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


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 118-26]

                                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 SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES HEARING

                                   ON

     AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES AVIATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES

             RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             APRIL 18, 2023


                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                       ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 52-789            WASHINGTON : 2024
 










                                     
  


             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                   TRENT KELLY, Mississippi, Chairman

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SARA JACOBS, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO, 
NANCY MACE, South Carolina               Pennsylvania
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia        JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                JIMMY PANETTA, California

                Kelly Goggin, Professional Staff Member
              Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
                  Ethan Pelissier, Research Assistant
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.........     0
Kelly, Hon. Trent, a Representative from Mississippi, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.................     1

                               WITNESSES

Hunter, Andrew P., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.........................     0
Moore Jr., Lt Gen Richard G., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for 
  Plans and Programs.............................................     0

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Mr. Courtney.................................................    00
    Mr. Kelly....................................................    00
    Mr. Hunter and Lt Gen Moore..................................    00

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Courtney.................................................    00
    Mrs. Kiggans.................................................    00

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Bergman..................................................    00
    Mr. Wittman..................................................    00
AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES AVIATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES RELATED 
                 TO THE PRESIDENT'S 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
            Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
                           Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 18, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in 
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trent Kelly 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Kelly. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask 
unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
    Good afternoon. This subcommittee covers seapower and 
projection forces. Today, we will hear about the projection 
part of this portfolio. Our witnesses this afternoon have been 
in front of this committee a few times, and I would like to 
thank you for meeting with me last week via phone. Thank you 
for your service, and welcome to the subcommittee.
    Projection forces plays an important role in the military's 
ability to be anywhere at any time. Airlift bombers and tankers 
are critical. Mr. Alford and I had a great visit to Palmdale, 
California last week and are very impressed with the progress 
of the B-21. As you know, the challenge from China is growing 
and the Air Force must have the right aircraft systems and 
capabilities to carry out any mission anywhere. And I think the 
B-21 will perform admirably.
    I would like to hear from our witnesses discussing the 
urgency we have to have enough refueling capacity and 
capability for a possible China fight across a very large 
INDOPACOM [Indo-Pacific Command] AOR [area of responsibility]. 
Finally, I would like to hear from our witnesses today on how 
our projection forces are being modernized to meet the future 
threats. Before we introduce the witnesses, I would like to 
turn it over to Mr. Courtney, our ranking member, for his 
opening remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly can be found in the 
Appendix on page 23.]

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
   CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND 
                       PROJECTION FORCES

    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Chairman Kelly. And thank you to 
both witnesses for joining us here today. And I am going to be 
very brief and ask that my written remarks be entered into the 
record.
    Again, I just want to agree with the chairman that the 
projection forces mission of our subcommittee is one that we 
take very seriously. We have got great staff that do such a 
good job in terms of analyzing the President's budget when it 
comes over. And we are not a rubber stamp.
    I mean, historically, if you look at some of the changes 
and I think improvements that the subcommittee has made, 
whether it is the tanker program, Air Force One, or the C-130s, 
it has really made a positive difference for the Air Force and 
for Air Force projection and Airlift. And, again, I look 
forward to the witnesses' testimony. Again, Mr. Chairman, if 
there isn't any objection, just ask my written remarks be 
entered----
    Mr. Kelly. Without objection.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the 
Appendix on page 24.]
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. He is always correct. I 
mean, he was a chairman longer than I have been. So he is 
gently reminding me to do certain things. So I always 
appreciate my ranking member and his partnership in this, much 
like you guys are partners. You can't do this without a strong 
team.
    Our briefers today are Mr. Andrew Hunter, who is the 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. And 
Lieutenant General Rick Moore is the Deputy Chief of Staff for 
the Plans and Programs.
    I understand, Mr. Hunter, that you are going to give an 
opening statement. So the floor is yours.

  STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW P. HUNTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
 ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR 
FORCE; AND LT GEN RICHARD G. MOORE, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 
                     FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS

    Mr. Hunter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thanks to you and Ranking Member Courtney and all the members 
of the subcommittee for the support that you provided to the 
Department of the Air Force over a number of years. And we 
absolutely greatly appreciate the fact that you have taken the 
time to visit our installations, visit our facilities, visit 
our airmen and guardians and to understand how we perform the 
mission, how they perform the mission, and how the programs 
that you oversee are supporting that mission.
    So that is really vital, and we greatly appreciate it. And 
I am very happy to be here today with my colleague, Lieutenant 
General Moore, to provide testimony on the Air Force's fiscal 
year 2024 budget request for projection forces aviation 
programs.
    The Department of the Air Force's fiscal year 2024 
President's budget request reflects our commitment to 
developing a threat informed future Air Force equipped to win a 
high-end fight. Last year, Secretary Kendall and General Brown 
outlined the seven operational imperatives we must meet to 
success in this mission. The operational imperatives were the 
combined work of the entire Air and Space Force teams combining 
the best insights of operators, analysts, and the acquisition 
enterprise.
    As a result of this analysis and work, we have over 25 
billion dollars requested in the fiscal year 2024 budget for OI 
[operational imperative]-related investments, a significant 
portion of which is new funds applied to programs that are new 
compared to our previous President's budget request. Our fiscal 
year 2024 request balances this investment of critically needed 
new capability with recapitalization and modernization of our 
existing platforms. In my oral remarks, I am going to highlight 
just a few of these key investments and the written statement 
that the general and I submitted goes through them in some 
detail.
    I want to start with the B-21. The B-21 Raider will form 
the backbone of our future bomber force and it is the 
centerpiece of the Secretary of the Air Force's six operational 
imperative. The B-21 underscores our national security as the 
most flexible leg of the nuclear triad and supports combatant 
commanders across a range of military objectives as both a 
nuclear and conventional bomber.
    The fiscal year 2024 President's budget request fully funds 
engineering and manufacturing development and initial 
production for the B-21. Additionally, the fiscal year 2024 
President's budget request includes modernization activities 
focused on nuclear certification, integration of the long-range 
standoff weapon, and other modernization activities. There are 
today B-21 test aircraft in flow on the manufacturing line.
    They are being built using the same tooling processes and 
technicians who will build the production aircraft. And that is 
a substantial--goes a substantial way to improving the maturity 
of that platform and its readiness for production. The B-21 had 
a successful rollout last December and is working towards first 
flight. Support for the fiscal year 2024 budget request for the 
B-21 is critical to recapitalizing our bomber force and being 
prepared to deter future conflicts.
    The other element of our long-term plan for the bomber 
force is the B-52. While the last B-52 Stratofortress entered 
service in the Air Force in 1962, we expect to continue 
operating the B-52 beyond 2050. To get there, we have work to 
do.
    The Air Force's number one priority for the B-52 is to 
ensure the platform viability through 2050 with the Commercial 
Engine Replacement Program [CERP] that enables us to achieve 
this goal. It is important to note that CERP is more complex 
than just replacing today's engine with a commercial engine 
from commercial use. The CERP program includes the new engines 
but also flight systems, cockpit throttles, and displays as a 
combined system to provide power and propulsion to the jet.
    In September 2023, the CERP program will seek a Milestone B 
decision which will authorize the program to enter into 
engineering and manufacturing development, transitioning from 
the middle tier of acquisition rapid prototyping effort that we 
have had to date. It will formally initiate the program and set 
the acquisition program baseline. Let me talk about our 
mobility fleet.
    Due to an updated threat environment, we have modified our 
tanker recapitalization approach from what we have discussed in 
prior years, setting aside the three three-phase approach 
originally envisioned in the early 2000s in favor of 
prioritizing and accelerating the right capabilities to deliver 
fuel to the joint force and to the fight. The next generation 
air refueling system will be an accelerated advanced air 
refueling system that meets the future needs of the joint force 
in contested battle space. We will actively consider clean 
sheet purpose built designs for NGAS [Next Generation Air-
Refueling System] with aircraft delivered in increments as part 
of the family of systems that allows the Department of Air 
Force to remain flexible and responsive to the evolving and 
ever changing threat.
    The program is being designed to leverage continuous 
competition and will be competitive from the first day. We have 
begun work on the NGAS analysis of alternatives. That will be 
completed in fiscal year 2024 and is going to inform NGAS 
requirements and development timelines in cooperation with 
industry, the information that they provide.
    Initial deliveries are expected to begin in the mid to late 
2030s. Our work with the operational imperatives has been 
extensive. And you see the outcome of that in our fiscal year 
2024 budget request.
    But in significant ways, the work for operational 
imperatives has really just begun. As we begin to implement the 
recommendations born out of our initial work, we are continuing 
to examine areas such as cross cutting operational enablers 
that are critical to success. And this includes mobility. This 
work will leverage and complement our work on NGAS and the next 
generation air mobility study to identify priorities to enable 
our future operations.
    Lastly, let me speak to the importance of delivering this 
budget on time. More than ever, it is critical the Department 
avoid the delays driven by extended continuing resolutions. The 
OIs include multiple new start programs that must begin as soon 
as possible.
    We cannot cede anymore time during a critical moment in the 
Air Force's transition to being prepared for the future fight. 
I also want to close by asking for your support for a 
legislative proposal recently transmitted by OMB to Congress 
creating a new authority for the military services to respond 
to emergent technology advances and threats. This authority 
will accelerate our ability to respond to a rapidly changing 
security environment with effective congressional oversight.
    We look forward to working with this subcommittee and thank 
you again for your continued support. And General Moore and I 
stand ready to address your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter and Lt Gen Moore can 
be found in the Appendix on page 25.]
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. It has been a bit 
troubling to watch the KC-46's problems with the remote vision 
system and now we are hearing there is another delay to fill 
the program. Can you explain why there have been so many delays 
and how it benefits the taxpayers to even think about 
purchasing more?
    Mr. Hunter. So with the remote vision system, one thing 
that is important to know is this is a deficiency to the 
specification the Air Force provided to Boeing. Therefore, they 
are correcting that deficiency at their expense. So they are 
paying the bill to develop the fix for the RVS [Remote Vision 
System] 2.0, and they will pay to install and retrofit the 
previously purchased aircraft and to cut in the fix into the 
new production aircraft.
    So on the cost side of the RVS 2.0, the taxpayer is 
protected there. As to the timing of its delivery, we did run 
into issues with the supply chain there in getting the 
necessary equipment, both in terms of displays but also some of 
the boxes that end up transmitting and processing the signal 
there that have pushed back the program schedule. So we are now 
looking to fielding that system in calendar year '25 but fiscal 
year 2026 to begin fielding it.
    And that is later than we would prefer. Having said that, 
the Air Mobility Command has set the parameters under which the 
platform is able to operate today. And they are successfully 
refueling aircraft with the system that they are currently 
using.
    Mr. Kelly. Okay. Because I just think the sense of urgency 
we need to have, we need to be capable of fighting tonight. And 
so I am glad that we are not talking about divesting in future 
and all that stuff. But thank you very much.
    Mr. Hunter, I was in Palmdale last week, and we are happy 
with what we saw. And knock on wood, the program seems to be on 
track. Can you confirm to us that the Air Force will maintain 
continuous oversight of the program and not go down the path of 
the B-2 when the program was truncated?
    Mr. Hunter. I can absolutely assure you that we are paying 
very close attention to this program and that is true at my 
level. That is true with my close partner, the Commander of 
Global Strike Command who is the major command that provides 
the resources and establishes requirements for the B-21 
program. We are tightly synced.
    We meet regularly to discuss the program and everything 
that is happening on it. So we are in close touch. And sort of 
the management philosophy for the B-21 program is something we 
call active management.
    So it is continuous engagement between the government, the 
program office, the program manager, and the contractor, 
Northrop Grumman in this case, to identify any unexpected 
eventualities or risks that are emerging on the program. And 
because of the way the program has been managed by the Air 
Force and set up by my predecessors, we have the resources in 
place usually when a risk does arise or when something does get 
off track to apply resources and to identify a fix and make a 
fix relatively quickly. And that active management approach has 
really served the program well.
    Mr. Kelly. And Mr. Hunter, if there is a CR [continuing 
resolution], which programs in this portfolio that we own will 
suffer the most?
    Mr. Hunter. So it depends a little bit at what level the 
funding is established at under the CR. Sometimes CRs go a 
prior year funding. Sometimes they are at less. I don't know 
that I have seen one that was more.
    And so the funding level is important. The programs that 
are most effected are those that are new starts in fiscal year 
2024 because they simply can't begin under our standard 
operating procedures usually specified in the continuing 
resolution. The legislative proposal I mentioned I think would 
give us some ability on critical priorities to do some early 
work, even under a continuing resolution approach. And that is 
one reason why we are so eager to work with you on potentially 
providing that authority.
    The second is programs that have a significant change in 
funding or that are transitioning from one stage to another. So 
a program moving from development into production and where the 
initial production funds would come in the '24 budget, they 
would not have access to production money during the span of a 
continuing resolution. So there are programs that are making 
this transition in fiscal year 2024 that could be greatly 
impacted by an extended CR.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you. And, General Moore, final question. 
The KC-135 is considered the backbone of the air refueling 
fleet and will be in service for many decades to come. How will 
the Air Force support the modernization throughout the rest of 
the life cycle of the KC-135s?
    General Moore. Sir, the 135 will be in service for 
something like another two-and-a-half or three decades. And we 
are mindful of what it takes to get an airplane that far out. 
So, two separate things.
    First of all, airframe and airworthiness modifications and 
enhancements, the sister program office in Oklahoma City runs a 
program called CORAL REACH that looks at how to keep the 
airframe itself viable. And over the years as the airplanes 
have aged, it has done a great job of making sure that we don't 
have any airworthiness problems. That will continue for the 
life of the airframe.
    And then certainly the avionics become a part of this as 
well. And some of the avionics right now, particularly the fuel 
system panel and some of the other items in the navigation 
display area, they are beginning to show their age. And in 
fact, they are reaching the end of their life. And so you will 
see in this budget a request to replace the avionics in the 
center pedestal to make sure that the aircraft is viable into 
the future.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you. And, with that, I now yield to Mr. 
Courtney, the ranking member.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just a follow-up 
again on Chairman Kelly's question regarding the KC-46. Again, 
in prior years, we have had these hearings where General 
Moore's predecessor, General Nahom, would come in and we were 
sort of getting updates in terms of the percentage of interim 
operability which the last time we met, I think it was in the 
50 to 70 percent range or whatever. But my understanding is it 
has continued to improve. And just wondering just for the 
purposes of an update where does that stand?
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, I think we can get you an exact figure 
for the record. But in terms of the ability to refuel, right 
now the only Air Force platform in operations that is not 
refuelable by the KC-46 is essentially the A-10. And we do have 
the capacity with the rest of our fleet to be able to service 
the refueling needs of that platform.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page ?.]
    So we are able to meet the overwhelming number of air 
refueling missions required using the KC-46 as it is operating 
today. And if your question, though, was on mission capability 
rates, I can get you that answer for the record too.
    Mr. Courtney. Okay.
    General Moore. Yes, sir. I will add at the beginning of the 
Ukraine crisis about a year ago, we deployed four airplanes to 
Moron, Spain. They performed very, very well in a deployed 
environment.
    And one of the things that we worked on while they were 
there was certification with European refueling platforms. Lots 
of progress there as well. So there are some things about the 
KC-46 that need to be made right. As Mr. Hunter mentioned, 
Boeing is on contract to do that, and we will hold them to 
that.
    But the airplane is preforming very, very well. And it is 
performing well in an operational environment. And it is on the 
road every single day now.
    Mr. Courtney. Great, thank you. And I just would sort of 
reiterate your comment that this is not on the taxpayer's dime. 
Again, Mr. Wittman and I had many painful hearings and made 
sure that was actually not going to be the outcome here. And I 
think the Air Force has kind of held its ground as well on 
that.
    In your testimony going to another program that we have had 
multiple hearings in the past on Air Force One, there is a 
request for 490 million dollars to continue engineering and 
manufacturing development. Again, initially those plans should 
have been up in the air flying by now. And obviously, they are 
not. And I wonder, again, if you could give us an update in 
terms of particularly that vendor problem with the interior of 
the plane as well as just an explanation of what the 490 
million dollars is for.
    Mr. Hunter. Yes, sir. Rick may want to speak specifically 
to the exact usage of the dollars. But in terms of the status 
of the program, the interior subcontractor that Boeing had 
originally hired as part of their proposal for the program was 
not performing in terms of the work that they were tasked to 
do. And also, I think they had real significant financial 
issues that even if they had been capable of doing the work 
would have potentially been a barrier to them being successful.
    So Boeing made the decision to terminate that subcontractor 
and bring another subcontractor aboard to do that work. When 
you hear the term, interior, it sounds like seat cushions and, 
like, sort of trimmings and surface level stuff. But in fact 
what you are talking about is the non-747 commercial aircraft 
parts of the aircraft, anything inside the fuselage.
    So it is actually a tremendous scope of work. It requires 
significant engineering expertise to carry out the work that 
subcontractor is expected to perform. So there was a delay.
    A lot of work had to be redone during the transition from 
one supplier to another. But they are now up on step. They have 
progressed well beyond where the previous subcontractor had 
gotten with the design.
    I particularly would highlight the work put in on the 
engineering for the wiring. There is quite a bit of miles and 
miles of wire on this aircraft as you would expect for an 
aircraft of this size and complexity. And a lot of engineering 
being done to get that engineering work done right and making 
sure that we won't have to do rework as has happened on other 
similar aircraft where we have had to do some of this 
engineering work on the front end.
    So I think they have really gotten back into the right 
place programmatically. It is delayed as I know you are aware. 
But they are now performing to our expectations at this stage 
of the effort.
    Mr. Courtney. And the budget request?
    General Moore. Sir, both airplanes are undergoing 
modification right now. There is, as Mr. Hunter mentioned, a 
lot of work going on in the interior as well as installation of 
wiring and modification in the places where the airframe itself 
needs to be modified, for example, the height of the lower lobe 
door. Some of those modifications are in progress as well. So 
it is what it takes to produce an aircraft of Presidential 
quality times two. And they both are undergoing modification as 
we speak.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you. Again, it is something that 
we have been tracking and will continue to track. My last 
question is just simply--again, we have historically done plus-
ups to have propeller replacements for the C-130s. And maybe 
you could just--and we talked about this a little bit before 
the hearing in terms of just sort of where that all stands 
because it is really a safety issue and where we are with 
schedule.
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, and as we discussed, the availability of 
that propeller production line was very valuable to us this 
year because we had the issue with the center barrel on the 
older model of the propeller. We had some cracking there. We 
had to take a number of those items out of service. And having 
an operating production capacity for the new propeller design 
where all the engineering work had already been done and were 
into production has really been invaluable helping us recover 
the fleet back to operational capability.
    And in fact, we worked with the contractor to increase that 
production rate so that we can get to a get well date for the 
C-130 fleet well ahead of our original projections. We are now 
projecting that we will be fully get well in this year. And we 
were able to accelerate that by about ten months from the 
original plan through working with the propeller contractor and 
also working with a lot of our partners and allies who operate 
these aircraft to find some additional supplies.
    Mr. Courtney. Ten months ahead of schedule. I will end on 
that positive note.
    Mr. Kelly. All right. I now recognize General Bergman.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here. Quick question just out of curiosity. What I heard 
you say was the only aircraft that the tanker can't refuel is 
the A-10? Got that right?
    General Moore. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bergman. So what can refuel an A-10?
    General Moore. Sir, we still have a large fleet of KC-135s. 
Even at the completion of the KC-46 program, we will still have 
nearly 300 KC-135s. And they can all refuel A-10s.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. So we still have the capability?
    General Moore. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bergman. All right. We were talking before we sat down 
here about the longest running production lines in aviation 
history in those aircraft. The current long-term bomber 
structure, you have 145 B-21s, 75 B-52s. The new upgrades to 
the B-52 is going to extend its service life out to the 2050s. 
Does the Air Force truly believe that a 100-year-old airplane 
will compete in a contested environment against China in 2050?
    General Moore. So the aircraft that will go into the 
contested environment specifically in a Chinese--fight against 
Chinese aggression into the highly contested environment will 
be the B-21. The B-52 has a much higher volume of weapons 
delivery as you are well familiar. But it will be from standoff 
range. The B-52 is not envisioned to go into the highly 
contested environment. It will deliver large payloads from 
range.
    Mr. Bergman. So as we look at prosecuting the fight in 2030 
as opposed to prosecuting the fight in 2015, I mean, that is 
asking you to put your Jedi mindset on and look way out there. 
Is the Air Force considering, for lack of a better term, a 
clean sheet purpose built design to replace the B-52 that would 
address those future necessary capabilities that we would have? 
Or do you think that will the B-21 take care of it all? Or are 
we going to add another--by the way, there is no it is what it 
is. We need the capabilities necessary to prosecute a fight, 
whether it is today, 2030, or 2050, but just the long-term 
Skunk Works kind of thinking.
    General Moore. Yes, sir. I absolutely agree. So I think 
that could certainly be a possibility. I don't think we have 
reached that decision point yet. I think the things that we are 
working on in the near term are NGAD [next generation air 
dominance] and NGAS with NGAL [next generation aiming laser] to 
follow directly on.
    In the meantime, I think the decision point that we will 
come to sooner is what the actual production run of the B-21 
will be. And that will depend on its performance. And we will 
know that here in the next couple of years as well as how the 
threat changes.
    As you have seen with the next gen air refueling system, we 
have pulled that 15 years or so to the left because of the 
change in threat. Certainly the same thing could happen in the 
bomber portfolio. If we find out there is an emerging threat 
that the B-21 is not capable of handling, we would look to 
replace or add to the bomber fleet with something that could 
handle that threat.
    We are not to that decision point yet. For right now, 
everything that we see can be managed by the B-21. And the near 
term decision point on that will be what will the production 
run be. And I think probably a place where we would look to 
make a change in this portfolio if we were going to would be 
weapons and not necessarily the airframes.
    What we see from the Chinese is rapid spiraling of weapons 
capability. And I think that might be a more likely place where 
we would attempt to counter the threat rather than a clean 
sheet design. But I certainly wouldn't rule that out. And it 
may be that we don't have a choice.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Well, to switch subjects--well, switch 
gears here, we are not going to talk about airframes here. We 
are going to talk about people for a second. Roughly 250 Boeing 
workers with expired security credentials worked aboard the new 
Air Force One on a highly classified system, so I have been 
told. What has the Air Force done to ensure that this was a 
one-time event and cannot be repeated? I mean, things happen. 
But how are we going to prevent it from happening again?
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, so we have worked closely with Boeing to 
correct the errors on their system. My understanding is they 
actually replaced the corporate official who is responsible 
corporately overall for the procedures that they were supposed 
to be following there and failed to follow. So there has been 
accountability in that case.
    And we are working closely with Boeing to make sure that 
the individuals who needed to have their clearance processes 
updated are in that process. And we have identified who those 
folks are, understand for the most part these were people who 
actually had valid clearances. But the specific clearance that 
they needed to have, the paperwork had not been submitted.
    Mr. Bergman. Do we know of any other programs potentially 
that we found the same scenario with contractors? Or was this 
an isolated incident?
    Mr. Hunter. There are very limited number of programs that 
participate in this particular security process. My 
understanding is that it is we are up to speed on the very 
limited number of other programs, essentially that 
participates.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. And I guess as we have seen recently in 
the news, compromising of sensitive classified information into 
a public domain, I believe really it is not only an opportunity 
but it is essentially that Air Force and every other military 
service makes sure that those folks who have access to anything 
classified are vetted. And if they do something bad, they are 
appropriately disciplined. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman's time has expired. Now I will 
recognize Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. I would just like to 
remind my colleagues just because it is old doesn't make it 
bad. There are some nice things that are a little bit more aged 
that work real well. And we happen to be part of that.
    Going on, Mr. Hunter, love to discuss NGAS. In this 
committee over the last few years, we have had a lot of 
discussions with the Pegasus program, the RVS. And we all know 
how frustrating it is.
    And our colleagues have mentioned it is on Boeing's dime, 
but the time is on us, the U.S. But the one thing I do want to 
point out is when the is KC-46 was first to be delivered, if 
that system on the RVS had been approved, we would have a 
system that is over ten years old now. We have the newest and 
by any accounts the best system in the world. Would you agree 
with that statement?
    Mr. Hunter. Sir, that is accurate. So the system that is 
being designed as for 2.0, the technology for that did not 
exist when the original design for KC-46 was made.
    Mr. Norcross. Yeah, certainly not the way we want to go 
about it. But there is the good side of what is going on here. 
But I want to talk a little bit more.
    Originally, you had mentioned the three-phase approach we 
are going to take for tankers including a bridge program which 
is now put to the side because we want to go to the NGAS, a 
stealth refueling capacity. Stealth is relative to what we are 
talking about, where it can be seen, how far in. Can you, to 
the point we can in open session, give us the scenarios that 
you would see this new tanker envision where it would be able 
to operate under a contested environment?
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, and let me preface my comments by saying 
the exact mix, the exact potential ways in which we would 
employ the platform, these are things that the analysis of 
alternatives will be looking at. So there is analysis to be 
done here, operational analysis about what is the most 
beneficial way to carry this out. But the key issue is not that 
hard to understand.
    So we have air refueling capability in order to air refuel 
the aircraft that are engaging in missions. So our combat 
aircraft that are engaged in the high end fight will have to be 
refueled by a system that they can reach and that can get close 
enough to them to be operationally relevant and to enable the 
operations I have to carry out. So it is that distance, right?
    It is that distance that it takes the tactical aircraft to 
have to go back and forth from the tanker while being able to 
perform its mission that is governing how close the tanker 
fleet has to get to a potential fight. And the threats that we 
see in that area are what is driving us to need the 
technologies and the NGAS will deliver.
    Mr. Norcross. So as we understand, the KC-46 Pegasus has a 
hardened frame and also would be useable as a communication 
device as many other things. Would you envision NGAS being part 
of that communications network?
    Mr. Hunter. I think it is very much the case that we think 
situational awareness and effective comms will be critical to 
NGAS to the requirements that we will have for the NGAS system. 
And we have some of those things on the KC-46 today.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. No other questions. I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. I now recognize the former chairman of this 
subcommittee, Mr. Wittman.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Secretary Hunter, 
Lieutenant General Moore, thank you so much for joining us. 
Assistant Secretary Hunter, I wanted to start with you.
    The 2020 report that the Air Force gave to Congress talked 
about the deficit in the availability of tanker hours at about 
6,000. We know that the floor for the number of aircraft, the 
minimum number of tankers in the fleet is at 466. We know that 
we are 467 today, so precipitously close to where the floor is.
    The President's budget continues to capitalize the KC-46As 
with 179 aircraft. You had spoken, though, previously to say 
that you envisioned over the lifetime of the near term 
acquisition of cutting that acquisition in half, essentially 
from 150 aircraft down to 75 aircraft to, for the most part, be 
able to resource NGAS into the 230s.
    With that in mind, does the Air Force currently have the 
capacity for surge tanking? So if the balloon were to go up to 
90, we need surge tanking to be able to prosecute operations in 
the INDOPACOM, do we have the surge capacity with the current 
tanker fleet across all the different years of variations of 
aircraft? And where do you see that capacity five years or ten 
years from now which is going to intersect with where the 
pathway is for new KC-46A coming into the fleet?
    And does the decision that you put in place to essentially 
curb the KC-46Y competition, does that affect that. And you 
heard Mr. Norcross ask a little bit about NGAS and the other 
capabilities going in the future without modernizing that 
aircraft to have some sort of protect provisions there. I think 
that is certainly the situation that we want to know about.
    And then as I spoke about earlier, your report from 2020 
points out the 6,000-hour gap per year of tanker hours and 
availability. Tell us where that leaves the Air Force with any 
future considerations. And are you considering augmenting this 
with commercial tanker availabilities within that realm?
    Mr. Hunter. Let me work through as many of those 
questions----
    Mr. Wittman. Sure, yes, yes.
    Mr. Hunter. --as I can in the time allotted, sir. So I 
think the big picture that is important to focus on first is we 
are going to be maintaining the tanker levels that we have 
projected forward across the FYDP. That is our plan. It is why 
we have taken the approach that we have of going back to 
industry with a revised requirement.
    So not the KC-Y requirement which was beyond what today's 
tanker fleet is capable of doing and which we learned in 
conversation with industry was likely to lead to a gap, a time 
post-KC-46 179 but prior to anything else coming on board that 
was likely to be a gap there based on what we were seeing and 
our responses from industry. That is part of why we revised our 
plan, to simplify that requirement, have it be very similar to 
today's tanker requirement so that we could maximize our 
ability to have continuous tanker production through the FYDP 
and throughout the 2020s and into the 2030s until we can get to 
NGAS. So that is a core part of our plan is to sustain the 
force and ensure we continue to have that capability.
    I have talked quite a bit. I mentioned when it comes to B-
21, we work very closely with Global Strike Command. In this 
case, we work very closely with Air Mobility Command to 
understand what operating the fleet looks like from their 
perspective and how our acquisition programs support their 
ability to do that.
    My understanding from General Minihan is he has high 
confidence in the ability of today's fleet to carry out the 
missions that they are assigned that they would need to engage 
in a fight. It is not a simple matter as we know. He is very 
focused on this, works this problem every day.
    And so on the issue of competition, we will have to go back 
to industry. We are going back to industry with a revised 
requirement based on our KC-135 recapitalization plan. And 
based on the number of aircraft that we would see being 
procured through that effort until we got to NGAS to find out 
what industry can deliver to us and when they can deliver it. 
And then we will evaluate that and make a decision on the 
acquisition strategy for KC-135 recapitalization.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Dr. 
Jackson. I now recognize Mr. Alford.
    Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 
witnesses being here today. Thank you, Ranking Member Courtney.
    I am honored to represent the home of the B-2 stealth 
bomber in Whiteman Air Force Base in the great state of 
Missouri. And I recently along with Chairman Kelly visited 
Palmdale. And that B-21 is impressive as you know.
    And I am just so glad that we got to see it and touch and 
see what this great thing is going to do for our nation. It is 
a critical piece as you know of our effort to deter China and 
modernize or smaller and aging bomber fleet and force. This 
program has stayed on target and within budget, and we are 
committed to working with our colleagues on this committee and 
both of you to make sure it stays that way and that I am also 
planning to make sure that it does end up in Missouri.
    Considering China's rapid military build-up, we cannot 
afford delays to programs like the B-21. We need the B-21, as 
you know, to counter the threat from China and bolster our 
bomber force. So Lieutenant General Moore, considering the 
status of the B-2 and the transition of the B-21, can you talk 
a little bit about the modernization efforts made to the B-2? 
Are we making the necessary investments such as ACS to keep the 
B-2 program lethal and capable until B-21--basically, are we 
ready today to have a conflict with China?
    General Moore. Sir, we are doing that with the B-2. The 
most notable example I can give is a replacement of all the 
displays in the cockpit because they are reaching the end of 
their life and we are proceeding with that program. I am 
pleased to tell you as well that the Secretary announced the 
preferred alternative for the second location for B-21 and it 
is Whiteman.
    The environmental study is going on now and should be 
complete by sometime next summer. So we look forward to 
operationalizing the B-21 at Whiteman. And we also as a key 
milestone in that, the nuclear certification of the B-21 is 
also on track. And that is the major milestone that we have to 
hit before we start to retire the B-2s. So I think all of this 
looks like we have a solid approach to this that will play out 
over the rest of the '20s.
    Mr. Hunter. Just two other, if I could, modernization 
programs to highlight there with the B-2 is continuing weapons 
integration including the extend range version, variant of the 
JASSM [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile]. And there is 
some comm upgrade programs that have been going on the B-2 for 
some time that we are continuing to finish to make sure that it 
is integrated, especially in terms of NC3.
    Mr. Alford. I would like to hear more about that in another 
setting, please. Lieutenant General Moore, I want to follow up 
a little bit about the safety stand down of the B-2. Are you 
familiar with the statement that General Bussiere released on 
what is going on?
    General Moore. I may not be familiar with that statement, 
but I am familiar with the issue.
    Mr. Alford. Of course, we all know that there was an 
incident on the 10th of December, an in-flight malfunction. 
General Bussiere has said that the safety investigation board 
for this incident is currently set for the 28th of April, ten 
days from now. And of course, the outcomes will determine the 
necessary corrective actions. When we were out in Palmdale, I 
asked the same question. I want to ask it to you just to make 
sure we have this on record for the public. The problems that 
we have seen on the B-2, those are being corrected and not 
going to be present in the B-21, correct?
    General Moore. So I can't speak to the engineering level. 
What I can tell you is the B-21 is not an updated version of a 
B-2. It is a newly designed airplane. And I will also tell you 
although the B-2 fleet has stood down, it is able to fly with 
General Bussiere's approval. And he is comfortable putting it 
in the air in the event that a mission need would arise.
    Mr. Alford. He did make that quite clear. And I would let 
you follow up, sir.
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, so in the engineering level, obviously we 
are willing to have the final processes out of the safety 
process. But my judgment is that we are narrowing in on an 
engineering fix to the issues that led us to where we are 
today. And we will be able to carry out that fix in the near 
term. I do not anticipate that we would see the same kind of 
issue on the B-21.
    Mr. Alford. I got 40 seconds left, and I want to follow up 
with you, Mr. Hunter. The Air Force has repeatedly called for 
divestment of legacy aircraft to modernize the force for the 
China fight. Can you explain which capabilities the divestment 
will be used for, sir?
    Mr. Hunter. So there are the ones that we proposed on the 
budget. A-10 is a big one of that. The other one that I 
highlight quite a bit although I know it is another 
subcommittee but it is the transition from E-3 to E-7. And one 
of the primary enablers of us bringing E-7 on board as quickly 
as possible is being able to take crews from the E-3 fleet, 
train them with our Australian partners who are flying E-7 
today. And when we get that aircraft on the ramp, we will be 
able to get it into operations as soon as possible.
    So those are the kinds of things that we are referring to. 
In terms of the aircraft we are talking about today, there are 
no near term retirements in this fleet. But in future years as 
we get towards fielding of B-21, that would become more 
relevant in that area.
    Mr. Alford. Thank you, sir. Thank you, General. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Kelly. Gentleman's time has expired. Now I will 
recognize Mrs. Kiggans.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our 
witnesses here today. I represent Hampton Roads area, so I have 
got the Navy master jet base. So it is always interesting to 
get some insight into how our other partners in the sky are 
doing business. But a couple questions. How long does it take 
to train an Air Force F-35 pilot from commission till the time 
they touch a gray aircraft?
    General Moore. So typically, we have a year of pilot 
training, another three to four months of introduction to 
fighter fundamentals, and then another four to five months of 
F-35 training before they are able to go to an operational 
unit.
    Mrs. Kiggans. And are these kids getting--they are getting 
commissioned and going right to flight school? Or what is that 
wait time like before they start?
    General Moore. In some cases, there is a wait before they 
go to pilot training. Right now, that wait is almost a year. It 
is actually fairly long. And on occasion, there is--actually, 
normally there is a wait in between each of those phases.
    Mrs. Kiggans. So in total, what is the total length of 
time?
    General Moore. I would have to take that question for the 
record and we can come back and tell you what it averages.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 43.]
    Mrs. Kiggans. For example, the Navy takes about four years 
roughly the time these kids are commissioned till the time they 
actually touch a gray aircraft which is too long in my opinion. 
So I know there is not a lot of appetite for--I think we tried 
some combination training with the Navy. At least on the Navy 
side, there didn't seem to be much appetite for going back to 
joint training.
    But I just want to know--I have heard from the Navy side. 
What is the Air Force side about challenges to pilot training? 
What can we do to improve this?
    I know that we are competing with retention for our more 
senior pilots. We are always competing with the airline 
industry. I mean, it cost 10 million dollars approximately to 
train a fighter pilot these days.
    I am worried that we are going to need these fighter pilots 
quickly, a lot quicker than four years. So what can we do to 
expedite that process and eliminate some of these wait times? 
It is not just Air Force specific, but I want to hear from you 
guys.
    General Moore. Yes, ma'am. Fair question. So we have 
redesigned pilot training over the last couple of years to 
bring it forward from the kind of 1950s and '60s industrial era 
pilot training program. We were calling it undergraduate pilot 
training, UPT 2.5.
    We have stopped calling it that now because it is finished. 
It is just pilot training, and it is the way we train all of 
our pilots now. And there is lot more integration of augmented 
reality training.
    We have allowed them to graduate on their own pace. They 
don't have to wait for an entire class until they can graduate. 
We have done everything we can to maximize their ability to 
perform and advance and make it through pilot training.
    We also were looking at the capacity of the flying training 
units which is where they go next. And to minimize one of those 
gaps between pilot training and introduction to fighter 
fundamentals, we have actually combined those so that they are 
part of a single syllabus. So there is no gap in between.
    They start at the beginning. And when they finish, they 
have done both parts of that. No break in training. No gap. No 
retraining. No recurrency. None of that.
    So we are working through this as best we can. And we share 
your concern that folks are not flying quickly enough and they 
are not flying enough. That certainly is on the forefront of 
the Secretary and the Chief's mind as well.
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, I do hear from the Chief regularly on the 
topic of pilot production. We don't do that in AQ [Acquisitions 
Directorate]. But the platforms that enable the production 
pipeline are obviously platforms that we either sustain or are 
working to acquire in the case of the T-7.
    So it is always on the Chief's radar screen. And General 
Robinson who is their education training command, we work 
closely with his team. There are some issues with the legacy 
platform of the T-38 in terms of its availability and that has 
been a limiter on their ability to accelerate and increase the 
flow through the pilot production pipeline.
    And then with some of the delays on the delivery of the T-
7, that is also something that we are going to have to work 
through and extend the T-38 to go even longer to make that 
transition. So we focus on that on a weekly basis on both ends 
of that to try and enable more pilot production to the extent 
that we can.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Good. Thank you. Thanks for keeping that 
priority. And can you just talk to me briefly, I have got about 
one more minute left, just about how you are integrated 
unmanned aircraft into your squadrons or what that looks like 
going forward.
    Mr. Hunter. Well, so one of our really premier initiatives 
in the '24 budget is to really accelerate the CCA program, the 
Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, which is designed from 
the get-go to be fully integrated and a partner to crude 
fighter aircraft and other crude aircraft in operations. We 
have established or having funding in the '24 budget to do an 
operational experimentation unit to really test out how is this 
going to work. What are the CONOPS [Concept of Operations] for 
this kind of coordination and this kind of collaboration 
between a manned platform and a manned unit and an uncrewed 
platform, uncrewed squadron.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize Mr. 
Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hunter and 
General Moore. Thank you so much for your time and your 
testimony today. I represent Barksdale Air Force Base and 
Global Strike, and so I am keenly interested in the topics we 
are talking about today.
    I will just say real quickly on the important issue of 
pilot training, just a week ago, I was on base. And they let me 
try out the new cutting edge virtual reality simulator for the 
B-52. I crashed the plane immediately. I am terrible.
    But they had these young pilots there that are aces on this 
virtual reality. And it is so similar. And obviously the cost 
savings and the time efficiencies, it is remarkable what they 
are doing it. I commend everybody for their work on that.
    I am obviously very interested in the health and readiness 
of our bomber force given who I represent. And in that vein, 
you mentioned in your written statement the number one priority 
for the B-52 is to ensure that it remains viable through 2050. 
It would be a 100-year aircraft. It is an engineering marvel.
    And you have talked about how CERP [Commercial Engines 
Replacement Program] is integral to achieving that goal. So we 
know the TF33 engine is not going to be supportable for much 
longer. And I hear from my folks all the time about problems 
with parts availability and how the current engines are 
constantly having to be taken off the plane for maintenance and 
then put back on and on and on. Can one or both of you talk us 
through some of the issues you are experiencing with that 
engine and describe how CERP will alleviate these problems?
    Mr. Hunter. Well, you know, CERP fully replaces the TF33. 
And when you consider an individual engine and how often when 
they break as frequently as the TF33s do and of course the B-52 
has eight of them. So that is eight opportunities to have 
something that interrupts an operation or causes you not to be 
able to take off.
    So it is a huge impact on the operation of the platform. 
The CERP program will replace all of the TF33s with the F130. 
So a commercial derivative but brand-new engineer with a supply 
chain that is consistent with what is out there today in the 
commercial sector. So I think it will really address and solve 
the issues that we are seeing today with the TF33. And the 
critical thing for us is how quickly we can do the engineering 
work and procure the kits in order to get those installations 
begun and then completed across the B-52 fleet.
    Mr. Johnson. I really appreciate how you said in your 
testimony it is more than just slapping new engines on an old 
airplane. It is really kind of a game changer redesign in so 
many ways. And I don't know. Some of my colleagues may not 
realize it, but you step into the cockpit of a B-52, it is like 
stepping back in the 1960s.
    I mean it is just antiquated. It is hard for me to believe 
that we are still using some of this equipment. And I mean, the 
dash is analog dials. It has got tons of info being thrown at 
the pilots and copilots from all over the place. Can you talk 
to us about what these upgrades are, the things associated with 
CERP, how that is going to improve the crew's situational 
awareness and their ability to successfully conduct their 
mission?
    Mr. Hunter. Yeah, and we do have--in addition to the CERP 
program, there is the radar modernization which will 
dramatically improve the organic sensing that the platform has 
and can convey to the pilot for situational awareness and for 
being able to strike targets, being able to ensure the accuracy 
that we expect, and delivers the effectiveness that we need for 
the strike capabilities of the platform and the comms 
[Communications] upgrades. So having more pipes for more data 
to then be able to provide situational awareness from off board 
the aircraft to improve the pilot's ability to engage in 
collaboration with the rest of the Air Force to strike the 
targets they need to strike.
    So it is all three programs working together. And when you 
look at it, this is an almost complete overhaul of the mission 
capabilities mission systems of the B-52. And that is what will 
enable it to operate well into the future.
    Mr. Johnson. And not a moment too soon. I understand the 
testing is underway. It is Stennis for the new F130 engine and 
that the Air Force is going to seek a Milestone B decision a 
little bit later this year, I think. Can you elaborate on how 
the testing process is going and what are some of the things 
you are hoping to accomplish before that Milestone B decision 
is made?
    Mr. Hunter. Yes, sir. We are transitioning the program. So 
it was a middle tier acquisition rapid prototyping. The rapid 
prototyping effort is delivering a digital prototype and has 
done quite a bit of risk reduction on the program.
    When we get to Milestone B, it will become what we call a 
formal acquisition program of record, major capability 
acquisition program. That allows us to do the full 30-year-plus 
life cycle sustainment planning that we would do for a platform 
that we are going to operate and sustain over decades period of 
time.
    In terms of risk reduction that has been done, they have 
been able to take the F130 engines, put them in a pod, that is 
essentially the B-52 compatible pod that goes on that pylon, 
and operate--they have the two-engine pods. So you have two 
engines in close proximity to one another one and some unique 
vibrations. And so they have been able to do testing and really 
understand the performance of the engine in that environment 
and reduce a lot of risk on that.
    And as far as what we are looking for when we get to 
Milestone B, it is the readiness of the program to go into full 
bore engineering manufacturing development. And I have a fairly 
high degree of confidence we will be ready in the fall.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add 
you would all been proud. We had our Defenders of Liberty Air 
Show at Barksdale a couple weeks ago, and we had 160,000 
civilians on base to check that out. It was awesome. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Kelly. Your time has expired, Mr. Johnson. And if we 
are going to infomercials, I can talk about Columbus Air Force 
Base or the great 172nd or the 185th in Mississippi. I now 
recognize Mr. Bergman for a question--General Bergman.
    Mr. Bergman. Yeah, no, no. Mr. Bergman on HASC. To be taken 
for the record because when Congresswoman Kiggans talked about 
pilot training and time, for the record, by the way, I think it 
is important we ask the Department of the Navy because they 
control the Marine Corps and the naval aviation training 
pipeline.
    I would like to just see a timeline from the point where 
that second lieutenant is commissioned to the point where they 
report for flight training to the point where they are going to 
get their wings, go through transition training to their type 
model series that they are going to be operationally capable 
and to the point where they are full up round in the squadron, 
deployable. And the end date is the first date then that their 
initial contract is up. Okay? So the day they are commissioned 
till the date that they can leave active duty and move on.
    That would be very helpful for us in a lot of different 
things. So just take it for the record and if you can get it 
us. We are going to ask the same thing to the Department of the 
Navy as well. Thank you.
    General Moore. Happy to do it, sir.
    Mr. Kelly. Did anyone else have a question? If not, this 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                             April 18, 2023

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 18, 2023

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

      

      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             April 18, 2023

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

      

             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY

    Mr. Courtney. And just a follow-up again on Chairman Kelly's 
question regarding the KC-46. Again, in prior years, we have had these 
hearings where General Moore's predecessor, General Nahom, would come 
in and we were sort of getting updates in terms of the percentage of 
interim operability which the last time we met, I think it was in the 
50 to 70 percent range or whatever. But my understanding is it has 
continued to improve. And just wondering just for the purposes of an 
update where does that stand?   [See page 7.]
    Mr. Hunter. Starting in Summer of 2021, through its Interim 
Capability Release (ICR) Process, Air Mobility Command (AMC) 
progressively made KC-46As available for employment and taskings as 
operations with receiver aircraft were adequately tested and evaluated. 
Through this effort, AMC has cleared KC-46As to carry out operational 
refueling on nearly all required aircraft, except for the A-10 and 
other receiver aircraft without an approved technical compatibility 
assessment.
    In September 2022, the AMC commander approved KC-46A for worldwide 
use in support of combatant command taskings, including combat 
operations. Thus, the ICR Process can be considered 100 percent 
complete. In addition to resolving the known performance deficiencies, 
the Air Force continues to examine and refine this weapon system on the 
road to full operational capability.
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. KIGGANS
    Mrs. Kiggans And are these kids getting--they are getting 
commissioned and going right to flight school? Or what is that wait 
time like before they start?   [See page 15.]
    Lt Gen Moore. The following response was drafted by the Air Staff 
for Operations (AF/A3). Air Force pilot training programs fall under 
the purview of the AF/A3.
    Air Force pilot candidates are accessed primarily through three 
Sources of Commissioning, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), 
Reserve Officers' Training Corp (ROTC), and Officer Training School 
(OTS), with each program having a different timeline from commissioning 
as a Second Lieutenant to starting Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT). 
On average, USAFA graduates will wait approximately 476 calendar days 
between commissioning and starting UPT. ROTC graduates, on average, 
will spend 245 calendar days in the Individual Ready Reserve, followed 
by an approximate 221 calendar day period following entry on active 
duty before starting UPT. OTS graduates, on average, will wait 
approximately 298 calendar days before starting UPT.
    Air Force pilot candidates attending UPT can expect, on average, 
approximately 175 calendar days for the fixed-wing pilot track, 190 
calendar days for the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training track, and 174 
calendar days for the helicopter pilot track. At the completion of UPT, 
fixed-wing pilot trainees will be winged, and track selected for Air 
Mobility Fundamentals for crewed aircraft and Fighter/Bomber 
Fundamentals for Fighter and Bomber aircraft. The breakdown of training 
timelines by track selection, weapon system formal training through 
combat mission ready, and end of initial service commitment are below:
    Mobility, Special Operations, Command Control Intelligence 
Surveillance Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare, and Rescue pilots 
attend Air Mobility Fundamentals (approx. 75 calendar days), survival 
training (approx. 12 calendar days), then weapons system formal 
training (approx. 86 calendar days). On average, from commissioning to 
combat mission ready (deployable) takes approximately 911 calendar days 
(2.5 years). Pilots in this community will have 9.2 years of 
utilization from weapons system formal training until the end of their 
initial 10-year pilot commitment.
    Bomber pilots attend Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals (approx. 159 
calendar days), survival training (approx. 19 calendar days), then 
weapons system formal training (approx. 226 calendar days). On average, 
from commissioning to combat mission ready (deployable) takes 
approximately 1138 calendar days (3.1 years). Pilots in the Bomber 
community will have 8.7 years of utilization from weapons system formal 
training until the end of their initial 10-year pilot commitment.
    Fighter pilots attend Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals (approx. 159 
calendar days), Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (approx. 59 
calendar days), centrifuge and survival training (approx. 20 calendar 
days), then weapons system formal training (approx. 236 calendar days). 
On average, from commissioning to combat mission ready (deployable) 
takes approximately 1315 calendar days (3.6 years). Pilots in the 
Fighter community will have 8.1 years of utilization from weapons 
system formal training until the end of their initial 10-year pilot 
commitment.
    At the completion of UPT for rotary-wing, pilot trainees will be 
winged, then attend survival training (approx. 18 calendar days) then 
move to their weapons system formal training (approx. 143 calendar 
days). On average, from commissioning to combat mission ready 
(deployable) takes approximately 878 calendar days (2.4 years). Pilots 
in the helicopter community will have 9.3 years of utilization from 
weapons system formal training until the end of their initial 10-year 
pilot commitment.
    During the 10-year pilot training Active Duty Service Commitment 
(starting at graduation from UPT), we expect two or three assignments 
depending on weapons system--one or two operational and one training 
(as an Undergraduate Pilot Training or Major Weapons System Formal 
Training Unit Instructor Pilot) from each pilot. During this period, 
some pilots will get the opportunity to attend the U.S. Air Force 
Weapons School or Test Pilot School.



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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             April 18, 2023

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN

    Mr. Wittman. After the KC-10's are fully retired, will the 
Air Force have a tanker surge capacity in the event of a 
conflict in the Pacific? What will the Air Force's tanker surge 
capacity be over the course of the next 5- and 10-year 
timeframes?
    Mr. Hunter. Tanker capacity and operational priority is 
accounted for in stacked demand and mobility capabilities and 
requirements planning documents. Tanker surge capacity is 
sufficient with the fleet of 466 total air refueling aircraft 
inventory. In the near-term, each retired tanker will be 
replaced with a new tanker and the overall tanker fleet 
quantity will not change. The FY24 PB position is that the Air 
Force plans to maintain a tanker fleet at or above 466 total 
aircraft inventory.
    Mr. Wittman. The Navy has used commercial aerial refueling 
tankers for over 20 years to supplement their refueling needs 
for Navy and Marine Corps training exercises that cannot met by 
the Air Force. Given the recent gaps in Air Force aerial 
refueling capacity, wouldn't it be prudent to augment refueling 
needs for Air Force training exercises with commercial aerial 
refueling? If not, why not?
    Mr. Hunter. The Air Force is currently meeting aerial 
refueling demand and projects that it will continue to do so in 
the future. Should the need for additional aerial refueling 
arise in the future, the Air Force may consider alternatives to 
augment capacity.
    Mr. Wittman. Will the Air Force consider making some 
retired KC-10's available to industry to ensure a surge 
capacity is available as a gap filler if needed, particularly 
since KC-Y has been cancelled and the new near-term follow-on 
KC-46 tanker acquisition plan has been cut from 150 to 75 
aircraft?
    Mr. Hunter. The Air Force remains engaged with industry and 
pursues opportunities that have cost benefit for the 
Government. Currently, industry has not expressed interest in 
purchasing an Air Force KC-10 for commercial use based on a 
January 2023 Request for Information released by the KC-10 
System Program Office. Some companies are interested in parts 
and have worked through the General Services Administration to 
obtain them. While we recently updated our tanker 
recapitalization approach, our goal is to continue replacing 15 
KC-135s per year as they retire, and the tanker fleet will not 
drop below 466 tanker total aircraft inventory. The Air Force 
is currently meeting aerial refueling demand and projects that 
it will continue to do so in the future.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BERGMAN

    Mr. Bergman. I would like information on the length of time 
a pilot spends in the various stages of his or her first 
contract with the service. The timeline would start with the 
point the 2nd Lieutenant is commissioned and end when the 
pilot's initial contract is up and they are able to leave 
active service. Please include pertinent milestones in the 
timeline such as the point he or she reports to flight 
training, the point he or she receive their wings, the point 
they go through transition training to their type model series 
that they'll be operational capable, to the point they are 
deployable, etc.
    Include any other milestones you feel are relevant. The end 
state would be to identify the length of time for each major 
milestone to include how long this pilot fully trained and 
ready to fight until the first contract is up.
    If the data is there to provide timelines by platform--
helo/fighter/transport; that would be helpful!
    Mr. Hunter. Air Force pilot candidates are accessed 
primarily through three Sources of Commissioning, the United 
States Air Force Academy (USAFA), Reserve Officers' Training 
Corp (ROTC), and Officer Training School (OTS), with each 
program having a different timeline from commissioning as a 
Second Lieutenant to starting Undergraduate Pilot Training 
(UPT). On average, USAFA graduates will wait approximately 476 
calendar days between commissioning and starting UPT. ROTC 
graduates, on average, will spend 245 calendar days in the 
Individual Ready Reserve, followed by an approximate 221 
calendar day period following entry on active duty before 
starting UPT. OTS graduates, on average, will wait 
approximately 298 calendar days before starting UPT.
    Air Force pilot candidates attending UPT can expect, on 
average, approximately 175 calendar days for the fixed-wing 
pilot track, 190 calendar days for the Euro-NATO Joint Jet 
Pilot Training track, and 174 calendar days for the helicopter 
pilot track. At the completion of UPT, fixed-wing pilot 
trainees will be winged, and track selected for Air Mobility 
Fundamentals for crewed aircraft and Fighter/Bomber 
Fundamentals for Fighter and Bomber aircraft. The breakdown of 
training timelines by track selection, weapon system formal 
training through combat mission ready, and end of initial 
service commitment are below:
    Mobility, Special Operations, Command Control Intelligence 
Surveillance Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare, and Rescue 
pilots attend Air Mobility Fundamentals (approx. 75 calendar 
days), survival training (approx. 12 calendar days), then 
weapons system formal training (approx. 86 calendar days). On 
average, from commissioning to combat mission ready 
(deployable) takes approximately 911 calendar days (2.5 years). 
Pilots in this community will have 9.2 years of utilization 
from weapons system formal training until the end of their 
initial 10-year pilot commitment.
    Bomber pilots attend Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals (approx. 
159 calendar days), survival training (approx. 19 calendar 
days), then weapons system formal training (approx. 226 
calendar days). On average, from commissioning to combat 
mission ready (deployable) takes approximately 1138 calendar 
days (3.1 years). Pilots in the Bomber community will have 8.7 
years of utilization from weapons system formal training until 
the end of their initial 10-year pilot commitment.
    Fighter pilots attend Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals (approx. 
159 calendar days), Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals 
(approx. 59 calendar days), centrifuge and survival training 
(approx. 20 calendar days), then weapons system formal training 
(approx. 236 calendar days). On average, from commissioning to 
combat mission ready (deployable) takes approximately 1315 
calendar days (3.6 years). Pilots in the Fighter community will 
have 8.1 years of utilization from weapons system for-mal 
training until the end of their initial 10-year pilot 
commitment.
    At the completion of UPT for rotary-wing, pilot trainees 
will be winged, then attend survival training (approx. 18 
calendar days) then move to their weapons system formal 
training (approx. 143 calendar days). On average, from 
commissioning to combat mission ready (deployable) takes 
approximately 878 calendar days (2.4 years). Pilots in the 
helicopter community will have 9.3 years of utilization from 
weapons system formal training until the end of their initial 
10-year pilot commitment.
    During the 10-year pilot training Active Duty Service 
Commitment (starting at graduation from UPT), we expect two or 
three assignments depending on weapons system--one or two 
operational and one training (as an Undergraduate Pilot 
Training or Major Weapons System Formal Training Unit 
Instructor Pilot) from each pilot. During this period, some 
pilots will get the opportunity to attend the U.S. Air Force 
Weapons School or Test Pilot School.
    Mr. Bergman. I would like information on the length of time 
a pilot spends in the various stages of his or her first 
contract with the service. The timeline would start with the 
point the 2nd Lieutenant is commissioned and end when the 
pilot's initial contract is up and they are able to leave 
active service. Please include pertinent milestones in the 
timeline such as the point he or she reports to flight 
training, the point he or she receive their wings, the point 
they go through transition training to their type model series 
that they'll be operational capable, to the point they are 
deployable, etc.
    Include any other milestones you feel are relevant. The end 
state would be to identify the length of time for each major 
milestone to include how long this pilot fully trained and 
ready to fight until the first contract is up.
    If the data is there to provide timelines by platform--
helo/fighter/transport; that would be helpful!
    Lt Gen Moore. The following response was drafted by the Air 
Staff for Operations (AF/A3). Air Force pilot training programs 
fall under the purview of the AF/A3.
    Air Force pilot candidates are accessed primarily through 
three Sources of Commissioning, the United States Air Force 
Academy (USAFA), Reserve Officers' Training Corp (ROTC), and 
Officer Training School (OTS), with each program having a 
different timeline from commissioning as a Second Lieutenant to 
starting Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT). On average, USAFA 
graduates will wait approximately 476 calendar days between 
commissioning and starting UPT. ROTC graduates, on average, 
will spend 245 calendar days in the Individual Ready Reserve, 
followed by an approximate 221 calendar day period following 
entry on active duty before starting UPT. OTS graduates, on 
average, will wait approximately 298 calendar days before 
starting UPT.
    Air Force pilot candidates attending UPT can expect, on 
average, approximately 175 calendar days for the fixed-wing 
pilot track, 190 calendar days for the Euro-NATO Joint Jet 
Pilot Training track, and 174 calendar days for the helicopter 
pilot track. At the completion of UPT, fixed-wing pilot 
trainees will be winged, and track selected for Air Mobility 
Fundamentals for crewed aircraft and Fighter/Bomber 
Fundamentals for Fighter and Bomber aircraft. The breakdown of 
training timelines by track selection, weapon system formal 
training through combat mission ready, and end of initial 
service commitment are below:
    Mobility, Special Operations, Command Control Intelligence 
Surveillance Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare, and Rescue 
pilots attend Air Mobility Fundamentals (approx. 75 calendar 
days), survival training (approx. 12 calendar days), then 
weapons system formal training (approx. 86 calendar days). On 
average, from commissioning to combat mission ready 
(deployable) takes approximately 911 calendar days (2.5 years). 
Pilots in this community will have 9.2 years of utilization 
from weapons system formal training until the end of their 
initial 10-year pilot commitment.
    Bomber pilots attend Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals (approx. 
159 calendar days), survival training (approx. 19 calendar 
days), then weapons system formal training (approx. 226 
calendar days). On average, from commissioning to combat 
mission ready (deployable) takes approximately 1138 calendar 
days (3.1 years). Pilots in the Bomber community will have 8.7 
years of utilization from weapons system formal training until 
the end of their initial 10-year pilot commitment.
    Fighter pilots attend Fighter/Bomber Fundamentals (approx. 
159 calendar days), Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals 
(approx. 59 calendar days), centrifuge and survival training 
(approx. 20 calendar days), then weapons system formal training 
(approx. 236 calendar days). On average, from commissioning to 
combat mission ready (deployable) takes approximately 1315 
calendar days (3.6 years). Pilots in the Fighter community will 
have 8.1 years of utilization from weapons system formal 
training until the end of their initial 10-year pilot 
commitment.
    At the completion of UPT for rotary-wing, pilot trainees 
will be winged, then attend survival training (approx. 18 
calendar days) then move to their weapons system formal 
training (approx. 143 calendar days). On average, from 
commissioning to combat mission ready (deployable) takes 
approximately 878 calendar days (2.4 years). Pilots in the 
helicopter community will have 9.3 years of utilization from 
weapons system formal training until the end of their initial 
10-year pilot commitment.
    During the 10-year pilot training Active Duty Service 
Commitment (starting at graduation from UPT), we expect two or 
three assignments depending on weapons system--one or two 
operational and one training (as an Undergraduate Pilot 
Training or Major Weapons System Formal Training Unit 
Instructor Pilot) from each pilot. During this period, some 
pilots will get the opportunity to attend the U.S. Air Force 
Weapons School or Test Pilot School.