[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-70]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING
ON
THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 AIR FORCE AND SPACE FORCE READINESS POSTURE
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 3, 2020
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-500 WASHINGTON : 2021
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
Jay Vallario, Professional Staff Member
John Muller, Professional Staff Member
Sean Falvey, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 3
WITNESSES
Manasco, Shon J., Acting Under Secretary of the Air Force,
Department of the Air Force.................................... 5
Thompson, Lt Gen David D., USAF, Vice Commander, Headquarters,
United States Space Force...................................... 7
Wilson, Gen Stephen W., USAF, Vice Chief of Staff, Department of
the Air Force.................................................. 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Garamendi, Hon. John......................................... 25
Lamborn, Hon. Doug........................................... 27
Manasco, Shon J., joint with Gen Stephen W. Wilson and Lt Gen
David D. Thompson.......................................... 29
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Scott.................................................... 45
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 49
Mr. Kim...................................................... 54
Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 52
Mr. Scott.................................................... 52
Mr. Wilson................................................... 54
THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 AIR FORCE AND SPACE FORCE READINESS POSTURE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Garamendi. This is one of those days where there are a
lot of things going on, one hearing stacked upon another, and I
know members of this committee have in 15 minutes two hearings
going on simultaneously. So, we will do the best we can to move
through this one.
I have a short statement I am going to read and Mr. Lamborn
may also. Mr. Lamborn has given me permission to speak for him,
which he will only do once.
[Laughter.]
Today, the subcommittee will hear from the Acting Under
Secretary of the Air Force, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff,
and the Vice Commander of the Space Force regarding the state
of military readiness and how the fiscal 2021 operation and
maintenance budget request supports military training, weapon
systems maintenance, and efforts to meet the full spectrum of
readiness requirements that align with the National Defense
Strategy.
I am especially delighted to welcome the witnesses from our
newest branch of service. General Thompson, welcome.
Oh, now the hard part; the welcoming is over.
[Laughter.]
This subcommittee is interested in hearing from you
regarding the progress made in standing up the Space Force, and
from each of the witnesses, we would like to hear from you
about how the Department intends to man, train, equip, fund,
and sustain the Space Force without impact on the other tasks
that you have. We understand that you are early in the process
of standing up the Space Force and that much work is in front
of you, and therefore, we desire to have today the ultimate
plan presented to us--not likely.
For the past several years, we have heard the services
raise their concerns with the state of the military's full-
spectrum readiness after more than a decade of focusing on
counterterrorism-counterinsurgency missions. The fiscal year
2020 enacted defense appropriation and the agreed-upon defense
top line for 2021 represent significant increases in defense
spending. I hope today our witnesses can discuss how these
additional resources have been executed by the Department and
where we have seen progress in readiness and areas that still
require additional attention.
That said, this subcommittee is concerned that the
Department, and especially the Air Force, remains overly
focused on long-term readiness through modernization programs.
We--I--feel that you must place more emphasis on investing in
near-term readiness accounts that maintain and sustain the
systems that we have in place today, and will have for the next
decade or longer.
For example, last year the Department only funded 88
percent of the requirement in your weapons sustainment account
and you did not meet aircraft mission capability standard
across the service. In fiscal year 2021, the request for the
weapon systems sustainment accounts, the full funding will meet
87 percent of the requirement, a little less than last year.
This subcommittee would like to hear from you how you intend to
increase aircraft readiness while funding these readiness
accounts to a lesser degree than last year.
In addition, I am concerned that the Air Force is still
relying on overseas contingency operations [OCO] funding to
meet basic requirements. Notably, roughly 65 percent in fiscal
year 2021 for weapon systems sustainment is in the overseas
contingency account. Depending on OCO funds for regular and
well-understood requirements such as depot maintenance activity
underlines how institutionalized the Department's dependence on
OCO funding has become. Going forward, the Department and
Congress both must be prepared for a world where this will
change. And apparently, if the current negotiations in
Afghanistan bear fruit, the change is coming sooner than later.
Related to the budget request, several issues have caught
our subcommittee's attention and that impact the readiness of
the force. First, that old favorite, the F-35 sustainment. The
Air Force has a stretched goal of achieving a cost per flight
hour of $25,000 per hour in 2025; ``25 in '25'' I believe is
the word you use. This committee would like to hear about
specific initiatives that you are taking as a service to reduce
these sustainment costs and to ensure that you can afford this
weapon system as we continue to grow the fleet.
The second issue is the aerial refueling tanker
availability to meet combat commander requirements. Given the
delays in the KC-46A program, this committee is concerned with
the Air Force request to retire 10 KC-10 tankers and 13 KC-135
tankers in fiscal year 2021. So, how does this work? The
concern is echoed in a recent TRANSCOM [United States
Transportation Command] unfunded requirements letter where it
lists these aircraft as the number one unfunded priority to
meet the National Defense Strategy mission requirements. I now
understand that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Esper, says that
unfunded priorities are really our priorities, congressional
priorities. Perhaps they are both our priorities.
The third issue we would like to hear about concerns
progress you have made in your effort to close the pilot
shortfall gap.
Lastly--and I said this would be short, but it is not--I
would be remiss if I didn't mention the actions taken by the
Department last month that disregard Congress' constitutional
authority to determine how the Nation spends defense dollars.
The decision to reprogram $3.8 billion away from military
readiness and modernization efforts in order to construct a
barrier on the southern border of the United States goes
against the priorities of the National Defense Strategy and
ignores decades of precedent regarding the reprogramming
process. This decision, combined with the $3.6 billion stolen
from military construction projects last year, is both
disturbing and, in my view, contrary to our Nation's security.
So, gentlemen, be prepared for questions along this line.
With that, I now turn to the ranking member, Congressman
Doug Lamborn of Colorado, for any opening remarks he would
like, unless he would simply like to--no, you don't want to do
that, Doug. Your turn.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in
the Appendix on page 25.]
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, we will hear testimony regarding the readiness of
the Air Force to execute the National Defense Strategy under
the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request. As DOD
[Department of Defense] shifts its primary focus from
countering violent extremist organizations to great power
competition, our subcommittee will be very interested in how
the Air Force balances current readiness with modernization
investments. Recent events in the Middle East are a stark
reminder of the risk that comes from leaving vacuums for malign
actors such as Iran to fill.
Today, we will also hear about the progress in standing up
the new Space Force. This recognition of the importance of
space as a warfighting domain is long overdue and will be vital
to the future readiness of the joint force. My understanding is
that Space Force will leverage existing support, Air Force
infrastructure, and administration to the maximum extent
possible. This is vital to maximizing capability and minimizing
overhead.
We also eagerly await the Department of the Air Force's
decision about the permanent basing location for the Space
Command headquarters. As you know, I believe that Colorado
Springs is the best option, based on many factors ranging from
location, civilian and military workforce, existing
infrastructure and capabilities, and quality of life for
service members and their families.
Now one of the most important issues in the fiscal year
2021 budget request is the proposed expansion of the Nevada
Testing and Training Range. The subcommittee has already heard
testimony regarding the importance of this range to support
operational readiness. The proposed expansion would enable the
Air Force to conduct more realistic training for fifth-
generation platforms and engagements using precision-guided
munitions. The use of land buffers will protect training
resources while preserving natural habitats. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses regarding their progress with
stakeholder outreach and engagement with the Natural Resources
Committee since our last update.
Issues with the fielding of two new platforms are creating
challenges for the Air Force and adding strain to its already
stressed budget. The first one--and this has been mentioned as
well--and that is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. While the
capability it brings to the fight is a critical game-changer,
ongoing supply chain issues and problems with the ALIS
[Autonomic Logistics Information System]--or is it now ODIN
[Operational Data Integrated Network]?--data system continue to
create challenges for the program. We also need more clarity
about how the program will impact future Air Force budgets. As
we ramp up production, the imperative of getting sustainment
right takes on even more importance.
And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding
their perspectives about the technical data and intellectual
property issues in the F-35 program. I personally don't believe
that the Department should enter into a multiyear performance
contract until all remaining technical data and intellectual
property issues are resolved. We would also benefit from your
thoughts about how we can shift more sustainment
responsibilities to the military departments.
The other program with fielding issues is the KC-46A. As of
December 2019, Boeing had delivered 30 of these tankers to the
Air Force. Unfortunately, ongoing issues with the Remote Vision
System [RVS] mean that these aircraft cannot yet perform
operational tanker capacity. This shortfall caused the U.S.
TRANSCOM commander to request that the Department defer the
retirement of 23 legacy KC-10 and KC-135 tankers in his
unfunded priority list. We look forward to hearing from our
witnesses about the way ahead to address these shortfalls.
One of the key readiness enablers in the Air Force is the
organic industrial base. Our depots provide the capability to
maintain warfighting capabilities throughout their life cycles.
I am concerned that the Air Force plan to recapitalize the
depots will require significant investment over many years at a
time when it will continue to have a number of other major
funding challenges.
And my final concern is about people. This was also
mentioned by the chairman. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall
of about 2,000, but chose not to fund almost 200 new pilots in
the budget request. It is unclear how we will reduce this
backlog without full funding.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Indeed, if our staff
had gotten together, we could have written one because what you
said is what I would have said, and perhaps vice versa.
I would like to now welcome our witnesses and thank you for
your leadership and the service that you provide to our country
and for representing the respective services today.
Let's start with Acting Under Secretary of the Air Force,
Mr. Shon Manasco. Did I do that correctly?
STATEMENT OF SHON J. MANASCO, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Mr. Manasco. You did, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lamborn, distinguished
committee members, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. We never take your support for granted and appreciate
the advocacy of this committee and what you provide to our Air
and Space Forces, and we are truly grateful.
With the prepared statement in the record, allow me to open
with just a few key points.
Mr. Garamendi. Let me take that up. Without objection, all
the written statements will be entered into the record. So
ordered.
Mr. Manasco. Thank you.
The Department of the Air Force spent the better part of
the last three decades in a readiness decline with a shrinking
force and a procurement holiday. But the 2013 sequester was a
major setback for the United States military, I think as you
are aware, and, in fact, it did more to damage readiness than
any enemy combatant in recent history. But in 2017, thanks to
your leadership, that started to change, and over the last 3
years, through consistent budgets, steady topline increases,
and, most importantly, your support, we arrested years of
readiness decline and began to rebuild the force. Since April
of 2018 alone, we increased readiness by 16 percent across the
Department of the Air Force and 35 percent in our leading
operational squadrons.
I cannot overemphasize just how important stable and
predictable budgets are to morale and readiness. They give us
the ability to invest in new programs and to build combat-
capable forces ready to compete, deter, and should deterrence
fail, defeat those adversaries set upon destructing our way of
live.
But we are still too small for what the Nation has asked.
With the rise of great power competition and the ongoing fight
in the Middle East, the demand for air and space power
continues to tax our force, driving tradeoffs between meeting
operational requirements and further restoring our readiness.
As we look for new ways to invest in future capability
while taking some near-term operational risk, we are prepared
to make the necessary choices that are required. We are
increasing many levels in support of new fighters, new bombers,
and cyber mission teams. We are funding our weapon systems
sustainment and flying-hour programs. And most importantly, we
are dedicating money and personnel to form the backbone of our
newest service, the United States Space Force.
Success in the future requires us to make difficult
decisions today and we cannot do it alone. We ask for your help
and continued support.
With that, sir, I look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Manasco, General
Wilson, and General Thompson can be found in the Appendix on
page 29.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
General Wilson.
STATEMENT OF GEN STEPHEN W. WILSON, USAF, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF,
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
General Wilson. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn,
all the distinguished members of the committee, I, too, want to
echo my support and thanks for all your help over the last few
years.
This marks my fourth consecutive year testifying before
this committee. I have enjoyed a front-row seat on the
readiness recovery that you all have helped enable. And I can
honestly say that today your Air Force stands more ready than
it has been in years, thanks in no small part to your support.
So, I owe you my best military advice. We are ready today,
but if you ask me, do we have the force structure we need to
deter competitors of tomorrow, will we be ready for the threats
appearing over the horizon, I would answer we certainly can be.
Indeed, we must be. And with your continued support, I am
confident we will be.
As I reflect on all the studies we have conducted, the
countless hours we have spent with our joint partners examining
the National Defense Strategy, and my 39 years of experience in
this service, there are three fundamental truths that I have
come back to.
The first is we cannot win tomorrow's war with today's
force structure. Your Air Force remains too small and too
invested in capability that was simply built for a different
time. So, we have to modernize. If we are to modernize in a
cost-effective, responsible way, we have to make hard choices
now--choices on both capability for the future fight, but, more
importantly and much more difficult, choices on the Air Force
we can't afford and the capabilities that we must divest to
enable the transition to a superior ready force for tomorrow.
This budget reflects those hard choices, and we need your
continued leadership to see those through.
Second, modernization is critical, but it will be
irrelevant if it is late to need. If we cede the initiative to
China or Russia, then we play catchup for years. We are either
leaders or followers in this competition, and history has never
been kind to the followers in the matter of war. There is no
question that China and Russia are moving out of pace. They
have been informed by careful study of our way of war, and they
continue to invest in disruptive technologies and to target the
very core of our competitive military advantage. Unabated, this
risks our ability to maintain a peaceful world order. Your
support to ensure stable, predictable, and sufficient budgets
and your willingness to support agile acquisitions that enable
timely delivery of capability to our airmen is critical to
keeping us ahead of the threat.
And finally, I remain convinced that our most important
weapon system, America's asymmetric advantage, is not hardware;
it is our airmen. We appreciate your continued leadership and
advocacy to ensure they remain the best trained, best equipped,
and best led airmen in the world. We have no greater duty than
to prepare them for the challenges of peer competition and to
care for them and their families as they defend our freedom and
America's interests around the globe.
Thank you for your leadership and your partnership, and I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, General Wilson.
Let's go to space, General Thompson.
STATEMENT OF LT GEN DAVID D. THOMPSON, USAF, VICE COMMANDER,
HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE
General Thompson. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member
Lamborn, and distinguished members of the committee, I am
honored to appear before you today along with my esteemed
colleagues and am privileged to be one of the 16,000 men and
women currently assigned to the U.S. Space Force, serving under
the leadership of General Jay Raymond, the first Chief of Space
Operations. These space professionals remain the best in the
world at developing, fielding, and operating space systems, the
systems that maintain the combat edge of our Armed Forces and
what they enjoy as a result of freedom of action in space.
On December 20, 2019, the President and Congress
established the U.S. Space Force as the newest branch of the
Armed Forces, an historic milestone for the Nation. Building
the U.S. Space Force is our top policy priority. The Department
is moving quickly to stand up a lean, agile, and mission-
focused organization while we continue to develop the
capabilities, warfighting doctrine, and expertise needed to
outpace future threats and execute today's critical space
missions.
As you all know, the important question when it comes to
readiness is, ready for what? The fiscal year 2021 space budget
continues us on a path of irreversible implementation of the
National Defense Strategy, which remains our guide star and our
decision-making guide. Progress along the lines of effort in
that document increasingly improve our ability to address near-
peer threats in space and is sustained by adequate and timely
funding of you, our partners in Congress.
The U.S. Space Force is pursuing a strategy to ensure we
can deter hostile action, defend and protect our interests,
and, if necessary, fight in, through, and from the space
domain. This budget submission includes increased investment in
four elements of that strategy.
First, protecting and defending the highly capable
satellite systems we depend on today.
Next, fielding a robust architecture that is resilient
under attack and delivers space capabilities through all phases
of conflict.
Then, developing warfighters who are the essential part of
winning the fight in the space domain.
And finally, developing a broad range of options to respond
with national security space capabilities, if attacked.
The Space Force is making significant investments to harden
our assets and strengthen our posture in space and on the
ground. For example, we are continually improving our space
domain awareness network needed for the deep understanding of
activities in space to treat it as a warfighting domain.
Second, field and command control tools that provide both
warfighters and commanders awareness, flexible options, and
responsive solutions in crisis.
In addition to that, we are modernizing vital warfighting
capabilities, including improvements in GPS [Global Positioning
System] anti-jam and anti-spoofing, and jam-resistant, low
probability of intercept waveforms for the family of advanced
beyond-line-of-sight terminals which provide nuclear survival
communications for our Nation's leadership.
Assured access to all orbits is also fundamental to
sustaining the United States freedom of action in space.
National security space launch investments in this budget
increase competition among launch providers, eliminate our
reliance on the RD-180 engine, and ensure the space domain
access for all of our national security space needs.
Likewise, the Space Force is continuing to broaden the
space industrial base and bringing cutting-edge technology to
space prototyping. Innovative approaches to space acquisition,
including Space Pitch Days and the Space Enterprise Consortium,
will reap the benefits for the Space Force in terms of
leveraging commercial investment, accelerating new technology,
and rapidly prototyping and acquiring new systems.
With all of the physical assets of the Space Force and
everything that it has to execute its missions, it is the
people who power the Space Force and who are our most important
asset. We are developing detailed plans, and by fiscal year
2021, expect to transform more than 6,000 personnel into the
U.S. Space Force. Ultimately, we will expand that cadre to more
than 12,000 space professionals across 15 career fields to
protect U.S. interests in space well into the future.
Let me close by stating once again that we do not seek
conflict in space. However, we must maintain a position of
strength and develop a credible warfighting capability in order
to deter conflict and maintain a full range of options to
ensure our national security. The U.S. Space Force is taking
the lead to preserve U.S. and allied interests to broad
capability across the continuum of conflict and defend our
forces, our allies, and our partners.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
In my opening statement, I raised about seven, eight
different specific issues. I won't ask those questions here,
but I would expect in the days ahead that we would have
response to those questions.
I think I gave you a heads-up ahead of time. Again, I don't
expect a response here. I know that two Air Force bases in
California are significantly impacted by the coronavirus and
the evacuees from various parts of the world. I would like a
full explanation of what is going on at Travis and March Air
Force Base, as well as the Marine Corps bases. I think there
are other bases around the Nation. So, if you gentlemen can
develop that and get back to us immediately about that. I will
note that there is a public health emergency at Travis. And so,
the question is apparent.
I am going to go to you, General Thompson, with a quick
question. I guess, actually, it is--well, a question. The
California National Guardsmen are already operating space
missions for the Air Force and for the Army, including secure
satellite communications, space control, space operations,
intelligence, ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance], ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and
missile defense, a major part of the space operations.
I know you are still in the early stages. You haven't
figured out how to integrate both the Reserve and the National
Guard into your programs. I would urge you to keep in mind that
these units have been operating for some time, and if
integrated fully--that is, as a unit--I think you would be well
served. And if you were to break them up in some way, then you
get to start to rebuild units that are already in place.
Bringing your attention to the 195th Wing at Beale Air
Force Base, the 184th Space Operations Squadron, the 216th
Space Control Squadron, the 234th Intelligence Squadron, and
then, the missile defense programs at Vandenberg with the 130th
Missile Defense Brigade detachment, which operates the
Vandenberg missile defense systems, keep that in mind.
I am going to forego any more time of my own and pass this
to Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just jump right in. For Acting Secretary Manasco,
based on the hearing that we had on land withdrawals from
military ranges, I have some questions about stakeholder
outreach and the status of Air Force efforts to engage the
Natural Resources Committee, which has primary jurisdiction on
land withdrawals. What is the progress in both of those,
stakeholder outreach and discussions with the Natural Resources
Committee?
Mr. Manasco. Congressman, we have been in active
conversations at the national, local, and State level. And so,
as you well know, there is a lot of conversations still yet to
take place. I think you mentioned in your opening comments just
how important it is that we get this right and the reasons for
which we are seeking an expansion. But we have, like I said,
active conversations, and if there are others that we need to
be reaching out to that we just haven't yet, we stand ready to
do so.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And just so everyone will know on this
subcommittee and for the record, why is the current footprint
of the range insufficient?
Mr. Manasco. So, Congressman, as we look at the near-peer
competitors that we face, it is clear today that the existing
range itself is insufficient in size, just given the training
that occurs there and the adversary air which tries to simulate
what we would face in a near-peer fight. The range and speed
and distance of our adversaries is increasing. And so,
therefore, we need to look at our range facilities with that
lens. I would be remiss, though, if I didn't mention that, from
our perspective, these ranges are truly a national treasure,
and we want to do everything possible to ensure public safety
and to leave them in a really great condition.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And I do realize we are in open session
and we can't go into all the details, but I appreciate that
answer.
Changing gears, during my recent visit--and I was with
Representative Scott of Georgia as well--we went to Warner-
Robins Air Force Base and saw the depot there. I was very
impressed with the quality and effort of the industrial work to
maintain Air Force aircraft, but I am concerned about the state
of the facilities. My understanding is that the Air Force's 20-
year recapitalization plan will cost about $26 billion. How are
we going about committing that amount of money each year to
achieve that goal?
Mr. Manasco. Congressman, over the last few years, we have
committed upwards of $2 billion for the modernization,
recapitalization of these depot facilities. And it should be
noted that we really do admire and appreciate and respect the
skilled professionals that occupy these depots and do work on
behalf of the Department of the Air Force. And so, they are of
vital importance to us. And lastly, we are committed to living
up to the 6 percent statute to be able to fund, again, their
recapitalization in the future.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And during our last depot hearing in
November, the Air Force talked about having the benefits of
direct hiring authority, but also about the negative impact of
the 180-day military retiree waiting period requirement. If we
were to remove that waiting period at least for certain
positions--let's say GS-13 and below, not for the highest
grades, but for GS-13 and below--how would that impact the
mission capabilities and being able to hire the right people at
your depots?
Mr. Manasco. I will just make mention of one thing, and I
think I will turn it over to General Wilson. I think he has a
point of view on this.
But, Congressman, we would support any help that you and
your colleagues might give us to be able to hire those
individuals directly without waiting 180 days. As it turns out,
in a very tight labor market, if we are not careful, we will
let those highly skilled people get hired by someone else.
Mr. Lamborn. General.
General Wilson. Congressman, I would echo the same thing.
We are in a competition for talent. Anything that slows us down
from bringing talent onboard lets them go somewhere else. So,
as we try to close that gap, we want to look for all the
authorities to bring on people as quickly and as fast as
possible. And I will give you the good news story. We have done
just that with your help. So, some of your direct hiring
authorities have allowed us to bring on people much faster, and
we would say maybe in the future we can work with the committee
to see where we could expand that more broadly to bring on
talent even quicker.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. Maybe we can address that in
this upcoming NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act].
And lastly, for General Thompson, my understanding is that
the Space Force currently has one member, General Raymond, but
we will be gaining 60-some new officers when they graduate from
the Air Force Academy in May. You did a good job in your
statement of explaining the future missions of the Space Force,
but when it comes to making sure that we get the most for our
dollars, can you talk about how the Space Force will leverage
existing Department of the Air Force overhead and support
functions, so that we can minimize the duplication of
bureaucracy?
General Thompson. Yes, sir. Thank you. And if I can, before
that, I will say there are 16,000 other of us assigned, not yet
transferred into, but anxiously looking forward to the day when
perhaps we can join him as commissioned and enlisted members of
the Space Force as well.
And as you stated exactly, we are very much focused on
creating the Space Force in a lean, agile, and very mission-
focused sense. What that means is, the Space Force itself will
focus on developing, acquiring, fielding, and operating space
capabilities. That includes an intelligence enterprise required
to conduct operations in space as well as focused cyber
warriors who will operate and defend and protect our cyber
mission systems in space.
Most of the remaining support will be provided by the
Department of the Air Force and the United States Air Force in
a similar manner to the way they do it today. Base operating
support, physical security, civil engineering, our chaplains
and JAGs [Judge Advocate General's Corps] and personnelists,
all of that will continue to be provided by the United States
Air Force, so that the U.S. Space Force can focus on its
mission. Our estimate today, when we look at the support
functions and field agencies and other activities required to
operate the Space Force, about 80 percent of that activity will
continue to be provided by the U.S. Air Force under the
leadership of the Secretary and the Department, while we focus
on operations and the critical needs in space.
Mr. Lamborn. Along that line, I am sure there are thousands
of decisions that have to be made. General Wilson, how are
these decisions coming along, according to what Lieutenant
General Thompson just said?
General Wilson. What I think you are seeing is a seamless
integration between air and space, and we are going to continue
to remain so. The Secretary has been very clear that that is
her number one priority, is to make sure that the Space Force
is successful, and we are going to do everything we can to do
just that.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
I had raised the issue of the coronavirus. The 7th Air
Force I think is in the hot zone in Korea and other places. So,
if you could by Thursday report back to us on what is
happening, what your plans are, and so forth?
Mr. Manasco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi.
And thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to speak
directly to you on critical Air Force and Space Force readiness
matters.
General Wilson, I am pleased to see that building a
seamless, integrated joint force is the top focus area noted in
your memo for achieving the ready and modernized force we need.
We all recognize the need to fully use our National Guard and
Reserve and the value that investment brings to protecting our
Nation, our States, and our local communities. In my district,
we have many resources, including a very nice, open ramp space,
ops facility, and hangars where the famous F-16 Tacos once
resided. That ramp space could add significant value toward
military readiness and leverage the synergies between three
special operations wings stationed in New Mexico. What are some
of the best opportunities you see for the Department to tap
into these kinds of resources and fully integrate the joint
force?
General Wilson. Congresswoman, as you know, across the
whole force, we can't do any mission without the total force.
It takes the Active, Guard, Reserve across air, cyber, space,
and all the missions across the different pieces of that. The
Chief were to say, if he were to go fly in a C-17 today in the
Middle East, he couldn't tell if it was Active, Guard, or
Reserve because they are all there and they are doing that
seamlessly.
So, we continue to look for missions in New Mexico which
the Guard could be a significant part of. They are in every
mission area, and I think there will be opportunities in the
future which we can continue to look for opportunities for New
Mexico to do that.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. I appreciate that commitment.
General Thompson, it was noted in the very recent report to
the committee that the DOD [Department of Defense] intends to
establish several Space Force Centers or center equivalents to
execute space-unique functions that will be, quote, ``co-
located with Air Force counterpart Centers to the maximum
extent practicable in order to leverage existing infrastructure
and resources.'' I will note that my district is home to
critical Space Force assets on Kirtland Air Force Base, such as
the Space and Missile Center, Advanced Systems and Development
Directorate, Space Rapid Capabilities Office [RCO], and key
Space Force partners like the Air Force Research Labs, Space
Vehicles, and Directed Energy Directorates. Given all those
obvious synergies, would I be correct in thinking that bases
like Kirtland with its cutting-edge space capabilities would be
on the short list?
General Thompson. Yes, ma'am. I would like to say, as you
listed, there are a tremendous number of capabilities at
Kirtland Air Force Base today. It is a national center when it
comes to science and technology research and development. You
listed the Research Lab, our Advanced Development Division, and
the Space RCO. Kirtland plays a tremendous role, and has for
many years, in terms of prototyping, researching, and
delivering new space capabilities for the Nation. I have no
doubt it will continue to play that role for the Space Force
and well into the future.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. Thank you for that.
And how much time do I have?
General Wilson, as the chairwoman of the National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, I am paying close
attention to the Department's proposals that impact public
lands that have great environmental value and are key to
preserving irreplaceable Native American cultural resources and
tribal history. In your view, can the proposed expansion of the
Nevada Training and Testing Range be carried out in a manner
that both enhances military readiness and is compatible with
stewardship of natural and cultural resources? And what are you
doing to ensure that Native perspectives on this issue are
fully considered?
General Wilson. Congresswoman, the short answer is, yes, I
think we can. We have to work together. Your local and tribal
communities have to be part of the discussion/conversation, and
I think we can effectively do that to preserve all the things
you just mentioned while we also expand the airspace to allow
the type of training we need for peer competition.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much. And since I have just a few
seconds left, I will ask, while there is a clear readiness
argument for the expansion, there are also significant concerns
for many sectors. Can the expansions be phased in to allow time
to work through the issues with other stakeholders, in your
opinion?
General Wilson. Yes, I think they can be phased in.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
General Thompson, let me compliment you on the very adroit
dance that you made in answer to the woman's testimony.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Wilson, there has been some discussion about
pursuing a long-term, performance-based logistics [PBL]
contract for the sustainment of the F-35. Can you share your
thoughts about that, any concerns you may have with things like
intellectual property and data rights?
General Wilson. Yes, Congressman, I am not sure we have the
data yet to be able to jump into a long-term, performance-based
logistics contract. But, sir, we will work with the JPO [Joint
Program Office] and all the stakeholders as we get better
insights into the data to be able to make a better decision on
PBL going forward.
Mr. Rogers. So, that is a longer range possibility?
General Wilson. I believe so.
Mr. Rogers. Great.
General Thompson, you will be pleased to know I am not
making a pitch for a headquarters in my district.
[Laughter.]
However, you know, if you want to.
[Laughter.]
One of the things that drove us to create the Space Force
was in the Air Force there is a culture that is indoctrinated
in every service member that you start, from the time you join
the Air Force, that your number one mission is air dominance,
and it should be; it is the Air Force. How can you ensure that,
as you stand up this new service, that you can indoctrinate
that same mission priority of space dominance into the new
members of the Space Force? And it is a cultural thing.
General Thompson. Congressman Rogers, thanks so much for
that question. In fact, we have for decades been developing a
space culture and we have a space culture inside what was once
the United States Air Force and is now the United States Space
Force. That culture, however, was developed in a different time
in a different area for a different set of missions in a
different environment. It has only been in the last 6 or 7
years where we have truly embraced and understood the threat we
face in space, and so, have begun already developing the
culture that is truly a warfighter's culture. And there are
several ways that we have done it.
The first is, and obviously was, the acknowledgment of the
leaders and the Nation that it was a warfighting domain. The
next thing we did is we have already overhauled our training
system. Our training system is now focused on threats in space,
the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to
address those threats, and ensuring we can deliver capabilities
across all of the spectrum of conflict.
We have also more closely integrated ourselves with other
warfighters, first, in the Air Force through Red Flag and some
of the advanced training exercises we do, but also the joint
force through Tier 1 exercises. I will argue there is great
value in understanding the cultures of other warfighters, other
warfighters that they, themselves, have different cultures, but
understand what it means to develop a plan, to understand your
role in the plan, how you are going to develop contracts with
other warfighters. And that has been of value as well.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I was very pleased--and the committee will
be interested to know--in talking with General Raymond a couple
of weeks ago, I had mentioned, because Air University is in
Alabama, that I thought that we should enhance their space
curriculum and rename it Air and Space University. And he
gently pushed back and said, no, we want our own university.
General Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And we will still use the Air Force Academy as
our service academy, but, as far as continuing education. And I
think that is a great example of saying, no, I want to build my
own culture.
General Thompson. Yes, sir, and we have created our own
Space flags and we have our own war games. Those are the sorts
of things we must continue to do.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Lastly, you talked about growing the
number of professionals over the time by 12,000. Is that
civilian personnel you are talking about?
General Thompson. Sir, that's all, all of the above.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
General Thompson. Right now, in fiscal year 2021, we plan
to transfer in--I am sorry, let me make sure I have got the
numbers right; I have got them written down--in 2021, it is
about 3,500 civilians and it is 6,430 military. Over the course
of the Future Years Defense Program, it is going to be about
8,100 military and 4,200 civilians. So, it is a mixture, as you
see, to get to that 12,000. It will be both.
Now I should also say civilians will be assigned to the
Space Force. Like in the Department of the Navy, all civilians
will be Department of the Air Force civilians, but they will be
assigned in the Space Force.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you for your service.
And I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Rogers, in answer to your question, my
grandson, I asked him last week where he intended to go to
college. He is a senior. And he said, ``Wherever I can get the
best education to get into the Space Force.''
[Laughter.]
Ms. Horn.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here with us today and for
your testimony.
I also want to commend Congressman Rogers and also
Congressman Cooper for the work they did on the Space Force and
outlining the importance of standing up the Space Force. I will
get back to questions about that in a minute, but I think there
is a lot more work to do to help people understand, and the
general public, as well as to support you all in standing this
up.
But I want to start at readiness and the tankers and KC-
135, KC-46A, and what we are looking at there. As you know,
Tinker Air Force Base, right there at the edge of my district
in Oklahoma City, is the home to maintenance and refurbishment
of the ongoing KC-135 and will be with KC-46A. But, quite
frankly, we have got a number of concerns about the readiness
and what that looks like for our tanker program because the
budget request includes retirement of 10 KC-10s and 13 KC-135
aircraft. Knowing that these aircraft are 70-plus years old,
and the civilian contractors, the individuals, armed services
at Tinker do an amazing job of refurbishing these aircraft, it
is remarkable that they are still flying, and we have to
continue to keep them up.
But, with the challenges with the KC-46A tankers, I am
concerned about this proposed transition and retirement of the
13, and just saw an article from--let's see, I just opened it
up--the Air Force Magazine that came out about the testimony in
front of the Senate, that until the RVS challenge is fixed, the
Air Force is not going to commit to using the KC-46As. So, I am
concerned about the readiness issue there. I would like to find
out--and I will start with you, Mr. Secretary, or whoever is
most appropriate--is there a plan to put more KC-135s through
the modernization process to help prevent this gap? Or what is
our contingency plan here?
Mr. Manasco. Ma'am, yes, we are investing in that platform
to modernize it. And ultimately, our goal is to get down to a
two-tanker fleet. Like many of our other weapon systems in this
budget, we had to take some risk. And so, we are actively in
conversations with General Lyons in TRANSCOM to make sure that
we can do everything we can to cover the needs of that
combatant commander.
I will make note of the KC-46. I had the opportunity to be
on that platform roughly 2 months ago, and I saw it at its best
and I saw some of the limitations firsthand. We are in active
conversations with Boeing on what a permanent fix might look
like and we look forward to being able to continue to make
progress. And ultimately, if we were to have to go to war
tonight, General Miller, I think as you probably may have
heard, has said that she would put that tanker in a fight.
Ms. Horn. Thank you.
And following up on readiness and the impact of tankers,
but also pilot shortage, let's talk about that. I happen to
agree--I was nodding my head intensely--with both opening
statements of the chair and the ranking member. I think we are
very much aligned. With the 2,000-pilot shortfall across all
airframes and the reduction in intended pilots, that seems to
be going in the opposite direction with the need for more
pilots. As you look at this issue, how do you plan to bridge
that gap when this proposed FY21 [fiscal year 2021] reduces the
number of pilot slots?
General Wilson. Congresswoman, let me assure you we are not
reducing the number of pilots that we are trying to build. We
actually have a really good news story. In 2015, we graduated
about 1,000 pilots. In 2019, we graduated almost 1,300, and we
will graduate a little bit more than that in FY20 [fiscal year
2020]. Our goal is to get to almost 1,500. So, we have seen a
30 percent increase in the pilot production over the last 3
years, thanks to your help. And we are on a path to be able to
continue that to get towards 1,500, which we think we need.
This is a national problem, though. Between all the services,
we are going to produce 2,200 pilots and the airlines are going
to hire 5,000. So, that is the challenge we face.
Our Training Command has done some remarkable work in terms
of what they call Pilot Training Next. And so, it is where they
go to student-focused curriculum that is individualized and
using augmented reality and virtual reality to help not only
make it better, but also make it faster. So, we think there is
great potential in that. We are now on to the next phase of it.
We are going to try to scale that across all of our UPT
[Undergraduate Pilot Training] bases starting this next year.
But we, too, are concerned on being able to produce the
number, but then the next part is I have got to be able to
season them with the right flying hours, and then I have got to
retain them on the back end in this process. We have got
efforts underway on the production, the seasoning, and the
retention of our pilots.
Ms. Horn. Thank you, General.
I guess, General Thompson, I will have to follow up on
questions later for the Space Force.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott.
It may be the coronavirus and the slowdown in the airline
industry might help solve your problem.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you are a West Point grad. That makes you
Army.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Manasco. Sir, some have said I have traded up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scott. I have got some family members that would argue
with you.
But I share Congressman Rogers' concern about the focus on
air dominance for our troops on the ground. I have watched as
the Air Force has tried to get rid of the A-10, has terminated
the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System]
recap [recapitalization]. And I am going to come back to the
ABMS [Advanced Battle Management System] system in a minute.
But I am very concerned that, if it is going to be the command
and control platform for all of the branches, that especially
the Army has not been involved in the development of that
platform. And now, as I understand it, Army Futures Command has
expressed very serious reservations about whether or not ABMS
can be the sole command and control platform for the U.S. Army.
But you made a statement in the first part, ``stable and
predictable budgets''. The Air Force has asked to pull the base
budget down. And this is the first time I have ever seen any
agency or branch do this. You have asked to reduce your base
budget by about 20 percent on the Active Duty Component and
increase the OCO funding by almost--you almost double it. I
mean, you increase it by 80 percent, and you are effectively
moving 50 percent, if my calculation is correct, approximately
50 percent of weapon systems sustainment to the OCO budget.
What is the reasoning for this? From the weapon systems
sustainment standpoint, this is contrary to what you would want
if you wanted ``stable and predictable budgets.''
Mr. Manasco. Sir, let me start by saying, yes, as a young
man, I was a soldier and my middle son is a soldier. And so,
the efforts that we have underway with ABMS, we are absolutely
committed to making sure that we do what we have to do to
support troops on the ground. So, I wanted to start there. That
is important to us and, by design, it will be just that. And we
will work very closely with our sister services to bring this
concept of JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and Control] to
life.
Mr. Scott. Yes, and if I may, Mr. Secretary, my point is
they need to be involved in the development from the ground,
from the ground up.
Mr. Manasco. We couldn't agree more.
With respect to the overall budget, sir, our budget in the
Department of the Air Force is roughly $169 billion, and a
little over 15 of that, yes, is in space. And so, we submitted
for the very first time the Space Force budget. And we are
committed to weapon system sustainment [WSS], but, as you may
know, to look at the requirements 2 years out in front, we have
to make some educated guesses around what those requirements
might look like. But in this budget we have over $17 billion
set aside for the WSS account.
Mr. Scott. But the majority of that, at least 50 percent of
that is in the OCO section, correct? Over $8 billion of the $17
billion has been moved to overseas contingency operations,
which actually makes it, quite honestly, more subject to
reductions. Most agencies want a higher base budget and less
OCO because, from a long-term planning standpoint, it is just
more stable and helps you plan for the future. OCO is something
that may happen or may not.
Mr. Manasco. Sir, on those numbers, I just want to make
sure that we have the exact same ones. And so, if it is okay, I
might come back to you. Because you raised a really good
question, but I think there might be some confusion in the
numbers themselves.
Mr. Scott. Okay. So, I am happy to take the answer. I am
looking at a base budget for 2020 of $42 billion; base for 2021
requested, $34 billion. OCO, and the center of the Active Duty
Component, OCO for 2020 is $10.3 billion; OCO for 2021, $17.9
billion. And then, the explanation, the majority of that plus-
up is a transfer from weapon systems sustainment. I am happy
for the Air Force to get back to me with a more detailed
answer. But, typically speaking, base budget is better than
OCO.
Mr. Manasco. We will take that, sir, and come back to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 45.]
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott is into a very important issue
about where the money is coming from. The OCO account, he
correctly points out, is used for sustainment. The question is,
why that? How do you intend to transition away from that in
your base budget?
Those are all questions that we would expect to get back. I
know the staff is going to be coming to you with a series of
questions along that line. Also, with regard to the weapons
account and your balance, how you deal with that. It has been
drawn down. You are going to rebuild it. There are some issues
about the flow of money in and out of accounts. So, staff is
going to go into that in great detail.
Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we will start out a little bit light here in the mood
on the front end. I noticed that recently the Space Force has
figured out their camo [camouflage] uniform. And so, the only
thing I would suggest you can call what you are wearing today
is service dress alphas. That is what we call them in the
Marine Corps. I applaud our brothers in the Army for making the
decision to go back to a World War II era of the belt because
in a real sense, but also what we talk about here is limited
resources, a belt well-worn shows where the excess is. The
point is, on this committee, we look to where we are spending
our money, where we are appropriating the money, and then, you
are spending the money, and where we can be a partner with you
to help you achieve your mission accomplishments. So, we are in
a situation where belt tightening has to happen from time to
time. So, just consider that as the Space Force when you are
considering your service alphas. A well-worn belt would look
probably pretty good.
Now I know we have heard a little bit of comment about
where you might want to put some headquarters other than
Colorado Springs. I am not suggesting we don't put it there.
But I guess, as you look at Space Force, are there any
opportunities or considerations for, let's say, a northern tier
presence as we look at things, not building new bases
necessarily, but using capabilities that already exist to look
at what you are going to be doing as a Space Force to counter
hypersonics, which is horizontal launch or difference in
vertical launch or telemetry as you are matching the satellites
with autonomous vehicles on the ground or anything like that?
Is there anything that you care to share with us at this end as
far as the future?
General Thompson. Congressman, yes, if I can. In fact, as a
result of the establishment of the Space Force, and as we
develop the organizational structure associated with the field
commands, what we have done, in essence, with that and with
headquarters U.S. base command basing, is we are now going to
take a holistic look at all of the potential options, all the
potential locations. We have been directed to go back, open up
the aperture, and look at all of them. And so, that includes
bases. It includes perhaps some non-traditional locations. We
will absolutely establish the criteria we need for each of
these organizations and, then, base them accordingly.
Mr. Bergman. Yes, is one of those criteria going to be
potentially not necessarily co-locating with, but at least
sharing facilities with commercial space?
General Thompson. Sir, we are going to develop all of those
criteria. Some of those may be exactly opportunities with
commercial space. They may be opportunities with civil space.
Certainly they will be opportunities with the Air Force,
perhaps other organizations. Absolutely, we have been
challenged by our leadership to look at that whole problem a
little differently than we have in the past.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. I look forward, as you move forward with
those decisions, in how you are going to marry in the public
and private sector, if you will, to get the capabilities up to
speed as quickly as possible, leveraging in this case private
sector technologies.
I want to switch subjects here for my last few seconds.
This budget request increases pay for flying hours to $6.6
billion. What does this equate to in average monthly flying
hour per pilot? Can anybody throw that out there? And is that
enough to maintain proficiency?
General Wilson. Congressman, I can't give you an exact
specific, but I can tell you over the last few years we have
seen flying hours increase from about 15 hours per month now to
about 19 to 20 hours per month.
Mr. Bergman. Now that is seat in the airframe?
General Wilson. That is seat in the air.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. And how many simulator hours is that
pilot getting a month to, let's say, do the mission prep, all
of that, in the simulator, where it is a whole lot cheaper and
a better training environment, then, before they strap it on
and get airborne?
General Wilson. Congressman, we are balancing both, right?
Because we are also upgrading our simulators to be able to do
this, so I can connect virtually and actually do large force
exercises connected and distributed through simulators. And so,
simulators and moving forward with our sim infrastructure is a
big part of it. But we are balancing both to be able to do it
in sim as well as there is nothing like doing it in the air
real time.
Mr. Bergman. Yes, and we are in an unclassified setting
here. So, you know that the training and capabilities that we
are going to need in our pilots with airframes or flying like
the F-35 and others, whether they be manned or unmanned, the
best training initially to get them--the ``switchology,'' if
you will, or ``thinkology,'' or whatever you want to call it,
is going to be the first phase in the simulator.
And I am pretty sure you would agree with this, that you
can create an airframe quicker than you can create an
experienced pilot.
General Wilson. I agree.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. So, as we go forward in pilot retention,
knowing that the market for commercial pilots is going to be
good and the family always gets a vote, as we leverage that
experienced pilot and keep them in a seat, whether it is in a
Guard, Air Guard unit, whether it is in an Air Force Reserve
unit, whatever it is, I want to compliment the Air Force for
when you went with the associate squadrons well over a decade
ago because that is the model going forward.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
I want to ask you a question, sir: where you learned in the
Marine Corps about the purpose of a belt?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bergman. Our Class A uniforms have always had an
external belt. Since the Navy is not here to defend themselves,
I am just going to have a Marine, since we are both, by the
way, Department of the Navy--so, by the way, if the Space Force
wants any tips and tricks about dealing as a department within
a bigger department, the Navy wears the double-breasted navy
blue coat.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
Mr. Bergman. And sometimes it is a good camouflage in its
own right. Whereas, the belt on the Marine Corps, we are a very
physical service. So, that is where I was going with the belt.
Mr. Garamendi. I appreciate the information. It is
invaluable.
[Laughter.]
Gentlemen, we have another hearing going on simultaneously
which two of us or three of us should be attending.
There are a series of questions. I draw your attention to
Mr. Lamborn's opening statement in which he raised several
points, as did I. We have concerns about all of these issues.
Staff will be back with you. And the questions I have asked,
one of them is very timely, the corona, how it affects our
readiness. I mentioned Korea; Italy, the United States, and so
forth. So, please get back to us with that. And at this point,
this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 3, 2020
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 3, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 3, 2020
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Manasco. The Air Force allocates Weapon Systems Sustainment
Enduring OCO funding proportionally across weapon systems supporting
contingency operations; in FY21 enduring OCO accounts for $2.1B across
the department. Additionally, OSD directed the Department of the Air
Force to transfer an additional $8.9B of Base requirements to OCO as
part of the FY21PB submission, to comply with the Base/OCO topline
split in the Bipartisan Budget Act. [See page 17.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 3, 2020
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. Garamendi. Despite a Bipartisan Budget Agreement providing
planning certainty to the services, the Air Force appears to continue
relying on OCO to fund base activities. The FY2021 budget request
reflects this by putting nearly $8.8 billion associated with Weapon
System Sustainment in the OCO request. With the Bipartisan Budget Act
expiring at the end of FY2021, can you describe how the Air Force will
put discipline back into the budget process to program enduring
requirements in the base request?
Mr. Manasco. $8.86 billion was originally programmed as a base
budget requirement, but was later moved to OCO as part of a DOD-wide
decision in order to comply with the Base/OCO topline split in the
Bipartisan Budget Act. The Department of the Air Force programs Weapons
System Sustainment within the same disciplined process as the rest of
the base budget requirements, and will continue to work within DOD
guidance to build our FY22 request.
Mr. Garamendi. The FY21 budget request would result in the
retirement of 10 KC-10 and 13 KC-135 aircraft. U.S. Transportation
Command has consistently expressed concerns about the capacity of the
tanker fleet to meet operational demands, and included the restoration
of these 23 aircraft in their Unfunded Priorities List. Can you please
reconcile the Air Force budget decision to retire these aircraft given
the warfighter requirement and the programmatic delays in the KC-46
program? What is Boeing's plan to resolve the performance issues with
the Remote Visual System and when can we anticipate that the issue will
be resolved?
Mr. Manasco. Our decision to retire legacy tankers was one of the
two hardest decisions we made at the endgame of our service budget
deliberations. The situation with the tanker portfolio is
representative of the classic tension between a combatant commander
that's looking at a two-year problem to solve, and a service trying to
build a force that wins in 2030. That tension has always been there,
and always will be there. We looked across the portfolio of tankers,
and took into account the congressional mandate that we never go below
479. The divestiture numbers we're asking for in the case of KC-135
represents 3 percent of the overall KC-135 fleet. In order to mitigate
the risk to the combatant commander, we committed to him and to the
Secretary of Defense, that if we go into a high-end contingency, we
will put every KC-46 we have into the fight. The risk and mitigation
will be in place until the KC-46 comes online, which we expect to be in
FY23 to FY24. We are still negotiating with Boeing on the technical
scope of the remote vision system deficiency resolution. This is a
hardware problem requiring a hardware fix. We are targeting the FY23 to
FY24 timeframe to have the fix in place. We will provide updates as we
know more.
Mr. Garamendi. In order to address retention issues, the Air Force
has been looking at the criteria by which they make basing decisions
with an eye towards including portability of professional licensure for
military spouses and the quality of the public education system around
installations, can you tell us more about how the Air Force plans to
implement these additional criteria?
Mr. Manasco. This Support of Military Families initiative is
integral to our retention, recruitment and readiness goals. Starting in
Spring of 2020, the Air Force plans to consider licensure portability
and public education quality in our basing decisions. The Air Force
recently shared our evaluation criteria and methodology with Congress,
state and local communities. The public education framework will
evaluate public school districts' educational aspects and ability to
support transferring military children in Pre-kindergarten through 12th
Grade near Air Force installations. The licensure portability framework
will be used to assess state laws, governor's executive orders, and
state Supreme Court or bar association rules and the ability for an
area to accommodate licenses earned from other locations.
Mr. Garamendi. Can you please define the impact that border wall
reprogramming actions had and will have on Air Force readiness? What is
your plan for projects that were deferred by last year's 10 U.S.C. 2808
notification, seeing as how you will not receive a backfill for these
projects?
Mr. Manasco. Thus far, deferral of projects for the border wall has
had minimal impact on readiness. A majority of projects deferred were
MILCON recapitalization, replacing existing infrastructure that is
exceeding its design life. These facilities will, in the interim,
continue to be sustained with AF O&M funds to prevent any immediate
readiness impacts. All deferred projects remain important to the AF.
Going forward, we will work with OSD regarding how best to address the
deferred projects.
Mr. Garamendi. You under-executed flight hours in 2018 and 2019,
resulting in a substantial depletion of your Working Capital Fund. How
are you doing with FY2020 flight hour execution? Is the Working Capital
Fund issue getting worse? Will the extra Flight Hour Program funds in
your FY2021 request solve the issue, or can we expect to see another
reprogramming request this year?
General Wilson. The Air Force has executed $2.45B or 31.1% of its
FY20 Enacted FHP budget ($7.9B) through the end of January 2020. We are
slightly under execution goals, but we typically see increased flying
hours in the spring. Air Force Working Capital Fund (AFWCF) currently
remains an issue. The Air Force plans to maintain the solvency of the
AFWCF in FY20 through a number of actions, which will require a cash
infusion. Ultimately, we will restore the health of the AFWCF through
our FY21 PB request in two ways: 1) Our FY21 Flying Hour Program (FHP)
request (in terms of hours) was reduced to essentially the FY18 & FY19
actual hours flown, which will alleviate the likelihood of any
underexecution, and 2) Our FY21 FHP request includes substantial WCF
rate increases to enable AFWCF revenue recovery and alleviate future
year solvency concerns.
Mr. Garamendi. You are not meeting your own readiness standards,
yet the Air Force only funds the Weapon Systems Sustainment accounts at
87% of the requirement. How will you generate more readiness while not
fully funding these accounts? Are you funding to maximum executable?
What are your barriers to increasing maximum executable in these
accounts?
General Wilson. 87% funding enables the Air Force to sustain
targeted readiness gains through depot-level operations. Other ``levers
of readiness'' such as the flying hour program contribute to building
AF readiness. To generate more readiness with available funds, the Air
Force is pursuing key initiatives such as predictive maintenance and
the Strategic Sustainment Framework. The Air Force does not fund Weapon
Systems Sustainment at a maximum executable level. Currently, 94% is
the maximum level, but could incrementally increase 1% each year to
97% through responsible and consistent funding growth. Barriers to
increasing to maximum executable include the need to balance near-term
risk between readiness, future capability, and modernization within top
line/resources.
Mr. Garamendi. In your view, can the proposed expansion of the
Nevada Training and Testing Range be carried out in a manner that both
enhances military readiness and is compatible with stewardship of
natural and cultural resources?
General Wilson. Absolutely. The Air Force has extensive
environmental and cultural resources programs for the Nevada Test and
Training Range (NTTR). We will not only continue but expand these
programs. The Air Force spends, on average, over $3.5M annually on the
NTTR environmental and cultural management activities. The proposed
expansion meets AF needs without adversely impacting the treasure that
is the Desert National Wildlife Range.
Mr. Garamendi. The Air Force proposes a huge expansion of the
footprint of the Nevada Training and Testing Range? While there is a
clear readiness argument for the expansion, there are also significant
concerns from many sectors. Can the expansions be phased in to allow
time to work through the issues with other stakeholders?
General Wilson. The NTTR is currently over capacity and without an
expansion will fail to meet military training requirements. We cannot
train like we fight or use the southern range for large training
events, such as Red Flag, with advanced weapons systems. The Air Force
has engaged extensively with other stakeholders and will continue to do
so moving forward.
Mr. Garamendi. Given your service's budget priorities, what is your
target F-35 cost per flight hour (CPFH) that allows you to afford this
aircraft? When do you need to achieve this target CPFH to validate your
programming assumptions across the FYDP? What is your service doing to
reduce F-35 sustainment costs to help achieve the target CPFH?
General Wilson. The Air Force established the following F-35 CPFH
goals for 2025: Threshold $29K CPFH and Objective $25K CPFH.
The Air Force is assisting the Joint Program Office in sustainment
contract negotiations to reduce demand for parts and labor to drive
down costs.
Mr. Garamendi. There has been some discussion about pursuing a
long-term Performance Based Logistics contract for the sustainment of
the F-35. Can you provide your views on this proposal, especially in
light of any concerns you may have given current performance of F-35
sustainment and questions regarding intellectual property and data
rights? Are you comfortable that you understand enough about how F-35
sustainment costs will impact the Air Force, and do you have any
thoughts about how we can transition more of the responsibility for F-
35 sustainment to the services?
General Wilson. The Air Force doesn't believe we have sufficient
data to make an informed decision on a Performance Based Logistics
(PBL) contract at this time. We continue to work with OSD and the Joint
Program Office to gain the necessary data that will provide the
analytical rigor necessary to support any potential future OSD decision
regarding a PBL approach.
Working closely with the Joint Program Office, the Air Force is
exploring areas where future organic (vice industry) management may be
more viable/cost effective.
Mr. Garamendi. What are your top three priorities in standing up
the Space Force? What are the opportunities and challenges?
General Thompson.
Space missions are vital to national security and our
space forces play an integral role in all-domain operations as part of
the Joint Force today. Our first priority is ensuring the execution of
space operations globally continues without degradation due to
transition activities.
We must develop mission focused capabilities. The Space
Force is being stood up to organize, train and equip to provide freedom
of operation for the United States in, from, and to space and to
provide prompt and sustained space operations in a distinct warfighting
domain; we must develop space warfighting doctrine, education,
training, and space tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The Space Force will be lean, agile and mission-focused
to minimize cost and overhead. We are taking a ``clean sheet'' approach
to infuse innovation and improvement, streamlining processes to reduce
costs, save money, and appropriately steward Department resources.
Mr. Garamendi. How do you ensure that the Space Force can foster a
culture that provides the skills and focus necessary to increase
readiness for space as a warfighting domain and gives us the tools and
framework to deter conflict in space?
General Thompson. Fostering a culture starts with domain-specific
training and education and developing necessary warfighting skills
through exercise and doctrine development. We have overhauled our
initial skills training for officer and enlisted space operators,
greatly expanding undergraduate space training, making it more relevant
for the warfighting domain. We have implemented and expanded our
advanced training for space operations and intelligence to include
building Space Flag, our premier training exercise. We have also added
foreign partners to the exercise. Coupled with well-established events
like the Schriever Wargame, we believe that the best deterrence is a
well-trained force ready for any contingency. We intend to establish
several Space Force Centers, or Center equivalents, to execute space-
unique functions. They will be co-located with Air Force counterpart
Centers to the maximum extent practicable in order to leverage existing
infrastructure and resources. Space Force Centers will be established
within existing DOD resources, with modest initial manpower increases
included in the President's Budget PB request for FY 2021.
Mr. Garamendi. How to you intend to grow the space cadre of
professionals? Will you require non-voluntary assignment from the other
services? Can you talk to what operations support and sustainment
functions the Air Force will continue to provide the Space Force so
that we minimize unnecessary duplication?
General Thompson. Initially, the Space Force will be a mission-
focused force comprised of uniformed military personnel and Department
of the Air Force civilians organized, trained and equipped to provide
prompt and sustained space operations. The new Armed Force will create
appropriate career tracks across relevant specialties, including space-
specific operations, intelligence, engineering, acquisition, science,
and cyber. Our military is an all-volunteer force. Our goal is to
transfer personnel on a voluntary basis as the missions, units and
functions they perform are transferred to the Space Force. The Space
Force will leverage the Department of the Air Force for more than 80%
of its enabling functions like base support, real property management,
IT and physical security.
Mr. Garamendi.How many civilians do you project the Space Force
will need, what functions do you anticipate they will perform, and what
is your plan to attract the best possible talent for this workforce?
Will there be a new category for Space Force civilians, or will they
serve within the broader Department of the Air Force program? Are you
confident that you have the authorities needed?
General Thompson. All civilian employees will remain Department of
the Air Force civilians whether they serve the Air Force or the Space
Force. A new category will not be established. The civilian workforce
plays a critical part in executing space operations today, and their
role will continue to be critical as the Space Force grows and expands
its mission set. Our FY21 budget request includes 3,545 civilian
authorizations, with an expected growth to 4,247 across the FYDP. The
Space Force is exploring use of all available alternate hiring
authorities provided in current legislation. For example, expansion of
the DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project
(AcqDemo) to Space Force civilians could enable advantages including a
sped up hiring process, the potential for faster advancement than the
standard federal promotion process, flexibility to adequately
compensate employees, and expansion of training and development
opportunities. In total, this promotes a culture where the
contributions of civilian employees are more clearly recognized and
rewarded.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. My understanding is that the Joint All Domain Command
and Control (JADC2) program is one of the highest priorities for the
Department of Defense. Can you tell the subcommittee why this program
is so important to the joint fight?
General Wilson. As the technology that enables warfighting and
assists warfighters continues to become more sophisticated, the Air
Force, the other Services, and our partners must evolve to develop more
agile tools to support the warfighter. We know our adversaries are
becoming more sophisticated and adapting their technology for future
conflict; the National Defense Strategy of 2018 lists this as a key
factor of the complex global security environment the United States is
entering. We cannot afford to remain reliant on the status quo; we will
adapt our force for the future fight. Joint All Domain Command and
Control, or JADC2, is an initiative intended to give warfighters
decision advantage. Decision advantage is the ability to execute
decision-making processes faster than an adversary. Ultimately, in
conflict, this will allow commanders to prosecute the dynamic targeting
process quickly. The goal is to give warfighters the ability to carry
out thousands of dynamic targets in hundreds, if not tens, of hours.
This is a dramatic improvement over how we, both as an Air Force and a
Joint Force, operate today. JADC2 proposes a few key attributes to gain
and maintain decision advantage:
1. Sensing grid--Interconnected sensors that can utilize artificial
intelligence/machine learning to process information at the edge. It
enables us to provide warfighters with actionable intelligence and
timely situational awareness.
2. Robust, resilient, and redundant communications network--Assures
critical communications in environments where adversaries attempt to
deny or disrupt traditional means of communication.
3. Distributed battle management--Empowers commanders to make
decisions based on guidance from leadership, with knowledge of local
conditions.
4. Effects convergence--Provides warfighters the ability to
converge effects from multiple domains, in synchronized time and space,
on any target. This attribute of JADC2 not only speeds up the kill-
chain process, but also increases the potency of the effects available
to any commander, any time.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. The mission capable rates of our aircraft have swung
back and forth like a pendulum since the end of the Cold War. Is
legislation needed to require the Air Force to constantly maintain
their entire fleet of aircraft with a minimum 80% mission capable rate?
General Wilson. No legislation is required at this time. Mission
capable rate is only a partial measurement of readiness, and not all
fleets require 80% mission capable rate to meet operational
requirements. In fact, legislation absent top-line budgetary increases
could be counterproductive as we seek to balance readiness, capability
and modernization. Consistent funding provides the necessary
predictability to address readiness challenges.
Mr. Scott. JSTARS provides a significant component of the current
fight's command and control capability. The technical experience and
experience those operators have is critical to shaping ABMS. As ABMS
moves forward in its development and test cycles, can you ensure us
that the JSTARS operators will be engaged in helping shape the system's
operational requirements? When do you expect there will be an
operational test or demonstration at Robins AFB to get those operators
fully engaged and confident in the future capability?
General Wilson. The Air Force acknowledges the technical expertise
at Warner Robins AFB; particularly in the areas of battle management,
command, and control. Early and frequent engagement with the
operational community is a core component of the ABMS effort. This is
primarily managed through the combatant commands and major commands in
order to ensure broad alignment across the force and with future
operating requirements. Operational planners, battle managers, and
intelligence analysts are already involved in planning ABMS onramp
exercises and in shaping future development. Future ABMS planning will
include a broad cross section of the operational community including
operators from systems such as JSTARS, AWACS, Air Operations Centers,
Control and Reporting Centers, and Distributed Common Ground System.
Exercises are more likely to take place where there are large test
ranges available to facilitate joint operational testing. Operators
will connect to these exercises from a wide variety of distributed
processing and C2 nodes. This distributed architecture is another key
component of the ABMS effort.
Mr. Scott. The Army has stated that the Advanced Battle Management
System cannot be the sole solution to their multi-domain operations
command and control. I'm concerned with the capability and timeline of
ABMS and the lack of current fleet modernization, but having each
service focus on its own C2 capability is how we ended up with billion
dollar programs that can't communicate with each other. What is the Air
Force doing to engage the Army to provide warfighter multi-domain
operations C2 requirements as ABMS moves forward? How integrated is the
Army in ABMS development and test efforts in order to work toward a
true joint command and control capability instead of the ``every
service has its own way'' system we have now?
General Wilson. The Air Force and Army are already engaged on this
subject, most recently at the Army Joint All-Domain Command and Control
Home-on-Home event. The next engagement will be at the next scheduled
Army-Air Force Warfighter talks. The Army participated in the first
ABMS exercise with radars and long range fires. The Army has also been
invited to participate in the next ABMS exercise with an infantry
company, Sentinel radars, long range fires, and Apache helicopters. We
expect to co-invest with the Army in certain technology areas including
networks and data standards. We will work with the other services to
build the connectivity required for a network-of-networks while we
develop a concept for truly joint command and control over that
network. ABMS is the Air Force technology investment in hardware,
software, and digital infrastructure to enable this connectivity
between the Air and Space Forces and with the broader Joint Force.
Mr. Scott. Are the Air Force's Aggressor squadrons at risk of
irrelevance from a lack of long-term recapitalization? What are the
advantages of using fourth generation aircraft in an aggressor role to
prepare for possible combat against Communist China or Russia? What are
the disadvantages of using 4th generation aircraft in an aggressor
role? What is the ideal aircraft for use by aggressor aircraft
squadrons?
General Wilson. Yes. The Air Force will continue to evaluate this
risk as we prioritize numerous training and readiness requirements,
across the force and across domains, and strive to balance operational
training infrastructure investments to best deliver lethal, full
spectrum readiness within AF TOA constraints.
Fourth generation aircraft are cheaper to operate; have a higher
aircraft availability rate, and can provide more sorties in a given
time frame (utilization rate) than fifth generation aircraft, noting
that a mix of fourth and fifth generation Aggressor aircraft is
required to prepare for near-peer/peer threats.
Fourth generation aircraft cannot replicate Fifth generation
aircraft capabilities, nor provide low observable characteristics. A
mix of Fourth and Fifth generation Aggressor aircraft is required,
noting that as Fourth generation Aggressor aircraft age, they require
hardware and software upgrades to remain relevant.
There is no one ideal aircraft. Given that our potential
adversaries operate Third, Fourth, and Fifth generation aircraft, our
professional Aggressor force must replicate throughout the spectrum of
threat aircraft capabilities, tactics, techniques, and procedures in
order to prepare our combat forces for near-peer/peer threats, noting
that a mix of both Fourth and Fifth generation Aggressor aircraft is
necessary to allow for sufficient training at multiple locations.
Mr. Scott. In standing up the United States Space Force, are there
things you can do today at the onset that would prevent the Space Force
from becoming a ``Hollow'' force in the future?
General Thompson. Proper initial resourcing: The Air Force
submitted the first ever separate budget request for space as part of
the FY21 President's Budget cycle, identifying approximately $15.4B of
transferred funding from across the DOD to resource the Space Force.
With this budget request, the Air Force transferred all funding
associated with space missions and functions to the Space Force,
ensuring the new Armed Force was resourced to perform its mission.
Future funding tailored to threats: Moving forward, the Space Force
must have stable and consistent funding to enable it to address growing
threats in the space domain. The Space Force is committed to minimizing
cost and bureaucracy, but its end strength and budget should reflect
rising threats from our adversaries. Having an independent budget will
allow us to continue to advocate for DOD resources so we can protect
and defend the space domain.
Consolidation of space capabilities from across DOD: Establishment
of the Space Force represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
address long-standing challenges associated with fractured and
disparate space architectures and capabilities. The SECDEF has made
clear his vision is to consolidate the preponderance of space forces of
all Armed Forces into the Space Force to address these challenges. To
realize his vision, OSD is leading a study with the Army, Navy, and
Space Force to identify the missions, functions, and units that should
transfer to the new Service from across DOD. A decision is anticipated
later this spring.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM
Mr. Kim. General Wilson, I understand that the Air Force is
considering a change to the sustainment strategy for C-17 and concluded
a business case analysis last year. Worryingly, the Air Force has
acknowledged that the changes they are contemplating would degrade
material readiness for the C-17 fleet. Joint Base McGuire is home to 14
C-17 aircraft of the 305th Air Mobility Wing. These very high-demand
aircraft can only support warfighter and humanitarian requirements if
they continue to have the high mission capable rates operators have
come to rely upon.
1) To your knowledge were TRANSCOM and the Guard meaningfully
consulted in the business case analysis? I am concerned that the
warfighter may not have had a say in a contemplated change which would
reduce mission capable rates.
2) As the USAF works towards achieving 80% mission capable rates
across the entire service, why would the USAF contemplate a change they
acknowledge will reduce mission capable rates on a platform that has
maintained or exceeded these 80% rates for more than 20 years, rather
than use the existing sustainment arrangement as a model for other
platforms? I do not believe trading an acknowledged degradation in
readiness on a high-demand asset in exchange for disputed cost savings
achieved over a 50-year window--with no ROI for 14 years--is the right
thing to do for the warfighter or the taxpayer.
General Wilson. In 2019, the Air Force completed a Product Support
Business Case Analysis which suggested moving more heavy maintenance
from the contractor's maintenance location to the Air Logistics Complex
at Warner Robins could result in $7.2B savings across the program's
life cycle. No changes that would degrade materiel readiness were
considered, as the ground rules for the analysis required all courses
of action must maintain current or improve C-17 virtual fleet
performance (USAF and partner fleets). The Air Force's Air Mobility
Command represented the user throughout the Product Support-Business
Case Analysis effort. AMC is the air component of the U.S.
Transportation Command and is responsible for a Total Force effort to
execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global Reach missions. The C-
17 program office continues to assess feasibility of implementing any
changes to the system's product support strategy.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. I am concerned about the future of C-17 Globemaster
sustainment. The current sustainment arrangement is a model program
which has delivered 80%+ mission capable rates every year for more than
20 years, in a true partnership between the contractor and the air
logistics center at Warner Robins. Half or more of the heavy
maintenance is performed by the depot, with the contractor augmenting
with engineering, supply chain, management, and additional heavy
maintenance capabilities. I understand that the Air Force is
considering a change to the sustainment strategy for C-17 and concluded
a business case analysis last year. Worryingly, the Air Force has
acknowledged that the changes they are contemplating (pulling 100% of
USAF fleet heavy maintenance organic) would degrade material readiness
for the C-17 fleet. Joint Base Charleston is home to 40 C-17 aircraft,
tied for the largest fleet in the U.S. These very high-demand aircraft
can only support warfighter and humanitarian requirements if they
continue to have the high mission capable rates operators have come to
rely upon.
As the USAF works towards achieving 80% mission capable rates
across the entire service, why would the USAF contemplate a change they
acknowledge will reduce mission capable rates on a platform that has
maintained or exceeded these 80% rates for more than 20 years, rather
than use the existing sustainment arrangement as a model for other
platforms?
General Wilson. In 2019, the Air Force completed a Product Support
Business Case Analysis which suggested moving more heavy maintenance
from the contractor's maintenance location to the Air Logistics Complex
at Warner Robins could result in $7.2B savings across the program's
life cycle. No changes that would degrade materiel readiness were
considered, as the ground rules for the analysis required all courses
of action must maintain current or improve C-17 virtual fleet
performance (USAF and partner fleets). Additionally, no changes to the
contractor's role in providing engineering support and supply chain
management are being contemplated. The C-17 program office continues to
assess feasibility of implementing any changes to the system's product
support strategy.
[all]