[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-119]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-253 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Tenth Congress
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
ADAM SMITH, Washington California
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam ROB BISHOP, Utah
MARK E. UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
Andrew Hyde, Professional Staff Member
Stephanie Sanok, Professional Staff Member
Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2008
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, February 27, 2008, Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request from the Department of the
Air Force...................................................... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, February 27, 2008..................................... 41
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008
FISCAL YEAR 2009 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 3
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Moseley, Gen. T. Michael, USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force... 6
Wynne, Hon. Michael W., Secretary of the Air Force............... 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Wynne, Hon. Michael W., joint with Gen. T. Michael Moseley... 45
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mrs. Boyda................................................... 84
Mr. Forbes................................................... 79
Dr. Gingrey.................................................. 84
Mr. Hayes.................................................... 79
Mr. Kline.................................................... 83
Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 85
Mr. LoBiondo................................................. 82
Mr. Miller................................................... 80
FISCAL YEAR 2009 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 27, 2008.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our full
committee hearing, which is on the fiscal year 2009 budget
request from the Department of the Air Force. I am pleased to
welcome back the secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne and
the chief of staff of the Air Force, the Honorable Michael
``Buzz'' Moseley.
We thank you and all those that you lead for that wonderful
job that you do. And that includes the total force, active
duty, Guard, Reserve as well as your civilian employees. We are
proud of what you do.
The Air Force has been in some form of continuous combat
since 1990 stressing its people, its equipment. In Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the
Air Force has committed more than 250 aircraft to support
combat operations and flew approximately 33,000 sorties last
year alone in the Central Command area. This pace of operations
and the aging of your aircraft inventory is taking a toll on
the Air Force. I know we will hear about that.
I am concerned about this heavy operational pace. This may
not be sustainable, and it may not be safe. The ongoing
investigation into the multiple F-15 crashes, those of last
year and already several this year, underline the importance of
this issue. For a time, the entire F-15 fleet was grounded.
Just this weekend, the Air Force suffered the first ever
crash of a B-2 bomber in Guam, which, as you know, is stationed
at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, a tremendous loss. I
must note that my home state feels this very much as well as
one of the F-15s that crashed was being flown by the Missouri
National Guard, an F-15 that literally broke in half during
flight.
Even as the Air Force has been straining to keep up, it has
been reducing end strength, sacrificing, in my opinion, its
most valuable asset, its people. The budget request asks for
end strength of 316,600 active duty airmen, a reduction of
almost 13,000 just from last year's level, for a reduction of
100 in the Air Force Reserve. Since 2005, the Air Force has
reduced end strength by over 40,000, though your budget
documents suggest that you intend to halt this slide in 2010.
I can't help but conclude that a significant factor in the
current strain on the Air Force is a lack of people. In fact,
your unfunded priority list suggests as much, identifying a
requirement for $385 million to add back almost 19,000 airmen,
split between the active duty and the Reserve. Today, we need a
definitive answer to the simple question, ``Does the Air Force
need to reduce end strength in 2009, or begin to add its people
back,'' very simple. Which answer helps us with a national
military strategy? We intend for you to answer that.
The Air Force's aircraft inventory is aging, as we all
know, in part because modernization budgets have not been able
to support purchases in high quantity for high-priced assets
like the F-22, C-17, and the C-130. I note that you have shared
with the committee an impressive list of over $19 billion of
unfunded requirements, more than double that of any other
service. At the same time, this budget punts on such critical
national security questions as the future of the F-22 and C-17
programs.
Do you expect Congress to resolve the issues, or is there a
compelling case for deferring or punting these questions to
next year to a new Administration? Can we force the Air Force
into budgeting for today to fulfill the national military
strategy? My review of your budget and the full committee
hearing we held on this topic last fall suggests that the
answer is no.
The Air Force is ground zero for another great debate that
is starting to occur over the roles and missions of the armed
forces that started, as you know, in 1947. There was an
agreement in 1948 that was the Key West Agreement, amended in
1953 and 1958, and a lot has changed, missions, technology,
weapons systems, the design of the forces. All that has
changed.
And one of the roles and missions issues that you wanted us
to solve was the joint cargo aircraft as well as who owns the
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in our bill last year. That is
for the roles and missions issue that should be done within the
Department of Defense (DOD).
And in our bill this last year, we required that that be
done. And I certainly hope that all of you at the highest level
in the Department will take that seriously because we certainly
do. And I might point out that we have a panel that is about to
submit a report on that very issue.
Now you have a sense that this year's budget request raises
almost as many questions as it answers. And I hope the
testimony today will help us answer those questions.
Again, we thank you for your valued service. It is
wonderful what you do, the challenges that you have. We want to
hear. We are here to help you succeed. And sometimes our ideas
go beyond yours, such as roles and missions, such as Goldwater-
Nichols and others. But that is what we are here for, and in
our Constitution we are charged with it.
Mr. Hunter.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for having
this important hearing today.
And I want to thank our witnesses, join you in thanking
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley and all the great Americans
whom they represent who represent us so very well.
Gentlemen, last year when we came together for the posture
hearing, I brought up the fact that every year we hold a
hearing on your budget, and little, if any, progress is being
made to recapitalize your force and improve your acquisition
processes. And if you recall, last year I read a portion of my
opening statement from the Air Force posture hearing that we
held in 2006. And if you will bear with me, I would like to
read that to you again.
I said at that time, ``The DOD budget legacy is one of
misprocurement opportunity. And this,'' as you point out in
your statement, ``gives us the oldest fleet of aircraft in the
history of the Air Force with the fleet having been engaged in
or supporting some level of combat for the past 15 years. The
aircraft fleet has been operating at utilization rates far
beyond those that were planned for it.''
``The consequence of age and high operational tempo (op
tempo) is reflected in reduced readiness rates. And it is to
the Air Force's credit that professional fleet management has
achieved the safety record that it has achieved.''
Gentlemen, I believed that to be true when I said it in
2006, and when I said it again last year. And despite the
recent mishaps that we--I know we will talk about some today--I
believe it is still true today as well.
The cost to maintain your aircraft continues to increase,
and your mission reliability rates continue to decrease. It is
clear to me that many of your current readiness challenges are
a result of misprocurement opportunities in the 1990's. Now,
according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the
Air Force identified the need for a fighter to replace its F-15
fleet in 1981. And after more than two decades of technology
development and prototyping, actual F-22 system development
began in 2003.
The F-22 was declared operationally capable in 2006. And
that is 25 years from the time you identified the requirement
until it was declared to have achieved initial operational
capability.
We can also look at the Joint Strike Fighter, which will
replace the legacy F-16 fleet. It began concept development in
1996 and is not forecast to be operationally capable until
2013.
So here is our problem. We can't develop and field the
complex weapons systems demanded by today's global security
environment in one budget cycle or even under one
Administration. We can't pull an F-22 out of the hat if our
planning factors and intelligence assessments prove wrong.
I know it is another service, but I am reminded of the Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP), if we take that as
an example. It is a simple design. It is an armored wheeled
vehicle for moving troops. It wasn't a new design. It evolved
out of an existing design from the 1970's. And yet even with
full funding, multiple contractors, and designation as the
Department of Defense's top priority, it has taken us over a
year to field 4,700 of the 15,000 vehicles that are required.
So what I am trying to say is that we are living with
readiness challenges in the Air Force because we failed to
adequately fund and develop airplanes in the 1990's. And the
decisions we make today will impact the readiness and the
capability of the Air Force in the next two decades.
Gentlemen, it is clear that the budget in front of us does
not meet your requirements. You sent this committee $18.3
billion in unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2009.
And, Secretary Wynne, you have said that you are
approximately $20 billion short each year for the next five. At
the top of your list of requirements that are not met by the
2009 budget request is $183 million to maintain your B-52 fleet
at levels necessary to meet national military strategy
requirements.
Next on the list is $1.1 billion for additional F-22s. Add
to that $385 million to buy back some of the personnel cuts you
were forced to take last year and $3.9 billion for C-17s. And
we have got a pretty good bill adding up here.
So, gentlemen, I understand how we got here, and I
understand that we are not going to fix these problems
overnight. What I need to know from you is what we can do to
assist you in getting this right and bringing the much-needed
modernization to the United States Air Force. Again, thank you
for your expertise in making due with less over a fairly
extended period of pretty stressful times for the United States
Air Force.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Wynne. Mr. Chairman, members of this committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of America's
Air Force. Thank you as well for your support to our improved
readiness via retirement and recapitalization. We are working
hard to see it through. We urge you to quickly pass the pending
supplemental as it will help.
Across the total force of active, Guard, Reserve, and
civilian, we are America's strategic shield in air and in
space, and in cyberspace. We are contributing to today's fight
with increasing ordnance drops. And we stand watch at the
missile fields.
We stand ready in the nuclear field. And we are an
effective air superiority and strike force to both deter and
dissuade any opponent who may consider our forces to be
stretched in the global war on terror (GWOT). We are gratified
to hear that role reaffirmed by the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs in a deliberate message to those who might seek to
dissuade or deter us from our own options in the future.
This is why we seek to move forward and not backward into
fifth generation fighters, into new expeditionary tankers, and
into long-range strike assets. It is why we seek to modernize
space assets as the executive agent force base and not see
further fragmentation of the management of this now vulnerable
area. It is why we have established the Cyberspace Command and
see this as a war-fighting domain in which we need to dominate
to remain a net centered force for the future.
Clearly, beyond the global war on terror, we must not lose
America's asymmetric advantage in the strategic forces. Your
Air Force has been in the fight for 17 years, as you noted and
yet over the same 17 years has seen under-funded modernization.
We thank you for initiatives to restore fleet management to the
United States Air Force, a responsibility that we don't take
lightly.
When General Moseley and I came to our posts, we set about
a strategy to restructure our Air Force, truly develop a lean
and efficient Air Force in order to husband the resources for
investment. We worry about the industrial base and the need to
look after the open lines.
I am pleased to report to you that the Department and the
Air Force have indicated a desire to not close the F-22 line
and to develop the long-range strike asset. It is to these that
we would like to apply the saved resources over the near-term
while the F-35 proves itself through rigorous tests and is
effectively capped on production.
We ask that you agree with an approach for the F-22
aircraft while we work to restore our readiness with younger
aircraft. The F-35 and the F-22, in fact, are complementary, in
our judgment, with the F-22 bigger, faster, planned to fly
higher, and can carry more air-to-air weapons internally. Also
with less than 20 penetrating bombers in our current fleet, it
is time to develop an alternative as well.
We have talked about being under-funded, but here have
worked to offer a balanced budget prioritized to best defend
America. And we will continue to do that over the Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP).
The Air Force Research Laboratories is well-engaged in
technology development, expanding the opportunity for energy
alternatives while reducing our demand in our fleet and at our
bases, also in unmanned flight, in propulsion, and material
science as well as in human effectiveness.
As regards space, at Kirkland Air Force Base, a branch of
the Air Force Research Laboratories is creating inherently
defensive space assets. In cyberspace, career development,
including the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), and
also war-fighting schools are keys.
Combatant commanders and agencies partner with us in this
increasingly contested domain. I have worked in space for
almost two decades and have worked in commercial and classified
space as a supplier and a customer. We need consolidated
leadership to maintain our current strategic advantage.
Congress asked for a relook at responses to the space
commission. And we should really consider what is in the
report.
The Air Force is undergoing a back to basics as well as
back to blue complementary efforts to restore a steady demand
and a knowledge base. I recommend we keep the executive agency
where it is.
I have engaged airmen in both theaters of operation. And
the question to ask is, ``Are the continuation of our presence
and the continuation of the ground force tasking referred to as
in lieu of tasking?'' My answer is that they performed so well
that our Army colleagues don't want to give them up. And they
do perform well, many winning bronze and silver stars.
Your Air Force is currently protecting the air sovereignty
of these fledgling nations. And until their air force can do
this, I would not be surprised to see our Air Force remain to
do that mission.
This is why we are reexamining our force structure,
although we have prioritized right now recapitalization in the
President's budget. I again thank you for the privilege of
leading the best Air Force in the world. Our airmen every day
earn the respect of our friends as well as our enemies. We
worry for their quality of life as we seek efficiencies and as
we implement joint basing. But we never worry about the sense
of mission they bring to the task.
I will not have the privilege to represent them in this
setting for the force posture again. And I hope I have
reflected their pride in service as I have felt myself. I am
ready now to take your questions. Thank you, sir.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Wynne and
General Moseley can be found in the Appendix on page 45.]
The Chairman. General Moseley, please.
STATEMENT OF GEN. T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. AIR FORCE
General Moseley. Chairman Skelton, Congressman Hunter,
distinguished committee members, sir, in lieu of a verbal
statement, if you would allow me to introduce a few great
airmen that are out every day doing exactly what you expect us
to do. And I would like to have them stand up when I introduce
them.
For the committee, the secretary and I truly appreciate
your continued support for soldiers, sailors, Marines, Coast
Guardsmen, and airmen. Today we are privileged to be able to
have a discussion with you about your airmen. And thank you for
that opportunity to talk about the posture of your Air Force
and our vision for the future and strategy to achieve it.
So, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to start with
Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Turner. He is a Virginia Air National
Guardsman who flies F-22s at Langley Air Force Base as part of
the first Raptor classic association. He is a living symbol of
the Air Force's ironclad commitment to total force integration,
maximizing the strengths of the Guard, Reserve, and active
components.
He has logged over 3,600 flying hours in fighters to
include F-16s A, B, C, and D, and the F-22, including 300
combat hours in Desert Storm, Allied Force, and Iraqi Freedom.
Additionally, one of his roles at Langley Air Force Base is
flying Operation Noble Eagle sorties over the top of Washington
and New York in support of air sovereignty and air defense
missions.
Let me introduce next Captain Kari Fleming. She is a C-17
pilot from Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina. She is a
2003 graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, and
Charleston is her first and only operational assignment.
Still, she has amassed over 1,200 flying hours, including
900 hours in the C-17, including 124 combat missions and 278
combat hours since 2005, missions that have included
aeromedical evacuation operational air drops. Just ask her how
many times she has landed the big airplane in the dirt. She
says many times, and it does okay.
Next, Captain Scott Nichols. He is an HA-60G combat search
and rescue pilot from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona.
Like Kari, Scott is an Air Force Academy graduate 1999. He is
also a weapons school graduate, December 2005 graduate.
Since May 2002, he has been deployed five times, three
times to Kandahar, Afghanistan and two times to Balad Air Base
in Iraq. He has logged over 2,000 total flying hours, including
158 combat hours and 53 combat support hours. He has recovered
special ops predators. He has recovered people.
He has been a part of multiple saves. And for a fighter
pilot, there is nothing like the sound of a jolly green in a
combat rescue helicopter with a Pararescueman (PJ) on the end
of the rope that will come get you. So Scott Nichols is that
guy that comes to get you.
Next is Tech Sergeant Jim Jochum. He is in the other
business that we have got. He is an aerial gunner on a special
operations AC-130 gunship out of Hurlburt Field in Florida. He
joined the Air Force in August 1989 and had spent five years as
a maintenance airman before he joined Air Force Special
Operations.
Since November 1995, he has logged over 4,300 flying hours,
2,500 combat hours, 367 combat sorties in the AC-130, more than
anyone else in Air Force Special Operations Command. Since
October 2001 he has accrued 892 days deployed, about 3 years.
He wears an air medal with 16 oak leaf clusters, 16 oak leaf
clusters.
Next, Tech Sergeant Michelle Rochelle. She is a lead
operator for a joint team of cyber operations. She is under the
tactical control of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Joint
Functional Component Command for Network Warfare. Thus, she has
direct involvement in the global war on terror and supplying
strategic intelligence to America's political and military
leaders. She represents the vanguard of the forces we are
organizing, training, and equipping to operate in cyberspace
for the nation's combatant commanders.
She is a reminder that we believe the cyber domain is
critical, the nexus of cross-domain dominance in our war-
fighting domains. And Tech Sergeant Rochelle is at the leading
edge of what this means to us as we look at options and
opportunities inside cyberspace.
Last is Tech Sergeant Michael Shropshire. He is currently
acting operations (op) superintendent for the 12th Combat
Training Squadron at Fort Irwin, California, which is our
longstanding relationship between Nellis Air Force Base in Fort
Irwin with the things that we do at Nellis and the things that
the Army does at the National Training Center.
He enlisted in July 1992 as a battlefield airman who spent
his entire career associated with the United States Army.
Multiple deployments, Joint Endeavor in Bosnia, Operational
Iraqi Freedom. He wears a silver star and a bronze star. He won
a silver star for individual heroic actions while surrounded,
cut off, under a hail of enemy gunfire in the largest sand
storm in four decades alongside his Army comrades.
He coordinated close air support, 12 joint direct attack
munitions, or JDAMs, on 10 Iraqi T-72 tanks while constantly
switching from his radio handset to his rifle, individually
engaging enemy soldiers at close range. He wears a bronze star
for exceptional performance as a terminal air controller during
the 3rd Infantry Division's push on Baghdad about this time of
2003.
So, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Hunter, thank you for the
opportunity----
[Applause.]
General Moseley. Sirs and committee, thank you for the
opportunity to take my verbal statement and be able to
introduce to you six great airmen that are out there doing
exactly what you expect us to do and making this look so easy
that people sometimes think that it is easy. So, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Hunter, sir, we appreciate the time and look
forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of General Moseley and
Secretary Wynne can be found in the Appendix on page 45.]
The Chairman. In a word, we as a committee and all the
American people should be very proud of the young men and women
that you just introduced. We thank you for your service and
dedication, not just to the Air Force, but to America. You are
the best, and we recognize that, and we appreciate you.
Do you have further comments, General?
General Moseley. No, sir.
The Chairman. I will have one question before I call Mr.
Hunter. Back in the days when I tried lawsuits, from time to
time a witness would testify to a fact, and there would be a
record, maybe of a deposition or a comment to another witness
or something that the person testifying had written that
contradicted the testimony in chief.
Today there is something I don't understand because the
testimony in chief before us based upon the request for 2009
Air Force end strength calls for a reduction of 12,963, a
reduction from 328,316. And yet in an official document which
was sent to our committee at the behest of Mr. Hunter, called
an unfunded requirement list, there is an unfunded requirement
in personnel end strength for $385 million, which is an
increase of 18,884 personnel.
Now, if this were a jury trial back in Lafayette County,
the question put to the witness would be which time, Mr.
Witness, are you right or are you telling the truth? I won't
ask such a crass question as that. But I must tell you I am
disturbed by on the one hand your official end strength request
is that of a reduction of 12,963 personnel, and the unfunded
requirement list is an increase of 18,000 plus.
I think those of us in this committee are entitled to an
explanation, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Wynne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
know, when we committed to the plan of 40,000 reduction, which
was translated to about 57,000 back in 2005, it was a plan
given a scenario that did not have an increased ground forces
and a scenario in which some of the missions that we are
currently performing as in ground force tasking might be
relieved and returned to us.
As we proceeded in time, we have continued to say that to
ourselves that as the ground forces have been increased--and
they are trying to increase--that perhaps this would be the
satisfaction of the plan that we had in place. At the same
time, we found ourselves with an increased mission space due to
the increase because of the requirement to provide logistics
liaison officers as well as joint tactical air controllers to
any additional brigade combat teams that would have been
developed and deployed to the tune of about 1,000.
We also have not been relieved of other missions that we
had thought by this time we would be relieved of. There is
faint hope that by the cycle completing itself in 2009 that
these things, too, will come true. And so, an optimistic look
said continue to husband your resources and apply it to
investment in the 2009 timeframe. And the pessimists amongst us
said this is not going to happen, it has not happened in three
years. We should at least hedge our bet.
And I think that is the conundrum that you see. So as to
what time is true, I think the question has a certain validity
to it.
We had a fairly robust debate, and we finally elected that
what we should do is in the program budget we should adhere to
the plan, and then in the unfunded requirements list we should
state our worries and our concerns and maybe if we could hedge
our bet, we should hedge our bet. And, Chief, that is kind of,
sir, what I see.
The Chairman. You know, you can't have it both ways. Tell
us what you want right now. Are you standing by your unfunded
list that you sent us for an additional 18,884?
Secretary Wynne. No, sir, I must stand by the 316,000. I
will tell you that as a result of the----
The Chairman. But you must stand by the cut?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But on the unfunded requirements, you were
telling the truth then, weren't you?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir, that is a question of hedging
your bet against an uncertain future.
The Chairman. I kind of feel like Mark Twain. The more is
explained to me, the more I don't understand it. What do you
want this committee to do, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Wynne. I will tell you what our plan is, sir, and
then you, of course, have to decide.
The Chairman. No, wait a minute. Let me interrupt. Let me
interrupt. Just simply what do you want this committee to do so
we can get on? Because other folks want to ask questions as
well. What do you want this committee to do?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir. We really would prefer to hedge
our bet at 330,000. We look like we can stop our decline at
around 322 by not taking actions following June. And because we
are already down below 330 right now.
The Chairman. So you are telling us you are standing by the
unfunded requirement that you sent this committee?
Secretary Wynne. When you asked me a personal opinion to
what I would like to do, I need to hedge our bet.
The Chairman. I asked you a personal and professional
opinion. Let us not hedge our bets. You are asking for us to
pay attention and try to follow the unfunded requirement level?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir. But as you know, I must support
the president's budget as it was submitted. But, sir, you have
asked a personal opinion, and you have gotten it.
The Chairman. Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the last
full committee hearing, we had we were so cut up with votes; a
lot of our folks didn't get a chance to spend a lot of time
with the secretary. So let me pass on this, and I will ask my
questions at the end of the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $497 million for F-15
depot maintenance to fix many of the planes that have
experienced recent structural cracks. And I have been told that
the fees should be closer to around $50 million total. And I am
concerned because these are the planes that protect our skies
here in the continental United States.
What are the number, the total number of planes that
require repair? And how did you come up with the figure of $497
million? Was this your figure or a DOD figure? How did we get
to that number?
Secretary Wynne. I will take that on a little bit. And at
the time, it was we had lost, I think, seven F-15s over the
last nine months approximately. There is a concern about making
sure that we have the proper maintenance activity and the
proper depot overhaul to do this.
There is a concern that we make sure that we have a ready,
flyable airplane in that world. The DOD felt like we had excess
money over in the F-22 long lead and shutdown costs. They
perceived that we had a problem that they could fix by moving
that money wholesalely into the F-15 depot repair line to
essentially repair that airplane.
We have worked to try to figure out what would be the cost.
And, of course, most of the cost would not be depot repair. It
probably would be in excess of maintenance and operations
because you really have to do this in between flights. In other
words, as airplane lands, you get out your inspection criteria
and you make sure it is ready for the next flight.
On the other hand, we have noted that some of the langerons
have to be replaced. This is at least a depot special weapons
and tactics (SWAT) team, if not a deep depot operation. And so,
I would tell you that that is what the money was reserved for
and where it came from and where it went.
Mr. Ortiz. And I agree with the questions that the chairman
was asking, you know. We want to know how we can help you. And
I think this is why we are here.
And I know sometimes, you know, there are differences
between what the Secretary of Defense needs and what your
service needs. But we really need to know.
Now, I was amazed at your airman that you introduced has
been deployed five times. Five times--that is too many. And now
in some areas we see now your recommendation is to cut down.
But other agencies, other services are increasing. And one of
the problems that we have had is that if we increase the end
strength--in your case, you are decreasing--we might not have
the equipment to train them with.
This is not the reason why you are cutting down. We don't
have the equipment to train them. Sometimes we train them in
Kuwait or someplace else before they go to Iraq or Afghanistan.
But we really want to know. We want to help you. Now, going
back to the $50 million, you think that is adequate to fix the
planes so that they can continue to protect our Nation?
Secretary Wynne. I would say, sir, that our current
estimate is roughly that figure. I think the impact in
operations and maintenance is as yet not well-defined. Although
what we see is an absorption problem where we have to fill our
pilots' time, make sure they are fit and ready. And we worry
about making sure we have an adequate flight regime to make
sure they continue their training.
This could impact the operations and maintenance. But as
far as depot operations, our sense is that that was probably
adequate, $50 million.
Mr. Ortiz. So you do feel confident that they are getting
the right training, flight training? You have not cut down on
the hours of flight training?
Secretary Wynne. No, sir, one of the things that you might
have seen is a reallocation as the fleet changes and as the
fleet in the future is expected to be is you may see a
difference in flight hours. But it is not per pilot. It is
across the board, and it is a soup-to-nuts look. So I would
have to defer to the chief. But I believe the adequacy of
training is present.
Chief.
General Moseley. Congressman, last year because of the
funding and affordability issues we did cut operations and
maintenance (O&M) and flying hours. But we cut it too much. And
the guidance back to the staff was to put the flying hours
back.
This year in this budget there is a lower number of flying
hours, but that wraps up a fewer number of airplanes. It also
wraps up a different way the training command is doing
business. So there is not the requirement overall for those
flying hours. But, sir, rest assured I watch this every day
relative to the quality of training of our people that fly
machines.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Everett, five minutes.
Mr. Everett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General Moseley, for your
service to the country. I notice you have got five Global
Hawks. You have 38 Predators, nine Reapers. And I congratulate
you for that.
I am a big believer of our unmanned aerial systems (UASs).
And I also point out to my colleagues that the Predator was a
congressional add, for those of you who may doubt the value of
congressional adds. It is not a bridge to nowhere. It is a
bridge to the future, as we are seeing our UAS systems. We are
only beginning to understand everything they can do for us in
the way of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
and other things.
But my question is this. This committee as well as the
Intelligence Committee has language that directs the Secretary
of Defense to advise the appropriate committees on an annual
basis during the phase-out of the U-2 that there will be no
loss of ISR. And I would like for you, if you will, tell us
where we are with the phase-out of the U-2 and how long we
think it might be before there will be no loss of ISR by using
the Global Hawk.
Secretary Wynne. Well, what we have determined is that
there are some real attributes in the U-2 system. There are
users who really appreciate the stream of data coming from a U-
2. We are trying now to replicate that system because the U-2
is constrained by pilot hours to a specific regime of flight.
We are trying to replicate that system as best we can in
the Global Hawk. It is probably aimed at the Global Hawk Block
30 or Block 40. So that kind of timing--we had a lot of
combatant commanders up on the net, not just you all, sir, to
make sure that our ramp on, ramp off still offered the right
kind of ISR. We are still investigating the specifics of that
because it has to do with how soon can you get on contract for
additional Global Hawks, how soon will the integration work
out. And so, we are erring on the side of caution.
General Moseley. That is, the Global Hawk has, sir, because
you have watched this for years, is you can keep the U-2 up for
11 or 12 hours max. You can keep the Global Hawk up for 24 to
30 hours. So once you get the sensor suite right, you can
almost double, if not triple the coverage over a combatant
commander's area of responsibility (AOR).
The key here, though, is to have the right sensors. And
that has been the nub that we have been working with the
commanders, like in Korea and in the Pacific, to make sure we
have the right sensor suite aboard the Global Hawk that
replaces the U-2. And until that happens, there is no desire to
divest ourself of that final U-2 capability.
Mr. Everett. Global Hawk will not have wet film, right?
General Moseley. Sir, but it has got digital capability. I
mean, the wet film and the wet film world requires a whole
different set of processing and additional people and
additional facilities and additional equipment.
Mr. Everett. But we are using it today?
General Moseley. Yes, sir. But we are also using the
digital capability, not just off the Global Hawk, but the
satellites as well as the Predators.
Mr. Everett. Let me switch. I noticed on Transformational
Communications Satellite (TSAT), for instance, that in the
outyears that there is about a $4 billion cut on TSAT. And I
was wondering how that will sync with the idea that we can't go
forward with the Future Combat Systems (FCS), and as I
understand it, unless we have got TSAT.
Now, I am aware of the fact that we are putting up Wide
Global SATCOM (WGS) and Advanced Extremely High Frequency
(AEHF). And let me also put a question in there. Are we able to
sync our terminals with the new AEHFs we are putting up and
WGSs? But the overall question is how are we taking into
account the fact that I am told we can't go forward really with
future combat systems unless we have got TSAT.
Secretary Wynne. Well, the issue is com on the move, is in
a simple way to a disadvantaged user. And what the Army is
faced with is they are going to have to concentrate their coms,
if you will, at a different level in order to contact the AEHF.
I would tell you that the cycle of user equipment is aligned in
the outyears to the TSAT.
We were faced with a direction to put in AEHF four. The
right thing to do was to delay the TSAT to accommodate that.
The terminals are easily transferred.
Mr. Everett. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We will call on Mr. Taylor. Immediately after he asks his
questions, we will break for the one vote that is pending on
the House floor.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General. Gentlemen, through
unofficial channels this committee was made aware of the need
for first body armor, then up-armored Humvees, then Improvised
Explosive Device (IED) detonator jammers, and then last, the
need for MRAPs. In every instance the Department never came to
us and said we need this. We heard either from the moms and
dads of young people in the field or actually from the people
in the field that people were dying needlessly.
Mr. Secretary, in general you have a heck of a lot of
aircraft in that theater. I very much appreciate the young lady
flying out of Charleston. That is a long way there and back. It
is a dangerous situation.
You have 130's flying from Kuwait to Baghdad on what
appears to be every 20 minutes or so. Are there threats to
those aircraft that this committee has not yet been made aware
of? And does your budget fund every possible protection to
those aircraft?
And what brings this to mind--I am sorry--I got to the
chapter last night in Charlie Wilson's War where with the
introduction of the Stinger, three Hind aircraft went down in
the span of about five minutes. Up until then, that was the
hunter. From that moment on, that aircraft became the hunted.
I would sure hate to see our aircraft and our crews in a
similar situation change that quickly because we weren't paying
attention. And so, that is the analogy that I will use for the
crews of our 130's, for the crews of our 17s and the other
aircraft in theater. Are we taking all the necessary
precautions----
Secretary Wynne. Well, sir----
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. Against threats that we know of
and threats that might be out there from another country that
might make their way to the hands of the Iraqi insurgents?
Secretary Wynne. We are exceptionally concerned about the
integrated air defense systems that are on the market. We have
not seen anything in the theater that would concern us at this
point that allows us that. But we are concerned about future
engagements because we see the proliferation of, if you will,
better integrated air defenses, which is a very high corollary
to the introduction of the Stinger missile in Charlie Wilson's
War.
The fact is that that is one of the reasons that we have
stipulated that we want to move forward into the next
generation of long range strike and the next generation air
superiority weapon. It is also for air defense on the ground.
And I would say this, sir, that right now we think we have
seen the right mix. For example, we got laser vision glasses
because we found out that there were, frankly, rich kids in
Iraq and Afghanistan that had the lasers that were focusing on
our windshields, something I would have never thought of. Now
the pilots have to essentially armor-up their eyes to prohibit
that.
But we are, in each case, jumping on it and trying to make
sure that we have covered the contingencies. We also have
people looking out the windows, if you will, for any kind of
missile attack. And we have the missile warning systems.
Right now we think we are adequately protected for the
engagement we are in. But we are worried about the engagements
that we are not in yet because they are armoring up.
Mr. Taylor. As they fall off, is there anything on your
unfunded requirement list that would respond to the possible
needs of our war-fighters, either in Iraq or Afghanistan as far
as a vulnerability to either aircraft, anti-craft missiles, or
any other threat to those aircraft?
Secretary Wynne. Chief.
General Moseley. Congressman Taylor, I would tell you from
a chief's perspective and from the perspective of the guy that
commanded that operation out there for over two years, you are
never satisfied. You are never satisfied that someone doesn't
have an advantage, and you are always looking for some way to
provide infrared countermeasures, radar countermeasures against
lasers.
On our unfunded requirements list we have a variety of
things that we could not afford or that were affordability
issues that cut across a wide number of things. But, sir,
please rest assured that we don't leave a rock unturned that we
can't figure out a way to defend the crew and the aircraft.
Whether it is an old aircraft that we are operating out
there--and you have seen some of those and you have flown on
some of those--or whether it is a new aircraft off of a
production line that we can embed that capability from the very
beginning onto the system. So whether it is infrared or whether
it is radar or whether it is laser, sir, we try very hard not
to miss something.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you very much. We will break
briefly for the one vote and return and look forward to
resuming the hearing.
Secretary Wynne. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Will the witnesses please take the seats?
According to my sheet, Mr. Bishop is next on the list.
Mr. Bishop for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, General, I appreciate you being here. I
recognize fully that there are, you know, some things that is
government that we can spend, some things that we should, some
things we absolutely must----
The Chairman. May I suggest you get a little closer to the
microphone?
Mr. Bishop. You can't hear that? Is this easier now? Can
you hear that?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Do you want to hear this?
General Moseley. You bet, sir.
Secretary Wynne. You bet.
Mr. Bishop. Okay, we will see in a couple of seconds
whether you still do. Now, you are in the absolutely must spend
category, and I appreciate that. The chairman was exactly
correct when he said that we had been basically at war since
the 1990's.
But unfortunately we have also had a basic procurement
holiday that same time that we were involved in all that, which
has caused significant issues. And I recognize that the top 10
items that you have called for are in the procurement category
for aircraft.
I also recognize that we have, in my opinion, taken air
superiority for granted in this country. We have had it since
the Korean War. We assume it is always there. And sometimes we
don't understand the connection between the successful ground
operations and the successful air operations and that they both
have to work hand in hand for us to go along with that.
So I would guess the easy question I have is simply first
if for some reason, both miraculously and appropriately do
significant increases in the Air Force budget, I am making the
assumption that your request is procurement over personnel. But
the question would be is there some kind of nexus between that.
If, indeed, we could increase the procurement side of your
budget, does that take the pressure for the personnel side of
the budget?
General Moseley. Congressman, that is a great question. The
dilemma that we have been in with the holiday on delivering
aircraft affect you in a variety of ways. By keeping the
aircraft longer, the costs per flying hour goes up. The break
rates go up, which means you need more maintenance, which means
you need more crew chiefs, you need more flight line
maintenance. So there is a direct tie between recapped, reset,
modernized inventories and the numbers of people that you have
working each aircraft.
The difference in the C-5 and the C-17, for example, is a
significant number of people. The difference in the F-15 and
the F-22 is a significant number of people. So there is a--you
are exactly right.
Sir, this year in this budget we buy 93 aircraft. Fifty-two
of those are UAVs. And so, you can see where we are trying to
work our way through a variety of portfolios that include
strategic lift, theater lift, the air superiority piece, et
cetera and trying to balance that with manned and unmanned
systems to fight today's fight, but also position ourselves for
the potential threats 10 years from now or 15 years from now.
So, sir, the reset and recapitalization piece is a big deal
for us. And we are working that hard inside this budget. And as
you have seen on the unfunded requirements list, if we had an
additional dollar, those are the things that we would spend it
on.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Thank you, General. I appreciate that.
Secretary, could I just say in a very parochial issue? You
know, recently there was a small dust-up that developed between
one of the industries in my particular area and a decision made
on a legal position by the Department of Defense. Your office
used the legitimate procedures in the process, but the
turnaround in the decision-making process was amazingly quick
to actually kind of work this through and solve any potential
problems in the future.
I was amazed that government could work that quickly. So I
would just like to thank you, your staff especially for what
they were doing in a very parochial issue, which was
significant still to me that you did it well. And you and your
staff should be complimented for doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take that much time. I will
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tauscher, please.
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, it is good to see you again. Thank
you for bringing those great airmen with you. And
congratulations on their work and all the people that you
represent.
As you know, I have Travis Air Force Base in my district.
And my constituents and I couldn't be prouder of the men and
women who contribute to the Nation's airlift needs. The debate
about the C-5s and the C-17s is something that we have talked
about before.
We all understand, I think, that they are two very
important platforms that have very similar missions but have
different capabilities. And obviously the C-5 has a vintage
problem, as we say, if you are over 55.
Secretary Wynne, I am looking at, not only the unfunded
requirements list, but what the President's budget has said.
And I understand that the Secretary of Defense removed about
$217 million from the budget submission that was going toward
the production line shutdown of the C-17. So what we
effectively have is Under Secretary Young saying that the work
in the amp programs are national security important, so we have
to keep that money in there. So the C-5 they are going to
continue going off into the future getting remodeled and
refurbished.
There is no money to buy C-17s. I think that somehow the
Administration has gotten onto the fact that the Congress will
add C-17s if they don't ask for them. And that is a nasty
little habit for the Administration to have gotten into because
it doesn't provide us the kind of strategic lift that we need
with any sense that we could actually buy them with a multi-
year procurement and get the savings that we should be getting.
So we are buying them, but we are paying the most money we
can for them. And I understand that we have been offered a deal
by the contractor, kind of 15 for 12, which is a pretty good
deal. But because we can't make a decision on multi-year
procurement, we are not getting the best price for them.
And so, I think we are in this trick bag here of trying to
keep both feet on the accelerator keeping the C-5s going, not
asking for C-17s, depending on the Congress to do it, but not
getting the best price. And in the end, I don't think the
American people are very well served. I don't think the Air
Force is well-served. And our strategic lift needs are clearly
not well-served.
So I am looking for you to tell me, Secretary Wynne, what
should we make of the 15 additional C-17s that are listed on
your unfunded requirements list.
Secretary Wynne. Well, first of all, the C-5 Acquisition
Decision Memorandum (ADM) certified the program for the B
aircraft. It did not certify the work for the A aircraft.
However, the law on retiring C-5s has not been changed. So what
we probably will do at this juncture is to go ahead and proceed
with the C-5B program as the ADM has said.
And by the way, I think that Lockheed stepped up to a
pretty good contract arrangement on that. We will take the As,
and we will sort through the As to try to figure out which ones
we should amp, which brings it up to sort of international
standards for flight. We will amp a variety of C-5As along the
way.
To your question on C-17s, one thing that we have not been
successful on is, frankly, selling the fact that we are running
the wheels off and the wings off of the airplane going in and
out of theater.
Ms. Tauscher. I am sold.
Secretary Wynne. And so, we cannot seem to sustain a budget
through the President's budget. I will tell you that again, to
hedge against a future, as we mentioned before, we have added
the 15 to the unfunded list because we see that the future may
well see the Air Force continuing to supply logistics,
continuing to supply aeromed, continuing to supply quite a few
of the flight requirements in both theaters and strategically
across the world.
So that is where we are. And I can't offer you much else.
You know the positive nature of our personal views.
Ms. Tauscher. Well, I would like to engage the chairman
briefly.
Mr. Skelton, I think that, you know, this is where the
rubber meets the road literally. We have a situation here where
we are chasing our own tail. We are keeping C-5s online that we
know that we can't--that we don't want to, but we have to
because we have a critical mission for them to complete.
We are not procuring C-17s through the President's budget
and through the Pentagon because they can't afford them because
money is going elsewhere. The Congress is stepping in. But even
though the Congress is stepping in and buying, you know, a
dozen a year pretty much, we are not getting the savings
because we can't do multi-year procurements. So we are just
chasing our tail around.
And I think we need to look at strategic airlift. I know
that we have tried to look at different studies, and we have
had a number of different things. General Moseley and I have
engaged in this conversation.
But, you know, I think that we are not serving anyone well,
certainly not the airmen and the great Americans that are
flying on these planes that we are exhausting and overusing,
nor the strategic needs of the American people for other
contingencies by not making these decisions. It is about the
money. The money is going other places. We understand that.
But we in the Congress have the responsibility to say stop.
And I think this is where we have to say stop because we cannot
afford in the future to turn around and have airlift needs and
the needs to bring--whether it is humanitarian aid in the
United States or troops and other things to a fight and say,
you know, back in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 we really should have
said stop, and now we don't have the lift requirements that we
need.
So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will begin to really take
this fight to the Administration and make some choices. And,
you know, I am not suggesting it is another air frame that we
start to cut away from, but this is an unsustainable situation
for us.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. That is our
constitutional duty. Thank you for your comments.
Before I call on--it looks like Mr. Turner would be next--
General, as you know, we lost a B-2 in Guam just a few days
ago, which was stationed in Whiteman Air Force Base in my home
state of Missouri. And I received a call from Brigadier General
Harencak telling me that both of the pilots will fly again,
which, of course, is good news.
And I also know that the whole matter of the crash is under
investigation and comments need to be limited. But what can you
tell us without invading the province of the investigators
regarding the B-2 crash, please?
General Moseley. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity. Sir,
as you know, we have a safety investigation board that is now
present at Andersen in Guam headed by general officer. And any
comments that I would have would be inappropriate until we know
what the safety investigation board finds.
I will tell you that we have both our pilots back. We did
have a spine or back compression on one. But I am told that
that is okay and we are going to be able to return to flying
status on both pilots. That is the first thing that a service
chief and a secretary always asks when you get these calls in
the middle of the night is how about the pilots and the crew.
So that part is a 100 percent good news story.
Sir, I am real hesitant to comment because I truly have not
asked into the safety investigation board for any updates
because I don't think that is appropriate for me. That would be
interpreted as I am attempting to either accelerate or somehow
shape that board. And I will resist that. So, sir, I apologize,
but I don't have that information.
The Chairman. No, you are giving the right answer. I think
it is important that the pilots will again be on flight status.
And we are, of course, very, very pleased about that as well. I
know, their families and all at Whiteman and Missouri neighbors
will feel very pleased that they are returning as such.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank both of you for your discussion today
on the important issue of your end strength. And you can see
that the struggle in this committee as we look to the budget
request and then unfunded priorities request with respect to
personnel. Over the past year we have heard several times as
both the defense secretary and yourselves have come before this
committee and indicated that your projected reductions probably
could not or even should not be met as you look to the
responsibilities of the Air Force.
I noted also that in your unfunded priorities you also have
an item for 1,800 civilians. And we certainly are aware that
the Air Force as it has been trying to hit lower numbers has
taken hits both in active duty and in also civilians.
I have a concern about as we look to the issue of your
acquisition programs. Your ability to have personnel resources
certainly impacts the ability of those programs to be
successful. Could you speak a moment about the impact on
personnel reduction of the effective functioning of your
acquisition programs?
Secretary Wynne. Well, sir, one of the things that we are
trying to do there is to make sure that we have resurrected--
for example, that during the procurement turndown we lost
almost a third of our procurement professionals. And these
people are not sort of walk out the door, hang around, and then
walk back in the door. These are developed over many years.
Part of it is the cost control group, infinite cost
estimating team that was at Wright Patterson and was, frankly,
premier throughout the world. We are now in the phase of going
back to blue, but at the same time, we need residual expertise,
and we need to make sure we appropriately replace and replenish
our acquisition professionals. And we are on the road to do
just that and try to satisfy that.
Part of this is as a result of Secretary Gonssler's view
that he was on contracts and making sure that we all took
another look at our contract professionals. And that is one
area that we are striving to replace.
Mr. Turner. Also then in looking to the issue of Base
Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), I am understanding
is you have included almost $1.2 billion in the 2009 request.
It is also the understanding that there has been a general
reduction in BRAC 2005 for fiscal year 2008. Apparently the Air
Force's reduction is somewhere around $235 million. Without the
restoration of the 2008 funding, how will the Air Force
complete the BRAC 2005 process, and how does it affect your
timeline of September 2011?
Secretary Wynne. I think it is going to have an effect on
the completion, but maybe not the start. The law reads that you
have to initiate the base realignment and closure action and
have a viable, executable plan.
The problem is is that when we lost some money in the 2007
timeframe, we recognized that just to do the engineering job,
the architectural engineering job, and make sure we did all of
the, frankly, facilities, infrastructure correctly, you have to
have a time lead for planning. That is what drove the
reduction.
I can tell you if we stay on plan now, we are fairly
confident that we have stretched out the money. You will see
some base realignment and closure in the 2012, 2013 timeframe.
But I think we will be all right.
Mr. Turner. It is my understanding that there has been a
shift in the modernization program for the C-5As limiting it to
Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), not a full modernization.
And it is also my understanding that the Air Force is not
looking currently for C-17s, additional. How is that going to
affect our capability? And can you talk a moment about the C-
5A?
Secretary Wynne. The C-5ADM that came down certified for
the C-5B program to make sure that the C-5B program was worked
and AMP'd. We are looking at the A models to determine which of
the A models--and we are going to start with the best A model
because we always have thought that we needed some of those.
And we are going to try to bring those up to international
standards, which is essentially the Avionics Modernization
Program, or AMP.
I think that is going to take us some time to plan for, but
that is where the program is now. There is a law that prohibits
retirement. And so, we cannot have a plan to retire these
airplanes. We have, as you know, asked this committee, and this
committee has been exceptionally responsive to that, allowing
Air Force to manage.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Marshall for
five minutes.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your service. You do a great job for us.
And, Chief, I compliment you on your opening statement.
Very well done.
I have a number of questions that I could have, just a
legion. I only have five minutes. I am going to try and be real
quick about this. I would love to talk about Global Logistic
Support Center (GLSC) and executive agency. And that is
something that we need to continue to dialogue on. But I am
going to focus on three specific issues, and I will ask three
questions.
And, Chief, I think they are going to be principally be
directed to you. And hopefully you will be able to give us some
good answers here on the record.
First, C-5, C-17--I think everybody agrees, GAO certainly
does, that the air mobility study given to us a year or so ago
is faulty. And I know we are updating that. And I understand
that the projected date to have the updated air mobility study
is first quarter, 2009. And what I would like is maybe
something for the record, not an answer right now: what would
keep us--what would be inappropriate about us directing that
that air mobility study, the updated air mobility study be
given to us sooner than that?
What are the hurdles in providing that to us? I think we
need that in order to get to the inquiry that Ms. Tauscher
mentioned, pretty important stuff. So I won't put that in the
form of a question, I would just ask that for the record you
would detail why it is going to take so long and how quickly
could this effectively be done and should we direct it.
Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA)--I would like some comments
about the Air Force's current view with regard to that
platform, how the Air Force intends to participate. And I will
just make an observation. No matter what the Air Force does as
far as acquiring platforms is concerned, in this joint world,
thinking about future taxpayer resources, it seems to me
contractor maintenance, C-17-type approach to this is
inappropriate, and that is the direction the Army seems to be
headed in at the moment.
And we need to be thinking about depot maintenance core
loads, you know, those sorts of things, which in the long run
will be better for the services, better for the taxpayer,
better for our military. And we all know that. And I am afraid
that with the separation between the Army and the Air Force
that continues to exist--and if a different approach is taken
by the Air Force where JCA is concerned and acquisition of the
platform is concerned, somehow maintenance is going to get lost
altogether. And I would like you to comment on that, if you
could.
And the final thing near and dear to my heart and yours,
sir, is personnel management, reorganization and the large
civilian centers. I think people are misinterpreting the BRAC
language.
I have already said this once before. BRAC commissioners
clearly contemplated that on-site management, I think, under
center commanders' control will continue to exist to meet the
needs of those civilian centers. The Tinker tests--I mean, that
is an utter failure. You know, they have had a hiring freeze.
And so, you just don't have the statistics.
And I have heard that there is a move afoot to start moving
authorities from the center commanders, personnel perhaps,
slots perhaps, but moving authorities, command direction, that
sort of thing, to Tinker--pardon me, to San Antonio to Air
Force personnel center. That makes no sense.
We don't have a test. You move the command authority. You
have moved a major part of the deal, major part of the
management team. And so, I would like a comment on all three of
those. Thank you for your service.
General Moseley. Sir, the mobility capability study (MCS)--
please let us do take that for the record and see what
obstacles there are to move that quickly. But back to
Congresswoman Tauscher's comments about strat lift. From the
previous MCS study, look what has happened to us as far as the
change in the environment that we are operating in.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
General Moseley. The Army is 100,000 people bigger. Brigade
combat teams either represent force generation backfill or
forward teams deployed in combat. So that piece has changed.
The future combat systems (FCS) vehicle I am told now won't
fit in a C-130. We have now also began to look at U.S. Africa
Command (AFRICOM) as an operating medium, which will be
humanitarian relief and be disaster relief and a requirement to
move things around a huge continent. So when you think about
what has changed from the MCS 2005 to now, the Army is much
bigger.
The vehicle that the Army and the Air Force is working on
to support their future concept of operations now won't fit in
a C-130. AFRICOM is now bigger. The C-5 question--we are now
looking at wurping the Bs and the 2Cs and beginning to AMP the
As to get as much capability as we can. The C-17 is being used
like a C-130 in-theater to move up to 10,000 people a month.
Mr. Marshall. I am going to interrupt and say that I expect
we will see all that in the updated study--real quickly.
General Moseley. I guess I would say that is the river we
are swimming in when we look at another mobility capability
study, that we have a different world now than we had then.
Mr. Marshall. Well, and we are all hoping that the
supplemental will produce some more C-17s right away.
General Moseley. And, sir, the C-27--George Casey and I
have spent a lot of time personally on this together. In fact,
we have just signed a letter together that outlines how we will
progress on this. And we are still committed, both of us, to
the program and being able to field the program for a variety
of reasons, to include international partnering, homeland
security, et cetera.
And, sir, you know where I am on the personnel management.
I believe that we need to have elements of that work at the
depots to be specifically competent with that particular
challenge.
The Chairman. Dr. Gingrey, five minutes?
Dr. Gingrey. Secretary Wynne, Chief Moseley, thank you very
much for being with us today. I don't have a lot of time, but I
have got a lot of questions regarding the F-22A situation. So
let me begin.
In a nutshell, the situation is that the base budget for
fiscal year 2009 contains no funds for line shutdown or for
advanced procurement of the F-22. And there seems to be a
discrepancy between where that will leave us in terms of the
size of the F-22 fleet and where the Air Force and most
independent experts believe that number should be. That will
leave us at 183 and possibly 187 if, as Secretary Gates has
indicated, there are four additional F-22s in the supplemental
request.
General Moseley, in your professional opinion as the senior
uniformed leader of the Air Force, what is the Air Force's
validated requirement of F-22A Raptors?
General Moseley. Sir, as you know, I do support the budget.
I do support the President's budget. And I am grateful that in
that budget the termination language has been removed and the
line will continue. So the numbers discussion will be given--
will be allowed to continue into the next Administration.
And so, the balance of F-35 and F-22s and legacy airplanes
is where we are working now. But if you are asking my personal
opinion, with what we know right now, the number is still 381.
Dr. Gingrey. Three hundred and eighty-one? Thank you. Thank
you, Chief.
Secretary Wynne, as the civilian leader of the Air Force,
where do you put the requirement? Has anything happened to make
that requirement change?
Secretary Wynne. I am not a uniformed officer, and so I
have to be very supportive of the President's budget. But I
also am grateful that the secretary has allowed the program to
not be closed and that it has allowed the debate to continue
into next year, giving, I think, the military authorities the
right to argue for continued extension.
Where I come down is, frankly, I worry very much about how
we are going to manage across this globe to make sure we have
air superiority, which has been the predicate for victory ever
since World War II. I also worry about the integrated air
defense systems because the last time we had a balanced
survivability between us and them, we lost 2,000 airplanes, one
of which was my brother.
Dr. Gingrey. Mr. Secretary, if you could give me that
number, I would appreciate it, the number of F-22As that you
think we need.
Secretary Wynne. Sir, I have to tell you that, not being a
professional airman, but being a Secretary of the Air Force, I
am sort of stuck on that. I can only tell you that where Air
Combat Command (ACC) currently is is the 381.
Dr. Gingrey. Thank you. And I assume that requirement is
based, among other things, on the fact that China and Russia
are developing fifth generation Raptor-like technology, safety
concerns pertaining to our F-15 fleet, and our Nation's desire,
of course, as you just said, Mr. Secretary, to maintain air
superiority. I assume that requirement is driven in part that
over the last 10 years multiple independent studies and over 20
Air Force studies have all recommended that the Air Force
requires far, far more than 187 F-22 Raptors to do the job
previously done, by the way, by 800 F-15A through Ds.
With a fleet of 187 Raptors, after accounting for training,
tests, and maintenance requirements, fewer than 110 of those F-
22s will be operational. Without a change in procurement plans,
I believe this small number of F-22s will make it extremely
difficult for the Air Force to provide air dominance to our
combatant commanders for the next several decades. So let me
ask both of you.
First of all, Secretary Wynne, in your professional opinion
as secretary and, General Moseley, as chief of staff of the Air
Force, are 187 F-22 Raptors enough to carry out the Air Force's
air dominance mission for the next 30 years without taking on
substantial risk?
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Wynne. Sir, I think it is the measure of risk
that we are debating. And it is the measure of risk as to where
the resources could go other than to this program. I believe
that we need a little bit of presence. And I think the way that
the 381 units are currently sited was to make sure that there
was a robust squadron in each of the 10 AEFs. I have not seen
anything that would dissuade from that aspiration.
Dr. Gingrey. Chief Moseley.
General Moseley. Congressman, we are grateful that the line
has not been closed down in this budget. And we are grateful
that Secretary Gates in the President's budget defers the
decision on shutdown and numbers to the next Administration. So
we have an opportunity within the Department to have these very
discussions.
The affordability of the program is--and the measure of
risk--is the debate that we are going through now. With the
affordability of the 183 plus four airplanes is the real
question. So as I support the President's budget and I am
grateful that the line is not shut down, this is an
affordability issue, and this is a measure of risk issue.
And so, I agree with air combat command on the bigger
numbers. But, sir, the discussion will continue.
Dr. Gingrey. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Chief Moseley.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Secretary, could you maybe pull the microphone just a
little away from you?
Secretary Wynne. Away from me?
The Chairman. Yes, sir. There is some feedback.
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, thank you for your
testimony this morning. I want to begin by expressing my relief
that the two pilots involved in this weekend's crash of a B-2
bomber at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam are in good
condition. I wish the one pilot that was sent to Tripler Army
Medical Center in Hawaii a speedy recovery from his injuries.
The events of Saturday morning is a reminder to all of us
that our men and women in uniform are constantly putting
themselves in harm's way to protect our way of life. And for
that sacrifice, we say thank you. I know that the Air Force has
commenced a thorough investigation of the circumstances
surrounding the crash, and I remain committed to working with
you and this committee to ensure that all safety issues are
appropriately addressed.
And now for my question. During the DOD fiscal year 2009
posture hearing earlier this month, I expressed concern about
the 32 percent across the board cut in military construction
for the Air Force in fiscal year 2009. The case in point,
nearly $700 million has been identified and validated by the
Air Force construction for Guam. The construction is related to
the realignment of Air Force units from Osan, Korea and the
development of a fighter town at Andersen Air Force Base.
However, the fiscal year 2009 budget only contains $5.2 million
in construction.
The Air Force, I know, is willing to take strategic risks
in its construction programs, reducing the construction budget
by 20 percent over the next 15 years.
Secretary Wynne, there are numerous instances where
construction to support F-22s and C-17s and other related
training devices are delivered well after the arrival of these
aviation assets. For example, Elmendorf Air Force Base--two F-
22 squadrons will be ready to respond in September of 2008, but
the construction to support these planes is not programmed to
be completed until two years later.
I may be from sunny, warm Guam, but having these F-22s sit
on the runway in Alaska does not make the best sense. Is this
approach, in your mind, in the best interest of the Air Force?
Secretary Wynne. Well, Ms. Bordallo, thank you very much
for that question. The construction of our budget across the
board is balanced between actual military construction (MILCON)
and the money required for base realignment and closure. In
that regard, we have tried--we recognize that it has gone down,
but it is balanced across the spectrum.
We think we are taking the appropriate risk, given where
the status of plans are for even the movement of consolidation
from Korea and potentially where we are going on the F-22. All
of these things are sort of in flux.
And I would agree with Congresswoman Tauscher's comment
that, boy, it would be good if we actually had the foresight to
know where this conundrum would come down. We think we have a
balanced program and that we have accepted the risk that we may
not do things all right. But I think in this case we have got
it, the MILCON, about right between MILCON basic and base
realignment and closure.
Ms. Bordallo. General Moseley, I have a question for you. I
would like to follow up on some comments that you made at the
October 24th hearing last year on the Air Force's strategic
initiatives. During the hearing you stated that you and General
Casey were in discussion about how to proceed with the
procurement of C-27s or joint cargo aircraft programs.
Can we assume that you and General Casey will continue to
adhere to the--is it a memorandum of understanding--MOU that
was signed on June 20th? And would the committee be able to see
this MOU?
General Moseley. Yes, ma'am. Please allow us. We will
provide that for the record, the previous MOU. But, ma'am, also
rest assured that General Casey and I are taking this program
very seriously. And we have met several times, just the two of
us, to talk about this and how to proceed on the original
schedule with the original bed-down and how to work these
issues that Congressman Marshall talks about about the
differences in depot maintenance and contract logistic support
and how to sustain a program like this over the long-term,
which may, in fact, be a major capability with strategic
partnering in foreign military sales.
How would we do all of that in one package? And those are
the discussions that we have been having.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am requesting that we see a copy of the
MOU.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Franks, five minutes.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank both of you and your entire entourage
for being here. You know, I am always reminded that apart from
those who wear the uniform, none of us could be sitting here.
And you keep us safe, and we are very grateful to you and honor
your service.
You know, I have to apologize that I didn't get to hear all
the testimony today. I think there is deliberate collusion
among the chairmen of this body to make all their committees at
exactly the same time. And there is nothing we can do about
that.
But I have read most of your testimony, General Moseley.
And I wanted to tell you one of the things that is becoming
very obvious to me--and some of the colleagues have already
mentioned the valid concerns about tankers and fighters--is it
just seems like there is a bigger issue here. And that is you
have got unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2009 of at least
$20 billion. Now, maybe that has already been articulated here
today.
And none of these are trivial items that make up that loss.
And I think we owe it to the American people to provide you
with the resources to field worldclass air, space, and
cyberspace force. And with the defense budget representing less
than four percent, slightly less than four percent of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and slightly more when the supplementals
are factored in, I guess I just ask both of you, in the long
run, will defense spending at a minimum of four percent GDP be
enough to satisfy and to fund all the things that you must do
to modernize and maintain the Air Force.
Secretary Wynne. Sir, I know that the debate is very robust
over whether or not the base funding has been adequate over the
years. I would say since we went into the procurement holiday,
we built up quite a backlog of procurement actions to be done,
hence, the growth in age of my fleet.
We have stipulated, I think, that we would love to see an
increase. You have heard that. You have seen it in the unfunded
requirements.
I know that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has talked
about the four percent being an appropriate and likely area and
a good one for starting the debate. I think I come down on that
same bank.
Mr. Franks. General Moseley, do you have any----
General Moseley. Congressman, I, too, believe that four
percent is a reasonable departure point to have a discussion
about the strategic imparities and about long-term capital
reinvestment. Whether that is shipbuilding, whether that is
aerospace, whether that is reset from Iraq and Afghanistan. But
I think a four percent mark on the wall is a good place to
start to have that discussion.
Mr. Franks. Well, in your white paper and in your testimony
you made reference to cross-domain dominance.
And first of all, Mr. Chairman, with your permission and
with the agreement with the rest of the committee, I would like
to put that white paper into the record here and then ask
General Moseley to just elaborate more on the subject.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
General Moseley. Congressman, thank you for that. The
secretary also has a strategy paper that is outstanding. And I
would offer that as a companion piece to the white paper.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, without objection----
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
General Moseley. Congressman, I believe in the future for
the terms that we have used cross-domain dominance for an Air
Force that is airspace and cyberspace. I believe those domains
are inextricably linked as we operate through and from space
and we operate through that domain that our senior
noncommissioned officer (NCO) back here lives with every day.
And that is cyberspace.
I believe that is a domain that we don't well understand.
And it is a domain that we have to better understand and better
understand the impacts of operating through that or operations
against us in that domain.
Air is much easier to understand because we can touch it
and see it. Space is a bit easier because you can see the
satellite launch, and you can see the effect. Cyber is
something different. And I believe that those domains represent
operating mediums that we have to better understand and we have
to better merge. Hence, the term cross-domain dominance. I
believe that is something that the United States Air Force must
be prepared to take on for the future and understand those
things better.
Mr. Franks. Secretary, Wynne, do you have any comments?
Secretary Wynne. In a simple term to do Global Hawks, you
need space. To do Global Hawks, you need cyber. I want to take
a minute or seconds here to compliment the chairman, who asked
us to please take a hard look at strategies.
Sir, we have done that. That is the paperwork that
Congressman Franks has asked for. But I will tell you on behalf
of all of us, thank you for pushing us in that direction. And I
think the committee will benefit from the output.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to add my
own perspective here. It occurs to me that given the challenges
that are coming straight at America and certainly the Air
Force, that for us to fail to have clear dominance in any one
of those three categories, whether it be space, cyberspace or
air is to jeopardize the other two.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Wynne, General Moseley, and your
guests particularly. I just wanted to follow up with a subject
that sort of is becoming an annual back and forth with the
Pentagon, which is the alternate engine dispute over joint
strike fighter. Again, I just want to be clear. Your budget,
again, does not include any funding for the alternate engine.
Is that correct, Secretary?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, in support of the President's budget,
yes, sir, that is right.
Mr. Courtney. And is it listed as an unfunded priority at
all as well?
Secretary Wynne. I don't believe it is because the business
case cannot be made. I would say it this way, though, that the
business case is about cost versus reliability. The reliability
of the ongoing engine is pretty good. That having been said,
and you might want to say to yourself, okay, but what can you
do to increase the fleet reliability?
Well, first you can have two airplanes. That increases
fleet reliability. If you intend to have one airplane for eight
partner countries and for three service components, then maybe
you need to look at the business case a little bit differently.
But right now, it cannot be made.
Mr. Courtney. Because it seems that we have got an awful
long list here of unfunded priorities that you have identified
outside of the program budget that, you know, this is going to
be a tough year obviously listening to the prior questions. I
mean, this issue, though, it doesn't seem that you have even
included it as an unfunded priority, which to me that is a
little bit of a statement from the Air Force about whether or
not this is something we can afford, given all the other hard
choices we have to make.
Secretary Wynne. We have put it up for the past several
years and have always been turned down. And I think that has
probably talked to us about the--effectively of the business
case. We thought the business case would mature out. It has
not.
Mr. Courtney. Okay. Thank you. And I just appreciate you
restating that for the record.
General Moseley, Congresswoman Bordallo referred to the
October hearing. Again, I want to thank you for clarifying the
issue, which was going back and forth between the Senate and
House on the issue of the joint cargo aircraft. I was a little
confused by the question and answer that she just had with you.
The conversations that you have had with General Casey,
which you indicated resulted in a letter--is that letter a
substitute of the prior memorandum of agreement?
General Moseley. No, sir. The memorandum of agreement was
between the Air Force and the Army on proceeding with a
program. And that we will provide for the record.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
General Moseley. The conversations that General Casey and I
are having is how best to field the airplane and how best to
get it into the squadrons as fast as we possibly can and then
look at the issues of intra-theater lift and look at the
motions of how to deliver capability across a theater and how
best to incorporate that into the competencies of the Air
Force, which is what we do for a living.
Mr. Courtney. Okay. So that at least as of where we sit
today there really has been no change to the memorandum of
agreement that was executed between the two branches?
General Moseley. Correct, correct. Which is a program
decision, sir. It is to get on with buying flying machines and
to be able to get the program through the legal issues and be
able to get on contract to be able to have a competition and to
be able to begin to deliver aircraft.
Mr. Courtney. And so, the request that she made about
submitting follow up, that is the letter, I believe that----
General Moseley. That is right, sir. That is the
memorandum.
Mr. Courtney. And your intention is to submit that to the
committee?
General Moseley. Correct, sir.
Mr. Courtney. Okay, appreciate that. And again, as far as
the existing sort of schedule for JCAs in terms of their
procurement and delivery, I mean, we are basically operating
under the rules of the road of the memorandum of agreement.
General Moseley. Correct.
Mr. Courtney. Is that correct?
General Moseley. Sir, we are operating under the rules of
the agreed-to deliveries to try to get the airplanes to the
squadrons in the schedule that we have agreed to originally.
Mr. Courtney. All right. Thank you.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz [presiding]. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Wynne, General Moseley, I have great respect
for both of you and, excuse me, delighted--let me repeat that.
I have great respect for both you gentlemen and the service you
have given this Nation. And thank you for being here today.
Recently, in a North Carolina paper under the section
nation and world--I know you can't see that--it says Air Force
warns of delay and decline. You know that I have Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base in my district. I have Camp Lejeune,
Cherry Point, active duty as well as many, many retired
military in my district.
The success and the future of our services is important to
many of those people as it is myself and many Americans who,
like myself, never served. A couple points in this I want to
read to you, and then I want to get to my one question.
The subtitle says, ``Service leaders say aging aircraft
must be replaced. Critics cite spiraling costs.'' I am going to
quote Major General Paul Selva, the Air Force director of
strategic planning. He said in an interview with Associated
Press. And this is his quote.
``What we have done is put the requirements on the table.
If we are going to do the missions you are going to ask us to
do, it will require this kind of investment,'' says Major
General Selva. The point is this. I have sat here for 14 years.
I have tried to make as many hearings as I could. I try to
listen very intently.
Our Nation right now owes China $440 billion in debt. Many
of your problems--I am not getting into the specifics of
procurement and this and that as needs to be asked and has been
asked by colleagues. But the point is this. At what point does
the Air Force get to the point of no return?
I am not talking about giving up and closing down the Air
Force. But you get to a point of no return that you can't
recover what you have lost because of having to make
adjustments because of not having adequate budgeting.
Where and when do we get to a point that there is no catch
up, that China--primarily China--and these other countries have
spent, invested while America is borrowing money from other
governments to pay its bills, which in the book by Pat
Buchanan, Day of Reckoning, his point is here. And then I am
going to let you answer my question. A great nation that has to
borrow money to pay its bills from other governments will not
long be a great nation. And that statement will impact on our
military.
And after reading many articles and hearing testimonies
from professionals and experts like yourself, my concern as a
taxpayer of this Nation is when we get to a point that there is
no catch up. Is that a possibility?
Secretary Wynne. Well, sir, I would start this way. One of
the definitions of freedom is having all the options to
operate. America has enjoyed that freedom of operation anywhere
in the world primarily due to the strategic strike capability
of the United States Air Force as well as those hardworking
diplomats in our State Department.
I think, if you will, the first indication that we have
passed the point of no return is when America's options get
shaped by another nation. And that is not here yet. We believe
right now we have the finest Air Force in the world. Somebody
said it is the role of the Air Force to put a silver cloud
anywhere in the world that we chose to.
And another indication, therefore, is when we want to put a
silver cloud anywhere in the world and we can't, that is
another indication. I would tell you that is not where we are
today. The only thing that General Moseley and I can say is
that at some point in the future we have got to fund the
defense at the right level and buy the defense that America
deserves.
Mr. Jones. General Moseley.
General Moseley. Congressman, I would say simplistically
that unless you buy ships, it is hard to field the combatant
Navy. And unless you buy airplanes and satellites, it is hard
to field a combatant Air Force. In the economic order of
quantities of the new systems that we are attempting to
acquire, both maritime and air, it takes us to smaller numbers,
which takes the cost up, which then generates a set of
questions about affordability.
Sir, I would say in the 2009 budget that we are here to
testify today our major programs are intact. The economic order
of quantities are down, but the programs are intact. And so, we
have the baseline from which to build for the new Air Force.
And I will speak for the Navy and the Army and the Marine
Corps also with their new systems, whether they are B-22s or
anything else. The programs are there. The economic order of
quantities are not there.
We are buying at lower levels. So this is about an
affordability question, which, I think, is a different answer
to your question. But unless you buy airplanes and satellites,
it is hard to field an Air Force.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Ms. Davis, please.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And thank you, certainly, for being
here and for your service as well.
I wanted to follow up a little bit on Chairman Skelton's
question. And it is also a follow up in many ways to our
personnel hearing the other day because one of the concerns is
whether or not we are being realistic in the way that we are
shifting over in our requests on the supplemental versus the
base budget. And, certainly, in personnel, I think that issue
was raised earlier.
How do you expect to sustain the increase in our end
strength, your end strength really, if Congress was to increase
the end strength for fiscal year 2009? How would that occur?
Secretary Wynne. Well, how would we recover to that level?
We have no problem right now with recruiting. Our standards are
at the highest levels. And some in our Air Force have said we
have actually let go all the C students. We now only have B or
better and because we have been coming down on a fairly
dramatic way.
We have actually people that are trying not to get out of
our Air Force, even though we have asked them to leave. It is
one of those things, I think, that General Moseley and I did
not come to this decision lightly. It was strictly a matter of
if you want to have an Air Force, you have got to buy airplanes
and you have got to buy satellites. But I don't think we will
have a problem, ma'am, recovering.
Mrs. Davis of California. Would you say the same thing
about the mid-career retention rate? I understand that you are
struggling with those.
Secretary Wynne. We are struggling with those just a little
bit. I think it has more to do with the fact that we have been
on a structural decline and they are wondering about the
future. I think when the future is actually settled, that also
will be settled.
General Moseley. But, Congresswoman Davis, the mid-level
NCOs that we worry about in that 6 to 10 and 10 to 14-year
group in there--we are targeting those specific Air Force
Specialty Codes (AFSCs) with bonuses to incentivize people to
stay. When you look at the overall end strength, though, the
decision on trying to level out the end strength, which
hopefully you guys had a good discussion in the Personnel
Committee hearing--is an attempt to relieve the stress on our
families, attempt to relieve the stress on our people while
still meeting the tasking that we have.
The in-lieu-of tasking we have over 20,000 people tied up
in that on any given day. The Army growth and the Marine growth
takes us to higher numbers of our folks that live inside the
Army like our member sitting behind me here. The new missions
that we are looking at with cyber and with the joint task force
and with the joint commands takes us to a place where perhaps
that number of 316,000 is truly too small.
And so, our discussion now is can we level this off at
somewhere around 322 to 328 so that we can relieve the stress
on those mid-level NCOs, our families and still meet this
mission task. And so, that is the discussion we are having
internal to the Department.
And the Secretary of Defense's staff has been most
receptive to us having this discussion to say what does it look
like if we level off, what is the resourcing required, and
where do the people go. And so, ma'am, we are in that swirl
right now having that very discussion.
Mrs. Davis of California. Have you been restrained in any
way in providing those bonuses? Do you feel that by trying to--
--
General Moseley. No, no, ma'am, not at all, no, no.
Mrs. Davis of California [continuing]. Shoehorn that in in
some way?
General Moseley. But you want to be able to target the
bonus at the right member, though, under the right
circumstances so that it has the impact of actually being an
incentive to stay.
Mrs. Davis of California. You know, earlier you said
something to the effect--I think Chief said that we would be
deferring the discussion. And you were talking about airlift, I
think, at that time--to the next Administration. And in some
ways it feels as if--and I think the discussion that we had in
personnel as well is that is the issue that by 2010 we might be
bringing that supplemental into the base budget when we are
talking about personnel issues, especially when we are talking
about bonuses and retention.
And that suggests to me that we are hoping to have more
realistic budgets in the future. Is that a fair assessment to
what is happening now?
General Moseley. Ma'am, I think every one of these issues
that we are talking about today comes down to an affordability
issue and a prioritization. Our unfunded requirements list is
big because we agreed that we would put everything on the table
so that there would be complete visibility over everything,
that where would the next dollar go or the next dollar go after
that.
So this is really about prioritizing within the baseline
budget and trying to make the hard choices without breaking our
people and our families and without breaking the mission and
still looking to reset and recapitalize.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
The Chairman. Along that line, at what point do you say we
can't do it?
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, we are not there yet. I
won't say we can't do it, but I will tell you that I am more
concerned that 316,000 may be too small. And that discussion
about where can we plateau out and where can we look at not
putting stress on our families or our members or on those key
Utilization Review (UR) groups or on those key Family Support
Centers (FSCs) and how do we mitigate the high-demand, low-
density pieces of the Air Force while we are still doing the
other things outside the normal AFSCs and competencies. That is
the nature of the discussion right now.
The Chairman. You were kind enough to introduce the young
men and young women behind you. They are not just the best
Americans. They are the best in the world.
And they deserve the best that Congress can give them. And
that is why a hearing such as this is so important. And that is
why the discussion of the unfunded list, the unfunded
requirements list is extremely important to us. And we thank
you for your candor.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly agree
wholeheartedly with your remarks about the men and women in
blue. Thank you all for keeping the air in airborne and your
service.
We have talked about a whole host of things, and we need to
keep stressing we need more airplanes, we need more platforms.
Secretary Wynne, you talk about the silver cloud
everywhere. But unfortunately we have got another kind of cloud
that is kind of lingering out there with our acquisition
process.
On the issue of tankers, F-15s, F-22s, we need more. We
also need more helicopters. So my question is about the Combat
Search and Rescue (CSAR) program. We had the Inspector General
(IG) announce on Friday that he was going to do an
investigation. Would you use a little bit of our time to tell
us where we are? Are we about to clear up that issue on the
acquisition of the search and rescue helicopter?
And, of course, General Moseley, I would appreciate any
comments you might have. Just update us where we are on that.
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir. We are right now to the point
where we are trying to satisfy all the critics. And we have got
all of the data in, and we are now in an open and transparent
way trying to make sure that we do not leave a critic
unsatisfied.
If the DOD inspector general would like to investigate, we
are open and transparent. Come on in, let us reprove why we are
doing what we are doing. I think they will be satisfied.
Frankly, one of the things that I think we have not done
well in the past is not being open and communicative to the
critics. And by the way, some of those critics are, in fact,
the supplier network, especially pre and post the award.
And so, I would tell you that where we are going with
transparency and governance should effectively help us by
rationalizing our choices and our decisions and with the
critics that are out there. We think the program is in great
shape, frankly. And we think that by mid to late summer we
should be in a conclusive state on that.
Mr. Hayes. So are you going to wait on his report for the
next move? Or what is the plan there? And he seems to be
questioning documentation specifically on the key program
parameters.
Secretary Wynne. And I think we can satisfy the DOD IG, who
took a listing from a program on government oversight, you
know. I believe we can sustain our rationale and logic. And so,
I invite him in. Become part of the team and support it. I
would rather have that than I would rather have it be after the
fact telling us that we didn't do something right.
General Moseley. Congressman Hayes, if I could parallel
that, though, on the operational side. I still believe, and you
have heard me say this repeatedly, that I believe it is a moral
and an ethical imperative that we go pick people up in a combat
situation. So combat search and rescue to me, having commanded
that theater out there on the air side, is a big deal.
The helicopter that our combat and search and rescue pilot
here flies doesn't have the characteristics to operate at those
pressure altitudes or the range or the pay load. And so, that
is why we have been pretty aggressive on trying to field a
helicopter that does combat search and rescue for the entire
joint team, regardless of who the airmen or the air crew, the
Marine, the sailor, the soldier that requires to be picked up.
That is what we do, and we do that for all of the uniformed
military. And so, this is a big deal for us to be able to field
this system, to put this young man in an airplane that has got
the capability to survive in the world of tomorrow and be able
to do this for the entire joint team.
Mr. Hayes. And would you comment on the documentation
issue? Do you think that has been satisfied going forward?
General Moseley. Congressman Hayes, I don't know. I am not
in the acquisition business, so I don't know. I can only trust
our acquisition folks and say I don't think there is a rock
unturned or a leaf unturned that we won't turn over to anybody
and let them look because I trust them.
Mr. Hayes. You have got technical issues, and you have got
actual issues. The technical issue is the documentation. And it
is about whether the requirement for flight-ready or mission-
ready. So that is one issue.
And then you have got the other issue of--and you and I
talk on the same page. You have got to have the high-altitude
capability. All the aircraft that were submitted or all the
rotorcraft were certainly very capable. You have got high
altitude, but you have also got a much larger radar signature
and a slower.
And I am not saying anything other than these complex
issues are somewhat difficult to document, so people not
familiar with the terms are able to do that. So anything you
can do to clear that up so that we can get more platforms?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We have three votes. Let
us do our best to get the remaining folks to ask questions, Mr.
Sestak, Dr. Snyder, Mr. Johnson in that order. And we will
proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Sestak.
Mr. Sestak. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I will be real quick and try to ask three
questions, if I could. The $450 million or so that was there
for the F-22 shutdown that you said was needed for fixing the
langerons on the F-18 C and Ds and all--that only needed $50
million. What happened to the other 400?
Secretary Wynne. I believe it still sits there in that
designated account, sir.
Mr. Sestak. It didn't come across over here that way. There
is nothing in that line right now for shutdown.
Secretary Wynne. No, I mean it is still sitting in the F-15
depot.
Mr. Sestak. Okay. Were you able to sit back and do an
assessment--SLEP, service life extension program whatever some
of these F-15 Cs and Ds since we put the money over there and
it only cost--langerons $11,000 or something to fix?
Secretary Wynne. Our intention is to save about 177 F-15Cs.
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir, but I mean have we looked at now
service life extension like you do with the F-16s. Do we want
to look at that for the F-15s? Because we may not be able. We
may shut down the F-22 line. Does it look at how much it costs
and the operational efficiency of extending the life? I think
you have taken the F-16s from 5,000 to 8,000 hours.
Secretary Wynne. We are already demanding the F-15 live
through 2025.
Mr. Sestak. Have we looked at it, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Wynne. We have decided that we are going to fund
the F-35 program to the max extent possible.
Mr. Sestak. But, Mr. Secretary, have we looked at it, made
an assessment of it, a study?
Secretary Wynne. No, sir, I don't think we have.
Mr. Sestak. I just didn't know whether the cost efficiency
and operational effectiveness, if we studied it, may be worth
it. My second question has to do with the number of F-22s,
which I think I understand why we would probably want to have
so many. Headquarters Air Expeditionary Forces (HAEF) then
would have 24 per squadron. It works out very well.
My question is, General, we are doing this at a time where
we have the tanker, the bomber, the CSAR. Two-thirds of our
space assets need to be replaced as they go over the next
decade. My question is what can't we do if we don't get the F-
22. Because everybody doesn't have the T-50 or, you know, the
29 or the double digit surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), China,
maybe Russia. What can't we do if we don't get enough of those?
General Moseley. Sir, let me go back to your F-15 question.
We have our fleet viability board looking at the F-15 inventory
to see how we do best to keep the 177 around, which is not a
true SLEP program. But it is, I think, what you are asking.
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. So we have asked that question.
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. I would offer to you that in the world
that we live in now the availability of fifth generation
surface-to-air missiles----
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir, but we don't have those everywhere,
just China and Russia. What can't we do?
General Moseley. But, sir, the market is available. It is
only a matter of money to buy those. You don't have a fight a
nation state to fight those systems.
Mr. Sestak. All right.
General Moseley. And so, the proliferation and exporting of
fourth plus generation fighters plus radars, target-tracking
radars, early-warning radars, and surface-to-air missiles----
Mr. Sestak. So they could proliferate in Iran or----
General Moseley [continuing]. Are proliferating at
extremely high rates.
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir. Could I ask another question? Your
$20 billion gap--that is a number they can catch and start
taking traction. Just to make sure I understand your baseline
for determining that, you took the fiscal year 2013 program,
fiscal year 2013 for every war and straight lined it out.
Correct?
General Moseley. [OFF MIKE]
Mr. Sestak. And then in that when I went through it you
didn't go up or down to figure the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
comes off at a certain time, some ads come out. You took a
straight line.
General Moseley. Yes, sir, we----
Mr. Sestak. And then you said this is what we desire as far
as--you even included in there the A-10, the operational
response satellite, things that aren't even in the program yet.
Is that correct?
General Moseley. Sir, we took an average. The average is
$20 billion. In the early years it is 16 or 17, which is the
unfunded list we presented last year. And this year it is
consistent with that same number.
In the outer years it goes above $20 billion. But we just--
--
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir, but, I mean, those are the baselines,
correct?
General Moseley. Just a----
Mr. Sestak. The fiscal year 2013, straight lined out,
regardless if programs stop or come in the plan? And up here it
is what we desire as a service.
General Moseley. But, of course, sir, you know we don't
know what we don't know until we get there. So you would have
to plan----
Mr. Sestak. Should we have worked this through on the joint
to see, well, wait a minute, this is what the Air Force wants?
But is that what the joint staff, the joint warfare, when you
say what the Navy can do, the Marines can do and all that?
General Moseley. Sir, I would offer we have done that. We
have done that based on the----
Mr. Sestak. On the $20 billion?
General Moseley [continuing]. Combatant commanders'
requirements, on the national military strategy, on our ability
to partner with carrier battle groups. We have done that.
Mr. Sestak. One last question, General. And this is on
personnel because it is very important. I noticed in some of
the information that these great airmen and women sitting
here--the operational and maintenance costs for them per airman
is about $160,000 in 2008 dollars. The other services are only
$100,000 to $110,000. Why is there that difference? I know they
are better than the other services, you are going to say.
General Moseley. Sir, I wouldn't say that. I might believe
that, but I wouldn't say that. I would offer that every single
one----
The Chairman. Answer it quickly, then Dr. Snyder.
General Moseley. Every single one of our airmen goes
through basic military training and through a tech school. And
we hold them at very high standards for competencies in schools
all the way through. So a part of that is because the
investment we make in training and schools is a bit higher than
the others.
The Chairman. Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wynne, I appreciated your comments at the very
beginning of the hearing in response to Mr. Skelton that your
personal opinion was that you needed to go with a higher
personnel number. This is consistent with other things that
have happened so far in the budget process.
When Secretary Gates testified a couple of weeks ago, Mr.
Spratt, the brightest mind in the Congress on budget issues,
pointed out that the President's budget over the next several
years is actually a decrease each year in the real dollars for
the defense budget, which will be unsustainable. I mean, if we
are increasing numbers in the Army, Marine Corps--you all want
to increase--and then we are projecting a decrease in dollars.
That is not going to work. And we all know that is not going to
work.
Mrs. Davis referred to the Personnel Committee hearing we
had yesterday in which the Army, you know, in response to when
are you going to put in your regular baseline budget your
increasing personnel needs. And they said we are aiming for
fiscal year 2010.
Well, what is happening--all these things are pushing this,
in my opinion--I don't expect you to comment on this--pushing
it into the next Administration, the next presidency. All these
decisions are being kicked down the road.
You know, we are all going to have to account for why is
this deficit looking so big. Well, it is because the previous
Administration, you know, gamed this thing in a way that is not
helpful to our national fest nor helpful to transparency.
I appreciate your unfunded requirements list here. I wish
it had been titled request for earmarks because that is what it
is. It is a request for earmarks in which in your letter you
very specifically say our unfunded list is a reflection of the
delta between where we are and where we need to be. And we will
do some of these things, both in this committee and in the
appropriations process.
And I hope when our President goes on the radio show and
press conferences saying I am drawing a line stop these
earmarks that you will step forward and say we requested those
earmarks. Those earmarks are part of what we think is necessary
for the national security of this country. Because that is the
game that is going to be played this year.
I wanted to ask specifically in you all's statement, page
16 you state our MILCON plan supports these priorities by
focusing on new mission bed-downs, training, and depot
transformation as well as dormitory and childcare center
upgrades, childcare center upgrades. It came out yesterday. I
attended the ribbon-cutting for a new childcare center at
Little Rock Air Force Base, wonderful facility, great toys. I
got to play with little trucks.
The capacity now at the air base will be for 335 children.
They are being able to service 237. Why? Because there is not
staffing. The caps on personnel means we have spent $4.2
million. I assume this is going to other places in the Air
Force. Four-point-two million dollars for a new childcare
center, but because of the reductions in force, it will be
unstaffed, even though we have 100 kids on the waiting list and
this childcare center could handle it.
I don't know who wants to respond to that. That is a huge
problem for our personnel. How is that going to get resolved?
Secretary Wynne. Well, sir, in fact, we are reexamining the
quality of life across our Air Force to make sure that we find
little pockets like that that we can actually restore. And I
think that is one that we are really looking hard at to find a
way to restore that.
Dr. Snyder. My concern is----
Secretary Wynne. We are being inundated in other places, by
the way, by our other colleagues in service coming and using
our facilities. But in the case of Little Rock, it seems to be
us on us.
Dr. Snyder. Well, I don't want a Little Rock fix. I want a
system-wide fix.
Secretary Wynne. No, no, I understand. Right.
Dr. Snyder. I mean, you have got kids that----
Secretary Wynne. We are looking across.
Dr. Snyder. We build a new facility, and we don't have
staffing for it. That is very, very poor management.
My final question, General Moseley, is this issue of old
aircraft. In the defense bill that was just recently signed we
did put some language in there trying to give you some relief
on the old E model C-130's. It is not at all what I would have
liked. It is not what you would have liked. You mention that on
page 23 of your statement about old aircraft. I hope you all
will keep pushing on this.
The House, I think, got the gospel this time. It was the
Senate that resisted the changes we need. I hope you will keep
pushing on that issue so that you can have the flexibility to
stop wasting money on old aircraft. Do you have any comment on
that issue?
General Moseley. No, sir, we just are very appreciative of
the Congress to provide us more and more flexibility to manage
our own inventory and to be able to do the things that you have
just described. The E models have been wonderful airplanes over
the last 20 or 30 years, but it is time to move to something
different, more reliable, more effective with the survivability
and the defensive systems inherent to the airplane off the
line. And so, we appreciate the help with that.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, wrap it up.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for serving your country.
Thank you for bringing the young airmen and women on the back
row. They serve as an example to our youth. And I can guarantee
them and you that there are many young people in Georgia's 4th
district who want to be just like you. Thank you.
And I appreciate the fact that the freedom of operation for
our naval and land forces around the world is guaranteed by our
air superiority. And that is something that is certainly easier
to maintain and prudent to maintain as opposed to having to
play catch-up at some point.
And I certainly wouldn't take it for granted that that
would not occur if we don't continue to move forward with our
procurement, particularly in the tactical fighter area. And so,
wishing to associate myself with the questions and comments of
Congressman Gingrey, I would like to ask these questions.
During the Department of Defense posture hearing, Secretary
Gates indicated that he was concerned with acquiring or
procuring additional F-22 Raptors, but he was concerned that
procuring these F-22 Raptors now would equate to less F-35
Joint Strike Fighters later.
And, General Moseley, I fully support both the F-22 and the
F-35. And I understand that you have some fighter jet time in
twin engine Mach 2.5 F-15 Eagles. Can you explain to the
committee why the F-22 and not the F-35 was designed from the
get-go to replace the F-15 A through Ds? And then please
explain why the F-35 is simply not capable of doing all of the
high-altitude, high-Mach things that Air Force air dominance
fighters must do.
General Moseley. Sir, if you will allow me first for a
request. All of those folks in your district that would like to
be like these folks behind me--if you will give us their names,
we will contact them.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I will tell you we had our service
academy nominations.
General Moseley. We welcome that.
Mr. Johnson. We had a robust group of individuals who----
General Moseley. Yes, sir. Sir, also we are in full support
of the F-35 program as a partner to the F-22 program. And we
have in our program 1,765 of those aircraft to be able to
replace the bulk of our fighter inventory. And so, we are
looking very hard to marry the capabilities of these two
airplanes, not as substitutes for each other and not in lieu of
additional F-35s because we need that number of F-35s also.
Sir, I will tell you the F-22 is designed to operate at
high altitude and higher g, at higher speeds to be able to
deliver the ordnance. The two airplanes are compatible just
like the F-16 and the F-15 are today. The F-35 is going to be a
great airplane.
In fact, our first A model comes off the line in June or
July this year, and we have got about 12 of them, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine coming down the line now to be able to fly
those. But they are designed for roughly two different
environments. One is a striking airplane with inherent self-
defense capability. And one is an inherent air superiority
airplane with inherent striking capability. That is why they
marry with each other so well.
And the characteristics of the two airplanes are ideal
matches. So, sir, our desire is to be able to field both sets
of these aircraft in the numbers that we need. And that is why
we are grateful for the 2009 budget and for the Secretary of
Defense (SECDEF) to keep the line open on the F-22. And the
numbers will work out.
Mr. Johnson. Certainly, concerned about advance procurement
monies for the F-22. And have you, either, General Moseley or
Secretary Wynne, have you ever offered up F-35 development or
procurement funds to use for buying more F-22A?
Secretary Wynne. No, sir.
General Moseley. No, sir. And we need to field that
airplane on time as well. That is the backfill and the
insurance policy against having to spend billions of dollars on
service life extension of older aircraft.
Mr. Johnson. Well, certainly, I can appreciate that. And
let me close by saying that we have heard today that we are
dramatically short of the number of F-22s needed for meeting
the Air Force's requirement. Roughly, we have about half of
what we need. And as widespread procurement of the joint strike
fighter is not expected until at least 2013, I think we need to
bridge the gap by procuring additional F-22s. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I wish we had time for a second
round. I thank Secretary Wynne, Secretary Moseley for your
testimony, for your straightforwardness. And a special thanks,
not just those that are seated behind you, but to all that you
represent. We are very proud of them. And thank you again.
Secretary Wynne. Thank you, sir.
General Moseley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 27, 2008
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 27, 2008
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5253.031
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 27, 2008
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HAYES
Mr. Hayes. As you are aware, last Friday, the DoD Inspector General
announced plans to investigate issues raised by a Program on Government
Oversight (POGO) report citing inadequate documentation of changes to
the Combat Search and Rescue helicopter program's Key Program
Parameters (KPPs). In detail, why was the decision made to perform this
audit?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. Since this is an on-going DoD
Inspector General audit, it is inappropriate for the Air Force to
comment at this time.
Mr. Hayes. For the first major AF acquisition since the troubles
with the tanker acquisition scandal, Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR)
was intended to showcase and represent a reformed AF acquisition
process. Why were basics like the proper documentation of KPP changes
not being handled correctly?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. Under the Joint Capabilities
Integration Development System (JCIDS), ``JROC Interest'' documents are
draft and subject to change until approved by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC). No changes were made to the CSAR-X Capability
Development Document (CDD) after JROC approval.
Mr. Hayes. What is the Air Force doing to make sure that companies
who compete for Air Force-contracts are participating in a fair
process, and that the American taxpayer is getting the best value for
their tax dollar?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The Air Force follows the
Federal Acquisition Regulations, as supplemented by the DoD and Air
Force, and ensures that all competitive procurements are conducted with
integrity, fairness, and transparency to deliver best value products
and services. Further, the Air Force recently revised our source
selection policy and procedures to ensure we have an efficient,
effective, and transparent selection process. The recent revisions
include standardized policy, guidance, tools, and training for our
workforce. These policies, procedures and practices ensure the
taxpayers are getting the best value for their tax dollar. Companies
that bid on DoD contracts self-certify that they are in compliance with
US laws and procurement regulations and unless we have evidence to the
contrary, they are considered compliant.
Mr. Hayes. Does the AF plan to award the contract before the IG
investigation is complete? This would be irresponsible--if you do award
it and the DOD IG finds error, then the AF would have to redo the
contract completely. If the Air Force waits, they may be able to
salvage the competition.
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The Air Force will award the
contract at the completion of the source selection process. The audit
being conducted by the DOD IG is a separate activity. Should the DoD IG
audit recommend any changes, the Air Force would consider its
recommendations.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Forbes. The 2005 Air Force decision to reduce its force
structure by 40,000 people by all accounts appears to have affected
readiness. Both of you (Secretary Wynne and Gen. Moseley) have admitted
that the drawdown had not met expectations. Now, in its Unfunded
Requirements List, you are seeking to enlarge its ranks. This request
is after $244 million was requested last year to substantially increase
officer separations in Fiscal Year 2008. What is frustrating from my
perspective is that this growth behind the reductions could have been
forecasted. Last year, when this funding to reduce the size of the
force could have been directed to other critical national security
needs, I asked the Air Force the following questions, and I quote:
``Question: Does the AF plan to put on hold VSP or other force shaping
programs pending the analysis of the impact of the Army's Grow-the-
Force initiative on AF resource requirements?'' And the answer I
received was: ``the Air Force does not expect to put any programs on
hold for FY08. However, future programs will be subject to any changes
to requirements.'' I also asked the question: "Has force shaping
created any unintended shortfall in any career field in any year group?
If so, what are the year groups and shortfall?" And the answer I
received was: ``Air Force voluntary and involuntary force shaping
programs are structured to target specific year groups and career
fields excess to required sustainment levels.''
With that in mind, what are the year groups and AFSC shortfalls
that lead you to request additional personnel in your unfunded
requirements list? Were personnel in these year groups or AFSCs reduced
in previous force shaping rounds? If these personnel additions are
critical to readiness to accomplish Air Force missions, why is the
request to enlarge its ranks in its Unfunded Requirement List, rather
than being included in the actual budget request?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. Our nation's demand for
emerging Air Force capabilities drives our request for end strength,
and is not simply a remediation of the ``year groups or career fields''
within previous cuts. The unfunded growth we request is by nature a
different overall mix of skills, to include some evolving ones, such as
cyber professionals, Predator and Global Hawk capabilities. Also, as
the Army end strength grew by 65,000, the Air Force needs a
commensurate growth to provide essential weather operations and
Tactical Air Control party capabilities. However, such growth is not
achievable without additional end strength and funding. There may be
some limited overlaps in losses experienced through the 40,000
reduction and the unfunded manpower requirements set forth to achieve
the 86 combat wing, but difficult tradeoffs were necessary to free up
resources for modernization in the interim. House Report 110-434,
Review of Air Force End Strength, dated February 2008, provides more
insight into these emerging growth areas and the skills required.
The Air Force's request for additional end strength is included in
the unfunded list rather than the actual budget request because we do
not have the top-line obligation authority to recapitalize and grow the
required force. In late 2005, the Air Force reduced its end strength by
40,000 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian Full-time Equivalents
(FTE) to pay for vital recapitalization and modernization of aircraft,
space and missile inventories. End strength reduction by 40,000 FTEs
over a 3-year period was the only viable alternative to preserve
required investment capital. In order to stay within a constrained
total obligation authority, we're faced with significant challenges in
striking a balance between purchasing weapons for tomorrow's Air Force
to replace an aging fleet, paying for operations and maintenance of
today's force, and preserving and developing our men and women of the
total force.
Mr. Forbes. Declining readiness rates are a function of aging
aircraft, op tempo and maintenance funding. Would any reduction in
flying hours be sufficient to stop the fall in aircraft readiness? What
actions is the Air Force taking to reverse this readiness trend?
General Moseley. Flying hour reductions of 10% through the FYDP are
forecasted to provide limited impact on aircraft readiness. The
decrease in readiness over 17 years of continuous combat can be
attributed by a period of chronic under-resourcing during the 1990's
and an aging fleet. Only through significant sustainment investments
and innovation in the field and in Air Logistics Centers has the Air
Force been able to `hold the line' on aircraft readiness rates since
FY00.
Mr. Forbes. What impact has the groundings of the F-15s had on our
Air Sovereignty Alert System? And what steps are being taken to ensure
the National Guard has the equipment its needs to perform this mission?
General Moseley. The USAF decision to temporarily ground F-15
aircraft did not impact the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) air sovereignty alert mission. Quick reactions by US Joint
Forces Command, US Pacific Command and US Northern Command along with
adjustments instituted by the Air Combat Command and Pacific Air Forces
mitigated the situation and the entire NORAD mission requirements were
met during the duration of the F-15 groundings.
The organizing, training, and equipping of Total Force air forces
remains not only a legal obligation, but the Air Force strives to
optimize expenditures across the force to ensure that the best mix of
resources comes out of the execution of programmed dollars. To that
end, the USAF has instituted an annual capabilities review and risk
assessment to meld requirements for several mission areas into an
integrated program objective memorandum recommendation. We are
attempting to find ways to accelerate acquisition, production, delivery
and payment for the advanced fighter airframes, F-22 and F-35, to
ensure incorporation into the ANG inventories.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER
Mr. Miller. Secretary Wynne, as you know, for more than 40 years B-
52 Stratofortresses have been the backbone of the manned nuclear and
conventional strategic bomber force and are capable of dropping or
launching the widest array of weapons in the U.S. inventory. Modern
technology has enabled the B-52 to be capable in delivering the full
complement of joint developed weapons (most of which were developed and
tested at Eglin AFB) and the aircraft will continue into the 21st
century as an important element of our nation's defense. In addition,
current engineering analyses show the B-52's life span to extend beyond
the year 2040. As a testament to her resilience, the B-52 continues to
serve as a workhorse and has once again proven to be venerable in the
Global War on Terrorism, as demonstrated in OIF and OEF. However, with
all this said, the AF has submitted a budget for 2009 that does not
provide funding or equipment for its fleet of 76 aircraft, contrary to
the Congressional mandate in the FY08 NDAA. It does, however, provide
$80.4M for modernization of only 56 of 76 aircraft. Further confusing,
the AF included $183.1M on its Unfunded Requirements List to comply
with last years' Congressional mandate. Could you explain your intent
with putting a higher prioritization for modernization of 56 B-52
aircraft, while the basic O&M care and feeding requirements for the
fleet aren't being met within your budget and there is no clear
indication the Next Generation Bomber is attainable in the near future?
Secretary Wynne. Thank you for the opportunity to address the issue
of B-52 funding in the FY09 President's Budget. As you point out, the
B-52 has performed extremely well in the Global War on Terror and
continues to be an integral part of our bomber force. However, your Air
Force has been in the fight for 17 years, and yet over the same 17
years has seen under-funded modernization.
Clearly, beyond the global war on terror we must not lose America's
asymmetric advantage in the strategic forces. When General Moseley and
I came to our posts we set about a strategy to restructure our Air
Force, truly develop a lean and efficient Air Force in order to husband
the resources for investment. We have talked about being under-funded,
but here have worked to offer a balanced budget prioritized to best
defend America. And we will continue to do that over the FYDP.
The FY09 budget submission reflects the Air Force position that a
fleet of 56 B-52s is sufficient to successfully meet wartime and
contingency operations with an acceptably low level of assumed risk.
However, we are committed to restoring the funding, beginning in FY08,
for a 76 total active inventory in compliance with the FY08 NDAA. The
FY09 URL request would continue that funding for 76 B-52s, including
modifications, through FY09. I expect our FY10 budget to provide full
funding for 76 B-52s across the FYDP.
This also addresses recommendations from the recent nuclear surety
Blue Ribbon Review. Soon I will submit the congressionally mandated
Institute for Defense Analyses Bomber Force Structure Study so we can
begin the process of drawing the B-52 fleet down to 76. Thank you for
your support to our improved readiness via retirement and
recapitalization.
Mr. Miller. With regard to the Air Force Special Operations Command
. . . in particular, the AC-130 Gunship, in the GWOT these aircraft are
being utilized at 3 times their programmed rate. That said, the current
fleet is on pace to run into major Maintenance issues and may have to
come off the battlefield for major repairs (especially for the center
wing box). This will create a ``gap'' of Close Air Support platforms
for our soldiers on the ground (The Gunship is the premier CAS platform
in the USAF inventory). Hasn't the C-27 has been vetted as the aircraft
to make into an AC-27 gunship and will be able to fill the gap and
increase the AF's Close Air Support Capability? I also see USSOCOM and
the AF have identified and listed this requirement in their top ten of
unfunded requests (#2 and #7, respectively). Would you please speak to
the necessity of this aircraft and how you and SOCOM are working
together to make this happen sooner rather than later? The need for
this gunship is now, isn't it?
General Moseley. A gap in gunship capability already exists and has
historically been a Limited Supply/High Demand (LS/HD) asset with an
extreme operational tempo. The legacy fleet is accruing flying hours at
four times the rate they were originally programmed. In an effort to
fill the urgent need for additional Special Operations close air
support (CAS) capability, USSOCOM initiated the AC-XX effort with the
Air Force in lock step. AC-XX is a USSOCOM/CC priority and the Air
Force fully supports additional gunship capability. Currently USSOCOM,
with Air Force assistance, is conducting an Analysis of Alternatives
(AoA) to determine the best solution to fill the sufficiency gap. Many
material solutions are being analyzed for mission and cost
effectiveness, one of which is the C-27. The AoA will be complete in
early June 2008. Upon completion it will be vetted through USSOCOM and
Air Force leadership to inform a potential acquisition decision in
FY10. The AoA will provide a recommendation on a cost effective attack
modification package and appropriate ``donor'' aircraft. While the C-27
is yet to be chosen as the ``donor'' platform for AC-XX, the Air Force
is moving forward to request a congressional new start approval to
purchase one C-27 in FY08. This aircraft will be used to perform
Research and Development with the focus on the gunship attack
modification package. If approved by Congress, the new start effort
will reduce program risk by performing a major portion of R&D ahead of
time.
Mr. Miller. What is your opinion of utilizing the F-22 for
Operation NOBLE EAGLE Homeland Security missions as proposed by some
leadership responsible for that mission? Can our current F-15 and F-16
fleets meet the current threat to US airspace sovereignty?
General Moseley. The F-22 has already flown Operation NOBLE EAGLE
missions. Planned modernization programs will ensure F-15s and F-16s
assigned to the Air Sovereignty Alert mission are fully capable of
protecting US airspace against current threats for the foreseeable
future.
Mr. Miller. AF Special Operations will continue to be integral in
the GWOT and its certain these aircraft will continue to be in high
demand for the foreseeable future. The 08 Supplemental has 2 MC-130Js
requested, the 09 NDAA has 3 aircraft budgeted and there is already a
request for a fourth aircraft on the unfunded list. But, in light of
the aging fleet of LD/HD MC-130J aircraft, an increase in demand, and
the intent of AFSOC/SOCOM leadership to convert as many C-130Js the Air
Force will dedicate to Special Operations, why aren't all the
requirements consolidated, increased, and dedicated more clearly to the
AFSOC mission? Are the AF's ``last tactical mile'' intra-theater
airlift requirements more critical to need than the aging fleet
requirements of the LD/HD AF Special Operations MC-130J fleet?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The Air Force recognizes the
need to recapitalize its combat delivery tactical airlifters and
special operations tankers. Both mission areas are critical and fully
engaged in the Global War on Terror. The FY08 Supplemental requests
serve to address the stresses on both fleets due to the ongoing GWOT,
and the FY09 PB request initiated additional recapitalization for aging
C-130Es and MC-130s. Recently, OSD (AT&L) approved the sole source
procurement of C-130J aircraft for modification to Special Operations
configuration. The Air Force will continue to address the
prioritization of recapitalization within the limits of the Service's
current fiscal resources.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO
Mr. LoBiondo. President Bush has said that Operation Noble Eagle,
which began in the wake of 9/11 to provide for the security of the air
space of the United States of America and is flown almost exclusively
by the National Guard (aka Air Sovereignty Alert), is the number one
defense priority of this nation. More recently, the Commission on the
National Guard and the Reserves recommended the National Guard and
Reserves be the backbone of Homeland Defense. Does this budget fully
fund the Air Sovereignty Alert mission? Will this end the uncertainty
caused by 90 day budgeting cycles for the ASA mission and the National
Guardsmen who man that mission? Will the ASA mission ever become part
of the baseline budget for the Air Force? What procurement steps are
being taken address the rapidly aging ASA fleet of aircraft in Air
National Guard?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The United States Air Force
remains 100 percent committed to protecting the nation from all threats
as directed by the President and the Secretary of Defense. This support
has been provided without reliance on other Services' air assets since
the inception of this steady state activity following 9/11.
As part of the USAF Total Force solution to the Air Sovereignty
Alert (ASA) mission, the Air National Guard (ANG) units tasked to
participate have also provided 100 per cent commitment to the NORAD
operations. In FY2006, the ANG flew 1,365 sorties and 4,021 hours
defending the nation's skies, including the tens of thousands of hours
Air Guard members spend watching radarscopes, or sitting alert waiting
for the call, or maintaining alert aircraft and facilities. This
commitment to defend the United States homeland does not begin and end
at our national boundaries, but the USAF Total Force solution to the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) guarantees that America is protected
both within the US and abroad.
MPA days are resourced and executed throughout the fiscal year. To
sustain maximum flexibility, the Air Force's Major Commands balance the
needs of the Combatant Commanders with the requirements on a quarterly
basis. We continue to search for solutions funding ASA just as we do
with the full spectrum of missions as we seek to achieve total force
victory in the GWOT against the asymmetric threat we face as a
sovereign nation.
The organizing, training, and equipping of total force air forces
remains not only a legal obligation, but the Air Force strives to
optimize expenditures across the force to ensure that the best mix of
resources comes out of the execution of programmed dollars. To that
end, the USAF has instituted an annual capabilities review and risk
assessment to meld requirements for several mission areas into an
integrated program objective memorandum recommendation. We are
attempting to find ways to accelerate acquisition, production, delivery
and payment for the advanced fighter airframes, F-22 and F-35, for
incorporation into the ANG inventories.
Mr. LoBiondo. With respect to the ``Golden Eagles''--the 177 F-15s
which the USAF plans to upgrade and operate until 2025--Why is this
unfunded in the USAF budget? Given the high priority of the ASA mission
and the extremely low tolerance for mistakes in the environment in
which the mission will be executed, ie. over major metropolitan areas,
why is the current radar planned for the Golden Eagles the APG-163 and
not the more advanced AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar
system?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. All of the upgrades originally
planned for the 177 ``Golden Eagles'' are fully funded in the FY09
President's Budget. The APG-63v(3) is an AESA radar that has previously
been funded through Congressional adds for installation on the F-15C.
The Air Force recognizes the large improvement in capability provided
by this radar and has programmed funding beginning in FY10 that will
continue the program with the goal of equipping all 177 Golden Eagles
with an AESA. The unfunded request we have submitted to Congress for 24
APG-63v(3) radars would accelerate that program to begin in FY09 and
allow us to reach our goal faster than we could otherwise afford. We
thank you for your support of this vital initiative to improve the
homeland defense capabilities of our primary air superiority weapon
system.
Mr. LoBiondo. Has the Air Force made any decisions, preliminary or
final, on the so-called Four Corners plan? Will the plan remain a
fifth-generation fighter plan or will it also incorporate the Golden
Eagles?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The FY09 President's Budget
funds 183 total F-22s which is not enough to implement the Four Corners
plan. The strategic basing of fifth-generation fighters at various
CONUS locations, supporting both the homeland defense mission as well
as rotational and emerging worldwide wartime commitments requires
procurement of additional F-22s beyond the level currently programmed.
Although the proposed Four Corners plan only involves the F-22 at this
time, this plan is not the only pillar of our strategy to recapitalize
legacy aircraft that are performing the Air Sovereignty mission. The
Air Force is committed to fulfill both homeland and overseas combatant
commander requirements. The Air Force considers our entire inventory of
fighters, including Golden Eagles, when assessing future strategic
basing options and recapitalization of existing inventory.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE
Mr. Kline. This question concerns the 148th Fighter Wing stationed
in Duluth, Minnesota. This unit was recently awarded the Air Force
Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) for exceptional meritorious service
during the period November 1, 2005 to October 31, 2007. In addition,
the unit was the winner of the Air Force Association 2006 Outstanding
Air National Guard Flying Unit award.The 148th Fighter Wing was the
largest contributing ANG F-16C+ fighter unit during 2007 Air
Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotations to Iraq. Due to a lack of readiness
of a follow-on unit, the 148th Fighter Wing volunteered for a last
minute extension to its planned rotation in Iraq from February 28 to
April 16, 2007. On November 9, 2007, the 148th Fighter Wing was called
again to stand alert in Hawaii (over Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New
Years) due to the structural issues that grounded the F-15 fleet. The
148th Fighter Wing was again extended in its alert mission at this
location until January 29, 2008. On February 4, 2008, the 148th Fighter
Wing was called again, for a third time in 9 months, and is currently
standing alert in Alaska due to the structural issues that grounded the
F-15 fleet. Upon completion of this current alert mission, the 148th
Fighter Wing will return to Duluth to prepare for an upcoming AEF
deployment early this fall. Upon completion of this next AEF rotation
in January of 2009, 148th personnel will have deployed personnel and
aircraft in support of 5 different Combat Commanders in numerous
locations throughout the world. They will continue to be one of the
most heavily utilized units in the Air Force. The 148th Fighter Wing
currently flies F-16C+ Block 25 aircraft, the oldest Combat Coded
aircraft flown by the Air Force. The 148th Fighter Wing will soon be
the only Active Duty, Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve Wing
flying these older aircraft. This will severely limit the 148th Fighter
Wing's ability to partner with other Air National Guard F-16C+ units
and to support Air Force Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotations. In
1996, 2002, and 2007, scheduled/proposed conversions to Block 30
aircraft were overturned or diverted to other locations. Most recently
(2007), Block 30 aircraft were sent from Korea to Alaska to serve as
aggressor aircraft, rather than to Minnesota where they could have been
utilized to support the Global War on Terrorism. Do you intend to
upgrade the airframe used by the 148th Fighter Wing to a Block 50/52
version of the F-16C? If so, when do you anticipate this conversion
taking place. If not, please explain the rationale behind this decision
especially in light of the following reliance on the 148th Fighter Wing
during the past 12 months.
General Moseley. The proud airmen of the 148th Fighter Wing without
question continue to make outstanding contributions to our national
defense. While having among the oldest of our combat fleet of F-16s,
the Block 25s are highly capable and the Minnesota Air National Guard
has answered the call with honor and distinction. Accordingly, the Air
Force will continue to upgrade the assigned aircraft of 148th Fighter
Wing as an integral part of the comprehensive force structure plan. The
148 FW is currently not programmed to transition to Block 50/52 F-16
due to the availability and distribution of these aircraft. The 148 FW
is currently programmed to transition to Block 40 F-16s in FY13, though
this plan is reviewed annually and could feasibly change. We will look
for every opportunity to equip the 148 FW with the best aircraft
available in a manner that optimizes the combat capability across the
US Air Force.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. GINGREY
Dr. Gingrey. Secretary Wynne, some have implied that because F-22As
have not flown in OIF or OEF they are not all that useful, and so we
should stop buying them. I understand that ICBM's haven't been used in
OIF or OEF either. Nor have the Navy's Ballistic Missile Subs been used
in OIF or OEF. Mr. Secretary, have you heard anyone in the Department
suggest we should eliminate funding for ICBMs or Navy subs or any other
programs simply because they haven't been used in OIF or OEF?
Secretary Wynne. To your question, no. As to the F-22, it has not
been deployed to OIF/OEF because it has not been requested by COCOM
commanders for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. The F-22's mission is
to gain air dominance and, due to Air Force operations over the skies
of Iraq for the last 18 years, Air Dominance has been achieved allowing
the joint forces to operate freely.
Dr. Gingrey. Both of you stated at the Air Force Posture Hearing
that you were pleased that an F-22 supplemental request would keep the
F-22 line open upon completion of the current multi-year contract. The
Lockheed/Boeing/Pratt production line is jointly building about 2 F-
22As every month. That means that line shut-down, which IS going to
commence this fall under the current scenario, would be staved off for
2 months. Further, even if we build 4 additional Raptors, by the time
we get through another budget cycle, that line--and its long lead
suppliers--could be without activity for nearly a year, with no
assurance future orders will be placed. The math simply DOES NOT add
up--both of you stated that the Air Force requirement for F-22s is 381.
Four additional Raptors in a supplemental request, which will increase
the size of the Air Force's fleet to 187, is a long way from 381. How
exactly does a supplemental request of 4 Raptors hedge against the
possibility that we will need more F-22s in the future? And does it
provide the necessary assurances to long-lead suppliers to continue
with their end of the bargain?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The four F-22s added in the
FY09 supplemental are to replace legacy fighter losses and do not
significantly extend production line activities, as production line
shutdown will still begin in early FY09. These aircraft are to be added
to the end of the current production line at the same rate of delivery,
thereby only keeping the production line open an additional 2-3 months.
This additional limited production run will have minimal impact on
supplier confidence. Without indications for future F-22 work, the
long-lead suppliers will produce the parts for the 4 aircraft following
approval of the supplemental request and subsequent contract award.
Once deliveries are complete, F-22 activities will cease without
additional orders.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. BOYDA
Mrs. Boyda. Secretary Wynne, in light of the Chairman's question
regarding force levels, the ``In Lieu Of '' mission becomes even more
important. Would the increase in personnel referenced on your Unfunded
Priorities List be as great if the Air Force did not have to perform
``In Lieu Of '' missions?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, requirements on our unfunded priorities list
would remain the same even if Air Force participation in ``In Lieu Of
'' (ILO) missions decreased. The requested growth is associated with
new and/or emerging missions and is not targeted towards easing stress
on Air Force functions performing In-Lieu-Of missions. Instead, growth
is focused on operating, maintaining, and supporting an 86 Combat Wing
envisioned in the last QDR.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. The USAF has invested funding in incremental
improvements to the ACES ejection seat, the common ejection seat on
almost all Air Force combat aircraft. Can you describe the safety
benefits and any other additional advantages of an enhanced ACES 5
ejection seat? Are there cost savings associated with using a modular
improved ejection seat in the F-35 and in retrofitting the B-2 and F-22
aircraft? I understand that the FY11 POM includes funding to retrofit
the ACES modular ejection seat into the B-2, however, there is no
current money programmed to qualify and test the seat. Would the USAF
support additional funds to qualify and test the seat this year? In
1997 the Department of Commerce issued a study titled ``National
Security Assessment of the Emergency Aircraft Ejection Seat Sector''
which warned about the impact of forfeiting this critical technology to
foreign concerns. Does the USAF have concerns about the lack of a
future domestic industrial base for ejection seat capability?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. Part 1--If funds were made
available for the ACES Modular Seat development program, the Air Force
could execute $10.0M to complete qualification and testing of the ACES
Modular Seat configuration for the B-2. Completion of this ACES Modular
Seat qualification and testing requires research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E) funds.
Part 2--The Air Force is concerned, in general, with industrial
base issues. As a result, an Air Force Industrial Base Council (AFIBC)
has recently been established to address industrial base issues. The
AFIBC is intended to provide greater corporate visibility into the
industrial base, as it has become increasingly difficult to identify
and understand the risks imparted by a rapidly evolving industrial
base. The Air Force, through the AFIBC, has initiated an assessment of
the ejection seat industrial base--this effort is on-going. The results
of this assessment will ultimately be presented to and evaluated by an
Executive Level Steering Group; which will subsequently make
recommendations to the AFIBC on any potential courses of action.