
committees? Has there been any analysis of long-term cost savings the
current C-130 AMP provides versus the proposed for FY 14 Minimize CNS/
ATM
capability?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. The directed study was placed
on contract with the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) on March 1,
2013. IDA is currently in the data collection/clarification phase of
the study and met with appropriate military and defense industry
organizations in May. The study plans to conduct life cycle cost
comparisons for the three C-130H modification alternatives: C-130 AMP,
fiscal year (FY) 2013 Optimize Legacy C-130 CNS/ATM, and FY14 Minimize
C-130 CNS/ATM. We anticipate the study will be delivered to Congress in
October 2013.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO
Mr. Palazzo. As you know, last year's NDAA contained language that
set up
a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force; I believe last
week the
committee actually named General Raymond Johns and Erin Conaton to the
commission.
That Commission is tasked with the job of completing a
comprehensive study of the structure of the Air Force to determine
whether, and how, the structure be modified to best fulfill current and
anticipated mission requirements for the Air force in a manner
consistent with available resources.
It would seem to me that we may be putting the cart before the
horse here and we should be waiting until after this committee
completes its job before we actually move any planes around.
So, my question is why would the Air Force already start moving
planes around before we have the recommendations of the Commission? It
just doesn't make any sense.
And if cost savings is the issue, then what is the point of having
the commission at all?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. All Air Force force structure
adjustments occurring in fiscal year (FY) 2013 were authorized by the
FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and funded in the
Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-6). In addition, these FY13 actions
were part of a long-term plan submitted by the Air Force which included
force structure adjustments through FY18. This plan, as adjusted by
subsequent dialogue with the Congress prior to and after enactment of
the FY13 NDAA, is the basis of the proposed Air Force force structure
adjustments in the FY14 President's Budget submission.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BARBER
Mr. Barber. General Welsh, thank you for your service to our Nation
and your testimony today. I know you agree that we must be good
stewards of the taxpayers' money. Sustaining our current inventory is
one way the Air Force is doing this, and I applaud you for it. For
example, the budget mentioned maintaining the C-130 for airlift
capability rather than procuring a new, more expensive airplane. The
budget also noted the Department will retain F-15 and F-16 fighters to
fill a critical role in the Air Force's global strike core function.
While we greatly anticipate the continued procurement and fielding of
the F-35, the fact remains that the Air Force currently lacks the
necessary fleet of F-35s to replace the A-10. Yet, also within the
budget, the Department continues with its plans to either shift to the
Air Force Reserve, or retire, the A-10. The President's budget requests
no funding for A-10s beyond FY14 even though the Air Force continues to
transition A-10s to the Reserve. In my district, we have Davis-Monthan
Air Force Base that is home to the 354th Fighter Squadron, a squadron
of A-10s. They just returned from Afghanistan this week. Wouldn't you
agree that these pilots, and the A-10s that they fly, provide a
critical close air support role not readily filled by another airframe?
What measures is the Department undertaking to ensure sufficient
numbers of A-10s are kept mission-ready and able to support our forward
forces and Combatant Commanders?
General Welsh. The A-10 Thunderbolt II has served the country very
well for the last 30 years. Through two wars in Iraq and for the last
12 years in Afghanistan, the A-10 has been operated by all of the
Components--the Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve--and has been a
significant battlefield force multiplier. The A-10 continues to undergo
a series of airframe structural changes to ensure viability, has
completed Precision Engagement (integration of data links with a
cockpit/avionics suite upgrade), carries advanced targeting pods, and
employs the latest in guided weapons. The Air Force will continue to
invest in the A-10 for the foreseeable future, while still planning for
the F-35 replacement process to fulfill future close air support (CAS)
needs. We continue to train A-10 pilots and our budget ensures that the
requisite number of A-10s necessary to support combatant commander
requirements are available. Until we have sufficient numbers of F-35s,
the Air Force intends to keep the A-10 viable and combat-ready.
In short, the Air Force is ensuring A-10 availability, reliability,
and maintainability with procurement of enhanced wing assemblies,
scheduled structural inspections, replacement of aging fuselage
longerons, and operational equipment upgrades. Combined, these efforts
extend the A-10 service life to 14,000 hours. The A-10 will be kept
operationally viable through software suite development that enhances
the capabilities of its targeting pods and weapons upgrades. The Air
Force is equipping the A-10 with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System to
satisfy an Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) urgent operational need.
Overall, these efforts ensure our A-10s are kept at a mission-ready
status and are able to support our forward forces and combatant
commanders. As the Air Force reallocates aircraft within its
Components, the A-10 will continue to provide CAS as it has for the
last 30 years, no matter where the A-10 resides--the Active Duty,
Guard, or Reserve.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. NOEM
Mrs. Noem. Since cost savings will obviously be the goal of any
future BRAC Congress would authorize, how important is proximity to
military training areas--especially considering cost of fuel for ground
transport and cost per flying hour?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. Developing Airmen with a
warrior ethos and an expeditionary mentality requires a robust and
flexible training infrastructure. Basic and special skills training
require diverse industrial, academic, and support facilities. Mission-
oriented training requires airspace and ranges, ground maneuver areas,
as well as simulators and other training aids. The Air Force will
evaluate each of these areas during capacity analysis and Military
Value determination, and shall retain and invest in installations that
rate high in those areas.
One of the Air Force basing principles used during previous base
realignment and closure (BRAC) processes was maintaining flying
squadrons within operationally efficient proximity to Department of
Defense controlled airspace, ranges, military operations areas, and
low-level routes. The Air Force must keep ranges and airspace relevant
to our missions and develop basing strategies that use them
efficiently.
During previous rounds of BRAC, as we determined the Military Value
of an installation, Criterion 1: Current/Future Mission included
proximity of ranges as a geo-locational attribute. We anticipate this
attribute will continue to be an important aspect when determining
Military Value.
Mrs. Noem. In any future BRAC, will the Air Force focus on
eliminating any particular category of excess base infrastructure, more
than others?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. The Air Force has no
installation or category specific plan at this time, and will comply
with any future authorizing legislation and Defense Department policy.
Should Congress authorize another round of base realignment and
closure, all United States installations will be considered for
realignment or closure. The Air Force will conduct the required
analysis to identify the infrastructure necessary to satisfy
operational and support requirements, with a focus on closing unneeded
installations and eliminating excess infrastructure.
Mrs. Noem. If the Air Force believes it has excess installation
capacity and needs to close some bases or consolidate certain
activities, do you think a least disruptive approach to our National
Security readiness would be to first focus on consolidating those bases
that primarily only have service support functions, such as logistical
centers or military schools, rather than seeking to close bases that
house fighter or bomber wings?
Secretary Donley and General Welsh. An authorized base realignment
and closure process would provide the only effective way to reduce
excess infrastructure in the United States and under that process the
Air Force would consider all bases equally.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
