U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

71–526 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–87] 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 COMBAT 

AVIATION PROGRAMS UPDATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL 

AIR AND LAND FORCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT BOUSUM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs 

Update ................................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 ............................................................................... 21 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 COMBAT AVIATION PROGRAMS UPDATE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G., a Representative from Maryland, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ...................................................... 1 

Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative from Texas, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ...................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Carlisle, Lt. Gen. Herbert J., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, 

Plans and Requirements, U.S. Air Force; and Maj. Gen. Jay H. Lindell, 

USAF, Director, Global Power Programs, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

(Acquisition), U.S. Air Force ............................................................................... 5 

Skinner, VADM W. Mark, USN, Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), U.S. Navy; 

Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling, USMC, Deputy Commandant of the Marine 

Corps for Aviation, U.S. Marine Corps; and RADM Kenneth E. Floyd, 

USN, Director of the Air Warfare Division, U.S. Navy .................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G. .................................................................................. 25 

Carlisle, Lt. Gen. Herbert J., joint with Maj. Gen. Jay H. Lindell .............. 47 

Reyes, Hon. Silvestre ....................................................................................... 28 

Skinner, VADM W. Mark, joint with Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling and 

RADM Kenneth E. Floyd ............................................................................. 29 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Bartlett ....................................................................................................... 65 

Mr. LoBiondo .................................................................................................... 65 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Bartlett ....................................................................................................... 69 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 COMBAT AVIATION PROGRAMS 

UPDATE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, November 2, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:38 p.m. in room 

2119, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. BARTLETT. The subcommittee will come to order. The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combat aircraft programs. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. They 

are Vice Admiral Mark Skinner, a Principal Military Deputy to the 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition; Lieutenant General Terry Robling, Marine Corps, Deputy 

Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation; Rear Admiral Kenneth Floyd, Navy, Director of the Air Warfare Division, the U.S. 

Navy; Lieutenant General Herbert J. Carlisle, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements; Major 

General Jay Lindell, Air Force, Director of Global Power Programs, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. 

This is the third in a series of hearings we are holding for the 

purpose of updating our Members on the budget request for fiscal 

year 2012. The potential impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 

on our military capability is a major concern of this subcommittee. 

Today we will address combat aviation programs to hear from our 

witnesses about potential impacts of budget decisions on our deterrence and combat capability. It would be better had the Department of Defense provided the Services an updated national military 

strategy and a projection of resources likely to be available so the 

Services could better plan their programs. Absent this, hearings 

such as this might be described as an exercise in futility, because 

we do not know what the national strategy is, and we have no idea 

how much money we will have to prosecute that strategy. 

As I stated before, major reductions in the Federal budget need 

to be a major element of correcting the Federal deficit. The Department of Defense must share in a fair and balanced way in those 

reductions, and that process is already taking place under the 
2 

Budget Control Act of 2011 with nearly $500 billion in cuts 

planned for DOD [Department of Defense] over the next 10 years. 

Under the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act, further cuts, up to a total of $1 trillion over 10 years, could be possible under what Secretary Panetta has called the ‘‘doomsday 

mechanism.’’ Indeed, the Air Force statement for this hearing 

warns that ‘‘reductions imposed by the implementation of sequestration rules would have a significant adverse impact on the ability 

of the United States Air Force to perform the missions to which it 

is presently assigned.’’ 

We have much to cover today, but a major issue is the strike 

fighter aviation in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Much of 

the future of America’s strike fighter aviation hinges on the development and production of the F–35. Through September, overall, 

the F–35 program, based on the current revised schedule, is ahead 

of the number of flight test hours and achievements of test points 

for the F–35A and the F–35C planned for calendar year 2011. The 

F–35B is slightly behind those benchmarks thus far; however, the 

F–35B recently completed its initial development sea trials aboard 

the USS Wasp, which reportedly went quite well. But the F–35 program continues to experience additional costs from the elements of 

concurrent development and production activities, and we continue 

to feel both the financial effects and the operational effects of this 

concurrent program. Projecting the costs related to concurrency 

have proved challenging. 

Although funds were appropriated in April for fiscal year 2011 

F–35 aircraft procurement, the contract for those aircraft has not 

been completed between the Government and the contractor. We 

understand that one of the major reasons for there not yet being 

a signed contract for fiscal year 2011 is the inability for the Government and the contractor to agree on what the concurrency costs 

are likely to be, whether these costs should be shared, and, if 

shared, how should they be shared. 

Funding for 35 F–35 aircraft was appropriated for fiscal year 

2011, but we understand the Department is likely to procure only 

30 aircraft because some funds will be required to pay for cost overruns in the first three production lots and to potentially pay for 

concurrency modifications expected for the fiscal year 2011 aircraft. 

Although four of the first operational F–35A aircraft were recently delivered to Eglin Air Force Base, we understand that there 

is some disagreement within the Department of Defense on whether the operational F–35A aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base are ready 

to begin an operational utility evaluation that would assess the 

readiness of the F–35A to begin a training program beyond an initial cadre of operational pilots. We understand that this evaluation 

had been scheduled to begin this month. Some say there are safety 

concerns; others say those concerns have been addressed. We hope 

our Air Force witnesses today can help us understand when the Air 

Force plans to begin the F–35 operational utility evaluation. 

Additionally, most Members will recall that at our National 

Guard and Reserve component hearing on October 12th, General 

Wyatt, the Director of the Air National Guard, testified that he had 

not received the plan for recapitalizing the Air National Guard’s 

fighter fleet, which is of particular concern to those units con-
3 

ducting Aerospace Control Alert missions. As a result, Mr. 

LoBiondo and I formally requested that the Secretary of the Air 

Force provide both the committee and General Wyatt with a comprehensive plan before the end of this year for modernizing the Air 

National Guard’s Aerospace Control Alert mission fleet and applicable fighter wings. We hope our witnesses can provide us with an 

update on the progress of that effort today. 

Before we begin, let me call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Reyes, for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for joining us here this afternoon. 

Today’s hearing on combat aviation programs occurs just as the 

Pentagon is weighing some major strategic decisions that could 

greatly impact aircraft programs. Among those decisions are how 

much we are willing to invest in maintaining our current dominance in the air. 

No other nation in the world can match us today in terms of our 

capability to project air power, so most didn’t even try. For example, in Afghanistan today, U.S. commanders get close air support— 

aircraft cover over any target in less than 15 minutes. That remarkable capability doesn’t just happen, it requires an array of 

tanker aircraft, combat search and rescue, communications, and 

other systems all working in concert. 

The United States also fields hundreds of unmanned systems 

that didn’t exist back in 2001. The intelligence provided by those 

platforms has become an essential part of almost all ground operations in Afghanistan. However, this dominance is not permanent. 

China, Russia and other nations are developing systems to challenge our current dominance, and in a future conflict, we may not 

be able to operate like we can today in Afghanistan. So the Air 

Force, Navy and Marine Corps face the challenge of maintaining 

today’s forces in combat while also laying the groundwork for the 

future. 

In the area of air power, finding this balance can be extremely 

difficult because it takes many years to design, to field and to learn 

how to operate new aircraft. 

This hearing will also cover DOD’s largest single acquisition program, the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter, as the chairman mentioned. 

Based on testimony, budget documents and reports received by this 

committee, it is clear that the program is facing significant development challenges. However, despite the program’s challenges, I 

want to go on record as saying I support it. I support the program 

because in the future there is a very good chance that our military 

will have to overcome sophisticated air defense systems, and the 

only way to do that is with a combination of fifth-generation 

stealth aircraft and other advanced systems. 

If we walk away from the F–35 program, we simply won’t be able 

to project power in many areas of the world in the future. To me 
4 

that possibility is not acceptable. So I think it is critical that we 

find a way forward with the F–35 that gets us what we need, 

which is an affordable fifth-generation aircraft that we can procure 

in large numbers. That might require changing the program to 

some degree, but the program has to move forward because the 

threat to continued American dominance in the air is real, and it 

is growing. So I look forward to today’s hearing and hearing the 

testimony of our witnesses. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes can be found in the Appendix on page 28.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Without objection, all the witnesses’ prepared statements will be 

included in the hearing record. 

Admiral Skinner, please proceed with your opening remark, and 

you will be followed by General Robling, Admiral Floyd, General 

Carlisle and General Lindell. 

STATEMENT OF VADM W. MARK SKINNER, USN, PRINCIPAL 

MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

NAVY (RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION), U.S. 

NAVY; LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS FOR AVIATION, U.S. MARINE CORPS; AND RADM KENNETH E. FLOYD, USN, DIRECTOR OF THE AIR WARFARE DIVISION, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral SKINNER. Chairman Bartlett and Ranking Member 

Reyes, distinguished members of the committee, it is our honor to 

appear before you today to discuss the Department of the Navy’s 

aviation procurement programs. My oral remarks will be for myself, Lieutenant General Robling and Rear Admiral Floyd. Testifying alongside me today as we did on March 15th are my colleagues, and with the permission of the committee, I propose to 

keep our combined Navy and Marine Corps oral remarks brief and 

submit our combined statement for the record. Following our remarks, General Carlisle will provide opening remarks for the Air 

Force. 

For the past 100 years, naval aviation has combined innovation, 

commitment and courage to build a versatile and formidable force 

providing this Nation’s global presence from the sea and from the 

air. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget requests funds to develop, procure and sustain naval aviation to meet an ever-changing 

and complex threat. Many of our existing legacy aircraft and tactical systems are nearing the end of their service life or will not 

meet tomorrow’s threat. 

We also recognize our Nation is in the midst of a financial crisis, 

and we are committed to working more efficiently and cost-effectively in this budget-constrained environment. All areas of the 

budget are being reviewed, and as the Secretary of Defense has 

stated, nothing is off the table. 

We firmly believe reductions must be implemented thoughtfully, 

strategically and ever mindful of the lessons of the past. We must 

not sacrifice the development of advanced technologies and capabilities, procurement of aircraft and integrated systems, and 

sustainment of the fleet. We will meet our Nation’s budget chal-
5 

lenges by integrating better buying-power initiatives and shouldcost parameters early in a program’s development where tradeoffs 

can make the most difference in lifecycle costs, and changing contract structure and types, ensuring we get the most product for the 

warfighter. We are targeting affordability in development, procurement and sustainment. We will ensure that over the next 100 

years, we will be as successful as we have been in the past, and 

remain committed to maintaining our Navy as the world’s preeminent maritime force. 

It is our privilege today to testify before you, and we look forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Skinner, General 

Robling and Admiral Floyd can be found in the Appendix on page 

29.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Our hearing room is not equipped with the world’s best microphones, so for best results, if you will hold it very close and speak 

directly into it. 

General Robling. 

General ROBLING. Sir, we are going to use Vice Admiral Skinner’s remarks as the statement. I think we can go on to the Air 

Force. 

Mr. BARTLETT. General Carlisle. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HERBERT J. CARLISLE, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, U.S. AIR FORCE; AND MAJ. GEN. JAY H. 

LINDELL, USAF, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL POWER PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (ACQUISITION), U.S. 

AIR FORCE 

General CARLISLE. Chairman Bartlett, Ranking Member Reyes 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to provide an update on Air Force’s tactical rotary wing 

and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aviation programs. I am joined this morning by my good friend Major General 

Jay Lindell, the Director of Global Power Programs for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions. 

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to recognize this true patriot, Jay Lindell, who is retiring 

later this month after 331⁄2 years of dedicated service to our country. Since July 1, 1974, the first day Jay and I actually met each 

other as freshmen at the U.S. Air Force Academy, it has been my 

distinct honor and privilege to serve beside this great American. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that opportunity. 

Today the Air Force is fully engaged in operations around the 

globe supporting the joint fight while simultaneously maintaining 

our homeland presence in support of Operation Noble Eagle. I 

could not be prouder of the work our airmen are doing. Just last 

week General Schwartz presented the Air Force Cross to a combat 

controller, Staff Sergeant Robert Gutierrez. Although critically 

wounded, Sergeant Gutierrez continued to direct multiple strafing 

runs that resulted in the elimination of a high-value target and no 

American casualties. His story captures the effect air power can 

bring to the fight. When dedication, professionalism and courage 
6 

are paired with technology, there is no limit to what we can 

achieve. 

This story is indicative of what airmen do on a daily basis and 

how our technical powers can be leveraged against a potential 

enemy. It is imperative that we maintain that edge through our 

modernization and acquisition programs. We look forward today to 

discussing how we can satisfy these requirements in an incredibly 

fiscally constrained environment to support this great Nation. 

Major General Lindell and I thank the subcommittee for allowing 

us to appear today and for your continued support to our airmen, 

their families and our entire United States military. We look forward to answering your question, Mr. Chairman. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Carlisle and General 

Lindell can be found in the Appendix on page 47.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. And thank you all for 

being here. 

As is my usual habit, I will reserve my questions until last, hoping that they will have all been asked by other members of our 

subcommittee. 

Mr. Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony. I guess I will start off by asking 

a very basic fundamental question, but very important question, 

because most of us on this committee are very concerned that if the 

committee of 12 [Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction] does 

not come to some agreement that gives us an opportunity to vote, 

then automatically sequestration will take place. So if I can ask 

each one of you to paint a picture of exactly what will happen if, 

in fact, we don’t get an agreement and we have to go to that sequestration process. And remember, we want to know exactly what 

areas, and what programs, and what capabilities are going to be 

impacted by that across-the-board cut. 

Admiral SKINNER. Well, sir, I will lead off. Sequestration, as we understand it, would result in 5- to $600 billion of additional cuts 

to the Department of Defense budget. Certainly from an acquisition 

perspective and the way that the cuts would be implemented across 

our multiple accounts, it would be difficult to maintain certain of 

our acquisition programs. So we are looking at those contingencies 

now. As I mentioned in my opening statement, all of our programs 

are on the table to take a look at that. 

We know, though, from just a general nature that certainly we 

would have changes in our major acquisition programs, perhaps 

layoffs in our civilian workforce, and our industrial base would feel 

the impact of that. We would have contractual implications, perhaps breaking multiyear contracts and things of that nature. So sequestration from an acquisition perspective, at least from the Department of the Navy, would have serious consequences. 

Mr. REYES. What kinds of operational consequences would it create for the Navy, for instance, in terms of being able to deploy, 

keep a presence in all of the different strategic parts of the globe? 

Admiral SKINNER. Well, from an operational perspective, certainly as we took cuts across our readiness accounts and our sustainability accounts, that would have an impact on how we deploy, 

but until we got the idea of how much those cuts would be and 
7 

then take a look at some of our contingency plans, to give you specifics would be difficult at this point in time. It is predecisional 

until we put the budget together and present it here to the Hill in 

February. But certainly with the defense cuts that we have taken 

to date, the cuts imposed by sequestration would have an impact 

on our budget. 

General ROBLING. Ranking Member Reyes, thank you for that 

question. I think all of the folks at this table will have a similar 

answer because we have all been going through budget drills for 

the last 6 to 8 months on the current budget problem that we are 

facing. And the chairman said $500 billion. I can tell you $500 billion for DOD, while we understand that that is, you know, a part 

of what we need to do for our Nation, to take those cuts is very 

difficult. It is painful. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps went through his own 

Force Service Review Group, Structure Review Group. He decided 

on a middleweight force that would be 186,800. That included 24 

battalions, 21 Active Duty squadrons, 3 Reserve squadrons, 16 

vertical-lift squadrons, 8 heavy-lift squadrons, and 8 HMLA [Marine Light Attack Helicopter] squadrons, along with, as you know, 

the EFV [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle] was cancelled, and we 

are looking for a replacement for that at the ACV [Amphibious 

Combat Vehicle]. So when you talk about sequestration going well 

below or past those $500 billion cuts, starts not only cutting into 

capacity, but it also cuts into capabilities. 

I think Marine Corps plays at both ends of the spectrum, both 

the high—even though we are the middleweight force, we play at 

the high end of the spectrum, and some of the op plans out in the 

Pacific Asia area, and, of course, out in the Middle East right now, 

and then, of course, the low end where we do security cooperation, 

and COIN [Counter-Insurgency] operations and those kind of 

things. 

So I think further cuts will be very, very difficult for the Marine 

Corps, and it will be a widely different Marine Corps than you 

have right now. 

Admiral FLOYD. Thank you for the question, sir. And I echo my 

seniors’ comments that they just made. I know it is frustrating, it 

is difficult to be specific not knowing exactly what the numbers 

come to be, but we know that it is going to be very—a significant 

impact across the board in amount of presence in our force structure, in our readiness, our training, shore infrastructure, travel, all 

the way through to personnel, which will be major impacts. So I 

think that that is—that would be kind of my thoughts on it based 

on what we have already heard. 

General CARLISLE. Thank you, Member Reyes. Thanks for the 

question. Again, as my good friend Terry Robling said, we will all 

probably pretty much say the same thing. 

We are still struggling with the current cut, the $450 billion cut 

that was laid in as part of the top line of DOD. We haven’t got 

there yet, and it is incredibly challenging to get to that level. To 

think of something that would be a next level above that at even 

a greater reduction, the specifics would be draconian, in our opinion. 
8 

Our Chief will tell you that when you look at the range of military operations that we all participate in, by definition the $450 

billion cut, we will be able to do a lot less of that. Our capacity 

across the United States military will go down with the current 

budget that we are trying to struggle with for 2013. The comment 

that our Chief and Secretary make often is if you think of last 

March when we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are doing a 

swap-out of some pretty big combat power there. At the same time 

we are supporting our Japan neighbors with their earthquake and 

tsunami, and we started operations in Libya. It is entirely possible 

when this budget goes into effect, we couldn’t do that again. If that 

happened in 2015, we probably couldn’t do what we did this past 

March. 

If we go into the sequestration, the question that we are struggling with within the Air Force is what are we going to stop doing? 

What of that range of military operations—because if we take capacity down across the board, eventually none of it will be effective. 

We will get to such a small capacity that we can’t really accomplish 

the missions that we are given, so we would have to pick mission 

areas and stop doing them. You also heard our Chiefs talk about 

if we got to that point, we would have to take entire fleets of airplanes down. Instead of just a few of a bunch of different types, we 

would have to take an entire—potentially an entire fleet down. So 

when we think about sequestration, we think about things that 

would be asked of us in the future that we would no longer be able 

to do. 

General LINDELL. Ranking Member Reyes, if I could just restate 

what Secretary Donley has commented, that we will definitely be 

a less capable, less modernized, undermanned and used the term 

‘‘hollow force.’’ And a hollow force means that when General Carlisle and I started flying jets in our Air Force—and we entered at 

the same time as he commented, in 1980—when we were on Active 

Duty in a mission-ready squadron, there was a 50 percent chance 

when we stepped to our jets that we would get in the air. And that 

was due to lack of parts, lack of engines, lack of ability to maintain 

the aircraft. So when we start talking about this sort of cuts that 

we have all commented on and potentially a hollow force, we are 

talking about a much less capable Air Force. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, gentlemen, for that candid assessment. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I 

would like to start off by echoing what my colleagues have said and 

thanking you for your many years of service to our Nation and your 

leadership that you have provided. 

Generals Carlisle and Lindell, as Chairman Bartlett indicated, 

he and I sent a letter to Secretary Donley last week outlining our 

concern for the lack of a formal plan to recapitalize the Air National Guard’s Aerospace Control Alert mission fighter jet fleet. It 

is an issue we have been talking about for years and years and 

years, and we are trying to zero in on this for what we think is 

the sake of the Nation. 
9 

With that said, we have requested that Secretary Donley present 

this subcommittee and General Wyatt with a hard copy version, 

not a promise that there is a plan, but something that we can actually look at and something that we can actually read to address 

this issue by the end of the year. I am hoping and assuming that 

this issue is already being discussed, and if that is so, is it possible 

to give us some insight into what we can expect to see in this plan 

with respect to the number of ACA [Aerospace Control Alert] units 

in the Air National Guard, and should the Air National Guard expect to have to maintain—how do they do this in the outyears? I 

will start with those two. I have got a series of follow-up questions. 

I will see how my timing goes. 

General CARLISLE. Congressman LoBiondo, thank you very much 

for that question. In fact, I understand exactly what you are talking about. We very recently had a very in-depth work with—in a 

fairly high-level meeting that was just this past week with the Secretary, the Chief, the Director of the Air National Guard, the Director of the National Guard. General McKinley was there, General 

Stenner was there. And that is exactly the point we got to, and 

that is how we are going to modernize across the National Guard 

as well as the Air Force Reserve, how we are going to maintain 

that capability as the Reserve fleet for the United States Air Force. 

You will hear in the not-too-distant future the announcement of 

the plans of probably close to 350 airplane service life extension 

program for the F–16 fleet, as well as the modernization program 

for the F–16 fleet. As you well know, in the 2012 budget, there is 

money to do a service life extension program, to start the RDT&E 

[Research, Development, Test and Evaluation] and buy the first 

three ship sets, and also start doing the RDT&E on the avionics 

upgrades to these airplanes as well. 

So that plan is, in fact, as you had asked for, sir, is being worked 

very diligently, and how those—based on what we believe, we will 

have—the other thing that will aid this is the integrated master 

schedule for the F–35 program is—will be out fairly shortly, combining the F–35 with the SLEP [Service Life Extension Program] 

of the F–16s and how we are going to integrate the F–35 into the 

Guard and Reserve, as well as how we are going to modernize the 

legacy fleet of the F–16s. 

So the answer is, yes, sir, we will. As you well know, again, there 

is 18 ACA sites, and 17 of them are Air National Guard, and that 

is the plan that we are taking forward. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. These preliminary options that may be on the 

table are extremely important for newer upgraded iron into these 

strategic wings. Obviously like the 177th that I represent and beyond the latest service life extension program, there is questions 

about how far we can go with that, what we can do with that, the 

modifications and upgrades, and, you know, in the event of reductions to the Air National Guard entire jet inventory, there are a lot 

of moving parts here which we have no understanding of how it 

comes together to present us with a comprehensive plan, and that 

is the anxiety that I am feeling here. 

General CARLISLE. Yes, sir. There are a lot of moving parts, 

which, as you just stated, makes it incredibly difficult to get to the 

specifics, but we are working towards that to get that plan laid out. 
10 

We are doing a full-scale fatigue test on the F–16 to determine 

those SLEP parts and what the life availability is in those airplanes and the avionics upgrade as well. And the F–35 program 

and what that integrated master schedule looks like will be a big 

part of that, as well as some of those airplanes clearly are going 

to go to the Air National Guard, and they are going to Burlington 

already, and there will be more as well. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And, Mr. Chairman, I will have additional questions on the next round, but that is part of what worries me, because the F–35 continues to slide to the right. We continue to figure them in in what the Air National Guard is going to be able to 

do, and I think it might be a little bit of a false hope that we are 

going to get to any of those numbers that will make a difference 

unless you all can present something that makes some sense. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I will look forward to the 

next round. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Mr. Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for testifying and for your service to 

our great Nation. 

I have sort of an in-the-weeds question for you, General Carlisle 

and General Lindell. I read or saw where we are going to be—you 

are going to be retiring ‘‘Hueys’’ that serve combat search and rescue and also domestic programs, and that you are moving into 

more of a heavy platform to do combat search and rescue and a 

commercial-off-the-shelf for the more domestic. Now, is this a 

change in direction that you are going from one platform to two? 

And what is the plan going forward? I don’t truthfully understand. 

General CARLISLE. Thank you, sir. Thanks for the question, sir. 

There are two airplanes now. The HH–60 does the combat search 

and rescue, and the ‘‘Huey’’ does the domestic in support of the nuclear fields as well as here. We are doing Ops Loss Replacement 

for the—for the HH–60s that we have lost in combat to get that 

fleet, at least to be able to sustain until we get a new combat 

search and rescue. There is a program for a new combat search and 

rescue airplane, and there is also a full and open competition of a 

commercial-off-the-shelf airplane for the domestic mission to include the nuclear field as well as here at Andrews. 

So there are two programs, and there are two airplanes today. 

The bids will allow people to bid for either one of them or both of 

them together. So we are going to design the program and give 

them that flexibility if we can. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Thank you. It was my misunderstanding then. 

Going back to what Mr. LoBiondo started into was the Joint 

Strike Fighter moving to the right. Now, obviously delays in Joint 

Strike Fighter development are going to mean that you are going 

to have to keep legacy aircraft on board longer and used longer. 

Now, I was just down—and I am going to butcher the name. I say 

Beaufort. Is it Beaufort? Beaufort, General Robling? 

General ROBLING. It is Beaufort. 

Mr. CRITZ. Beaufort. And I saw where a new hangar was being 

built for the F–35, and they are talking about the F/A–18s being 

retired. 
11 

One of the things that concerns me is I see that the Navy has 

got a Strike Fighter shortfall projected at 52 aircraft in 2019. So 

I am curious as to how the legacy aircraft, the delay in development of the Joint Strike Fighter, is going to impact not only current, but over these next 10 years. So anyone and everyone who 

wants to answer. 

General ROBLING. Okay, sir. I will take the first shot at that 

since you mentioned Beaufort first. That particular hangar will be 

done for fiscal year 2014. Our plan eventually is to move the training squadron there into Beaufort. Right now the way the program 

is slipped, we are looking at somewhere around 2-year slip for IOC 

[Initial Operational Capability], maybe a little bit more. 

You know, this is an aircraft under development, and so it has— 

it has problems like all aircraft that are under development. But 

I think the program—the joint program office has a good plan for 

getting it back on track. And I think we have already had a good 

plan for SLEPing and sustaining the legacy aircraft. Of course, we 

can’t do that forever. 

In the F/A–18 we decided that for the Strike Fighter shortfall, 

we had somewhere under 100, that would be manageable. Right 

now we are at 52; 13 of those are Marine Corps aircraft. So we will 

take the bulk of that risk. But we have a plan to SLEP again 150 

of those ‘‘Hornets.’’ That will take us out to the point where we can 

transition to JSF [Joint Strike Fighter]. 

Admiral SKINNER. Yes, sir. And I will add we have a pretty comprehensive plan for keeping our legacy ‘‘Hornets’’ flying. We have 

the Service Life Management Plan where we actually use force 

gauges on the airplane to take actual data, and we fly them, you 

know, so that we minimize the fleet expended on those airframes, 

and we can manage the fleet expenditure down at the squadron 

level. 

We have done a service life analysis, a program on the legacy 

‘‘Hornet,’’ so that we know where the—we have to look for the spots 

we have to do modifications and repairs. And then we are in the 

second phase. We are in the midst of the second phase of our SLEP 

for the legacy ‘‘Hornet.’’ 

So we have a pretty comprehensive plan that we are most of the 

way through. We have the third phase of our SLEP to do. And we 

have identified the first 150 of those jets that we can tee up. And 

we start to SLEP those planes this year. So we have a program in 

place to extend the legacy ‘‘Hornets’’ to mitigate some of the ramifications of the JSF sliding for a couple of years. 

General CARLISLE. And, sir, just to reiterate some of the other 

comments. You will hear an announcement fairly quickly from the 

United States Air Force that we are going to SLEP an avionics 

modernized probably in the vicinity of 300 to 350 F–16s, legacy F– 

16s, to get them both avionic capabilitywise as well as 

structuralwise with this SLEP to cover any shortfalls we will have, 

and we think that is the right number. 

We have enough of the late model F–16s Block 40s and 50s to 

go as high as 600. We don’t believe we will need to go there with 

respect to SLEP. We are doing that full-scale fatigue testing on the 

F–16s and the F–15s to determine the structural life of those air-
12 

planes. And again, the avionics is a part of the RDT&E in the fiscal 

year 2012 budget. 

We are all in the same position with our IOCs that will all probably slip about two years to the right, and the Air Force in the first 

look thinks ours is going to be about the same. But, sir, I will tell 

you, that airplane, it is going to be a great airplane. And we have 

got work to do, but it is going to be a good airplane, and we have 

to have it. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just express 

my thanks to each of our witnesses for their service, the job you 

and your staffs are doing. And I yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Mrs. Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for your service. And I especially want to commend General Lindell and General Carlisle. I think the Air Force 

Academy has got to be very proud of both of you. So thank you for 

your service. 

I would like to start off with questions about remotely piloted 

aircraft. Of course, I represent Whiteman Air Force Base and feel 

very honored about that. We have the 20th Reconnaissance Squadron there. And I think that the remotely piloted aircraft is really 

very critical to what we are doing to defend our country right now. 

And, of course, its use is increasing as we monitor what is going 

on, and protect our men and women in uniform, and target enemies. 

And I know that in fiscal year 2010, there was a capacity of 50 

sustained Combat Air Patrols, and then that has gone up now to 

60 that we are doing. And I was on a radio interview last week and 

was asked a question, and I wonder if you could comment on it, because I was not aware of it. But the caller said that they had read 

that Congress had passed additional funding for aircraft, but yet 

we don’t have the pilots to fly them. Can you shed some light on 

that? Is that the case? 

General CARLISLE. Yes, ma’am, it is. If you see the growth of the 

combat air patrols that the MQ–1s and the MQ–9s are flying, that 

ramp, we have exceeded what we were planning on doing every 

year. We are in our sixth surge to provide that capability, the combatant commanders. We had three in Libya recently. Those were 

surge. There are other parts of the world where we are standing 

them up at a rapid pace. 

In fact, our issue today is our ability to train the sensor operators and the pilots. We have been surging for so long, and we are 

taking those instructor pilots that are supposed to be training the 

next group of folks, and we are putting them into combat missions 

because we are simply trying to provide the combatant commanders what they are asking for with respect to ISR [Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance]. 

So that is, in fact, true. We are at the top limit. As a matter of 

fact, we have grown to 60 CAPs [Combat Air Patrol], and we are 

probably going to come down a few CAPs in the not-too-distant future to allow us to reconstitute some of our training capacity to 
13 

start training the next round of folks who are going to do this mission. So that, in fact, is true. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Isn’t it true that this is the fastest-growing area 

of pilots right now is training for the remotely piloted aircraft 

versus the other? 

General CARLISLE. It is the largest single group of pilots in the 

United States Air Force are the RPA [Remotely Piloted Aircraft] pilots. That is a true statement, yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. When do you anticipate that we will be able to 

meet capacity and to meet our needs? 

General CARLISLE. We have a reconstitution plan that will take 

us about a year to get the training capacity, and the advanced tactic techniques and procedures, and the weapons school that we had 

to stand down to do the CAPs for the combatant commanders. We 

anticipate about a year to reconstitute the force. And about next 

year at this time, we will be on a glide path to get back to the capacity that we are looking to get to, which will eventually be 65 

CAPs. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. It is certainly an interesting phenomenon that 

we are seeing here in that. 

As it relates to airspace, I understand that during Hurricane 

Katrina and amid Federal requirements, there was difficulty gaining FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] approval for remotely 

piloted vehicle operations in U.S. airspace. So what is the status 

of remotely piloted aircraft being able to operate independently in 

U.S. airspace? 

General CARLISLE. That is still an issue, ma’am. We are working 

it very diligently with the FAA and the national airspace structure. 

There is an initiative by the United States Air Force and the Army 

to build a ground-based sense and avoid. Clearly without a pilot in 

the airplane, the ability to see and avoid traffic is the biggest issue 

that the FAA has with RPAs. We are very close to getting to the 

point that we won’t have to have chase or observers, but, in fact, 

we will have ground-based sense and avoid, and what that is is 

using existing air traffic control radars to monitor and do kind of 

the sense and avoid for the RPAs. We are still working our way 

through. We are not there yet. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. You would think that would be fairly easy to 

solve with all of the radar and the technology that we have today. 

General CARLISLE. It is, ma’am, but it is crowded airspace. There 

is a lot out there. We have a very good relationship with the FAA. 

We are working very hard to move our way forward. I understand 

their concerns, and we have to get to a point where we all feel good 

with whatever risk is out there. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Can you tell me if we are using remotely piloted 

aircraft to monitor our southern border with Mexico or not? 

General CARLISLE. Ma’am, remotely piloted aircraft are being 

used by a lot more folks than just the United States military. They 

are being used by the police departments, they are being used by 

Border Patrol, they are being used in many places, yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, gentlemen, thank you again for your service. 
14 

General Lindell, and going down the Services, the delay in the 

Joint Strike Fighter, and specifically in the SLEP program, each 

Service, how much is that really costing us? 

General LINDELL. Congressman, your question concerns the F–16 

SLEP program? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Yes. 

General LINDELL. In the 2012 budget, we have $108 million in 

the 2012 budget; however, the total program that we are estimating, as General Carlisle has commented on, is 300 aircraft. The 

total SLEP with structural modifications of 300 aircraft plus an 

avionics modification would be roughly $9.4 million per aircraft. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And hopefully we don’t have any further delays, 

but how far down the road does that—you know, does that get us 

before we have to consider doing it again? 

General LINDELL. Sir, this would add significant service life, and 

we are looking at the Block 50 and the Block 40 aircraft to extend 

the service life to at least 10,000 flight hours on those aircraft. So 

certified to 8,000 today going to 10,000, that would add roughly 8 

years. So we are looking for capability through the next decade, 

which would be through 2030. So we expect some viability out of 

the F–16 fleet if we are going to spend that much money, obviously, 

to SLEP the aircraft. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. 

That is all I have, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Reyes, do you have another round of questions? 

Mr. REYES. I will take one more. This question concerns the U– 

2, and it is for General Carlisle. 

The Air Force had intended to begin retiring the U–2 aircraft in 

2006. Congress passed legislation delaying that action until the 

Secretary of Defense can certify to Congress that the capabilities 

provided by the U–2 aircraft no longer contribute to mitigating any 

caps—any gaps in intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. 

Is there a replacement capability that can replicate the U–2, or 

is this a case much like the SR–71, where it provided an unmatched capability, but we just couldn’t continue to afford its 

unique operational capability, and so we retired it? What are our 

plans in the Air Force for the U–2? 

General CARLISLE. Sir, we are not retiring it in the near term in 

accordance, obviously, with law as well as the right thing to do 

with respect to maintaining the capability. The ‘‘Global Hawk,’’ the 

RQ–4, will be the replacement. It is not there yet. The sensor suite 

is not there, and it cannot match what the U–2 does. We do have 

a high-altitude transition plan, a high-altitude reconnaissance 

transition plan, that talks about when the ‘‘Global Hawk’’ in future 

years will be able to serve that same target set with respect to intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance to replace the U–2. We are 

not there yet, and that airplane is going to be maintained for a period of time. It is a very expensive airplane to fly, but we are balancing that with the need for that capability. 

Mr. REYES. Do we have at this point any idea, any ideas how 

much longer before we have that transitional capability? 
15 

General CARLISLE. Sir, I think with the Block 40 U–2s and the 

sensor suite that are going to be incorporated in that airplane, we 

will start to get close to that. We believe that the U–2 will probably 

be around at least through 2014 or 2015 right now. And in that 

timeframe we believe the ‘‘Global Hawk’’ may be at the point that 

it can fill that mission set, yes, sir. 

Mr. REYES. Very good. Thank you. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, following up on what I was talking about before, sort of 

in the same vein, could you give us your best professional military 

opinion on whether or not the U.S.’s current industrial base and 

fighter production capacity have the ability to meet the Air Force’s 

and the Air Guard’s operational requirements for protecting the 

homeland and continued overseas operations if the F–35 continues 

to slip to the right and we have to do something? 

General CARLISLE. Sir, the answer is yes, I do believe, in my personal opinion. I think that there is still a production line for F/A– 

18s. There is still a production line for F–16s. And there is still an 

F–15E production line that are still producing airplanes. In the 

near term, those are still part of the industrial base that are making great airplanes and still provide a great capability. 

I think the F–35, as I mentioned earlier, we have to have that 

airplane, and we have to have that program. I think that as we 

continue to work our way through the F–35, and we continue to see 

success, I think I will gain more and more confidence in our ability 

to fill that need in that industrial base. But in the current situation, we have production lines available to produce airplanes, and, 

again, I believe the F–35 is going to be a great airplane, and I 

think it is making progress. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, we all hope for that, and there is no doubt 

about it, it is an unbelievable—it is an unbelievable plane. However, if you are sitting on this side, and we have listened to all of 

the projections over a number of years now, and going back to General Jumper’s presentations, you have got to have a little bit of a 

step back and a pause about where we go if the projections and the 

predictions are not correct. And I think what you are saying is that 

we don’t want to be in a risk situation with only one production 

line if we can’t see some clear progress here; is that correct? 

General CARLISLE. Sir, I see progress in the F–35 program, and 

I believe that airplane will deliver. I truly believe that. 

Again, the industrial base, I fully concur with it is something we 

need to be concerned about. We also need to work within the total 

obligation authority that we have within the Department of Defense. I believe that the F–35 program is going to deliver. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. Obviously we will watch that very carefully, given Mr. Critz’s questions on the HH–60s and the UH–1, 

and ask could the Air Force provide us with specific data in the 

coming weeks on the age, condition and performance of those airframes through November of this year. Would that be possible? 

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

page 65.] 
16 

General CARLISLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Critz, no other questions? 

Mr. Platts? 

Mrs. Hartzler? 

Mr. Runyan? He is gone. 

Thank you all very much for attending. I have been watching my 

question list and marking off those that have been asked by other 

members, and I think I have an even dozen short, quick questions. 

Some of them can have a yes or no answer. 

Admiral Floyd, General Robling and General Carlisle, for each of 

the Services, which of your combat aircraft in the operational forces 

or in the development phase have electromagnetic pulse protection? 

Admiral FLOYD. I can start with that, sir. The EMP [electromagnetic pulse] hardening is—that would be a classified response. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Certainly the level to which you have hardened 

may be classified, but whether are your hardened—had hardened 

or not, that really is not classified, is it? 

Admiral FLOYD. I believe that it is, sir, but I would take that 

back. I can get you that answer. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. I don’t think that whether you have hardened them or not is classified. The level to which you have hardened may be classified. If you will take that for the record, I would 

be very pleased with that. 

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

page 65.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. We have the same question for the three 

of you relative to the F–35 program. Is it hardened? And we may 

have to have a classified session to discuss this, but I am concerned 

that it be hardened—not only hardened, but hardened to an appropriate level—so that they will still be available to us after a robust 

EMP laydown by a peer or near-peer. 

For many of the adversaries that we may face in the future, we 

really don’t need these planes. We can do with lesser capable 

planes. When we really will need them is when we are faced with 

a peer or near-peer. And it is in all of their open literature, it is 

in all of their war games, one of the early things is a robust EMP 

laydown which will deny us the use of all of our equipment which 

is not adequately hardened. So we are very concerned not only that 

they be hardened, but they be hardened to an appropriate level. 

I had another question relevant to the EMP, and I guess we will 

have to take that for the record, too. We understand that in the 

August 2011 interim report from the Defense Science Board on the 

Survivability of Systems and Assets to Electromagnetic Pulse and 

Other Nuclear Weapons Effects, the Air Force nonconcurred with 

the new aircraft EMP standard, MIL–STD–3023; that this has potential impact on survivability requirements for a new aircraft such 

as the F–35, the tanker, the next-generation bomber, and the 

White House platforms. 

Could you tell us—and I guess you will have to do this for the 

record. Please tell us why the Air Force nonconcurred, with what 

did the Air Force nonconcur, and why the Air Force nonconcurred, 

if you could do that. 
17 

General CARLISLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will take that for the 

record and get back to you. 

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

page 65.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Admiral Floyd and General Robling, given the recent effect of the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, do you anticipate that you will decrease the total number of JSF bought from the current program 

of record, 680 aircraft total? If so, how will this affect the Navy and 

Marine Corps being able to meet strike fighter requirements in the 

future? 

Admiral FLOYD. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is no, we still 

intend to procure 680 aircraft. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

General Robling, as you know, the JSF program has experienced 

a significant delay in its SDB [Small Diameter Bomb] program and 

a delay in the development of the F–35B. Previously initial operational capability, the IOC, was planned for 2012. What are the 

Marine Corps’ projections for initial operational capability of the F– 

35B? 

General ROBLING. Mr. Chairman, I am anticipating—I think I 

talked about that the last time we were together. It is event driven. 

I believe that will be 2 years later, late 2014, and it may go into 

2015. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Admiral Skinner, when does the Navy plan for 

the IOC and the F–35C? 

Admiral SKINNER. Mr. Chairman, the Navy defines IOC as 10 

compliant Block 3 aircraft ready to deploy that have completed initial operation tests and evaluation. We are awaiting the results of 

the technical baseline review that will inform the integrated master schedule. That should be with us towards the end of this calendar year, and at that point in time, when we get a real clear idea 

about the test and evaluation schedule, we will be able to define 

when that IOC will be. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

General Carlisle, when does the Air Force plan to be IOC in the 

F–35A? 

General CARLISLE. Mr. Chairman, just as the other Services, it 

is event driven. It will be dependent upon the IOT [Initial Operational Test] for Block 3 airplane to be completed and air crews 

trained, maintainers trained, and a sustainable deployment capability with those airplanes. We anticipate that that will be probably 

approximately a 2-year slip. We will have better fidelity when we 

see the master schedule. It currently is 2016. We anticipate that 

will slip until 20—it is currently 2016. We think that will slip until 

2018. 

Mr. BARTLETT. And again, General Carlisle, recent news reports 

suggest a difference between Dr. Gilmore, the Director of Operational Testing, and the F–35 Joint Program Office about the readiness of the Eglin Air Force Base F–35s to enter into an operational 

utility evaluation that would generate a capability to train F–35 pilots. We understand that the Under Secretary of Defense has asked 

the Air Force to review Dr. Gilmore’s concerns. Does the Air Force 
18 

view Dr. Gilmore’s concerns and does the Air Force plan to proceed 

with the OUE [Operational Utility Evaluation] soon? 

General CARLISLE. Mr. Chairman, thanks for that question. Obviously, we take the concerns of Dr. Gilmore very seriously. Both 

the United States Air Force and Aeronautical Systems Command, 

Lieutenant General Tom Owens, as well as Admiral Venlet, have 

talked to Dr. Gilmore. We are in the process of going through all 

his concerns. I think we very recently in the last couple of days 

have brought him more information. 

We have a very diligent and deliberate process to do a military 

flight release and an airworthiness certificate. We are going 

through those steps. We have not completed them yet. And we are 

demonstrating those to Dr. Gilmore. We believe that we will be 

able to do that and satisfy all of his concerns. 

For correctness also, there are six airplanes at Eglin today, six 

F–35s down at Eglin today. Last week two more were delivered. 

And we believe that we will be able to do a military flight release 

at some point in the not-too-distant future. But, again, it is event 

driven, and we are going through that process very deliberately, 

and we are addressing all of Dr. Gilmore’s concerns. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

General Lindell, we understand that negotiations for F–35 Block 

5 contracts are still ongoing, and a major point of contention between the Government and the contractor is the issue of who will 

pay for changes to the aircraft due to concurrency. Is this correct? 

General LINDELL. Mr. Chairman, you are correct. And the issue 

is concurrency in the LRIP [Low Rate Initial Production] 5 contract 

and the amount of Government liability versus contractor costs for 

concurrency. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Can you tell us, sir, when will Block 5 contract 

negotiations probably be completed? 

General LINDELL. Yes, sir. We plan to definitize the contract for 

LRIP 5 this spring, next spring in 2012. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Another question for General Lindell. Please describe the updated acquisition strategy for the Light Attack/Armed 

Reconnaissance aircraft, the LAAR aircraft. Has the acquisition 

strategy been fully approved and finalized for this program? 

General LINDELL. Mr. Chairman, for LAAR, Light Aircraft 

Armed Reconnaissance, the acquisition strategy has not been fully 

approved at this time. It is on hold. Obviously, the LAAR program 

is a new start in the 2012 budget, and we are awaiting the budget 

before we progress and coordinate the acquisition strategy for 

LAAR. 

Mr. BARTLETT. And a question for General Carlisle relative to 

LAAR. In light of the recent Senate Armed Services Committee and 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense marks that would 

not provide funds for LAAR in fiscal year 2012, is the Air Force reconsidering its requirement for LAAR? 

General CARLISLE. Mr. Chairman, I think, as was stated here 

many times, given the budget constraints that we are under, we 

are looking at everything, and LAAR is certainly no exception. We 

are looking at every program in the future, and as our top line goes 

down, we are looking at all those. And LAAR is one of the ones 
19 

that is being looked at, as well as every other program in the Air 

Force. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Reyes, Mr. Critz, do either of you have additional questions? 

Thank you very much. 

When we have reviewed the hearing today, the questions and the 

answers, there may be a need to ask additional questions for the 

record. We trust that you will be ready and able to answer those. 

I want to thank you all very much for your testimony today. 

General, thank you very much for your long years of service. All 

the best. All the best in retirement. 

General LINDELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a great 

honor and a great pleasure to serve our Nation and our United 

States Air Force alongside my peers. If I had to do it all over again, 

I certainly would. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Our hearing stands in adjournment. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

(25) 

Statement of Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs Update 

November 2, 2011 

The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to 

receive testimony on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combat aircraft programs. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. They 

are: 

• Vice Admiral W. Mark Skinner, USN, Principal Military 

Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, 

Development, and Acquisition); 

• Lieutenant General Terry G. Robling, USMC, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation; 

• Rear Admiral Kenneth E. Floyd, USN, Director of the Air 

Warfare Division for the U.S. Navy; 

• Lieutenant General Herbert J. Carlisle, USAF, Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, U.S. Air 

Force; and 

• Major General Jay H. Lindell, USAF, Director, Global Power 

Programs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

for Acquisition. 

This is the third in a series of hearings we are holding for the 

purpose of updating our members on the budget request for FY 12. 

The potential impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 on our military capability is a major concern to this subcommittee. Today we 

will address combat aviation programs, to hear from our witnesses 

about potential impacts of budget decisions on our deterrence and 

combat capability. It would be better had the Department of Defense provided the Services an updated national military strategy 

and a projection of resources likely to be available, so the Services 

could better plan their programs, but I am sure they are doing the 

best they can. 

As I have stated before, major reductions in the Federal budget 

need to be a major element of correcting the Federal deficit. 

The Department of Defense must share in a fair and balanced 

way in those reductions, and that process is already taking place 

under the Budget Control Act of 2011, with nearly $500 billion in 

cuts planned for DOD over the next 10 years. 

Under the sequestration provision of the Budget Control Act, further cuts, up to a total of $1 trillion over 10 years, could be possible 
26 

under what Secretary Panetta has called the ‘‘doomsday mechanism.’’ 

Indeed, the Air Force statement for this hearing warns that ‘‘reductions imposed by the implementation of sequestration rules 

would have a significant adverse impact on the ability of the 

United States Air Force to perform the missions to which it is assigned.’’ 

We have much to cover today, but a major issue is strike fighter 

aviation in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. 

Much of the future of America’s strike fighter aviation hinges on 

the development and production of the F–35. 

Through September, overall, the F–35 program, based on the current revised schedule, is ahead of the number of flight test hours 

and achievements of test points for the F–35A and F–35C, planned 

for calendar year 2011. The F–35B is slightly behind those benchmarks thus far. However, the F–35B recently completed its initial 

development sea trials aboard the USS Wasp, which reportedly 

went very well. 

But the F–35 program continues to experience additional costs 

from the effects of concurrent development and production activities, and we continue to feel both the financial effects and the operational effects of this concurrent program. Projecting the costs related to concurrency have proved challenging. 

Although funds were appropriated in April for fiscal year 2011 

F–35 aircraft procurement, the contract for those aircraft has not 

been completed between the Government and the contractor. We 

understand that one of the major reasons for there not yet being 

a signed contract for fiscal year 2011, is the inability for the Government and the contractor to agree on what the concurrency costs 

are likely to be, whether these costs should be shared, and if 

shared, how should they be shared. 

Funding for 35 F–35 aircraft was appropriated for fiscal year 

2011, but we understand that the Department is likely to procure 

only 30 aircraft because some funds will be required to pay for cost 

overruns in the first three production lots, and to potentially pay 

for concurrency modifications expected for the fiscal year 2011 aircraft. 

Although four of the first operational F–35A aircraft were recently delivered to Eglin Air Force Base, we understand that there 

is some disagreement within the Department of Defense on whether the operational F–35A aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base are ready 

to begin an operational utility evaluation that would assess the 

readiness of the F–35A to begin a training program beyond an initial cadre of operational pilots. We understand that this evaluation 

had been scheduled to begin this month. 

Some say there are safety concerns, others say those concerns 

have been addressed. We hope our Air Force witnesses today can 

help us understand when the Air Force plans to begin the F–35 

operational utility evaluation. 

Additionally, most members will recall that at our National 

Guard and Reserve Component hearing on October 12th, General 

Wyatt, the Director of the Air National Guard, testified that he had 

not yet received a plan for recapitalizing the Air National Guard’s 
27 

fighter fleet which is of particular concern to those units conducting Aerospace Control Alert missions. 

As a result, Mr. LoBiondo and I formally requested that the Secretary of the Air Force provide both the committee and General 

Wyatt with a comprehensive plan before the end of this year for 

modernizing the Air National Guard’s Aerospace Control Alert mission fleet and applicable fighter wings. We hope our witnesses can 

provide us an update on the progress of that effort today. 
28 

Statement of Hon. Silvestre Reyes 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 

Forces 

Hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs Update 

November 2, 2011 

Today’s hearing on combat aviation programs occurs just as the 

Pentagon is weighing some major strategic decisions that could 

greatly impact aircraft programs. Among those decisions are how 

much we are willing to invest in maintaining our current dominance in the air. 

No other nation in the world can match us today in terms of our 

capability to project airpower. Most don’t even try. For example, in 

Afghanistan today, U.S. commanders can get close air support aircraft over any target in less than 15 minutes. That remarkable capability doesn’t just happen. It requires an array of tanker aircraft, 

combat search & rescue, communications, and other systems all 

working in concert. 

The United States also fields hundreds of unmanned systems 

that didn’t exist back in 2001. The intelligence provided by those 

platforms has become an essential part of almost all ground operations in Afghanistan. However, this dominance is not permanent. 

China, Russia, and other nations are developing systems to challenge our current dominance, and in a future conflict we may not 

be able to operate like we can today in Afghanistan. So, the Air 

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps face the challenge of maintaining 

today’s forces in combat while also laying the groundwork for the 

future. 

In the area of air power, finding this balance can be extremely 

difficult because it takes many years to design, field, and learn to 

operate new aircraft. 

This hearing will also cover DOD’s largest single acquisition program: The F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. Based on testimony, budget 

documents, and reports received by the committee, it is clear that 

the program is facing significant development challenges. However, 

despite the program’s challenges, I support it. I support the program because in the future there is a very good chance that our 

military will have to overcome sophisticated air defense systems, 

and the only way to do that is with a combination of fifth-generation stealth aircraft and other advanced systems. 

If we walk away from the F–35 program, we simply won’t be able 

to project power in many areas of the world in the future. To me, 

that possibility is not acceptable, so I think it is critical that we 

find a way forward with the F–35 that gets us what we need: An 

affordable fifth-generation aircraft we can procure in large numbers. That might require changing the program to some degree, but 

the program has to move forward because the threat to continued 

American dominance in the air is real, and growing. 

I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony today. 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

(65) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTLETT 

Admiral FLOYD. While the actual Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) threat is classified 

in accordance with MIL–STD 2169, aircraft EMP hardening level specifications are 

not classified. These design margins are identified in the unclassified aircraft design 

specifications. There are currently six Navy/Marine Corps aircraft in operation with 

incorporated EMP protection that has been validated at the platform level. These 

platforms are the E–6B, F/A–18E/F, EA–18G, MV–22B, VH–3D, and the VH–60N. 

Three aircraft currently in development have EMP protection requirements in their 

contracts, the F–35B, F–35C, and the P–8A. [See page 16.] 

General CARLISLE. The Air Force was concerned with the directive language in 

the initial draft of MIL–STD–3023. We felt it would result in increased weapon system development costs and impact aircraft availability rates. The Air Force proposed MIL–STD–3023 modifications and language changes to allow greater flexibility in the aircraft design process, clarify testing requirements and specify aircraft 

applicability. OSD, AT&L, USSTRATCOM, and DTRA have now reached consensus 

on the updated language, and the new draft MILSTD will have Air Force support 

at the 21 November 2011 Defense Standardization Council. [See page 17.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO 

General CARLISLE. The current HH–60G fleet has 99 aircraft, five of which are 

not flyable due to excessive damage. Since 2007, availability rates have declined to 

59 percent. Air Force HH–60G helicopter average age is 21.3 years old, the oldest 

was delivered in December 1982 and the newest delivered in February 1999. 14 percent of the fleet is operating beyond the economic service life of 7,000 hours per airframe. The remainder of the fleet is rapidly approaching this critical milestone. 

We are currently flying these aircraft at three times their planned flying hour 

program. When you combine that with the continuous harsh combat conditions we 

operate in we are rapidly consuming the useful life of these aircraft. Wear and tear 

has accelerated, especially over the past five years. 74 percent of the aircraft have 

experienced major structural cracking which has resulted in the need for 14 major 

modifications just to sustain the fleet. Since 2007, the structural issues combined 

with combat battle damage has decreased the mission capable rate of available aircraft to 73 percent. In this same time frame, maintenance man hours per flight hour 

has increased by 26 percent to 13.8 hours. 

The current UH–1N fleet contains 59 aircraft with over 12,500 hours per aircraft. 

The average age of the UH–1N fleet is over 40 years with the oldest delivered in 

March 1970 and the newest delivered in May 1971. The UH–1N’s advanced age is 

appearing in the form of airframe cracks. For example, we are in the final stages 

of replacing all of the tail boom assemblies on our UH–1Ns because of cracks. As 

with other aging airframes, it is challenging keeping a forty-year-old aircraft combat 

mission ready while working through the issue of parts availability and obsolescence. Over the last year alone, the fleet was grounded four times due to structural 

failures. I see challenges showing up in our UH–1N availability rates. The UH–1N 

availability rate has been on a slow decline for the past two years. Currently, the 

UH–1N availability rates are lower than 76 percent. As for performance, the UH– 

1N fleet does not meet missile complex security requirements for endurance, speed, 

and payload. In addition to the UH–1N’s validated capability gaps, there are not 

enough UH–1N aircraft to meet the security needs for our nuclear enterprise and 

the missions in the Military District of Washington. [See page 15.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

(69) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTLETT 

Mr. BARTLETT. For each of the Services, do any of your combat aircraft in the 

operational forces or in development have electromagnetic pulse protection? 

General ROBLING. Our AV–8B, EA–6B, and F/A–18A–D aircraft avionic components maintain the capability to meet current military standards in regards to electromagnetic pulse protection. All variants of the F–35 are designed to protect 

against electromagnetic pulse and are scheduled for testing as part of the System 

Design and Development process. 

Mr. BARTLETT. For each of the Services, is EMP hardening funded in the F–35 

development program and incorporated on the F–35 production aircraft? 

General ROBLING. All Joint Strike Fighter variants aircraft are hardened and 

funded for EMP at a multi-tier level: the components themselves are hardened and 

then the jet and systems are hardened and tested. Box level qualification testing 

is nearing completion; hardness surveillance will be conducted via full scale EMP 

testing during verification efforts from 2013 to 2016. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Based on the recent results of the initial ship trials on the USS 

Wasp, can you describe for us the ship integration challenges and expected costs you 

foresee for integrating the JSF onto Large Deck Amphibs? 

General ROBLING. The recent F–35B ship trials on the USS Wasp demonstrated 

Large Deck Amphibious compatibility and a major increase in operational capability. Over 4 years ago we started the STOVL shipboard integration engineering 

analysis and since then developed a set of anticipated ship alterations. One of the 

primary purposes of the ship trials in October was to verify these anticipated alterations and adjust designs and the necessity based on actual data. We anticipated 

approximately $43M per ship and based on the preliminary test results expect not 

to exceed this estimate nor realize any integration challenges that would limit the 

full combat potential the F–35B provide our Marine Expeditionary Units. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Given the recent affects of the Budget Control Act of 2011, do you 

anticipate that you will decrease the total number of JSF bought from the current 

program of record of 680 aircraft total? If so, how will this affect the Navy and Marine Corps being able to meet strike fighter requirements in the future? 

General ROBLING. The FY12 Presidential Budget request reflects our requirement 

to meet our strike fighter requirements. Our requirement for 680 JSF could be adjusted to reflect changes any changes in our national defense strategy, when and 

if that occurs it would be prudent to adjust the procurement of all our weapon system programs to adequately support the new strategy. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The total Department of the Navy strike fighter shortfall is 65 aircraft in approximately 2018. Of that amount, what is the Marine Corps strike fighter shortfall and what are Marine Corps plans to mitigate its effects? 

General ROBLING. The strike fighter shortfall of 52 aircraft includes the Navy procurement of an additional 9 F/A–18E/F aircraft, and the peak shortfall would occur 

in 2018. Of the 52 aircraft shortfall the Marine Corps share would be approximately 

40. Without the procurement of the additional 9 F/A–18E/F aircraft, the Department 

of the Navy strike fighter shortfall is projected at 65 aircraft with a peak in 2018. 

Of this total the Marine Corps share would be 47 aircraft. The DoN has determined 

that a 65 aircraft shortfall in 2018 is manageable with the mitigations in place. If 

the JSF delivery profile remains unchanged, and the service life of 150 F/A–18A– 

D is extended to 10,000 flight hours (along with success in other mitigation efforts), 

DoN will continue to assess the most recent shortfall projection as manageable. DoN 

13 funding fully supports this strategy. However, any further delay in the JSF delivery profile will have a negative effect on existing strategies and the projected strike 

fighter shortfall in both magnitude and duration. Expanded inventory management 

decisions (i.e., SLEP additional legacy aircraft) are possible but depend greatly upon 

expected JSF availability, legacy aircraft utilization and attrition rates. 

Mr. BARTLETT. For each of the Services, do any of your combat aircraft in the 

operational forces or in development have electromagnetic pulse protection? 

Admiral FLOYD. Yes, there are currently six Navy/Marine Corps aircraft in operation with incorporated electromagnetic pulse (EMP) protection that has been validated at the platform level. These platforms are the E–6B, F/A–18E/F, EA–18G, 
70 

MV–22B, VH–3D, and the VH–60N. Three aircraft currently in development have 

EMP protection requirements in their contracts. These are the F–35B, F–35C, and 

the P–8A. 

Mr. BARTLETT. For each of the Services, is EMP hardening funded in the F–35 

development program and incorporated on the F–35 production aircraft? 

Admiral FLOYD. Yes, EMP hardening protection is funded in the F–35 development program and has been incorporated into all variants of the F–35. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Given the recent affects of the Budget Control Act of 2011, do you 

anticipate that you will decrease the total number of JSF bought from the current 

program of record of 680 aircraft total? If so, how will this affect the Navy and Marine Corps being able to meet strike fighter requirements in the future? 

Admiral FLOYD. No, the DoN intends to procure the program of record of 680 JSF 

aircraft. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems requirements established by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provided billions of dollars 

for each of the military services’ ISR capabilities. Each of the Services have advanced significantly in the use of remotely piloted aircraft, ISR aircraft like the 

MC–12 and others, tethered balloons, and related payload sensor systems and strike 

capabilities. Additionally, hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent and is 

planned to be spent on individual Service technical demonstrations resurrecting current-day versions of blimps and related sensor arrays: Programs like the Army’s 

Long-Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, the Navy’s MZ–3, and the Air Force’s 

Blue Devil 2. The military services have been given significant freedom to pursue 

their own developments of aircraft, remotely piloted vehicles, and sensors. The industrial base has benefited from that. However, vehicles and sensors have been allowed to proliferate, some would say excessively. Given a newly constrained budget 

environment, is there a DOD structure that will result in a rationalized array of 

systems and capabilities or will each Service likely be cut a given amount, with the 

result in some cases being continued unstructured proliferation of capabilities? 

Admiral FLOYD. The DOD has made significant investment in ISR platforms and 

SIGINT payloads. Each Service has somewhat different mission requirements that, 

in some cases, drive the procurement of specific and tailored capabilities. MultiService Synergies Working Groups have been established with the goal to achieve 

commonality, interoperability, and efficiency wherever possible. The Services collaborate on common control systems, joint training/basing, data standards, and compatible spares in order to reduce total ownership costs. The Navy continues to strive 

for reduce capability redundancy and standardize ISR platform and sensor procurement to meet maritime warfighter needs in both current Programs of Record and 

planning for future capabilities. Navy frequently uses systems that were developed 

by other Services and have wide customer profiles. Examples are the EO/IR sensors, 

EW sensors, and radars currently being procured for the BAMS and Fire Scout 

UAVs. 

In addition to the traditional procurement process, engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have driven the Services to pursue several new ISR systems to fulfill 

COCOM urgent needs. Prior to approval of funding, these needs and solutions are 

validated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) and the Joint Staff. These systems are usually initially funded by OCO, supplied by ISR Task Force or the Services. If they 

are successful and selected as enduring capabilities, these capabilities become programs of record which are then folded into the normal POM cycle process and funded within Service baselines. This Joint process promotes getting the warfighter the 

right capability, at the right time, at the right price. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I noticed in your testimony that you did not mention the relative 

condition, age and capability of the Air Force’s fleet of HH–60 Pave Hawk helicopters. Can you please provide the committee with that information as well as any 

plans to recapitalize the CSAR fleet? 

General CARLISLE. The current HH–60G fleet contains 99 total aircraft inventory, 

of which 94 are flyable. Since 2007, availability rates have declined by 5% to 59%. 

Air Force HH–60G helicopters average age is 21.3 years old; the oldest was delivered in December 1982 with the newest delivery received in February 1999. Two 

aircraft have exceeded 10,000 flight hours. 

In the past five years, utilization rates were three times higher than programmed. 

This, combined with the demands of continually flying in combat conditions, has accelerated wear on the airframes. 73 aircraft experienced major structural beam 

cracking which led to 14 major fleet modifications. Structural issues and combat 

battle damage since 2007 led to a 73% mission capable rate for available airframes. 
71 

In this same time frame, maintenance man hours/flight increased by 30% to 16.07 

hours. 

The Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program recapitalizes the HH–60G fleet to 

its current program of record of 112. The program is a full and open competition 

with an expected initial operating capability in fiscal year 2018. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I understand the Subcommittee raised the concern this past spring 

the Air Force issue a full and open competition for the CVLSP requirement soon 

to be decided on. In your testimony today, you mention that it is indeed the Air 

Force’s intent to replace its Hueys with an affordable commercial-off-the-shelf option 

to fulfill this mission. Is this still indeed the case? I ask because there have been 

reports that indicate the Air Force, since the spring, has again considered solesourcing the contract to a larger, more expensive combat type platform. 

General CARLISLE. Yes, the Air Force’s acquisition strategy for CVLSP is full and 

open competition for an off-the-shelf platform that can meet the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council validated user requirements. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the USAF concur with the new MIL STD 3023 for aircraft 

survivability to HEMP approved by Navy and the Army and specifically recommended by the Defense Science Board Permanent Task Force on the Survivability of DOD Systems and Assets to Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and Other Nuclear Weapons Effects (NWE)? If not, why not? If not MIL STD 3023 or the old 

MIL–STD 2169B, what is the MIL STD level of HEMP hardening by the USAF for 

JSF, KC–46A aerial refueling tanker, the next-generation bomber and the Presidential aircraft fleet? This is important since Dr. John Kuspa, Chief, Nuclear, Survivability, ATL–NCB–NM, has publicly documented the relaxing of DOD survivability standards between 1991 and 1996 and emphasized that ‘‘all references to nuclear survivability were deleted in the 1996 5000-series revisions’’ and that ‘‘2000 

revisions did not address how to acquire nuclear survivable systems.’’ 

General CARLISLE. Initial coordination of draft MIL–STD–3023 in December 2010 

met with Air Force concern over fixed design margins, verification testing, and applicability to new/legacy aircraft. The Air Force proposed MIL–STD–3023 modifications and language changes to allow greater flexibility in the aircraft design process, 

clarify testing requirements and specify aircraft applicability. OSD, AT&L, 

USSTRATCOM, and DTRA have now reached consensus on the updated language, 

and the new draft MILSTD will have Air Force support at the 21 November 2011 

Defense Standardization Council. 

F–35 ORD/Joint Contract Specification (JCS) requires the F–35 to be hardened 

against man-made external electromagnetic environments IAW MIL–STD–464. 

According to the Capability Development Document (CDD), ‘‘the KC–X fleet shall 

have EMP protection for flight-critical systems [and] be capable of air refueling in 

an EMP environment’’. The MIL–STD–3023 was not available for inclusion in KC– 

X Request for Proposal (RFP); KC–46A EMP requirements are IAW MIL–STD–464. 

The Presidential fleet has been designed and tested to the levels outlined in MIL– 

STD–464 and MIL–STD–2169B or their predecessors. 

With the impending adoption of MIL–STD–3023, we anticipate that the EMP requirements of the next generation bomber will be in compliance with this standard. 

Mr. BARTLETT. For each of the Services, do any of your combat aircraft in the 

operational forces or in development have electromagnetic pulse protection? 

General CARLISLE. Yes. All military aircraft are designed and tested to meet 

standards for a number of electromagnetic hazards, including Electromagnetic Pulse 

(EMP). In addition, DoD policy is that mission-critical aircraft will be able to operate in a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) environment; this 

includes actions to ensure protection from the effects of EMP. Air Force strategic 

systems are specifically designed, maintained, and tested against projected EMP 

hazards. Testing is done at both the individual component level, as well as systemlevel (full aircraft) tests. 

An updated standard for EMP protection (MIL–STD–3023) in the final stages of 

coordination within OSD. The revised standard clarifies design and testing standards for all aircraft, and will address both developmental and operational aircraft. 

Mr. BARTLETT. For each of the Services, is EMP hardening funded in the F–35 

development program and incorporated on the F–35 production aircraft? 

General CARLISLE. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) hardening is funded in the F–35 

development program and is incorporated on the F–35 production aircraft. The F– 

35 Operational Requirements Document requires the F–35 to be hardened against 

man-made external electromagnetic environments. The F–35 is designed to be compatible with a nuclear EMP pulse in the exo-atmosphere (i.e. high altitude explosion). 

Mr. BARTLETT. We understand that in an August 2011 Interim Report from the 

Defense Science Board on the Survivability of Systems and Assets to Electro-
72 

magnetic Pulse and Other Nuclear Weapons Effects the Air Force non-concurred 

with the new aircraft EMP standard [MIL–STD 3023] and that this has potential 

impacts on survivability requirements for new aircraft such as the F–35, tanker, 

next-generation bomber, and White House platforms. Please discuss why the Air 

Force non-concurred. 

General CARLISLE. Initial coordination of draft MIL–STD–3023 in December 2010 

met with Air Force disagreement over fixed design margins, verification testing, and 

applicability to new/legacy aircraft. Directive MILSTD language would result in increased weapon system development costs and impact aircraft availability rates. The 

Air Force proposed MIL–STD–3023 modifications and language changes to allow 

greater flexibility in the aircraft design process, clarify testing requirements and 

specify aircraft applicability. OSD, AT&L, USSTRATCOM, and DTRA have now 

reached consensus on updated language, and the new draft MILSTD will have Air 

Force support at the 21 November 2011 Defense Standardization Council. The 

JCIDS process will remain the primary means of establishing HEMP testing requirements. 

Mr. BARTLETT. As you know, the subcommittee has formally requested that the 

Secretary of the Air Force provide both the committee and General Wyatt with a 

comprehensive plan for modernizing the Air National Guard’s Aerospace Control 

Alert mission fleet and applicable fighter wings before the end of this year. At this 

time, can you tell us generally what that plan would entail? 

General CARLISLE. The Air Force Total Force Enterprise process carefully considers variables such as aircraft service life updates, sustainment and modernization efforts, and F–35 development and procurement schedules to ensure that all 

designated active and reserve component units possess the aircraft required for mission accomplishment. Generally speaking, as the oldest aircraft retire they may be 

replaced by F–35s or by newer aircraft made available by the bed down of F–35s 

at other bases. However, due to the current fiscal climate and ongoing FY12 and 

FY13 budget deliberations, these variables make accurate ANG fighter fleet modernization and recapitalization plans difficult to predict with reasonable fidelity at 

this time. In order to ensure accurate and well-informed analysis, the Air Force will 

provide the requested plan to the HASC following the release of the FY13 President’s Budget. 

Mr. BARTLETT. In light of the recent Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense marks that would not provide funds 

for LAAR in fiscal year 2012, is the Air Force reconsidering its requirement for 

LAAR? 

General CARLISLE. The LAAR program is a Building Partnership Capacity (BPC) 

initiative in support of SECDEF’s Guidance for Development of the Force which procures 15 non-developmental light attack aircraft to prepare USAF airmen for BPC 

missions worldwide. The requirement was vetted in accordance with Joint Capability Integration and Development System processes, with the Capability Production Document validated by the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council on 17 

March 2011 and by the Joint Capabilities Board with a Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum signed on 5 July 2011. The Air Force continues evaluation and prioritization of this validated requirement among the entire portfolio during the ongoing FY13 POM work. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Air Force had intended to begin retiring the U–2 aircraft in 

2006. Congress passed legislation delaying that action until the Secretary of Defense 

can certify to Congress that the capabilities provided by the U–2 aircraft no longer 

contribute to mitigating any gaps in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

capabilities. Is there a replacement capability that can replicate the U–2 capabilities 

or is this a case like the SR–71, where it provided an unmatched capability, but 

we just couldn’t continue to afford its unique capability and retired it? What are Air 

Force plans? 

General CARLISLE. As part of the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) President’s Budget, the 

Air Force intends to replace the U–2 with RQ–4 Global Hawk in FY15. The RQ– 

4 delivers persistent, multi-intelligence, high altitude capability comparable to the 

U–2. 

There is an ability to mitigate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 

gaps by using available and forecasted systems from both airborne and space based 

ISR portfolios. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems requirements established by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provided billions of dollars 

for each of the military services’ ISR capabilities. Each of the Services have advanced significantly in the use of remotely piloted aircraft, ISR aircraft like the 

MC–12 and others, tethered balloons, and related payload sensor systems and strike 

capabilities. Additionally, hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent and is 
73 

planned to be spent on individual Service technical demonstrations resurrecting current-day versions of blimps and related sensor arrays: Programs like the Army’s 

Long-Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, the Navy’s MZ–3, and the Air Force’s 

Blue Devil 2. The military services have been given significant freedom to pursue 

their own developments of aircraft, remotely piloted vehicles, and sensors. The industrial base has benefited from that. However, vehicles and sensors have been allowed to proliferate, some would say excessively. Given a newly constrained budget 

environment, is there a DOD structure that will result in a rationalized array of 

systems and capabilities or will each Service likely be cut a given amount, with the 

result in some cases being continued unstructured proliferation of capabilities? 

General CARLISLE. The Air Force acquires intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) resources using the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 

System (JCIDS). The JCIDS process supports Combatant Commander (COCOM) 

needs with Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved requirements documents. 

Air Force develops ISR systems to support the Global Force Management Allocation Plan which provides ISR sourcing recommendations in response to COCOM 

emergent requests. 

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) carefully reviews and 

provides guidance to service ISR planning and programming efforts. 

Mr. BARTLETT. In the United States during Hurricane Katrina and in meeting 

other Federal requirements, there was difficulty gaining FAA approval for remotely 

piloted vehicle operations in U.S. airspace. What is the status of remotely piloted 

aircraft being able to operate independently in U.S. airspace? 

General CARLISLE. The Air Force is addressing the major issues that will enable 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) integration into national airspace through a 

joint effort led by the DOD UAS Task Force. The UAS Task Force serves as DOD’s 

advocate, in concert with inter-agency efforts to shape the regulatory policies, procedures, certification standards and technology development activities that are critical 

to the integration of the Department’s remotely piloted aircraft into the National 

Airspace System (NAS). The Task Force has made solid progress on both short-term 

and long-term solutions by developing the DOD Airspace Integration Plan and the 

Joint Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for UAS Airspace Integration, which guides 

development of DOD policy and Service CONOPS development. 

The Air Force remains committed to achieving safe and efficient operations of remotely piloted aircraft within the NAS as quickly as technological and regulatory 

improvements will allow. We are closely engaged with industry, academia and Federally-Funded Research Companies to leverage both technology and aviation processes that will accelerate this effort as much as possible. 

Mr. BARTLETT. The Air Force announced its intentions to competitively bid the 

Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP) and the Combat Rescue Helicopter 

(CRH) separately. Is it still the intention of the Air Force to replace its aged UH– 

1N with a right-sized, affordable aircraft to perform the non-combat, domestic 

CVLSP missions and separately acquire a bigger, more robust combat capability for 

CRH? 

General CARLISLE. Air Force intends to replace the UH–1N fleet through a full 

and open competition for a Common Vertical Lift Support Platform. CRH requirements drive the need for a more robust capability than CVLSP to ensure combat 

requirements are met. The CRH will also be a full and open competition but may 

not necessarily result in a bigger helicopter. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Please describe the updated acquisition strategy for the Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LAAR) aircraft. Has the acquisition strategy 

been fully approved and finalized for this program? 

General LINDELL. The LAAR program is seeking to leverage efficiencies from the 

Light Air Support (LAS) effort expected to complete source selection 1QFY12. As a 

result, the acquisition strategy for the LAAR aircraft is currently on hold awaiting 

the LAS Milestone C decision. Additionally, as a FY12 new start program, funding 

is not available due to continuing resolution rules and Congressional marks to the 

program. Congressional marks, still pending conference, are summarized below. 

FY12 Congressional Marks: 

• HASC: Language would limit FY12 Aircraft Procurement authority until: 

1. Joint Requirements Oversight Council validates the requirements to address the capabilities gap 

2. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

(USD AT&L) approves the acquisition strategy 

• SASC: Reduction of all $158.5M FY12 Aircraft Procurement funding 
74 

• HAC: Supported the President’s Budget 

• SAC: Reduction of all $158.5M Aircraft Procurement and all $23.7 Research, 

Development, Testing and Evaluation FY12 funding. 

Æ