[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


.                                    
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 118-28]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING

                                   ON

          FISCAL YEAR 2024 ROTARY WING AVIATION BUDGET REQUEST

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             APRIL 19, 2023


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-384                    WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
 
              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

                 ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
PAT FALLON, Texas                    PATRICK RYAN, New York
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
NICK LaLOTA, New York                STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia

                 Max Huntley, Professional Staff Member
               James Vallario, Professional Staff Member
                    Payson Ruhl, Research Assistant
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces...........     3
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, 
  Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.........     1

                               WITNESSES

Bush, Hon. Douglas R., Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.........................     5
McCurry, MG Michael ``Mac,'' USA, Commanding General, U.S. Army 
  Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Novosel.................     6
Stefany, Frederick J., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Research, Development, and Acquisition; accompanied by LtGen 
  Michael S. Cederholm, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, 
  U.S. Marine Corps; and RADM Andrew J. Loiselle, USN, Director, 
  Air Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations..     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Bush, Hon. Douglas R., joint with MG Michael ``Mac'' McCurry.    34
    Stefany, Frederick J., joint with LtGen Michael S. Cederholm 
      and RADM Andrew J. Loiselle................................    46
    Wittman, Hon. Robert J.......................................    31

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. LaLota...................................................    59

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Courtney.................................................    63
    Mr. Jackson..................................................    64
    Mrs. McClain.................................................    64
    Dr. McCormick................................................    65
          
          
          FISCAL YEAR 2024 ROTARY WING AVIATION BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
                         Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 19, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J. 
Wittman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Wittman. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces will come to order. I want to 
thank the members for joining us, thank our witnesses for 
joining us today. And I appreciate all of the efforts that you 
have undertaken to be here with us for this important hearing.
    I want to welcome everyone and let us know that we are on 
track for a fiscal 2024 budget request for the Army, Navy, and 
United States Marine Corps rotary wing aviation programs. And I 
look forward to discussing the progress and challenges of our 
rotary wing communities and how our services are allocating 
resources to remain at the forefront of rotary innovation and 
improving the capabilities of our Armed Forces.
    Our rotary wing--our rotary--I am sorry, I am doing my 
``wascally wabbit'' impression up here. Our rotary wing 
platforms--our rotary wing platforms play a vital role in our 
overall force--yeah, ``wascally wabbit,'' yeah. I'll tell you 
who I need to get to say it is Rich McCormick down there, 
because he has been on the stick before.
    All right. Our rotary wing platforms play a vital role--I 
will get it--in our overall force structure, providing 
unparalleled flexibility and mobility to our warfighters, as 
well as critical support to humanitarian and disaster relief 
efforts around the globe. These advanced platforms will ensure 
that our men and women in uniform have the most cutting-edge 
and reliable equipment to carry out their missions safely and 
effectively.
    However, these modernization initiatives are not without 
their challenges. For example, as the Army continues its 
ambitious and aggressive Future Vertical Lift modernization 
effort, which aims to develop and field two major platforms 
simultaneously, we must make sure that they are responsibly 
using the unique acquisition authorities granted by Congress.
    I remain concerned about a recent GAO [U.S. Government 
Accountability Office] report indicating that the Army is 
failing to fully meet complete cost estimates, cost 
assessments, and business cases for the Future Long Range 
Assault Aircraft [FLRAA] and Future Attack Reconnaissance 
Aircraft [FARA], and their associated tactical unmanned 
aircraft systems.
    With the fiscal year 2024 Future Vertical Lift request 
nearing $2 billion, it is vital that the Army demonstrates that 
they are good stewards of the U.S. tax dollar and identify and 
fully complete this mission-critical data to make well-informed 
decisions and set up these acquisition efforts for success.
    Moreover, I remain deeply [concerned] that by the end of 
fiscal year 2023, we will have spent $2 billion on the FARA 
program, yet we still lack an analysis of alternatives [AOA], a 
critical document that ensures major acquisition decisions are 
based on a thorough evaluation of options. Frankly, it is 
alarming that there is no AOA for FARA.
    As the Army considers alternatives and a projected 
timeframe that would deliver in the 2030s, it is hard for me to 
conceptualize a manned rotary wing aircraft when we are even 
today proliferating commercial unmanned rotary wing 
capabilities that would better support, at a more effective 
price point, the Army's reconnaissance mission.
    As for the Army's legacy platforms, I remain concerned with 
the Army's trepidation in choosing a path forward for the CH-
47F Chinook and their lack of any real plan to keep the AH-64E 
Apache modernized. These platforms will be flying for the next 
few decades, so it is imperative that our heavy-lift and attack 
fleets are modernized to remain relevant. With the Chinook and 
the Apache making up the lion's share of the work of the two of 
the Nation's four major rotorcraft sites, I am growing 
increasingly concerned about the future health of our 
rotorcraft industrial base. I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses today on how they plan to steer us away from this 
oncoming cliff.
    When it comes to the Navy's rotary fleet, I remain 
encouraged by the progress of the service life extension of the 
Navy's MH-60s and look forward to learning how the Navy plans 
to proceed with its own future vertical lift needs.
    Naturally, there are some unique missions that any Navy 
future rotorcraft is going to need to accomplish, such as anti-
submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and surface warfare, 
but I see no reason why the Navy cannot take the lessons 
learned from the Army's efforts to fill overlapping 
requirements such as ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance], targeting, and logistics support. In this way 
they will find the proper replacement for MH-60s quicker.
    As for the Marine Corps, I remain encouraged by the 
maturity of the Marine Corps CH-53K, better known as the Kilo 
heavy-lift helicopter, and was pleased to see the program 
recently entered full-rate production. This heavy-lift 
helicopter will significantly expand the operational capacity 
of our Marine Corps, enabling them to transport more cargo, 
troops, and equipment over greater distances and under 
challenging conditions. However, with a platform this size and 
this technologically advanced, we must keep a constant focus on 
cost to make sure this program is delivering at an appropriate 
price point.
    As the Marine Corps continues down the path of Force Design 
2030--which has involved significant cuts to its rotary fleet--
I believe it is imperative that we make sure that theater 
commanders are being fully consulted on all force reductions, 
so requirements do not go unfulfilled, nor is the burden 
unexpectedly placed on other services.
    Finally, I believe we must continue to invest in unmanned 
solutions to augment our manned platforms across all services. 
The integration of autonomous systems into our rotary wing 
fleet will enhance mission capabilities while reducing risk to 
our personnel. By leveraging advances in machine learning and 
unmanned technologies, we can develop cost-effective, high-
performance solutions that will be invaluable in intelligence, 
surveillance, reconnaissance, and logistics support roles.
    I look forward to hearing from the services on their 
differing viewpoints on the role of unmanned platforms and in 
meeting future rotorcraft requirements.
    As we embark on this important discussion, I encourage each 
member on this subcommittee to engage in thoughtful and 
rigorous debate, bearing in mind the vital role these assets 
play in ensuring the safety and security of our Nation and our 
allies. We owe it to our service members and the American 
people to ensure that the resources allocated to our rotary 
wing programs are used effectively and efficiently.
    Again I thank our witnesses for their dedication and 
commitment to the defense of our Nation and for appearing 
before us today.
    And now I would like to yield to my friend and our ranking 
member from the great State of New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. Don.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the 
Appendix on page 31.]

 STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD NORCROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW 
 JERSEY, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate that and for 
the witnesses coming here today. We certainly appreciate it.
    Rotary wing aircraft have served for generations in diverse 
combat and logistics support purposes across the military 
branches. After many years of exceptionally capable and 
reliable rotary wing aircraft operations, each service has 
entered a different stage of modernization of its fleets. 
Successful modernization capable of affordable rotary wing 
aircraft is essential foundation of the joint force of the 
future.
    To this end, the Army will select an innovative tiltrotor 
aircraft as its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, FLRAA, 
system, and will transition from a rapid prototype effort to a 
formal program of record for fiscal year 2024. The subcommittee 
needs to make better understanding of what risk reduction 
activities are in front of us as we move towards this 
milestone.
    Also, the Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, 
FARA, is in early development, with its prototype builds 
underway from two prime contractors. However, we understand 
that this effort is now delayed due to problems with 
development of the Improved Turbine Engine. I look forward to 
Secretary Bush providing an update on this effort.
    I also have to say that I am disappointed the Army's 2024 
request again does not fund procurement for the CH-47F Block 2 
Chinook 1. I have concerns that the continued delays for the 
Chinook Block 2 production, compounded with the shutdown of the 
V-22 construction line, creates a tremendous risk in the 
industrial base, both of those being in Philadelphia, somewhere 
between 1,100 and 1,500 workers. So, we need to hear the Army's 
way ahead for Block 2 Chinook production and stabilization 
effort taken or you are going to take to minimize this risk.
    Turning to the Navy, the fleet workhorse, the MH-60, has 
completed procurement. The MH-60s will enter service life 
extension program in 2023, and the MH-60R will be right behind 
the S model. We want to hear from the Navy witnesses how they 
will keep these aircrafts relevant into the next decade.
    We also want to better understand the Navy's interest and 
plans, if any, for the future vertical lift and how leveraging 
the Army's work over the past few years is going forward.
    For the Marine Corps, I am pleased to see that the Force 
Design 2030 analysis validates its need for the CH-53K heavy-
lift helicopter. Given that the commitment for the 53-K last 
year Congress authorized block buy authority for the NDAA 
[National Defense Authorization Act] for 2023 and 2024 
procurement blocks. The exception is that the authority will 
assist with controlling the program costs.
    We look forward to hearing what impact the authority had, 
has had towards the objective. Also, Secretary Stefany's 
perspective on this program would be a good candidate for a 
multiyear procurement authority in future years.
    I am concerned, however, about the Marine Corps AH-1Z Cobra 
light attack helicopter squadron deviations. I hope that the 
Marine Corps will meet its global force present commitments, if 
necessary to provide sufficient power to combatant commanders 
during a period of conflict.
    Finally, we are interested to know what each service is 
doing to increase aircrafts' survivability. How are you working 
together to leverage research and investment in our 
survivability equipment, especially from your common aircraft? 
Our helicopter pilots and aircrew deserve the best self-
protection safety systems that are available. And certainly 
there are people in our committee who know that firsthand.
    And I would like to thank you for your upcoming testimony.
    And, Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. Don, appreciate your 
reflection there. I think that is a great place to start with 
our witnesses.
    We are going to go to Mr. Bush first, and then Major 
General McCurry, Mr. Stefany. And I know, Mr. Stefany, you are 
going to be giving your briefing here for Lieutenant General 
Cederholm and Rear Admiral Loiselle.
    So, Mr. Bush, we will begin with you.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS R. BUSH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
        ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY

    Mr. Bush. Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Norcross, and 
distinguished members of the House Armed Services Committee, 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, good afternoon. 
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss 
the Army's rotary wing aviation modernization efforts and the 
resources requested in the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2024.
    I am pleased to be joined by my teammate, Major General 
Michael McCurry, the Commanding General of the United States 
Army Aviation Center of Excellence. We appreciate you are 
making our written statement a part of the record for today's 
hearing.
    With your support, the Army's fiscal year 2024 budget 
request gives us the opportunity to maintain critical momentum 
across the Army's aviation modernization programs. The Army's 
budget request demonstrates our commitment to the Future 
Vertical Lift [FVL] portfolio, composed of the Future Long 
Range Assault Aircraft, Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, 
Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System, and Launched Effects 
to deliver the Army of 2030.
    It also reflects our keen focus on our enduring fleet by 
making prudent investments to address safety, obsolescence, and 
fleet ``rightsizing'' during a period of transformational 
change for the Army's aviation community.
    In total, the President's budget request for 2024 includes 
$39.2 billion for overall Army research, development, and 
procurement. And broken down further, that is $23.4 billion for 
procurement, and $15.8 billion for research. Aviation R&D 
[research and development] within that includes $3 billion for 
procurement and $2 billion for R&D.
    These resources are balanced between investments for FVL 
modernization capabilities, ongoing production, and targeted 
modernization of our current fleet.
    As part of our modernization strategy, the Army is fully 
and responsibly, in my view, utilizing new acquisition 
authorities provided by Congress in recent years, such as the 
Urgent Need Pathway, Middle Tier Acquisition Pathway, Software 
Acquisition Pathway, to make the Army's acquisition system move 
much more quickly than in the past.
    For example, the Army is using the adaptive acquisition 
framework authorities, in particular Middle Tier, to deliver 
FLRAA on accelerated schedule with appropriate acquisition 
oversight. The Army executed a down-select this past year based 
on the Source Selection Board's thorough review and analysis of 
proposals.
    The Source Selection Board, comprised of comprehensive set 
of subject matter experts from the requirements community, 
contracting, logistics, engineering, testing, and program 
management elements of the Army, determined the successful 
proposal based on best value to the Army. The Army awarded the 
FLRAA base contract in December 2022 for the development of two 
virtual prototypes and options to execute a Milestone B in 
fiscal year 2024.
    While I know that change in DOD [Department of Defense] can 
often be slow, you should know that it can happen and that the 
Army is changing its acquisition approaches, in particular in 
the area of aviation modernization, to ensure that we are 
making aviation modernization happen as quickly as possible, 
but also applying appropriate rigor to make sure it is not 
being done too fast and to lead to programs that could fail in 
the future. That is a careful balance.
    In closing, I want to say thank you for the funding 
provided to support our many modernization efforts in recent 
years. And we believe the fiscal year 2024 budget request 
builds on the progress we made across our Army aviation 
priorities.
    And, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, when we get your 
questions I have thoughts on all those issues you raised and 
would be happy to share them more at that time.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bush and General 
McCurry can be found in the Appendix on page 34.]
    Mr. Wittman. Very good.
    Mr. Bush. Thank you.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Bush. Appreciate it.
    Major General McCurry.

   STATEMENT OF MG MICHAEL ``MAC'' McCURRY, USA, COMMANDING 
   GENERAL, U.S. ARMY AVIATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AND FORT 
                            NOVOSEL

    General McCurry. Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Norcross, 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and 
Land Forces, thank you for the opportunity to join Honorable 
Bush and the distinguished senior leaders from our sister 
services to testify before you today.
    It is my honor and privilege to represent the more than 
55,000 aviation soldiers serving in all three components of the 
total Army force. As the Army aviation branch Chief and force 
modernization proponent, I am in charge of generating current 
and future readiness by producing highly trained, disciplined, 
and fit aviation soldiers; developing leaders of character who 
are experts at combined arms maneuver; and shaping the future 
aviation force.
    Last week we celebrated our 40th anniversary as a branch. 
And I can assure you and the committee, Mr. Chairman, that our 
soldiers remain resolute in their commitment to providing the 
required speed, range, and lethality, enabling the combined 
arms team and the joint force to win in an increasingly complex 
world.
    I take this commitment seriously as both a professional and 
a personal one. Army aviation starts and ends with the soldier 
on the ground. It is our sacred trust.
    I have two daughters, a son, and a son-in-law that serve in 
our Army, in infantry, armor, cavalry, and aviation formations 
around the world. So, both as a leader and a father I am all 
in, and committed to working together to make it an unfair 
fight when our soldiers deploy, and that they have what is 
needed to fight and win against any adversary, anyplace, in any 
environment.
    Thank you for your tremendous support of our Army. And 
thank you for the seamless and tireless dialog that your 
equally committed staff maintain with us. With your continued 
support to our soldiers, our families, our civilian workforce, 
Army aviation as a part of the land component will continue to 
dominate the lower tier of the air domain and uphold the sacred 
trust with the soldier on the ground.
    Thank you. And I look forward to our discussion and your 
questions.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Major General McCurry, thank you.
    Mr. Stefany, I go to you.

 STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. STEFANY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
    OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION; 
    ACCOMPANIED BY LTGEN MICHAEL S. CEDERHOLM, USMC, DEPUTY 
COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION, U.S. MARINE CORPS; AND RADM ANDREW J. 
 LOISELLE, USN, DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE 
                   CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

    Mr. Stefany. Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Norcross, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of myself, 
Lieutenant General Cederholm, the Deputy Commandant for 
Aviation, and Rear Admiral Loiselle, the deputy--or the 
Director of Air Warfare, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear today to address the Department of the Navy's fiscal 
year 2024 budget request for rotary wing aviation programs.
    We are pleased to testify alongside our Department of the 
Army colleagues.
    The Navy and Marine Corps forces provide a persistent 
forward maritime presence that sustains U.S. power projection 
throughout the world, and conduct a broad range of military 
missions to support our joint force. The Department's 
rotorcraft capability is a key enabler of our naval mobility.
    When coupled with air-capable ships, these aircraft provide 
speed, range, and flexibility to give our Nation unmatched 
versatility, global reach, and expeditionary agility.
    Rotorcraft transport Marines, sailors, equipment, and 
supplies from ships and land bases. Rotorcraft pilots make up 
more than 50 percent of our naval aviators, who support a broad 
range of missions from assault support and intelligence, 
surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting, to humanitarian and 
disaster assistance.
    The Navy's MH-60 Romeos are a prime example of this, 
delivering anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare 
capabilities to clear the water space and allow our carrier 
strike groups to move unimpeded to accomplish their missions.
    Similarly, the CH-53 Echo and MH-53 Echo continue to 
execute our Navy and Marine Corps warfighting concepts by 
providing capable heavy lift and performing as an airborne mine 
countermeasures platform thanks to the successful H-53 reset 
initiative that has returned fully mission-capable aircraft to 
our fleet.
    The Department of the Navy's 2024 budget request supports 
these capabilities as outlined in the Chief of Naval 
Operations' vision for distributed maritime operations, and the 
Commandant's Force Design 2030 strategic initiative. The budget 
request funding for procurement of 20--sorry, 88 fixed-wing, 
rotary wing, and unmanned aircraft, including 15 CH-53 Kilos.
    These 53 Kilos will be procured, as mentioned, under a 
block buy authority provided by Congress in the 2023 National 
Defense Authorization Act. And with funding for 99 53 Kilos 
across the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program], we will 
significantly enhance the heavy-lift capability of the Marine 
Corps and the joint force.
    While no procurement funding is requested in 2024, the 
production lines for the VH-92 Presidential helicopter, and the 
TH-73A training helicopters are actively and predictably 
building and delivering aircraft. The Presidential helo 
[helicopter] program is in the middle of White House 
commissioning process. And the initial operational capability, 
or IOC, of the Advanced Helicopter Training System was declared 
earlier this year.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget also looks to the future, 
continuing R&D investments and working with our service 
partners to support Future Vertical Lift Family of Systems. 
This includes the Navy's Future Vertical Lift Maritime Strike 
and the Marine Corps Vertical Take-off and Landing Family of 
Systems.
    This portfolio will close key warfighting gaps, and provide 
transformational capabilities when legacy rotary platforms 
reach their service life beginning in the 2030s.
    As we continue to focus on today's maritime challenges, we 
look forward ahead to tomorrow's evolving security environment. 
We thank Congress and this subcommittee for your continued 
leadership and support of the Navy-Marine Corps team.
    And we look forward to your questions, sir.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Stefany, General 
Cederholm, and Admiral Loiselle can be found in the Appendix on 
page 46.]
    Mr. Wittman. Mr. Stefany, thank you. And, again, thank you 
to our witnesses.
    Secretary Bush, I would like to begin with you and talk 
about the Improved Turbine Engine Program [ITEP]. We know it 
was originally scheduled for the fall of 2022. It then moved 
further to the right. And now we understand it is moving even 
further to the right into fiscal year 2024, without definition 
as to even where it is going to fall there.
    This is critical, not just for the upgrades to the Black 
Hawk and the Apache, but it is also incredibly important for 
FARA. And the question then becomes how does this affect the 
testing, and development, and decision-making for FARA?
    Will it be delayed by the equal amount of time that we see 
in the engine delay?
    What will you being doing going forward, and how can you 
mitigate the delays that we now have before us with ITEP?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So, I think, and I agree, yes, it is a 
critical program. The delays are certainly disappointing.
    The nature of the delays, as I understand them, really 
relate to quality control at sub-vendors within, you know, 
General Electric's vast, you know, vendor base.
    Mr. Wittman. Yes.
    Mr. Bush. Where they have had trouble making some new 
components, including with some new methods, like 3D printing, 
to the level of quality required for engines that we can 
actually put in test aircraft.
    I have had many engagement with GE [General Electric] on 
that. They believe they have it under control. My team of 
experts believes their current estimates are reasonable. But it 
is a delay.
    So, to answer your question there, the engine delay, 
combined with the ongoing analysis of alternatives for FARA 
have delayed the program approximately 8 months. The Milestone 
B is now planned for first quarter of fiscal year 2026.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good.
    Well, let me dig down a little bit deeper then. You talked 
about the AOA, the assessment of alternatives or analysis of 
alternatives for FARA. And it is alarming to me that those 
haven't been done to this point. To me, that should have been 
done earlier in the process. And we are seeing that being 
delayed now.
    Give us an idea about, you know, how that is going to 
unfold with how you do the analysis of alternatives. Does that 
affect where we are? So, if at this particular point with as 
much investment that has been made, which is now about $2 
billion, what if an AOA shows that there is a better 
alternative?
    It seems like we have spent an awful lot of money if we end 
up in a different place. And if that is the case, I don't want 
to repeat the same, same challenges the Army went through with 
Comanche.
    How do we look at not having this a predetermined outcome, 
since it is taking place now rather than in 2019, which was 
probably when it should have first started?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. So, the reason it is underway now is 
until fairly recently the Army and the Department of Defense 
had not decided what acquisition pathway FARA would follow.
    Once the decision was made for it to go back to the, at 
Milestone B, a traditional program approach, the AOA is 
required to get through a Milestone B unless waived by the 
Defense Acquisition Executive. And that has not taken place.
    So, to be fair to my predecessors, I believe there was hope 
at the time to be able to go, perhaps earlier, to a Milestone C 
type approach or even perhaps rapid fielding. But based on 
where the program is and the technology, we decided the more 
responsible approach would be to go to a traditional Milestone 
B, which requires the AOA.
    The AOA, sir, is advisory.
    Mr. Wittman. Yes.
    Mr. Bush. Ultimately, the decision on moving forward to the 
Milestone B will belong to Dr. LaPlante, advised by the Army, 
and CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation], and others.
    I think I am confident, though, that the AOA, the way it is 
structured is fair. It is very thorough, it is examining many 
alternatives. I think that is good.
    Mr. Wittman. Yes.
    Mr. Bush. I think the Army has an excellent case, and 
General McCurry can go into the Army's thoughts behind our 
particular approach.
    So, while these delays to FARA are a bit of a concern, I do 
believe that once we push through to the Milestone B and get 
ITEP, we will know more later this year. We can come back with 
everything we know, of course, on a sustainable track to get us 
test engines for the FARA rapid prototyping events that are the 
conclusion of those pre-program things you mentioned.
    I think we will be in a good place to know exactly where 
things are going to land in terms of the program schedule.
    Mr. Wittman. So, you are confident that if the AOA shows 
further considerations, or even maybe a little bit different 
track than we are currently on, that you feel under Milestone B 
that we can accomplish that and not have any significant delays 
to the program?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I think if the Milestone B occurs on time. I 
think at that point we will have enough data to, and we are 
required, of course, not just to come up with a program 
baseline schedule which could somewhat delay, depending on 
where we are, production activities, but also the cost 
estimate.
    Mr. Wittman. Yes.
    Mr. Bush. So, we will have a fully baked, normal OSD 
[Office of the Secretary of Defense]-required cost and schedule 
baseline that members will be able to track through the 
traditional processes at that point.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay, very good. Thank you.
    Lieutenant General Cederholm, I wanted to touch base with 
you on where the Marine Corps is moving out on unmanned efforts 
there on reconnaissance missions using rotary wing aircraft, 
and get your perspective on how you believe you are going to be 
able to accomplish this mission with an unmanned platform 
versus a manned platform.
    Give us your perspective there. I know it is Force Design 
2030 lays out and you are looking to be able to maximize the 
opportunities there. We have seen a little bit with what has 
happened with Scout in the Navy and that program being 
terminated. Is there a learning process that you have gone 
through with what the Navy has done to look at what the role 
would be for an unmanned platform there?
    So, give me your perspective on where you see the Marine 
Corps being on an unmanned platform for reconnaissance versus a 
manned platform?
    General Cederholm. Thank you, Chairman.
    I think I copied down in your opening, sir, ISR is a cost-
effective, high-performance solutions for unmanned in the ISR 
arena and the logistics arena especially.
    To get after your question, sir, I would also add some 
traits or attributes to unmanned that are very enticing to the 
United States Marine Corps, which has global reach and 
persistence presence around there.
    So, with that in mind, sir, as you know, we have 
transitioned from the RQ-21 to the MQ-9 Alpha. And the MQ-9 
Alpha right now as we speak is doing maritime domain awareness 
for real-world operations. And the great thing about the MQ-9 
Alpha--and it gets after your comments, Chairman--is the fact 
that it knows no geographical combatant commander boundaries. 
So, and couple that with long endurance and global reach, and 
you have a very capable platform.
    With regards to the Marine Corps' plan for the future with 
regard to an unmanned, sir, our VTOL Family of Systems, 
Vertical Takeoff and Landing Family of Systems, has three lines 
of effort to it, sir.
    The first one is logistics. So, we are looking at a risk-
worthy, unmanned logistics connector. And we are in the process 
of developing and working through our process, initial 
capabilities requirement document right now that's gone 
through, and sitting at the MROC [Marine Requirements Oversight 
Council] for a decision.
    The second line of effort, Mr. Chairman, is attack/strike. 
So, we have taken a different approach because of the, you 
know, I think the ranking member talked about we are at 
different stages of modernization.
    The Marine Corps is in a unique position, a good one. The 
relative health of our fleet and the nascent age of our fleet--
[inaudible], MV-22s, we are just transitioning to the 53 Kilo 
as you brought up--gives us an opportunity to in the future not 
wait but very expeditiously and thoroughly explore the 
intersection points between budget requirements and future 
capabilities. And we can look at, in the attack/strike role, 
sir, we can look at such things as what are the advances in 
teaming, autonomy, advances in lethality, survivability, to go 
back to the ranking member's comments.
    So, that is our second line of effort.
    And then our third line of effort going forward is to 
replace our extant platforms, like the MV-22 when it ages out, 
with a next-gen [generation] assault support.
    So, I am excited at where the Marine Corps is. We have a 
sense of urgency, but we also have time to be thorough in our 
approach to unmanned in the future, sir. And I am excited at 
what we are going to deliver in the VTOL Family of Systems.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thanks, Lieutenant General 
Cederholm. And now I am going to yield to the gentleman from 
New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary Bush, I just want to follow up the opening 
comments concerning the Chinook, the Block F. What was 
originally envisioned going back 7 years, and what we were 
doing with the Chinook, and what is happening now, certainly 
there has been a bit of a pause to say the least. The night 
court. This is where we first learned what minimum sustaining 
rates were and what they weren't and what, quite frankly, we 
are not sure where they were.
    So, we look at the facility up outside of Philadelphia in 
Pennsylvania and those 1,100 workers. They have the V-22, which 
is winding down. And right now we are in the pause waiting for 
a decision on where the Army is going with the Chinook.
    It has proven itself time and time again. We understand the 
pause has gone through.
    Would you share with us where we are and where we are going 
to be over the course of the next year, keeping in mind that 
industrial base, which is not unique to this facility, but 
across the spectrum is of real concern?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. And let me lead with the Army does 
recognize the importance of that industrial base, and 
especially the human capital aspect of it. It is vital.
    So, as we've talked about before, this is a calendar year 
2023 decision which really makes it a fiscal year 2025 decision 
for the Army. And that is the budget we are building right now.
    The budget request did include once again our six aircraft 
for special operations forces.
    One thing that has changed is the good news that the German 
military has decided to buy the CH-47, approximately 70 or more 
aircraft, around that number, which gives us an opportunity to 
retain that workforce, whichever direction the Army ultimately 
goes. It buys us some more time.
    That being said, you know, the aircraft that Congress has 
added for the Army to procure, we have procured and we are 
going to field. But I think at this time it is a question of 
balancing resources across the entire Army. That is the 
question in front of senior Army leaders with regard to where 
this falls in that mix.
    Mr. Norcross. Well, certainly, you have seen the plus-ups 
to try to keep this thing moving along over the past 2 years. 
And Congress I think was right in doing it.
    We understand time to make the decision, but certainly 
given the lack of a workforce across the Nation we want to make 
sure this keeps going. And hopefully, the German piece can fit 
in quick enough so that they are not going to see that drop.
    Thank you.
    Let's flip over to the Marines. General, Force Design 2030, 
have heard a lot about it. You and I had had conversations 
before. We see what has gone on with Marine Corps moving the F-
35 aircraft from operational squadrons to backup inventory.
    So, similar question dealing with rotary wing regarding the 
AH-1 and the UH-1 fleet. The Marine Corps has elected to 
deactivate two operational squadrons. Will the Corps be able to 
meet its operational commitments and, certainly, be able to 
provide that support that would be needed by the combatant 
commanders?
    Walk us through that decision and will we have enough for 
the commanders and, certainly, the operational commitments that 
we are already committed to?
    General Cederholm. Well, thank you, Ranking Member.
    Sir, the short answer to your question is, yes, we will. We 
are slated in Force Design to go to five HMLAs [Marine Light 
Attack Helicopter Squadrons].
    And just to give you a little bit of historic background in 
here. In 2007, we had six HMLA; 2011 we went to nine. And also 
in 2011 we went back to eight. We went down to seven in 2016.
    So, I would posit, sir, that organizational construct and 
composition within squadrons--and I hate to use the word 
``every'' TMS [type/model/series] always has fluctuated to meet 
the demands of the national security interests, but I think 
that it is safe to say that it has done so for H-1s in the 
past, sir, CH-46s, MV-22s, AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, and even F-35s, as 
you alluded to, sir.
    So, with regards to meeting our operational commitments, I 
can assure you that we are meeting the operational requirements 
out there for force employment and force management around the 
globe. Our primary unit for doing that is our Marine 
expeditionary units. This is not a cheap plug, but we have 
heard our Commandant say we need 35 amphibs [amphibious ships]. 
And I have heard, Chairman, you say we put airplanes on those 
amphibs.
    So, we can always use that to give combatant commanders 
more presence. But they are very happy with the current 
construct of capabilities that we provide from Marine aviation.
    I would say going forward, Ranking Member Norcross, sir, 
that I can't speak for the combatant commanders, but what I 
have heard in testimony yesterday from Admiral Aquilino was 
that he was, when Force Design and as Force Design delivers 
capabilities he is satisfied with that--my words. I think he 
said it a little stronger.
    And I have heard General Wolters endorse Force Design and 
the capabilities that those bring. I had the chance to work for 
General Wolters last year at this time over in Eastern Europe 
as we brought to bear Marine VMFA [Marine Fighter Attack 
Squadron] and the TPS-80 world-class G/ATOR [Ground/Air Task-
Oriented Radar] radar.
    So, I am confident that our Force Design plans will meet 
the operational requirements of the combatant commanders. I 
think those are their words, not mine, sir. And we are always, 
to close out, sir, the Commandant's campaign of learning, we 
are always looking to make adjustments, as we have. Just like I 
mentioned the history of H-1 squadrons, sir.
    So, I am very confident that, yes, sir, we are meeting our 
operational requirements with high-quality, unbelievably well-
trained Marines and platforms, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Appreciate it.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Don.
    We will now go to Mr. Bacon.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member. And I 
appreciate your-all's expertise here today. I am a 135 [RC-135 
S/V/W] guy and a 130 [EC-130H] guy by trade. So, your, your 
role is a little different, but I appreciate you.
    To the admiral, if I may is it Loiselle? Did I say your 
name right?
    Admiral Loiselle. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you. The MH-60 fleet is getting older, and 
although service life extensions are underway, some of us are 
worried about developing a replacement. Could you provide an 
update on the Future Vertical Lift Maritime Strike platform? 
And are you working with the Army at all on that?
    Thank you.
    Admiral Loiselle. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
    So, the Future Vertical Lift analysis of alternatives is 
complete. It has been delivered to CAPE and they are going 
through it right now for sufficiency. And so, once they are 
done with that sufficiency assessment, then we will absolutely 
go--move on to selecting a preferred alternative for the Navy, 
and all of the costing and acquisition documentation necessary 
to reach a Milestone A, likely in about the 2025 timeframe.
    So, we are about 5 years behind the Army as far as an 
acquisition program goes with development of that. And that 
fits with when we expect service life to be expired in our 
Sierra [MH-60S] and Romeo [MH-60R] fleet.
    And so--so I do expect that program to continue.
    Now, with respect to learning from the Army and everything 
that they are doing, predominantly we will look to doing that 
in mission systems and ways that they have done that, because 
their FLRAA aircraft is too large for our destroyer decks and 
FARA is going to be too small for our needs.
    So, I don't see a direct correlation to our requirements to 
theirs. However, that does not mean we will not have numerous 
opportunities.
    Mr. Bacon. Where you can, it makes sense. Granted, I know 
you have different requirements, but hopefully there could be 
some leveraging of their experience.
    General McCurry, can you explain the difference between the 
Active and National Guard combat aviation brigades? We 
understand that they are organized and equipped differently, 
and we are trying to make sense of it.
    General McCurry. Congressman, thanks for the question.
    So, as I said, I represent all of the components, so as we 
look at end strength and force structure there's always trade-
offs. And years back, you know, 2014 timeframe was the last 
time we restructured those brigades. And it was an attempt to 
get the greater access to attack and reconnaissance platforms 
to support the heel-to-toe rotations at the time.
    As you know, we have the four battalions of attack aircraft 
in the Army National Guard now. They are being modernized ahead 
of some of the Active Component and will be complete before the 
Active Component with Echo model AH-64. And that is really the 
primary difference between those formations as we go forward.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you. A follow-on question. Are you finding 
lessons learned from Ukraine on helicopter operations? And can 
you share with us some of your lessons learned and 
observations?
    General McCurry. Absolutely, Congressman.
    So, I reside under Training and Doctrine Command. And under 
Training and Doctrine Command in the Army also is the Center 
for Army Lessons Learned. So, so inextricably linked to 
observing things around the world, including Europe and what is 
going on there.
    And as we look at those things, with Ukraine specifically, 
you know, it is not uniform. There has been a few different 
phases of the operation. And things that we observe during one 
phase might be different during another.
    With regard to rotary wing operations there, I think it is 
important to note that we are equipped differently, thanks to 
the gracious and generous support of you all and the taxpayers, 
but we also train and operate much differently. If you look at 
the altitudes, for instance, that people fly, if you look at 
the times of day or night that people are flying, significantly 
different.
    And so when I consider, you know, rotary wing 
survivability, I am often quoted out there in the force as 80 
percent of that occurs left of launch. In other words, having a 
common understanding of the threat, the terrain, your own 
capabilities, does a lot to make you survivable. And, actually, 
it helps make the combined arms team as a whole more survivable 
to have you in the air.
    So, that is kind of what we are looking at as we look at 
those observations.
    Mr. Bacon. Some potential lessons here just because it's 
involving Russia, one of our primary potential adversaries, so 
we, whatever we can glean from what they are doing, the better. 
But thank you.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Bacon.
    Now we will go to Mr. Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 
the witnesses again for your excellent testimony here today.
    Mr. Bush, earlier this morning I had an exchange with 
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. Obviously, you know, 
the GAO decision is not going to be contested any further. So, 
I would just note at the outset, that doesn't mean Congress' 
oversight is going to end. There are a whole host of issues 
that I think still kind of scream out for questions in the 
future.
    I am not going to sort of dive into that too much. But I 
would note that Admiral Loiselle's comment about the size of 
the wingspan of the Valor not being, you know, aligned with 
certainly the sea services, I would just note I think the size 
of that wingspan is also not aligned with existing hangar 
infrastructure, both overseas and at home. And that is 
certainly something that, certainly, with our MILCON [military 
construction] oversight is going to be a topic in the future.
    So, but Secretary Wormuth did confirm that the plan is not 
to have a one-for-one replacement for the Valors, for Black 
Hawks. And, again, just quickly, do you agree with that comment 
that she made this morning?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I do. But I think it is preliminary. We, of 
course, don't have a nailed-down number we are planning to 
procure yet.
    Mr. Courtney. That was my next question.
    So, at this point we don't have a number in terms of the 
size of the acquisition?
    Mr. Bush. Not a final decision yet, sir. We would have a 
initial solid estimate in Milestone B. That is next year.
    Mr. Courtney. So, we have to wait till next year to get a 
clearer idea in terms of the numbers?
    Mr. Bush. A definitive number. Yes, sir. But I believe her 
statement was accurate that if you just look at the size of 
today's Black Hawk fleet, it will not be one-for-one.
    Mr. Courtney. So, given that fact, I mean, looking in 
moving forward, I mean, it should confirm this, and so did 
General McConville, you know, the Black Hawks are going to be 
around for a while. I mean the first Valor doesn't even roll 
off until 2030.
    So, can you talk a little bit about what you see as the 
acquisition strategy of the Army, both in terms of 
modernization of Black Hawks as well as acquisition?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir.
    So, the first thing we did was nail down our multiyear 
contract for Black Hawk production. That has been in place 
since last year and continues through 2026. That will ensure 
stability in the production line for the near term.
    In the far term, sir, we are thinking through options about 
what kind of work could be done there to maintain the 
industrial base, the supply part base, all the things you need 
for a healthy fleet that is going to be in the Army for 
decades, as the Secretary and Chief indicated.
    We are open to talking with Congress and your ideas on 
that. But I do believe there are opportunities for different 
kinds of work at that facility with that workforce that I think 
could achieve that objective.
    Another fact that we are hoping for is, of course, 
continued strong foreign military sales, which would be an 
ideal way to balance the two factors, reduce how much the Army 
has to invest, but maintain the goodness of the industrial base 
and the workforce. But we can't count on that exclusively. So, 
sir, we are open to members' ideas on how to proceed there. And 
that is certainly something we are looking at in our fiscal 
year 2025 discussions.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, again, I am sure, you know, you will 
have a very vigorous dialog with members in terms of that, that 
issue.
    Mr. Stefany, back in December Navy approved full-rate 
production for the CH-53 King Stallion, and also in our NDAA 
last year we created authorities to allow for block buy.
    So, given the fact that block buy has really been a really 
successful contracting model, what is your take in terms of, 
you know, that actually becoming, you know, a reality?
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir. So, the 2-year block buy has enabled 
us to negotiate, you know, equipment with both the engine maker 
GE, as well as Sikorsky. And we, you know, by doing 2 years at 
once we have been able to get a better deal in both those 
cases.
    The production line is set up. I was up in Sikorsky not too 
long ago and saw the actual production line that is to be used 
going forward. So, I think we are in a good place in the 2025 
budget cycle to look at a long-term, you know, 4-year, 5-year, 
multiyear type approach.
    Working inside the Department to see if that is the right 
answer. I know Lockheed and Sikorsky are willing to invest in 
cost reduction efforts if we are able to give them a long-term 
deal like that. So, I think we are all set up to make that 
decision as part of the 2025 cycle. But I am optimistic we can 
have a, you know, roughly 100-aircraft multiyear procurement 
going forward.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
    We will now go to Dr. McCormick.
    Dr. McCormick. Finally. Finally Congress is addressing 
something both interesting and exciting, which is the vertical 
lift component of aviation.
    And for the record, sir, I would like to point out that to 
fly is heavenly but to hover is divine.
    I would like to start off with Lieutenant General 
Cederholm, if I could, please.
    General, I am prepared for you once again. And I just 
wanted to open up with a quick question. It stood out to me 
that your number two unfunded priority was the CH-53 Kilo. As a 
former 53 Echo pilot, I understand that there is an incredible 
heavy-lift component to our Marine Corps.
    My first question is, why isn't it number one in your 
priorities?
    And what is the 53 Kilo going to bring to your 
capabilities? And why are we short-funded right now?
    General Cederholm. Sir, thank you.
    And I did notice that the red crayons are missing in there, 
so I am not going to accuse you of eating them, sir. But we 
have gone through this before, so I thank you.
    Thanks for the question, sir.
    The UPL [unfunded priorities list] number two for us is CH-
53K initial and outfitting spares. And the Commandant has taken 
an approach this year of the UPL is an accelerant to Force 
Design. So, if it was important to us, we put it into our main 
PB [President's budget] 2024 submission. And we did exactly 
that with CH-53K spares going forward.
    As you know, any time you have a nascent program, spares 
always seem to be at a shortage. So, the Commandant, to 
accelerate Force Design put it as number two, to include to add 
onto the 53K spares that we have embedded in our PB 2024 
submission.
    Your point is well taken, sir. But the number one on there 
is an LPD [amphibious transport dock]. And the Commandant, 
again, utilizing the UPL just as accelerants to Force Design, 
that is the only difference, because that is a statutory 
requirement set by the Commandant. That is number one. And I 
stood no chance of winning that argument, sir, inside of that, 
so.
    Dr. McCormick. I am sure you fought hard for me.
    General Cederholm. Yes, sir.
    Dr. McCormick. With that, I would be remiss if I didn't ask 
a question for my chief, who is an Army helicopter pilot.
    To the Honorable Mr. Bush, actually, recently we got 
educated that Vertical Lift Research Centers of Excellence, 
which has been established for a good long period, hasn't 
really had an increase in funding for about 40 years. It exists 
at Georgia Tech, my alma mater for pre-med. And I am wondering 
is that going to inhibit our development of future rotary wing 
aviation if we don't increase the budget for that?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I must say I am not familiar with the exact 
numbers you are talking about. I do know that across all of our 
research and development and S&T [science and technology] work, 
the work at the universities is critical.
    If I could work with your staff to refine that question and 
give you a very precise answer on what might have, what might 
have happened, and then what the risks might be, I would like 
to be able to do that, sir.
    Dr. McCormick. Sir, just to clarify, for the last about 40 
years we haven't increased that budget. How we develop that new 
technologies in vertical lift, which I would like to see 
increased, just kind of think it is a critical component of our 
military lift.
    Mr. Bush. I would be happy to dive into that, sir.
    Dr. McCormick. Great. Follow-on for Major General McCurry. 
Very pleased to see the Army has identified the AH-64 Echo as a 
number one priority for its enduring aviation fleet 
modernization. Hard to overstate the capacity--my chief 
obviously wrote this--these systems provide in terms of the 
battlefield autonomy, independent fires and sensing, and making 
sense in real time.
    Given the critical role of this aircraft for the next, 
possibly, 30 years, can you provide the committee with a status 
update on your Apache modernization efforts?
    General McCurry. Yes, Congressman. Thank you.
    So, you know, the Apache AH-64 Echo is the best attack 
helicopter in the world. We also have the second-best attack 
helicopter in the world, the AH-64 Delta.
    So, you know, I happen to fly them myself, and I have a 
child that flies the Apache. So, I am, you know, pretty 
committed to maintaining the safety and lethality of that 
platform.
    Specifically, in fiscal year 2024 we saw the need for a 
couple of things as we looked at maintaining the relevance of 
the AH-64. And we increased our mods [modifications] line by 32 
percent in the fiscal year 2024 request for AH-64, specifically 
focused on getting after, you know, a couple of things: 
improved tail rotor, COYOTE modem, and some, some Link 16 
capabilities as those things change.
    So, we are committed to doing that. As we manage all of our 
current fleets we are looking hard at all of those issues that 
come up, whether it is obsolescence or safety, so that as we 
balance, I talked earlier, future and current readiness, as we 
balance that we are focused on those things. That is what 
targeted modernization means as we get after those items.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you for your like-mindedness. And with 
that, I yield, sir. Semper Fi.
    Mr. Wittman. Dr. McCormick, thank you so much.
    And let the record reflect that of all the members of this 
committee, the only individual that properly pronounced 
``rotary wing'' was you. So, I think the rest of us had been 
eating your crayons. So, thanks. Thanks again, Dr. McCormick. 
We appreciate that.
    Now we will go to Mr. Carbajal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all 
the witnesses here today.
    I was enlisted, so we played with other real toys at the 
front of the spear, not those toys in the rear.
    Rotary wing aviation is critical to our readiness across 
all geographic combatant commands. We are making substantial 
investments to modernize different rotary wing platforms. 
Taxpayers are spending billions on these modernization efforts.
    Mr. Stefany and Mr. Bush, can you explain the need to 
modernize our systems? And describe the steps being taken to 
keep those modernization efforts on schedule and within a 
reasonable budget?
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
    So, I think the Chief, I could never say it as eloquently 
as he has laid out, expressed really the vision for the type of 
aviation leap in capability we are trying to achieve with our 
new platforms in terms of speed, range, and overall capability, 
and working with unmanned aircraft as part of a new way to 
fight in the air.
    General McCurry could add more detail if he would like.
    In terms of what we are doing, I think, one of the issues I 
touched on earlier, we, if you look at our big aviation 
platform programs, both of them, while we have new authorities 
that have let us go faster early on in those programs, we are 
being very deliberate, and rather--and, honestly, conservative 
as we go into the full development of those programs to get to 
production to ensure success from an acquisition standpoint.
    So, while the Army has been comfortable using, for example, 
rapid fielding with something like a rifle, we did not feel 
that was appropriate here with aircraft of this complexity and 
importance. So, that is one way we are mitigating risk, sir.
    Now, it is the, I would say, you know, the old way to do 
it. But, we are using within that every innovation we can. And 
we have aggressive timelines.
    So, I think we have the right balance there in terms of our 
approach to ensure success for these critical programs for the 
Army.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Stefany.
    Mr. Stefany. Yes. Building on that, key enablers of the 
modernization is communication and integrated environment, and 
acting as a manned-unmanned team or an integrated team. So, 
whether it is mission systems or link systems, we are making 
sure that that is well thought-out and well-engineered before 
we head into the next set of acquisition programs, or the next 
set of modernization programs, is a key for me. Making sure we 
go through a rigorous, but timely, trade-off AOA-type process 
to make sure we know what we are buying before we go and make a 
major investment in modernization, would probably be the other 
major area I am interested in, sir.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. General Cederholm, General 
McCurry, and Admiral Loiselle, this is a three-part question.
    How would you assess the state of the rotary wing aviation 
industrial base? What challenges concern you the most? And are 
there any lingering or lasting effects from the pandemic that 
are causing development or acquisition problems?
    General Cederholm. Sir, I would like to, I would like to 
start that, that train answer for you.
    With regards to assess the state of the rotary wing 
industrial base, obviously we are concerned about that as we 
move forward with the CH-53K and we explore further into the 
VTOL Family of Systems that I mentioned earlier, sir. So, we 
have our eye on that.
    We also stand to benefit in this case, though, of having 
thought out the program of records for our H-1s, our Hueys, and 
our Cobras. We also had--stand to benefit of having just bought 
out in PB 2023 our last MV-22s.
    So, the industrial base concerns, while at the forefront of 
our thought process going forward, with VTOL Family of Systems 
and 53 Kilo, is manageable from our perspective.
    The challenges that we see right now to the Marine Corps, 
sir, are going to be adherence to delivery timelines. And it 
ties into the third part of your question, sir, which is what 
lingering effects are we seeing to supply chain?
    We are seeing those. It has affected the delivery of our 
CH-53K timelines. But, in close unison we are working closely 
with Sikorsky, the program managers, and the fleet to ensure 
that we can close those gaps as best we can. Those efforts are 
ongoing. I am very happy with those. And the Commandant has 
been directly involved in those as well.
    And I will turn it over to my, my fellow patriots, sir, to 
answer their part of that question.
    Admiral Loiselle. Go ahead.
    General McCurry. Congressman, I think, you know, first of 
all I would say we have great industry partners across all of 
our platforms, all of the tiers underneath the OEMs [original 
equipment manufacturers]. We have great partners that are 
always in dialog with us and have been tremendous.
    I think as we look at more opportunities for manned-
unmanned teaming on the battlefield, the things that manned 
platforms do well versus unmanned platforms, it opens up 
different sectors of the industrial base. So, I think that 
there is an opportunity to invigorate different parts of the 
industrial base as we move forward with these efforts.
    The largest challenges for me, as the aviation force mod 
[modernization] proponent, is exactly that balance of future 
readiness and current readiness. And how--you know, keeping the 
force ready from now until 2030, and then providing future 
readiness for threats that emerge after that is--where we put 
that needle is critical.
    And I think the third question on the pandemic, Mr. Bush 
eloquently described the impact to ITEP and some of the things 
that happened at the production there. And I think it is 
especially poignant on our second and third tier, smaller 
providers out there, as they don't have the depth that some of 
the OEMs do.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am out of time. Mr. Chair, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much. We 
are now going to go to Mr. LaLota.
    Mr. LaLota. Thanks, Chairman. As a former helicopter 
control officer on an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate, and a 
tactical action officer on a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, 
thank you, gentlemen, for being here today to discuss rotary 
wing aviation and Future Vertical Lift.
    Mr. Wittman. Another proper pronunciation. Man, that Navy-
Marine Corps team has got it down.
    Mr. LaLota. Who could ever get that wrong, Chairman.
    Long Island, where I am from, is home to one of the largest 
aerospace and defense clusters in the world. We have over 250 
companies and over 24,000 workers on Long Island. And I am 
proud to represent such a large portion of our defense 
industrial base. I want to ensure that will flourish for years 
to come.
    And my district is also home to the 106th Rescue Wing with 
the Air National Guard. And the 106th, as you probably 
understand, provides personnel recovery, combat search and 
rescue capability, expeditionary combat support, and civil 
search and rescue support to Federal and State authorities.
    Gentlemen, I want to use my time to bring up an issue that 
has come to my attention with the 106th. It has recently come 
out that the Air Combat Command is considering cutting the 
total number of Air National Guard HH-60 aircraft from 18 to 
16, resulting in the 106th Rescue Wing losing 1 of their HH-60 
aircrafts in the future.
    If this decision is confirmed, it would greatly, directly, 
negatively affect operational readiness in the 106th Rescue 
Wing. And to me it is difficult to comprehend how we can expect 
our services, to include the 106th Rescue Wing, to continue to 
effectively and efficiently complete their missions if they are 
getting shortchanged on vital assets.
    And, gentlemen, I understand that there is not an Air 
National Guard representative in this panel. And I don't expect 
that you prepared for this aspect today. But I also understand 
this issue is not unique to other services as well.
    Does anybody have any insight to it? And, again, if you 
don't, I understand.
    Assuming not, Mr. Stefany and Mr. Bush, can you commit to 
bringing this issue back to your DOD counterparts for a proper 
response to the subcommittee?
    Mr. Stefany. Yes. Yes, sir, we will take that for the 
action--for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 59.]
    Mr. LaLota. Awesome.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. Same. We will talk to the Air Force.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. LaLota. Appreciate it. And my other question, for 
anybody who would like to answer it, is are the services 
communicating with your respective Air Combat Commands' 
organizations within your respective services to ensure their 
operational needs are being met on issues like this?
    General McCurry. Congressman, I can speak for Army aviation 
as we talk from the institutional level to the operational 
force. So, we have several forums where we meet with corps, 
division, and aviation brigade commanders.
    We do a quarterly warfighting forum specifically where 
those commanders bring their concerns forward. And we review 
some of their performance at the Combat Training Centers. That 
is frequently where we garner input into things.
    I would also say, as we--with the advent of Army Futures 
Command and some of the approaches we have taken to the 
modernization priorities, the increased use of soldier touch 
points has made early injects into how a soldier might use this 
or the challenges they might have using a piece of materiel.
    Mr. LaLota. Great.
    General Cederholm. Sir, I would just add from a Marine 
Corps perspective that we stand the advantage of being a 
smaller, streamlined service. I know that I have daily 
interactions with the FMF [Fleet Marine Force]. And I hear 
their concerns. And I can inject them as an interlocutor, both 
into the budgetary cycle and outside of the budgetary cycle to 
take on emergent issues.
    So, the communication is extremely tight. It is 
streamlined. It is effective. And it is fast. But we are happy 
but not satisfied, and we will endeavor to continue to 
streamline those communications to give our best to those men 
and women who fly and service our airplanes, sir.
    Mr. LaLota. Yeah. The subcommittee appreciates that, 
General.
    Mr. Stefany and Mr. Bush, I do look forward to your 
response regarding the 106th.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. LaLota.
    Now we are going to go to Mr. Gimenez.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you. I am sorry I wasn't here. Maybe 
some of these questions have been answered before.
    Is our current airpower prepared for a potential peer 
conflict?
    And what are the sources of friction that we are facing 
that are hindering our preparedness?
    General McCurry. Congressman, I think that the assessment 
would be there are challenges on the horizon. We see those. 
Earlier, I was discussing observations from Europe and things 
we are seeing with capabilities in the unmanned and manned 
arenas, and the different ways we need to operate. So, I think 
that today we are taking those observations and applying them 
to the current fielded force.
    As we look on the horizon, there are challenges out there. 
You know, I would say there is a huge growth in electronic 
warfare and the ability to disrupt some of the things we have 
become comfortable using on the battlefield. And so, those are 
all things that we look at as we look at new platforms and how 
we get around that.
    Mr. Bush. Sir, if I could just add one thing. For example, 
aircraft survivability equipment. So that is--it is a moral 
obligation to have effective as it can be, aircraft 
survivability equipment on our deployed forces. This budget 
adds funding to that.
    There are also some classified efforts I would be happy to 
come back and brief you on where we are trying to fundamentally 
change that cycle to make sure we can stay ahead of all threats 
in the aviation space.
    So, that is an example of the kind of thing we have to do 
to adapt to what we are seeing in Ukraine and what we might see 
in a conflict in the Pacific.
    Mr. Gimenez. Okay, thank you. And what have been the 
greatest challenges to aircraft procurement? Why is the process 
of developing and stationing new aircraft so slow when the 
potential of a significant peer threat has the possibility of 
occurring in the very near future?
    And something I have been frustrated, not only, not only 
with DOD but other agencies, that it takes forever and a day to 
develop aircraft or to, I guess, envision new aircraft and 
bring those new aircraft on the production line and bring them 
into service.
    In World War II we went from a Wildcat to a Mustang in, 
like, 4 years. And at the end of that, just outside that 
envelope we had jet aircraft already. So, I guess war dictates 
that you have got to do things a lot quicker. But, you know, we 
seem to be taking decades to develop aircraft around here.
    What can we do to speed that process up?
    Mr. Bush. I will go first. So, sir, it is a great 
observation. I believe there's a couple factors.
    One is the Army, of course, has to balance resources 
between maintaining our effective current aircraft, which does 
require resources, and modify them and make sure they can go to 
war today, because that is our requirement.
    And I believe it would be irresponsible to move too far 
away from that task to pursue the future. However, I believe 
the current Army's--the Army's current budget and projections 
show us accepting some risk to go faster. So, exactly what you 
are talking about, sir.
    I think the general rule with aviation--aircraft in the 
Army, you know, you are looking at normally about 5 years to 
develop. I think that there is a lot of reasons for that that 
my engineers can come and talk you through.
    I think often a constraint with production is simply, 
again, balancing resources between maintaining what you have 
and getting the new thing into production.
    Mr. Gimenez. Are we staying ahead of our potential 
adversary, the one in the Far East, in what they are trying to 
do or what they are developing and what we are developing?
    Mr. Bush. Sir, I believe the Army's budget will enable us 
to stay ahead if we succeed with these modernization efforts.
    Mr. Gimenez. Okay, thank you very much. And I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Gimenez. We are going to do a 
second round of questions if our witnesses can spend a few more 
minutes with us.
    Rear Admiral Loiselle, I want to talk to you a little bit 
about the issues that you all are addressing with the MH-60 
Romeo and Sierra. I know that the Sierra helicopters are going 
to undergo also service life extension, as well as the Romeos. 
That has been pushed out to the right, though, so it looks like 
it probably won't be completed until 2035.
    The question is, we know the role for the Romeos in anti-
submarine warfare. The Sierras I think are more about doing 
more of the logistical sorts of missions, moving things back 
and forth. I know that the service life extensions are going to 
go into survivability, targeting systems, and radar 
improvements.
    I want to get your perspective since it now looks like the 
service life extensions are going to be pushed out 
significantly to the right because of delays in modernization 
for the Navy.
    Do you envision that as the C-2 squadrons are replaced with 
V-22s, that the V-22 aircraft might now assume a multi-mission 
role from both the mission that the C-2s perform, but also the 
mission potentially that the Sierras perform, as we look at how 
we bridge that gap?
    Even with service life extensions, I think we get, like, 
another 7 years out of the aircraft. So, do you envision that 
being a bridge to the modernization for the rotary wing 
platform there that the Sierras perform now?
    Admiral Loiselle. Sir, a couple things on the SLEP [service 
life extension program]. First, it is ongoing with the Romeo. 
It is a 2,000-hour extension from about 10,000 to 12,000 hours. 
And you are correct, on about the 7-yearish life frame there. 
And then Romeo will follow because we bought those later.
    Mr. Wittman. Right.
    Admiral Loiselle. And that, it is not so much we just don't 
need to do those yet, largely because we have some extra Romeos 
that are still in preservation that are new production.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay.
    Admiral Loiselle. And so that, that will help get us into 
the 2030s timeframe when we are going to do SLEP on Romeos, if 
that is required.
    Now, to your question on CMV-22, thanks to Congress we got 
to our complete warfighting requirement last year of 48. And 
so, what the Air Boss has asked us to do right now is to take a 
look at the concept of operations for CMV-22 to ensure that we 
have it right.
    And it is not so much about whether or not we would replace 
Sierra capabilities or Romeo capabilities, but looking at 
contested logistics. And, so, typically speaking, right now we 
will have a beach detachment of CMVs that support that.
    And so, the problem is that TRANSCOM [U.S. Transportation 
Command] takes all of our stuff to a central point of location. 
And then right now in a non-combat environment we have the 
ability to also have them take it to where the CMVs are.
    Mr. Wittman. Right.
    Admiral Loiselle. In a combat environment that may not be 
the case. And so, what we are going to take a hard look at is 
whether or not there is additional utilization of CMVs that 
might help our C-130 fleet move that cargo to where the CMVs 
are located.
    Mr. Wittman. Because it seems like to me the CMVs do, as 
you look at CONOPS [concept of operations] here, they do have 
the potential versus the C-2s to do some of that Sierra 
mission, which can take a little pressure off of that and give 
you maybe some more life or a different framework as far as 
SLEPs on the Sierras.
    Admiral Loiselle. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay. Very good. Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary Bush, just want to follow up with the FLRAA. The 
GAO released a report and expressed concerns about the Army's 
scheduled risk assessment as well as the Army demonstrating 
some of the technologies, the prototype, doing it virtually 
versus physically.
    Can you give us the assessment and as well as the GAO 
recommendations going towards that?
    Mr. Bush. I can, sir. I am well aware of the report.
    I believe I would characterize the report as a difference 
of opinion on cost estimating methodology. When you dive into 
it, for example, on page 13, and I will quote from the report, 
it says, ``Acquisition offices within the FVL portfolio 
developed cost estimates and schedules in accordance with Army 
policies and applicable acquisition pathways, but 
inconsistently applied GAO leading practices for these 
estimates.''
    So, the Army followed all policies and laws. GAO has its 
own particular view of how those estimates should be done. And 
that is fine, but they don't make policy. I have to follow the 
laws and policies I have.
    That said, we will of course take GAO's thoughts into 
consideration to make sure we are doing the best cost estimates 
we can.
    Sir, with regard to some of their concerns about what 
technology is ready when, they, in some places in the report, 
appear to expect us to have things before Milestone B that we 
would normally not have until before Milestone C. So, while of 
course we would want as much advanced, you know, testing to 
happen earlier in a program, that is not required. And really 
not appropriate.
    So, again, I think it is almost a distinction, difference, 
you know, distinction without a difference. I didn't take that 
much from the report. I believe and am very confident we are 
following all policies and regulations with regard to how we 
are approaching these acquisition programs.
    I am happy to talk with you more about that offline, sir. 
But I think in this case, also, GAO is kind of holding us to 
the traditional program structures, while we are trying to use 
new program structures. And it is fine that they have an 
opinion about that, but we do, we are doing things a bit 
differently, and that was their view, I guess.
    Mr. Norcross. There are many types of aircraft and 
certainly models that virtually is a great way of reducing that 
risk until you can actually get the physical piece. So, in 
itself it doesn't make it bad. Just certainly wanted to get 
your view on it.
    Mr. Bush. Yes, sir. And in this case, of course, with FLRAA 
we have been flying through the demonstration program for 
many--I think more than we have ever done before, starting at 
Milestone B. So, I believe we have actually gone above and 
beyond in terms of real prototyping in this case, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Just real quickly because it has 
come up earlier, so this is across all the services. Your top 
priority for survivability, and are the systems fully funded in 
this year's budget?
    Let's go right down the line.
    General McCurry. Ranking Member Norcross, the systems are 
fully funded for fiscal year 2024. As Mr. Bush stated, we 
increased aircraft survivability funding this year for the 
Army.
    And as I stated earlier, survivability of the aircraft is 
really for survivability of the crew, the mission, and the 
combined arms team. And so there is a lot more into it than 
just the ASE [aircraft survivability equipment]. Hopefully, the 
ASE is the in extremis portion of survivability.
    Mr. Norcross. Yes.
    General Cederholm. Sir, short answer from the United States 
Marine Corps. Yes, sir, it is.
    Mr. Norcross. Terrific.
    Mr. Loiselle. Sir, my highest priority right now is taking 
the lessons learned from a previous accident about aircrew 
survivability equipment on their person, and going after 
lightweight body armor. And those are funded in the budget.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Norcross
    Mr. Gimenez, any additional questions?
    Mr. Gimenez. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Wittman. Okay, thank you. Gentlemen, thank you so much. 
Thanks for joining us today. Thanks for your perspective on 
where we are with rotary wing aircraft. Appreciate that.
    I think I can actually get those words out of my mouth now, 
so, after I digested those crayons. So, I think we are in a 
good place.
    But, again, thank you all so much. We will continue the 
conversations. I think there are challenges ahead, but I am 
confident that we are in a position to meet those challenges.
    So, thank you. And our committee hearing, subcommittee 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    
=======================================================================


                            A P P E N D I X

                             April 19, 2023
      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 19, 2023

=======================================================================
      
      
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             April 19, 2023

=======================================================================

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LALOTA

    Mr. Stefany. We discussed with the Air Force the question of 
reducing the total number of Air National Guard HH-60 aircraft. Based 
on that conversation, they informed us that the Air Force hasn't made 
any final decisions about where they will be fielding the 85 HH-60Ws. 
For the Air National Guard, any updates to the 18 assigned HH-60Ws are 
of low concern, based on existing active duty manning limitations. The 
Air Force has 3 rescue wings across all components, with 6 HH-60 
aircraft each--the 106th Rescue Wing being one of the units. If the 
unit were to lose an HH-60 from its inventory, it would be challenging 
for training in formation and other training functions, since one or 
two aircraft are usually undergoing maintenance.   [See page 21.]

     
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             April 19, 2023

=======================================================================

      

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY

    Mr. Courtney. Can you confirm that the FLRAA program is not a 1:1 
replacement for the Army UH-60 Black Hawk?
    Mr. Bush. Correct. The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) 
is not projected as a 1:1 replacement for the Black Hawk. In the near 
term, FLRAA will supplement the Black Hawk fleet and provide 
transformational increases in capability. The Army is currently 
executing an analysis to determine the FLRAA procurement quantity and 
what the fleet mix of FLRAA and Black Hawk will be within the Aviation 
force structure.
    Mr. Courtney. As the Army continues to operate and sustain the 
Black Hawk helicopter for the next several decades, what is the plan 
for ensuring that the aircraft remains relevant and capable while FLRAA 
comes online?
    Mr. Bush. The Army will continue targeted modernization to equip 
and sustain the Army of 2030 to successfully conduct multi-domain 
operations as part of an integrated joint force. We are exploring the 
Modular Open Systems Approach and use model-based systems engineering 
as we continue to explore new technologies.
    Mr. Courtney. Is there an acquisition strategy currently being 
developed for modernization of the Black Hawk beyond the 5-year 
contract with Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky that was signed in 2022?
    Mr. Bush. As the Army continues to assess the structure of the 
utility helicopter fleet, we are considering contracting strategies to 
both modernize our fleet and support our allies. We believe it is vital 
to establish affordable contracts to achieve our long-term national 
security objectives.
    Mr. Courtney. Is the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft the 
Army's number one aviation modernization priority to restore attack and 
reconnaissance dominance?
    Mr. Bush. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) is among 
the Army's top modernization efforts and is Army Aviation's number one 
modernization priority. The clean-sheet, next-generation design, and 
Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) of FARA mitigates a critical armed 
aerial reconnaissance gap for the Army, enables operations in highly 
contested airspace, and set the conditions for mission success against 
peer/near-peer enemies engaged in Large Scale Combat Operations.
    Mr. Courtney. What is the current timeline for development, test 
and evaluation, and fielding of the Future Attack Reconnaissance 
Aircraft program?
    Mr. Bush. The Army is on track to complete Future Attack 
Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) Competitive Prototype efforts prior to 
the end of Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25), with the Weapon System Development 
program achieving Milestone B in 2nd Quarter, FY26. The Army will 
continue to refine the remainder of the schedule as the program gets 
closer to Milestone B and transitions to a Major Capability Acquisition 
pathway.
    Mr. Courtney. The ITEP engine has been delayed for several months 
due to industrial base shortages from General Electrics suppliers. What 
are the residual effects on research and development for FARA 
prototyping when test flights are delayed because of late engine 
deliveries?
    Mr. Bush. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) effort 
is divided into two discrete efforts: first, Competitive Prototyping 
(CP) and, second, Weapon System Development (WSD). While the CP effort 
ends in Fiscal Year 2025, WSD efforts will continue to mature the 
preliminary design and transition into Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development (EMD) at Milestone B. The Improved Turbine Engine Program 
(ITEP) delays are directly impacting the CP effort and will likely 
result in decreased CP flight testing, but ITEP delays will not affect 
the WSD effort. In fact, the WSD effort has already incorporated 
numerous lessons learned from the CP builds. Utilizing an iterative 
design process will reduce risk in the EMD phase and has allowed us to 
increase aircraft safety based on CP modeling and simulation.
    Mr. Courtney. What is the Army's mitigation plan for ITEP's 
delivery schedule ensuring that the window is not delayed even further?
    Mr. Bush. The Army Acquisition Executive approved a schedule 
rebaseline in March 2023 and the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) 
is now on an achievable path to Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft 
(FARA) engine deliveries in October 2023 (early Fiscal Year 2024). In 
January 2023, Program Executive Officer for Aviation convened a General 
Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) with the General Electric President 
and Chief Executive Officer of Military Systems with the expressed 
objective of implementing an achievable schedule and containing the 
associated cost growth. The GOSC continues to meet monthly to ensure GE 
remains on schedule in general, and specifically on schedule for the 
FARA engine deliveries. This approach is yielding improved 
communication, greater transparency of potential program issues, and 
visibility of parts deliveries.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. McCLAIN
    Mrs. McClain. The CH-47 Chinook is the U.S. Army's only heavy-lift 
helicopter, and these aircraft are expected to be in service well into 
the 2060s and potentially beyond. There are currently over 900 Chinooks 
in operation worldwide, flown by the U.S. Army and by 19 allied 
militaries, including the Michigan National Guard. To ensure the Ch-47 
Chinook remains the premier heavy-lift helicopter and is able to meet 
the key performance metrics, it requires a more powerful engine that 
enables additional lift capacity and range. Honeywell, the current 
engine provider, has invested over $300 million of commercial RDTE 
funding to develop the 714C engine, which will double the operational 
range, increase the Ch-47 lift capacity, and improve reliability and 
maintainability by 25%. The 714C engine is a drop-in replacement for 
Honeywell's 714A engine currently on the CH-47 and is applicable to 
both the Ch-47 Block II and Block I configurations.
    Congress appropriated additional funding for the T55-714C engine 
improvement program (FY22: $7.5M and FY23: $15M) to begin the 
qualification and integration process. Honeywell is seeking $20 million 
in FY24 to complete key integration and qualification test activities, 
completion of the U.S. Army's requirement definitions, and the overall 
technical execution support to complete all design and qualification 
activities. The Army has indicated support for the engine enhancement 
program but was unable to budget for this effort in FY24 due to the 
Army finalizing the Chinook Block II procurement plan at the end of 
this calendar year.
    Questions: As the Army considers the future requirements of the CH-
47 Block II and Block I aircraft, how is the Army evaluating 
modernization efforts applicable to both configurations, such as an 
enhanced engine upgrade that enables increased aircraft performance as 
well as improved reliability and maintainability?
    The Chinook Block II aircraft initially included new/improved rotor 
blades that were going to be used to meet range and lift requirements; 
the Army has since decided not to move forward with those rotor blades. 
Does the Army intend to pursue an engine enhancement program to improve 
the Chinook's range and lift capacity and, in turn, improve reliability 
and maintainability?
    Mr. Bush. The Army assesses capability gaps identified within the 
Army Aviation Enterprise and consolidates those capabilities into a 
prioritized list. Currently, there is no published requirement for an 
engine upgrade for the Chinook fleet. The Army thanks Congress for its 
support with the engine enhancement funding as we evaluate potential 
system performance and aircraft limitations of a new engine on Block I 
& II airframes.
    The Army is focused on qualifying the CH-47F Block II aircraft and 
completing Engineering and Manufacturing Development activities with 
its current configuration. The Army has not committed to an engine 
enhancement program at this time.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JACKSON
    Mr. Jackson. Congress has previously provided funding for the 
Chinook Engine Upgrade in FY22 and FY23, and we are considering FY24 
funding at this time. We see that you have awarded a contract for this 
first tranche of funding and assume you working to get this much-needed 
funding for FY23 on contract. Can you explain to the committee your 
plan to pursue an engine enhancement for the CH-47 and how future 
funding requests will support this effort?
    Mr. Bush. The Army will utilize the additional Fiscal Year 2023 
engine enhancement funding provided by Congress to support various 
engine testing and aircraft integration studies on the CH-47F 
airframes. The Army is focused on qualifying the CH-47F Block II 
aircraft and complete Engineering and Manufacturing Development 
activities in its current configuration. The Army has not committed to 
an engine enhancement program for either the Block I or Block II 
configuration at this time and has not requested future engine 
enhancement funding.
    Mr. Jackson. Congress has previously provided funding for the 
Chinook Engine Upgrade in FY22 and FY23, and we are considering FY24 
funding at this time. We see that you have awarded a contract for this 
first tranche of funding and assume you working to get this much-needed 
funding for FY23 on contract. Can you explain to the committee your 
plan to pursue an engine enhancement for the CH-47 and how future 
funding requests will support this effort?
    General McCurry. The Army will utilize the additional FY23 engine 
enhancement funding provided by Congress to support various engine 
testing and aircraft integration studies on the CH-47F airframes. The 
Army is focused on qualifying the CH-47F Block II aircraft and complete 
Engineering and Manufacturing Development activities in its current 
configuration. The Army has not committed to an engine enhancement 
program for either the Block I or Block II configuration at this time 
and has not requested future engine enhancement funding.
    Mr. Jackson. Congress has previously provided funding for the 
Chinook Engine Upgrade in FY22 and FY23, and we are considering FY24 
funding at this time. We see that you have awarded a contract for this 
first tranche of funding and assume you working to get this much-needed 
funding for FY23 on contract. Can you explain to the committee your 
plan to pursue an engine enhancement for the CH-47 and how future 
funding requests will support this effort?
    Mr. Stefany. CH-47 Chinook helicopters are not part of the 
Department of the Navy inventory. USN and USMC operate a variety of 
manned rotor and tilt rotor aircraft to include MH-60S, MH-60R, CMV-22, 
MV-22B, MH-53E, CH-53E, CH-53K, VH-3D, VH-60N, VH-92A, UH-1Y, and AH-
1Z. We have forwarded your question to the Army's Service Acquisition 
Executive.
    Mr. Jackson. Congress has previously provided funding for the 
Chinook Engine Upgrade in FY22 and FY23, and we are considering FY24 
funding at this time. We see that you have awarded a contract for this 
first tranche of funding and assume you working to get this much-needed 
funding for FY23 on contract. Can you explain to the committee your 
plan to pursue an engine enhancement for the CH-47 and how future 
funding requests will support this effort?
    General Cederholm. CH-47 Chinook helicopters are not part of the 
Department of the Navy inventory. USN and USMC operate a variety of 
manned rotor and tilt rotor aircraft to include MH-60S, MH-60R, CMV-22, 
MV-22B, MH-53E, CH-53E, CH-53K, VH-3D, VH-60N, VH-92A, UH-1Y, and AH-
1Z. We have forwarded your question to the Army's Service Acquisition 
Executive.
    Mr. Jackson. Congress has previously provided funding for the 
Chinook Engine Upgrade in FY22 and FY23, and we are considering FY24 
funding at this time. We see that you have awarded a contract for this 
first tranche of funding and assume you working to get this much-needed 
funding for FY23 on contract. Can you explain to the committee your 
plan to pursue an engine enhancement for the CH-47 and how future 
funding requests will support this effort?
    Admiral Loiselle. CH-47 Chinook helicopters are not part of the 
Department of the Navy inventory. USN and USMC operate a variety of 
manned rotor and tilt rotor aircraft to include MH-60S, MH-60R, CMV-22, 
MV-22B, MH-53E, CH-53E, CH-53K, VH-3D, VH-60N, VH-92A, UH-1Y, and AH-
1Z. We have forwarded your question to the Army's Service Acquisition 
Executive.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. McCORMICK
    Dr. McCormick. I've recently gotten educated on the role that 
Vertical Lift Research Centers of Excellence (VLRCOEs) play in meeting 
the expertise and engineering personnel needs that our ambitious 
vertical lift programs require. I'm very proud to work with and support 
the VLRCOE at Georgia Tech in particular. The country has a real 
shortage of engineers who are trained in vertical lift, which is 
further stretched by the civilian programs in urban and advanced air 
mobility competing for these personnel. The funding for the university 
VLRCOEs who produce many of the engineering talent has been stagnant 
for about 40 years. Given the outsized role these centers play in 
cultivating critical engineering talent, would you support an increase 
in their funding?
    Mr. Bush. If Congress were to increase the funding for these 
centers of excellence, the Army would execute that funding in 
accordance with Congressional intent. The Army sees value in these 
centers of excellence and partners well with them.

                                  [all]