U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

99–647 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–103] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND 

PROJECTION FORCES HEARING 

ON

AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES 

AVIATION PROGRAMS AND CAPABILITIES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 1, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Vice Chair 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

BRUCE JOHNSON, Professional Staff Member 

PHIL MACNAUGHTON, Professional Staff Member 

KATHERINE REMBER, Clerk 
(III) 

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 ........................................... 3 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces ........................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W. Jr., USAF, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition ......................................................... 4 

Holmes, Lt Gen James M. ‘‘Mike,’’ USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic 

Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force ................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Courtney, Hon. Joe ........................................................................................... 29 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy ...................................................................................... 27 

Holmes, Lt Gen James M. ‘‘Mike,’’ joint with Lt Gen Arnold W. Bunch, 

Jr. ................................................................................................................... 31 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Bridenstine ................................................................................................. 53 

Mrs. Hartzler .................................................................................................... 53 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

AIR FORCE PROJECTION FORCES AVIATION PROGRAMS 

AND CAPABILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 1, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Randy Forbes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

Mr. FORBES. Good afternoon. Today, the subcommittee convenes 

to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2017 Air Force budget request, regarding bomber, tanker, and airlift acquisition programs. 

The distinguished panel of Air Force leaders testifying before us 

are Lieutenant General Mike Holmes, Air Force Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, and Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr., United States Air Force Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. 

Gentlemen, we thank you both for your service to our country 

and for taking the time to be with us today. The fiscal year 2017 

budget request for Air Force projection forces is a good step forward to support our national defense. 

I am pleased to see continued investment in recapitalizing the 

aging bomber and air refueling fleets with the critically needed 

Long Range Strike Bomber [LRS–B], recently designated the B–21, 

and the KC–46A tanker. 

The budget also takes some steps to modernize the legacy C– 

130H tactical airlift fleet. That said, I continue to be concerned 

about the ability of our military to properly provide for our Nation’s 

defense at the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget levels. 

As I and many of the members of this subcommittee indicated in 

a letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee, this year’s budget request reduced investment in critical force structure and modernization programs by approximately $18 billion. 

Specifically, I am concerned about the implications of delaying 

the incremental replacement of the C–130H fleet and the proposed 

reduction of 27 C–130s. The Air Force has previously assessed that 

there is moderate risk with reduced C–130 force structure, and another reduction further places our national security at even greater 

risk. 
2 

It seems to me that the budget request will result in a tactical 

airlift fleet that is smaller and older, a dangerous combination. The 

Air Force budget rollout indicated ‘‘the Air Force is one of the 

smallest, busiest, and oldest and least ready fleets in our history.’’ 

It is my firm conviction, in light of the higher-end threats posed 

by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, that the Air Force have 

the resources it needs to fully support—and if possible accelerate— 

critical recapitalization programs; to include purchasing additional 

aircraft with each dollar saved, if the war fighting requirements demand it. 

With regards to bombers, last week the Air Force designated the 

Long Range Strike Bomber as the B–21 bomber. I fully support 

this critical program and am pleased to see that we are, once 

again, moving forward on this new platform, which will be needed 

for projecting power over long distances and into denied environments. 

With regard to tankers, I am pleased to see that the KC–46A 

program appears to be on track after overcoming some initial setbacks and is continuing to execute a highly compressed test and 

certification schedule that has little room for error. I look forward 

to hearing your thoughts on this program, and whether or not the 

first 18 aircraft will be delivered in time to meet the August 2017 

contract deadline. 

Lastly, I am concerned that this budget fails to provide the resources needed to procure the avionics upgrades needed to ensure 

that the entire fleet of tankers, airlifters, and bombers are able to 

cooperate safely in compliance with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] mandated next-generation air traffic management 

standards by January 1, 2020. 

The civilian aviation sector is rapidly moving toward compliance, 

and I am concerned that our military aircraft could be shut out of 

the airspace they need for transit and training. 

In sum, while I am pleased that the Air Force fiscal year 2017 

budget request makes up some lost ground over last year, I am 

concerned that the proposed budget forces the Air Force and its sister services to make false choices between capability, capacity, and 

safety, when the undeniable reality is that our military needs all 

of the above. 

I firmly believe that what this subcommittee and the rest of Congress does about national defense and military readiness will be a 

defining issue. I firmly believe that we need a strong Air Force, 

equipped with the most capable aircraft that enable our men and 

women to carry out their missions effectively and safely. 

To do this, we need leadership in national security. We need an 

unambiguous declaration that our national security is our preeminent responsibility. 

Once again, I want to thank our witnesses for participating in 

our hearing this afternoon. And I look forward to discussing these 

important topics. 

And, with that, I turn to my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Joe Courtney. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing on the 2017 Air Force budget request for projection 

forces program, under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. And 

thank you, as well, to our distinguished witnesses that are here 

today. 

The tankers, bombers, and airlift programs that fall under the 

projection forces side of our panel’s oversight serve as the backbone 

of our Nation’s ability to conduct operations and preserve our Nation’s interests around the world. 

As we know all too well, however, they all share the common 

enemy of age. The tankers and bombers in service today are largely 

legacy aircraft that, in most cases, are much older than the airmen 

and women who fly them. 

As we have heard repeatedly in our hearings over the last year, 

the need to modernize and recapitalize these aircraft and their capabilities is increasingly critical. Rapidly improving A2/AD [antiaccess/area denial] capabilities, long-range weapons, and sensing 

technologies make upgrading and replacing our legacy fleets that 

much more important. 

In order to meet these challenges, we must make the right investments today to ensure that we stay ahead of these trends. In 

my view, the 2017 budget we are considering here today makes important investments toward this goal and, on the whole, moves us 

in the right direction. 

Most notably, the budget continues to reflect the high strategic 

priority placed on two critical recapitalization programs, the KC– 

46A Pegasus tanker and the newly designated B–21 Long Range 

Strike Bomber. 

Both programs have recently seen important milestones in their 

progress. For example, a KC–46A successfully conducted an inflight refueling of an F/A–18 Hornet last month, making the aircraft’s first use of the tanker’s hose and drogue system. 

And the B–21 bomber recently saw the restart of the program, 

following the conclusion of a protest of the contract award. Together, these developments show continued progress toward rebuilding the essential backbone of our force projection capabilities. 

And I look forward to an update on the status of these two efforts. 

An ongoing area of concern for me is the modernization of our 

C–130H fleet. The ‘‘Flying Yankees’’ of the 103d Airlift Wing in 

Connecticut have largely completed their transition to their new C– 

130H flying mission. 

This mission, which ends several years of uncertainty about losing their A–10 mission in BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] 

2005, provides a sustainable and relevant role for our State and an 

important mobility capability for our Nation. 

Until last year, Congress and the Air Force had struggled to 

move forward on a clear plan to modernize our C–130Hs. Working 

with Air Force officials that are here, General Holmes, in particular, we included language in the 2016 NDAA [National Defense 

Authorization Act] to allow the service to move forward with a twopart modernization program to meet near-term FAA and inter-
4 

national airspace mandates that go into effect in 2020 and then 

focus on the longer-term upgrades, to ensure the viability of the 

fleet well into the future. 

I am pleased that the budget accelerates both modernization efforts, known as AMP 1 [Avionics Modernization Program] and 

AMP 2, for the C–130H fleet. It is my understanding that, through 

this budget, the Air Force intends to have most, if not all, of the 

fleet airspace compliant by the 2020 deadline. 

Further, the budget outlines a plan to install 42 Increment 2 upgrades by 2021 and to the rest of the fleet by 2028. I look forward 

to hearing from the witnesses about ways in which the Air Force, 

with the support of Congress, can continue to accelerate Increment 

2 to meet the enduring need for these workhorses of our Nation’s 

airlift. 

Finally, over the last year, Congress has made meaningful and 

bipartisan progress in limiting the impact of sequestration and the 

Budget Control Act [BCA]. While partially limiting the across-theboard cuts in 2016 and 2017 was important, the fact remains that 

our Air Force, like the military at large, remains handcuffed by sequestration in 2018 and beyond. 

Ever since passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act [BBA] last fall, 

several world events have further demonstrated just how important 

it is for all of us on this committee and our colleagues to work on 

both sides of the aisle in Congress to come together to make the 

compromises needed to protect our security and support the needs 

of our Nation. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and our colleagues 

on the subcommittee. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. 

And as we indicated at the beginning, we are delighted to have 

both of you here, and we are looking forward to your testimony. 

General Bunch, it is my understanding that you are going to go 

first. So we are looking forward to your remarks. And just so both 

of you know, we are going to put your written statement in the 

record in its entirety. So feel free to reference it any way that you 

may feel appropriate to do. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN ARNOLD W. BUNCH, JR., USAF, MILITARY DEPUTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION 

General BUNCH. Thank you, Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member 

Courtney, and other distinguished members for this opportunity to 

address the subcommittee. I greatly appreciate the work you do 

and the support you provide the warfighter in the United States 

Air Force. 

General Holmes and I did prepare a joint statement, and you 

have submitted it. I will not go through that here. I will make a 

few opening remarks, and then I will turn it over to General 

Holmes. 

We are here to discuss the fiscal year 2017 budget we submitted 

and some of the tough choices we made, as we finalized the budget. 
5 

While the members of our Air Force are razor sharp, dependable, 

and ready as ever, we cannot say the same for many of our mainstay weapons systems. 

The United States Air Force has, essentially, been in a wartime 

posture since 1991. This rate of deployment and constant readiness, spanning a quarter century, has taken its toll. You have 

heard the phrases used to describe our aircraft so many times that 

they almost become cliche ́s. 

Twenty-one aircraft fleets that would qualify for antique license 

plates in the State of Virginia, many pilots flying aircraft older 

than they are, and, in some cases, third-generation pilots flying the 

same aircraft as their grandfather flew. 

In order to maintain an edge against our adversaries, as well as 

to reverse the trend of the increasing budget drain of operations 

and sustainment cost for these aging platforms, the Air Force must 

modernize. 

The Air Force has several competing choices, as we continue to 

modernize and recapitalize our aging fleets, while ensuring an appropriate level of readiness to support today’s conflicts. It is imperative we get this balance right to ensure we not only win today’s 

fight, but also stand ready to address tomorrow’s threats. 

Our bomber, tanker, and mobility fleets are the lynchpins of the 

Air Force’s ability to provide global reach and global power in support of the national military strategy and the combatant commanders. 

Two of our top priority recapitalization efforts, B–21 and KC– 

46A, provide vital future modernized capabilities. We must keep 

these programs, as well as other modernization efforts, on track to 

deliver these capabilities. And we must execute all of these efforts 

in the most cost-effective manner possible, given the budget constraints we live within. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions. I will 

stop at this point and allow General Holmes to provide his comments. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Bunch and General 

Holmes can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. FORBES. General Holmes, we welcome your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN JAMES M. ‘‘MIKE’’ HOLMES, USAF, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE 

General HOLMES. Thank you, Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, and thank 

you for your continued support of the United States Air Force, our 

airmen, and their families. 

My good friend, General Bunch, and I grew up about 45 minutes 

apart. And the people of east Tennessee are either very proud or 

very surprised to see us here in front of you today. 

[Laughter.] 

General HOLMES. So thanks for giving us the opportunity. 

Mr. FORBES. I am sure they are very proud. 

General HOLMES. So thanks for your continued support. To begin 

the discussion of our 2017 President’s budget, it is important to 
6 

frame the environment in which our decisions were made. Today’s 

demand for Air Force capabilities continues to grow, as airmen provide America with unmatched global vigilance, global reach, and 

global power. 

Airmen are engaged defending U.S. interests around the globe. 

Every day, approximately 200,000 airmen directly support combatant commander requirements in response to growing challenges 

created by an increasingly aggressive Russia, an increasingly capable China, an unpredictable North Korea, and the malign influence 

of Iran, all in addition to the ever-present counterterrorism mission 

in the Middle East and around the world. 

While our forces have been heavily engaged in deterring or addressing these operational challenges, our adversaries have taken 

the opportunity to invest in and advance their own capabilities. 

For the first time in decades, our adversaries are closing in on 

our capability advantages. Our efforts to address these increasing 

challenges have been stymied by reduced and unpredictable budgets. 

The limited resources available, since the Budget Control Act of 

2011, have hampered our ability to balance readiness, capability, 

and capacity. The 2017 President’s budget trades modernization in 

the Air Force, particularly F–35 production rate and fourth-generation fighter modifications, but also some C–130J procurement, to 

sustain the capacity necessary to meet the combatant commanders’ 

urgent needs for air, space, and cyber forces and begin recovering 

readiness levels after 25 years of continuous combat. 

And while we are very grateful for the additional resources the 

Bipartisan Budget Act provides compared to Budget Control Act 

caps, we continue to face difficult choices between capacity, readiness, and modernization. 

This President’s budget works to make every BBA dollar count, 

by aligning our force structure with Defense Strategic Guidance 

and making down payments on the Air Force’s 30-year strategy, 

ensuring a credible nuclear deterrent and beginning the recapitalization of our aging nuclear force structure, advancing space and 

cyber capabilities, maintaining the conventional force capacity required to support current operations, increasing our end strength 

to begin addressing key personnel shortfalls, and investing in the 

research and development required to regain our capability advantage in the future. 

We continue to fund our top three procurement programs, the B– 

21, the KC–46A tanker, and the F–35 fifth-generation fighter, although, as I said, we were unable to procure F–35s at previously 

planned rates. 

Together, our nuclear and conventional bombers, in concert with 

our tanker and mobility aircraft, ensure the global reach and global 

power required to provide effective deterrents. But both our bomber 

and mobility fleets are aging, as General Bunch said. 

And, in fact, the average age of the B–52 strategic bomber and 

the KC–135 tanker make them both about as old as I am. And my 

staff pointed out that I qualified for AARP [American Association 

of Retired Persons] membership several years ago. 

To that end, this budget funds nearly $20 billion across the 

FYDP [Future Years Defense Program] for procurement and $4.2 
7 

billion across the FYDP in research, development, and technology 

for our mobility force. To support our bomber force, it funds $2.3 billion across the FYDP for procurement, and $16.2 billion across the FYDP in research, development, and technology, with most of that $16.2 billion going into the B–21 program in its early years. 

We will continue to invest in and recapitalize these important 

aircraft. However, we need your support in the form of stable and 

predictable budgets, if we are going to build the Air Force that ensures the joint force can continue to deter, deny, and decisively defeat any enemy that threatens the United States or our national 

interests. 

Any return to sequestration-level funding will force us to chase 

short-term requirements at the expense of long-term strategic planning, modernization, and readiness. And our budget problems will 

only get worse between now and the end of this 5-year plan. 

As Deputy Secretary of Defense Work said this week, the Depart- ment will need about $18 billion a year between 2021 and 2035 for 

nuclear modernization. And that comes at the same time as a huge 

bow wave of spending required to recapitalize our conventional 

ships and aircraft. 

We look forward to working with you in the years to come to find 

a solution to that shortfall. We thank you for your kind attention 

and continued support of our Air Force. And, along with General 

Bunch, I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Holmes and General 

Bunch can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. FORBES. General Holmes, thank you. 

And, General Bunch, we appreciate your testimony, as well. 

We had the Navy testify and present their 2017 budget to us just 

a short while ago. And we asked them a question we are going to 

ask you both now. Is this a budget whereby you looked at the 

threats around the globe and said this is the budget we need to defend and protect the United States from those threats, or is this 

a budget where you looked at the dollars you had been allocated 

and said, this is the best resources or the best utilization of the dollars we have been allocated? 

The Navy answered that it was the latter. If we pose that question to you, what would your response be to that? 

General HOLMES. Thank you, Chairman Forbes. I would say our 

budget was driven by strategy, but it is budget constrained. We 

had to make hard choices within the programs that our strategy 

would drive. 

We balanced capacity, capability, and readiness, but, as I spoke, 

we traded capability to maintain the capacity required for today’s 

threats and to try to move out to regain the readiness that we have 

given up in 25 years of combat. So it is based on strategy, but it 

is certainly influenced by the budget limits. 

Mr. FORBES. Outside experts, General Holmes, have said that the 

Air Force needs to buy 170 to 200 new bombers, whereas the Air 

Force says it is planning to purchase only 100 of the next-generation B–21 stealth aircraft. 

What risk does the Nation bear if Congress supports the current 

program of record? Is 100 Long Range Strike Bombers a COCOM 
8 

[combatant command] requirement, needed to fulfill operational 

plans, or is it a budget-driven affordable number? 

General HOLMES. Thank you, Chairman Forbes. You know, our 

current bomber fleet is just over 150 bombers of the 3 types, of 

which 96 of those are combat coded. Historically, as the Air Force 

has looked over the last decade or so at what our numbers should 

be for the bomber force, we usually end up with a number of between 150 and 200. 

And, last week, General Rand spoke of needing somewhere between 170 and 200 bombers total in the fleet. The fleet size of 100 

B–21s is appropriate and ensures sustained high-end conventional 

operations, while also supporting the nuclear triad. 

And it is underpinned by extensive analysis and conversations 

with the COCOMs to make sure that the B–21 fleet will have sufficient numbers to provide the weapons and sensors at range, which 

are the hard part for us in anti-access and area denial environments. 

You have to have enough airplanes to be able to keep enough forward to be able to make a difference. And we think 100 is the right 

number there. But we also know that our future fleet will be composed of B–21s and some portion of our legacy fleet for quite a 

while to come. And we will have time to readdress exactly what 

that right number is, whether it would be additional B–21s or 

whether it would be some other platform at the end of that buy. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. So, based on your earlier response that this budget 

was budget constrained, your response would be that this 100 number is not based upon budget restraints, but rather it is driven by 

strategy and our COCOM requirements? 

General HOLMES. Yes, sir. I believe this number is. But to serve 

the country well into the future, we also need an appropriate fleet 

size that won’t fiscally overcommit the Air Force within all the 

other requirements that we have to meet. 

So the 100 was our requirement. And, again, we will have to 

take a look at it in the years to come and see if that requirement 

changes. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. For both of you gentlemen, DOD [Department 

of Defense] released a report in June 2015 entitled, ‘‘Plan for Modernization or Replacement of Digital Avionic Equipment.’’ The report shows that the Air Force, unlike the Navy and the Army, has 

not made the investments needed to ensure its aircraft meet the 

FAA January 1, 2020, ADS–B [Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast] mandate. 

Why is this the case? And how does the Air Force intend to operate after January 1, 2020? If FAA does not provide a waiver to 

their mandate, what are the fiscal and operational implications for 

expediting compliance? 

General HOLMES. Thanks, again, Mr. Chairman. So, if you look 

at the Air Force budget since 2012, right after the passage of the 

BCA, if you compare our budget to the 2012 President’s budget, we 

have lost about $70 billion in buying power. If you compare it to 

the enacted 2012 budget and the totals that were predicted at that 

point, we have lost about $40 billion in buying power. 
9 

So when we had to find a place to absorb that $40 billion, we 

looked at this bill. The total bill for the Department is estimated 

at about $5.6 billion to equip all DOD aircraft with the required 

equipment. The Air Force’s portion of that bill is approximately $4.4 billion, so the lion’s share of that bill. And, right now, we are about $1.2 

billion difference in between what we need to accomplish the mandate and what we have committed in our budget. 

We have prioritized the airplanes that will be in the densest airspace first. So we prioritized our efforts in our mobility aircraft, 

and we won’t make 100 percent of that requirement by 2020, but 

with your help, we were able to get to the C–130Hs. And we will 

work through those airplanes at the front end of the package. 

Some of our airplanes, there may not be a cost-affordable solution to implement it, things like the F–22. And we will have to accept some risk in being able to use the most crowded part of national or international airspace. 

But the DOD made clear, when the FAA passed the rule, that 

we would need some kind of accommodation. And, although the 

FAA didn’t apply a specific DOD waiver, the rule does provide for 

procedures for an aircraft that doesn’t meet the ADS–B Out performance requirements to obtain an authorized deviation to operate 

in that airspace. 

So we will be able to operate. We will be able to go where the 

Nation needs us to go. But we will be accepting some risk and 

delays, or in extra fuel in some of the densest airspace. 

Mr. FORBES. Does the Department of Defense need a waiver? 

General HOLMES. We have begun to work that process with the 

FAA. The first waiver we provided was for the F–22, and we expect 

that we will need, at least, some kind of memorandum of agreement with the FAA prior to 2020. 

Mr. FORBES. And, again, if you would explain for the subcommittee exactly what happens if you don’t get that waiver? And, 

for the planes that are not compliant, what would they have to do? 

What would that mean? 

General HOLMES. So if there is primary radar in that area, Mr. 

Chairman, my understanding is that the FAA will have the ability 

to work to bring our airplanes through that area. As the FAA shifts 

to new technology to monitor, there may be be some areas that 

don’t have primary radar. And, in those cases, controllers, based on 

their workload, will make adjustments to sequence us through. 

As we work through our C–130 upgrade plan, we were, fortunately, able to accelerate Increment 1 to where we will get all of 

those C–130Hs upgraded. And, as we work through the rest of our 

fleets, we will prioritize the ones that are in the busiest traffic 

areas in the United States that would face the most limitation. 

But we currently have parts of our fleet that don’t meet all of the 

FAA requirements to operate in portions of the airspace. For example, our fighter fleet, the F–15 that I last flew, you can’t get above 

a certain altitude in FAA airspace. You can’t file a flight plan 

above it, but controllers will work you above it. 

And, so, we accept some delay, and we accept some higher fuel 

cost to be able to move airplanes. But we will be able to move the 

airplanes where we need to go to serve the country, but with some 
10 

delay and with some higher fuel costs, if we have to drive around 

an area to get where we need to go. 

Mr. FORBES. My last question, the administration has proposed 

to reduce the overall inventory of C–130s by another 27 aircraft 

and has proposed to delay the planned recapitalization of the C– 

130 fleet. Previously, the Air Force indicated that they had moderate risk in tactical airlift capacity. 

In my estimation, the budget request will make our tactical airlift fleet smaller and older. Can you provide an assessment of how 

the Air Force intends to support, with tactical airlift, if Congress 

adopts the budget proposals? Could you, General, hit your mic? 

General HOLMES. I apologize. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. We all do that. 

General HOLMES. Well, thank you, sir, for your patience. In 2016, 

we brought a plan forward that would reduce our C–130 fleet down 

to a combined size of 300. It takes place over time, about eight airplanes a year, as we work through this plan. 

The mission capabilities assessment study that was conducted by 

the Department says that we need 248 C–130s to meet the warfighting need. And, then, they estimated somewhere between 20 

and 70 aircraft above that. So that would be somewhere between 

about 270 or 320. 

We believe the position of 300 is a good position in that risk. And 

they estimated those extra requirements would be required to do 

support for civil authorities or other things required outside of the 

war plans, in a worst-case scenario. 

We estimate that that 300 is a good balance in risk, if you compare it to the risk that we are taking in other fleets and across the 

other parts of the Air Force. And we think a fleet of 275 strategic 

airlifters built into 479 tankers and 300 tactical airlifters will ensure that we will be able to meet the Nation’s mobility needs by 

making use of that entire fleet. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. Mr. Courtney is recognized for any 

questions he may have. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, just at 

the outset, General Holmes, I just want to again publicly thank you 

for working with the committee last year as we have an, obviously, 

high degree of member interest, in terms of this issue of avionics 

modernization. And your intervention and, you know, just common 

sense really helped us get to a good resolution. So, thank you for 

that. 

And just to maybe get a quick update on the record, again, you 

have been pretty positive about your confidence level that we are 

going to hit that 2020 requirement. I mean, is there a contracting 

process that is begun? You know, is there enough funds in the 

budget, in terms of, you know, what you are projecting to accomplish that goal? 

General BUNCH. We don’t see, at this time, sir, we don’t see anything that would preclude us from making that date. Increment 1 

is fully funded for the 172 aircraft, and we are tracking that. We 

see no roadblocks to making that date, at this time. 

Mr. COURTNEY. That is good news. And, with regards to Increment 2, again, it looks like the budget that was submitted this 

year, you moved up the compliance to 2028, which, last year, I 
11 

think we were out in the 2030s or 2040s or something, so. So, obviously, that is positive movement. 

So what factors, you know, are informing the current installation 

profile for Increment 2? Is that rate dictated by industrial-based 

concerns, or is it funding related? 

General BUNCH. Sir, we have laid in to get all of them by the 

mandate. And, so, we think we have met the requirements, and 

now we are building a plan for which tails we are going to go first. 

And we are looking at that in a holistic look, as to the age of the 

fleet and how we go forward. 

General HOLMES. And, if I could, Ranking Member Courtney, I 

would add that, as you look at how fast you are able to complete 

those Increment 2 kits, one of the considerations is how many airplanes can you take out of use at a time? 

And, so, we think we have built it at a rate that we can manage 

that risk, by taking the airplanes out of use to be able to do that 

lengthier Increment 2 modification, against our need to get it done 

as fast as we can. 

And, so, we think that schedule is about the right balance of risk 

between delaying the modernization and making sure that we have 

enough airplanes available out of that total fleet of 300 to meet the 

requirement. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Then, can I just have one other question, 

which is about, again, the C–130s, which is the issue of propulsion 

and propeller upgrades for the C–130s. You know, Congress, obviously, has shown a pretty clear and continued interest in C–130H 

engine and prop [propulsion/propeller] upgrades that have provided 

increased efficiency. 

What efforts is the Air Force making to program funding to ensure that the entire fleet receives those types of improvements? 

General BUNCH. So, right now, sir, and thank you for the question, what the Air Force is doing is we have started an operational 

assessment. And we are doing that operational utility evaluation of 

the three propulsion modernization efforts that we had started. We 

had done each of those incrementally or individually, but we hadn’t 

done those synchronized together in one thing. 

So, we are now doing an operation or evaluation with the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve Test Center at Tucson. 

That will complete in July of 2017. And we get through that, we 

look at the criteria and how it is scored out. Then we will make 

a determination of whether we continue to fill that across the fleet 

or how we would go forward. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 

would have to say, General, that the citizens of Tennessee, no 

doubt, are very proud of both of you. So quite an accomplishment. 

Appreciate what you do. 

I wanted to follow up, actually, on what the ranking member was 

questioning about the propellers and the engines. Can you, just 

going forward, tell us about how fuel efficiency would be impacted 

by the investment in propeller and engine modernizations? 

General BUNCH. Ma’am, I do not have a number in front of me. 

I know that is one of the factors that we will weigh out in the oper-
12 

ational evaluation, will be to determine how much fuel savings 

there are, so that we could do the cost capability analysis, but I do 

not have a number on me. I will take that for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 53.] 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Great. But that is very important, and we 

would be interested to see what your evaluation comes up with in 

July. As far as the LRS–B program, can you explain the $3.5 billion reduction across the FYDP for the program? 

General BUNCH. Yes, ma’am. The way the program was set up, 

we had estimated our costs by using a program office estimate. And 

we had done that up until the point that we got an independent 

cost estimate by an outside agency from the Air Force Cost—the 

AFCAA [Air Force Cost Analysis Agency] . 

And we also had one done by CAPE [Office of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation] in OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense]. And the result of that was the new independent cost assessment that we funded to. It was lower than the program office estimate. And the difference across the FYDP was over $3 billion. 

And then we redistributed those dollars out to address other Air 

Force priorities, ma’am. That is how the number came. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Well, it is refreshing to see that the price comes 

in lower than we originally expected. That sounds good. And is the 

C–130H AMP Increment 1 and 2 fully funded to ensure the longterm viability of tactical airlift? 

General BUNCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Good. All right. Air Force rollup briefing states 

that the fiscal year 2017 funding gap delays the incremental replacement of the C–130H fleet. So can you elaborate on the impact 

of this delay, and please explain the risk associated with this budget request? 

General HOLMES. Yes, ma’am. If you will allow me, I will answer 

that part. So we had eight C–130s in last year’s program that were 

beyond the multi-year buy. And this program that we have brought 

forward this year eliminates those eight C–130s. 

And so we would stop at the end of our program multi-year buy. 

We will do the AMP Inc [Increment] 1 and Inc 2 upgrade to the 

remaining C–130Hs, and we believe that will give us a fleet of 300 

aircraft that are safe, that are compliant, and that are modernized 

to support them through their life 

In a different budget positon, you know, we would love to be able 

to recapitalize some of the older C–130Hs. At the budget level that 

we are at now, we can’t fit it into the program. But we believe we 

will provide 300 again, safe, compliant, and modernized airplanes. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. And the last question. We appreciate the 

amount of money that is put in this budget for the defense management system of the B–2. Could you kind of explain this system and 

how important it is that we get this fully funded? 

General BUNCH. Yes, ma’am. It is very vital for the B–2 to continue to have the ability to operate in an anti-access/area denial environment. And it modernizes it to protect that aircraft as the 

threat has advanced, which it is, because the world has watched 

as airpower has dominated for many years now. 
13 

And they have changed the threats to get us to further out, and 

they have advanced. And this is just another step in the game to 

improve the defensive management system so that we can continue 

operating in an anti-access/area denial environment. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Well, we appreciate your support of that and all 

the platforms that our men and women in the Air Force need. So, 

thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. And, General, can I just make sure we have corrected, or that you have an opportunity to correct if necessary. You 

said the program was fully funded. It is my understanding that the 

AMP 1 program is partially funded and the AMP 2 program is not 

funded through the FYDP. Am I incorrect on that? 

General HOLMES. Sir, I believe that the AMP Inc 1 is completely 

funded, at last in 2017 and out. We may have to come back and 

talk about moving some 2016 dollars, but I believe Inc 1 is completely funded. 

Inc 2 is funded within this FYDP. And in the 20-year plan that 

I am responsible to build for the Air Force, we have the money laid 

out beyond the FYDP to get us through that 2028 date, which is 

outside of this FYDP. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentlelady from Guam is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for calling this hearing. 

General Holmes and General Bunch, thank you very much for 

your service to our country. I guess either one of you might be able 

to answer this. I asked this question at a previous hearing, but I 

will repeat it again. 

First, I would like to voice my appreciation for the Air Force’s 

diligent work in moving forward with the acquisition process of the 

Long Range Strike Bomber. The capabilities that this platform will 

provide are extremely, extremely necessary to maintain the defense 

of our Nation and our allies. 

So, General Bunch, I will begin with you. There has been recent 

criticism from one of our Senators against the Air Force’s proposed 

use of cost-plus during the early stages of the acquisition program 

for the Long Range Strike Bomber. 

Now, can you please explain why the Air Force prefers a blended, 

cost-plus, fixed-price approach for this program and what advantages, General, it provides, in this instance, over the traditional acquisition method? 

General BUNCH. Well, thank you, ma’am. That is a topic of interest, and I am glad that I get the opportunity to try to address it. 

Let me start with, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to deciding what kind of a contract you want to use on an acquisition 

program. There are various factors that are weighed out. 

On this one, we carefully considered the full spectrum of contract 

options before a decision was made by the Milestone Decision Authority to go forward with a cost-plus for the engineering, manufacturing, and development. 

In reality, over 70% of the program, as it is laid out today, is actually on a fixed-price type contract. It is only the part that is in 

the EMD [engineering and manufacturing development] phase, is 
14 

the only part, right now, that is in a cost-plus environment, but the 

vast majority of it is in a fixed price. 

The key factors that went into the decision to go forward with 

a cost-plus contract were the risk involved. And when there is technical risk and you don’t really—you have never built something before, there is a risk that is out there, and a cost-plus environment 

is more frequently used in that case 

In this case, we had mature technologies to meet the requirement, and that was good. But now we have to integrate all of those 

mature technologies together, which carries risk, and we have to 

build a never-before-built, low-observable, penetrating bomber and 

integrate those on it. Those are the main technical risk areas that 

we have focused on. 

The other one that you focus on and that we consider is, can the 

contractor who is doing this kind of work absorb a loss if one were 

to occur. The example many point to right know is the KC–46 program. 

The KC–46 program is gone beyond what the Air Force cap, in 

the expenses, but Boeing continues to do that and continue that 

work, because they have a commercial line that they can utilize 

and they can continue to get benefits from. And the other piece 

they can do is they can get foreign military sales. 

Commercialization of a Long Range Strike Bomber and foreign 

military sales are not two things that we are looking at. So the 

ability of any contractor that took this contract to be able to absorb 

that and not sell it out, that wouldn’t be feasible. 

And there are many examples that you can go back and look at 

where we have tried to do fixed-price development programs on 

new and emerging technologies, and many of those cases have not 

been very successful. But that is the reason we went down that 

path. 

We realize that one of the big concerns that people have with 

this strategy is the need to control cost growth, and that is a focus 

area that we have had from the very beginning of the program. 

We have used mature technologies, so we are not worried about 

developing additional. It is not—you are not developing a system 

along with the platform, you are just developing the platform. So 

we have limited some of the risk there. We have an independent 

cost assessment. It was done outside the program office, and we 

funded that independent cost assessment, in accordance with the 

law. 

And then, the other one we have on this program are stable requirements. Stable requirements and requirements control and 

funding with a good cost assessment from the beginning, studies 

have shown are the two main ways to control, two of the major 

ways to control, cost growth. So we are stable on our requirements 

and we feel like we are in a good position for starting the program. 

The other piece that we have implemented here is, our requirements control officer for the program is our chief. He has made it 

crystal clear the requirements are the requirements and no one 

else is going to change those. So we have a tight control on those, 

as well. 

The final thing I would say we have done to control cost growth 

is that we have structured the contract with an incentive structure 
15 

that incentivizes the contractor in the way we want. If they do not 

control cost and they do not control schedule, they will, in the end, 

not get any fee. So we have structured it in a manner to control 

those cost growths, and we know this is going to be a topic of more 

discussion, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you very much, General. It answers 

my question. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here. 

General Bunch, I have a question. What is your assessment of 

whether Boeing will meet its contractual obligations to deliver 18 

KC–46As by August of 2017? 

General BUNCH. So, ma’am, we are still cautiously optimistic. 

Boeing still assesses that they can meet it. They are committed to 

that date. They have put additional resources to make that date, 

but we have no schedule margin. And if I am asked why I am cautiously optimistic, we are still early in a test program that we 

talked about. 

We have been successful with meeting our milestone C criteria 

for an F–16, for the F–18, which was discussed, and also with the 

KC–46 receiving gas as a refueler. So we have made progress, but 

we still have a lot of progress to go, ma’am. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate it. And then, also, I represent 

Grissom Air Reserve in Indiana, where many of those KC–135s are 

still successfully flying, thanks to an incredible work of the airmen 

and airwomen there. So I appreciate your remarks earlier on how 

old some of these aircraft are. 

I am concerned, though, about the program delays impact on the 

amount of time those aircraft will need to stay flying. Can you provide your outlook on the program more broadly? 

General BUNCH. On the KC–46 program, ma’am? 

Mrs. WALORSKI. On the KC–135s and the KC–46 program. 

General BUNCH. For the KC–135s, ma’am, we do have investment money laid in. We are finishing up the Block 45 upgrade, 

which is to improve their maintainability and their reliability into 

more modernized cockpits. And we are counting on those being in 

the inventory for quite some time. 

We have also done the FAA-mandated things, or will have that 

done by 2020 so that we meet that requirement and they will be 

able to continue to operate. So on the 135 front, we are continuing 

to take an older generation of aircraft, older than myself, and continue to keep it flying and viable through investment, smart engineering, and teamwork with all parties involved. 

On the KC–46, we are a little behind on when we were going to 

do some of the initial fielding. We have delayed about 6 months. 

The first two bases that we were going to field the aircraft at, that 

has been delayed because the test program was delayed. 

And we have not been able to get the spec verification reviewed 

and accomplished, and it corresponds to that. The aircraft are still 

being built, so they can continue to make the RAA [required assets 

available] date. And they are on track to do that, but until we can 
16 

get enough of the test data and verify the performance, we can’t 

accept those aircraft, and we can’t put them out to the field. 

So, the program is progressing. We have been delayed on the test 

program, and that is one we are watching very closely. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Graham, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you both 

again. I had, actually, a different question, but something you just 

said just sparked—first of all, you are young. Very, very young. In 

terms of maintaining this aircraft, these aircraft, what is the maintenance, what is the process for maintenance that you follow? 

One of the things that concern me, I represent Tyndall. And 

when I went to visit Tyndall one time, I had someone pull me aside 

and say, the challenges that they faced. And I am sorry if this 

question has already been asked, if I walked in—the challenges 

they face with just getting a part, in order to fly the F–22. What 

challenges, if any, do you all face with the maintenance of the, let 

me use, the Air Force projection forces? Thank you. 

General BUNCH. Yes, ma’am. So, we face challenges on the older 

aircraft. There is no doubt about it. We are constantly fighting diminishing manufacturing sources and parts obsolescence. It is one 

that the program offices actually track, so they can determine 

where they can get parts. 

There are certain ways that we will work together, and, in many 

of our efforts, we will identify where the trends are. And we will 

make investments in those from a supportability phase, so that we 

can modernize those components, as time goes forward. 

So it is a risk that we run on all the older fleets. What we also 

find is that we don’t know what we don’t know sometimes. Sometimes, we will find things as we go into depot maintenance. 

Sometimes we will find things out on the frontline that we didn’t 

predict, simply because of the age of the fleet and how they have 

matured through the use and the extensive use that we have with 

the platforms. 

Ms. GRAHAM. When you need a part, where do you go to get that 

part? 

General BUNCH. The Air Force Sustainment Center, ma’am, runs 

our supply, and we also work with DLA [Defense Logistics Agency]. 

And they work through various sources to find those. Some parts 

for some of our fleet, we actually go to the boneyard, in some cases, 

and we will pull parts off of aircraft that have been retired for certain of the older aspects. 

But the Air Force Sustainment Center is part of Air Force Materiel Command. They run our supply chain, and they are the ones 

that have to find out the ways to go get the parts and track those 

down so that we can keep the fleet flying. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Great. Thank you. Now I am going to go to the 

question I was originally going to ask. The chairman has been so 

wonderful to provide us an opportunity to learn about what is the 

emphasis behind the budget requests that are in the new budget. 

And I know there is different pressures that are on the military. 

Preaching to the choir, right? It is a Southern saying. But in your 
17 

opinion, which decisions stand out as something that you, from a 

budgetary restriction, as opposed to what we need to be focusing 

on, which is making sure we are making decisions in the best interest of our strategic needs? 

General HOLMES. So, thank you, ma’am, and as we work to balance capability, capacity, and readiness, which is how we think 

that the way we provide forces to the combatant commanders, in 

this budget, at this level, we made choices to give up some future 

capability in order to minimize the risk now for the current fight 

that we are in. 

So the particular items in this budget I would highlight would 

be the reduction in F–35s from our planned buy. And we were five 

short from where we had planned to be last year at this time. We 

are not able to fund all, what we call, fourth-generation mods, the 

modifications to our older fighter fleet that is required to keep 

them viable, as they fly longer into their service life, and then, 

also, make them useful in the increased threat environment. 

So we want to upgrade radars. We want to upgrade the radar 

warning receivers. We want to add new computers to, particularly, 

the F–15 and the F–16. And we will get after those, but not at the 

rate that we would like to. 

The chairman mentioned, we are reducing the C–130 recapitalization program. So the choices we made reduce our capability for 

the future, in order to provide capacity and readiness for today’s 

fight. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you very much. And I appreciate your answers. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bunch, I 

just want to thank you for your commitment in the President’s 

budget request for AMP 1 and AMP 2. I wanted to ask, is AMP 1 

multiple contracts or a single contract covering all of AMP 1? 

General BUNCH. So it depends on which exact phase we are talking about, sir. So the answer, I hate to say, it depends. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

General BUNCH. We are using small business for the integration 

piece of this, and then we are going to be competing the installations. And that will be something that small businesses and a variety of other organizations will be able to compete for. It is a mix. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So would the small business, that would be a 

sole-source kind of set-aside? 

General BUNCH. I don’t know if we do the set-aside on that, sir. 

I will take that for the record and get back to you exactly how we 

set that up. But I was informed it is a small business doing the 

integration. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 53.] 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So can you share with us when you plan to 

award AMP 1? You can get back—— 

General BUNCH. Give me one second, sir. Let me see if I got it 

on this chart, here. I do not. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 
18 

General BUNCH. So I will take it for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 53.] 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. That is good. And then, can you share 

if it will cover non-recurring engineering and installation, or both? 

Both, or one or the other, for AMP 1? 

General BUNCH. So we fully funded the AMP 1 program to do everything we need to do, put it in the field. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

General BUNCH. And to meet the FAA mandate. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. And for AMP 2, is the Air Force going 

to use non-developmental COTS, commercial-off-the-shelf, for 

AMP 2, or—— 

General BUNCH. AMP 2, we are still building the strategy, but 

we have done that in Increment 1, sir. And we look for those type 

of activities to try to reduce our cost and to keep a viable supply 

chain and be able to do that in the most cost-effective and efficient 

manner that we can. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. And I know this is not really the topic 

of this hearing, but since I had you here, thought I would ask you 

a question that might be a little off topic. But I asked General 

Welsh about it yesterday, and I was hoping to maybe get some 

more clarity. And that was on the Combat Rescue Helicopter. 

We have had reports that the Combat Rescue Helicopter is not 

going to be fielded for Guard units any earlier than 2027, which 

is 6 years after full-rate production begins. And I was wondering 

if there was justification for not fielding the Combat Rescue Helicopter concurrently in the Guard and in the Active Component? 

General HOLMES. So in this case, Congressman, I will say, let me 

take that for the record for you and see. And come back and see 

if we have made a base-by-base plan yet. I am not aware that we 

have made a base-by-base plan yet, but I will come back to you and 

let you know. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 53.] 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Thank you, guys. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have questions 

on the K–46, but other than you all, the folks, good men and 

women on the line at Boeing, and me, we are all probably living 

and breathing it every day. And I know what I need to know on 

the 46. So I won’t ask any more questions about that. 

I do have a question, just one, Mr. Chairman, on subject matter 

in your testimony on the B–52 and the length of time we are expecting it to, as a platform, to stick around, and combining that 

with all the discussion we have on A2/AD environments. 

And, so, if you could talk a little bit, maybe more clearly or any 

more details, specific detail about the B–52’s role in the future in 

an A2/AD environment and from standoff and what we expect to 

be able to invest in it? 

General HOLMES. Thank you, Congressman. I will start and see 

if Arnie has anything to add. 
19 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

General HOLMES. You know, we think we can fly the B–52 

through about 2050. And we think that we will probably need to. 

We need a mix in penetrating and standoff platforms in our bomber fleet. 

And the B–52, for all the talk we do about its age, is an amazing 

platform. It has held up and met the test of time. It is a testament 

to the airmen, both civilian and uniformed, that keep it working in 

the depot. 

We are committing money to upgrade their radar, in the B–52, 

to make sure it will continue to be useful to us. We are adding a 

tac [tactical] data link, so it can communicate forward with the 

other forces that are out there. 

We are going to do a crypto modernization program in this budget, and we funded upgrading the simulator to where crews can 

practice air refueling in that simulator, instead of having to spend 

money to go out and fly, to do that requirement and do it more 

often. 

So, again, to come back, we think we will need a mix of both 

standoff and penetrating platforms. And, particularly, for the longrange scenarios out in the vast reaches of the Pacific, the B–52 is 

going to continue to be valuable for us for quite a while. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks, General. 

General BUNCH. And I will add one item. The other one we are 

doing is, we are doing an internal weapon bay upgrade to allow it 

to carry J-series weapons, so that it can have more capability even 

than it does at this time. 

It has the ability to carry those externally, but we are incorporating that into the internal bay, so that it will have more capacity and capability than it even has today. And I am a lover of the 

B–52. That is the first operational plane I flew, many days ago. So 

I am happy to see it moving forward. 

Mr. LARSEN. So just a followup, can you talk any more specifically about, with regards to those upgrades, about standoff weapons that become more of a—— 

General BUNCH. Well, any of the J-series weapons that the aircraft can carry will have to go through the certification to ensure 

that it will clear the weapons bay and everything. But JDAMs 

[Joint Direct Attack Munitions] or other weapons that we would 

normally carry externally, we will be able to carry internally. So 

it is the ones it is already certified to carry. It just gives it more 

capacity to be able to carry them internal as well as external. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Thanks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. Gentleman, thank you. We just have a couple more 

questions. Then we are going to let you put anything you want on 

the record to clarify what you have said. 

Mr. Larsen was talking about the KC–46A, and you have heard 

that you feel that that time period will be met to deliver 18 of those 

by August of 2017. What happens if they are not? 

General BUNCH. If Boeing is unable to make that contractual 

date, then we will go into discussions with them for consideration. 

And, by consideration, I mean things that we, the Air Force, may 

want that we do not have in the contract today, that we would ne-
20 

gotiate with them what we would get for any of the delays that occurred. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. And when you negotiate with them, what is 

the leverage? Obviously, they will say they don’t want to give anything. What is the leverage to determine how that is resolved? 

General BUNCH. Sir, we have used consideration already in a lot 

of different areas. It is the teamwork and the discussion about how 

we are going forward. So—— 

Mr. FORBES. And it seems to work? 

General BUNCH [continuing]. We have successfully done this before. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. The last question, and this is not directed to 

you two. This is something we are going to start for the committee, 

as a whole, based on some information we were given at a retreat 

that the Armed Services Committee had last week. 

The written statements that you have both submitted to us, as 

I mentioned, are going to be put in the record. Did you have to submit those written statements to anyone for approval prior to coming here today? 

General BUNCH. We did. 

Mr. FORBES. Who do you have to submit them to? 

General BUNCH. We submit them to OMB [Office of Management 

and Budget] for review. They do a policy review, and then it goes 

to OMB. 

Mr. FORBES. Were any changes made between the original statements that you submitted and the statement that was ultimately 

submitted to the record? 

General BUNCH. I am not aware of any changes that were 

made—— 

General HOLMES. I am not aware of any, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. Were you given any instructions as to what you 

could not say to this committee? 

General BUNCH. No, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. And, General Holmes, same for you. And, again, 

this is not directed to you two. We are going to start doing it to 

everybody who testifies before our committee. The final thing that 

I would ask you is this. 

In your individual best professional military judgment, following 

up on something that Ms. Graham asked you, if you were submitting this budget, and if your sole priority was doing what was in 

the best interest of the national security of this country, both today 

and over the next 5 years, and you were not constrained by the 

budget numbers you currently have, what changes would you 

make? 

General HOLMES. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

As, you know, almost 35 years in the Air Force, my experience is 

that I think there are two main things that an independent Air 

Force provides for a nation. 

The first is its portion of a safe, secure, reliable nuclear deterrent. And our Air Force provides what we call three of the four legs 

of the triad. You know, we provide the air leg, the ground leg, plus 

the command and control leg, in most of that. 

And I believe this budget makes the right investments for this 

FYDP, in that nuclear, but we are going to have problems again 
21 

beginning in 2021, primarily for the Navy, and in 2022 for the Air 

Force, on how we afford that, along with our conventional forces. 

On the conventional side, the next thing that an independent Air 

Force does for a nation, is it provides freedom of action in the air 

that makes all joint force operations possible, by controlling the air 

and space. 

And I believe that that is the area that we have given up the 

most of our capability advantage over the last 20 years, over potential adversaries, is in that air superiority mission that provides 

freedom of maneuver for the joint force. 

And I believe our Nation is going to have to make a continued 

investment there to regain that capability, or we put all the capabilities of the joint force at risk. 

Mr. FORBES. And how would you have changed that in the budget to accomplish that goal? 

General HOLMES. So, in this budget, Mr. Chairman, I would say 

our options are pretty limited. We made a national decision to curtail the F–22 program. I think it is too late to reverse that decision. 

We are down to 120 combat-coded F–22s. 

And our F–15C fleet, we know in the last year we have learned 

that they are going to require major structural modification to continue to fly. And, so, we will put some money into the longeron part 

of that. 

There is two parts, to make the story short, longerons that we 

can replace in depot, and then fuselage bulkheads that will be cost 

prohibitive to do. So we have invested in this FYDP things we 

needed to do to keep the F–22’s edge, but we need to move, I think, 

as fast as we can, as a nation, into some follow-on for the F–15, 

first, and for the F–22, eventually. 

We are finishing up a study we call ‘‘Air Superiority 2030,’’ that 

we have briefed out the first version to our chief of staff yesterday. 

And we think that will provide a roadmap for us that we can come 

back and talk to you next year about where we should invest, to 

make sure that we guarantee that edge that our Nation depends 

on. 

Mr. FORBES. General Bunch, again, in your best professional 

military judgment, is there anything you would have changed in 

this budget, if you were looking strictly at the national security interest of the country, and you weren’t constrained by the budget 

numbers you were given? 

General BUNCH. Chairman Forbes, thank you for that question, 

sir. I agree with ‘‘Mobile’s’’ [General Holmes] assessment of the 

triad. We have made the right investments now. That is one that 

is coming from an acquisition perspective, that the costs beyond 

this FYDP that we, as a nation, are going to have to decide what 

we are going to do. 

So that is one that we are going to need everybody’s attention 

on. So we will just lay that out there, but I believe we made the 

right investments during this FYDP in those areas. The other one 

I will go back to is one of the things that General Holmes talked 

about was the cost of some of the legacy fighters and some of the 

inventory. The quicker we get the F–35 in the field, the better off 

we are going to be in those areas. And that is one that would help 

us. 
22 

I am happy with the support we have gotten on the Long Range 

Strike Bomber and that modernization roadmap. The big programs 

are all going, are all getting great support from all parties. But it 

is some of the F–35 and some of those decisions that will drive impacts to the legacy fleet that we need to watch out for. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Courtney and I appreciate you being here. We 

would like to extend to you now an opportunity for any comments 

that either of you would like to put on the record, clarification of 

anything you have said, things we have left out, whatever you 

think might be important for this record. 

General Holmes, we will recognize you first, and then General 

Bunch. 

General HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, Ranking Member Courtney. We are appreciative of the chance just to 

come and talk in front of you. We are appreciative of your leadership. 

Ranking Member Courtney, you talked about the Air Force working to get a solution to the C–130Hs. That would not have been 

possible without the leadership of you, Chairman Forbes, and you, 

Ranking Member Courtney. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you. I don’t have any 

corrections. For the record, we have some questions that we will 

take to respond to you and to the members. And we thank you for 

the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. FORBES. General Bunch. 

General BUNCH. And, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Courtney, 

thank you very much, for allowing and for your support. We greatly 

appreciate it, and we appreciate the questions today. I am glad we 

got the chance to talk about the B–21, and the way we are going 

forward, and the KC–46. Those are highlights for us, as an Air 

Force, as we move forward to modernize and recapitalize. 

And I have nothing that I believe I need to correct for the record. 

And we do have some actions or questions that we will take back 

to answer. And we appreciate your continued support. 

Mr. FORBES. For that, we thank you both for being here, for your 

service, again, to the country. And with that, Mr. Courtney, we are 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 1, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(27) 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(53) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER 

General BUNCH. A 2011 Air Mobility Command Business Case Analysis states 

that engine cell testing has shown the T–56 3.5 engine modification to conservatively yield an overall 7.9 percent improvement to the fuel consumption rate. The 

Air Force has not conducted a fuel savings analysis for the eight-bladed propeller 

upgrade. The Air Force plans to conduct an Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) 

to test the T–56 3.5 engine modification in combination with the eight-bladed propellers and the Electronic Propeller Control System (EPCS) from January 2017 to 

July 2017. The OUE’s data and final test report will support a fielding recommendation based on operational effectiveness, suitability, and affordability of these propulsion system upgrades. [See page 12.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE 

General BUNCH. The C–130H AMP Increment 1 Acquisition Strategy separates 

design, integration, and kit production from kit installation. Design, integration, 

and kit production, specifically for the Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B) Out and Enhanced Mode S elements of Increment 1, will be competitively awarded as a Small Business Set-Aside. Kit installations will be competitively 

awarded through the Air Force Sustainment Center Contract Field Team (CFT) contract, which offers lower costs. CFT contractors have proven track records for similar C–130 modifications and have demonstrated flexibility to meet schedule requirements. The scope of the installation effort is anticipated to be within the CFT contract vehicle’s Small Business Set-Aside pool, and all efforts will be made to competitively award the installation to a small business on the CFT contract. [See 

page 17.] 

General BUNCH. The Air Force plans to award the design, integration, and kit 

production, specifically for the Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS– 

B) Out and Enhanced Mode S elements of Increment 1 in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. The Request for Proposal was formally released to industry on 7 Mar 

2016. [See page 18.] 

General HOLMES. The contractual bed down sequence was determined to capitalize on the two issues described below. In order to get the most accurate costs, 

the delivery locations were written into the Firm Fixed Price contract. 

First, the throughput of HH–60W conversion and initial aircrew training is largely dependent on active duty manpower at the Kirtland AFB training unit. Earlier 

transition of ARC units would limit the available pool of active duty instructors eligible for rotation through Kirtland AFB, stifling the production of HH–60W crewmembers and extend unit conversion timelines. In addition, the ARC units require 

higher crew ratios to support the same number of helicopters. Thus training the Active Duty first will provide the fastest throughput of ready HH–60Ws. 

Second, the current plan will maximize HH–60W availability for deployment 

based on established dwell standards. Earlier transition of ARC units will prematurely limit the rate that HH–60W assets can be tasked from a redline dwell rate 

of 1:1 to 1:4, forcing aging active duty HH–60G assets to fulfill more contingency 

taskings into the late 2020s. 

The United States Air Force remains committed to the CRH program and plans 

to have the entire fleet fielded by FY29. [See page 18.] 

Æ