U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

i 

30–573 2019

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–99] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES HEARING 

ON

FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

COMBAT AVIATION PROGRAMS 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 12, 2018 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

JIMMY PANETTA, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................ 3 

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces .................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

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

Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; and Lt Gen Jerry D. Harris, 

USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force ....................................................................................... 6 

Grosklags, VADM Paul A., USN, Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, 

Headquarters U.S. Navy; LtGen Steven Rudder, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps; and RADM Scott 

Conn, USN, Director, Air Warfare, Headquarters U.S. Navy .......................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., Jr., joint with Lt Gen Jerry D. Harris ............... 67 

Grosklags, VADM Paul A., joint with LtGen Steven Rudder and RADM 

Scott Conn ..................................................................................................... 36 

Turner, Hon. Michael R. .................................................................................. 33 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Bacon .......................................................................................................... 95 

Mr. Bishop ......................................................................................................... 96 

Mr. Brooks ......................................................................................................... 96 

Mr. Brown ......................................................................................................... 95 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 93 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

COMBAT AVIATION PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Thursday, April 12, 2018. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. TURNER. The hearing will come to order. The subcommittee 

meets today to review Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps combat 

aviation programs in the fiscal year [FY] 2019 budget request. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. We 

have Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags, Commander of the Naval Air 

Systems Command; Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, Deputy 

Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation; Rear Admiral Scott 

Conn, Director of the Navy’s Air Warfare Division; Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch, Military Deputy in the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; Lieutenant General 

Jerry Harris, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Programs, 

and Requirements. 

I want to thank all of you for your service and we look forward 

to your testimony here today. 

This hearing continues the subcommittee’s ongoing oversight of 

combat aviation modernization. It represents the third hearing of 

the subcommittee that we have held this year alone on this topic. 

Last year when the subcommittee held this hearing on the fiscal 

year 2018 budget request we heard how years of continuous combat 

operations and deferred modernization had created a crisis in military readiness. 

The Balanced Budget Agreement signed by the President in February and the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act will 

help us to provide much-needed stability and relief. Combined with 

the fiscal year 2019 budget request, the military services should be 

able to begin digging out of this hole. 

Our witnesses today have been asked to identify their top five 

modernization requirements for the combat aviation portfolio and 

briefly summarize how this budget request helps to restore fullspectrum readiness. 

We also expect the witnesses to articulate how these requirements are aligned with the goals and objectives of the new Na-
2 

tional Defense Strategy. We expect to examine a broad range of 

issues today that I will highlight later in this statement, but I first 

want to address some issues brought to my attention by F–35 pilots 

and maintainers at Hill Air Force Base where I travelled last week. 

These pilots were very concerned about their visual acuity during 

night refueling operations using the F–35 pilot helmet and describe 

the issue as a safety issue. The pilots also said the Navy pilots conducting night aircraft carrier landings in the F–35C and Marine 

Corps F–35B conducting night landings on amphibious ships had 

a similar safety concern. 

The maintenance personnel are still very disappointed in the logistics autonomic—there you go, Autonomic Logistics Information 

System or ALIS. They continue to have to use manual worksheets 

and workarounds that take time and effort resulting in lower aircraft availability and mission-capable rates, and they also reported 

that they are not standardized. I would like for each of the witnesses to address how these concerns relate to their areas and 

strongly urge each of you to work with the F–35 program office to 

get these items fixed. 

I will just briefly touch on a few other key issues that we expect 

to cover this afternoon. Regarding F–35A production, the subcommittee would like to better understand the rationale for this 

year’s F–35A request, which amounts to 48 aircraft, and why there 

is no real significant increase given last year’s underfunded requirement for 14 additional aircraft. 

General Harris, you testified before the subcommittee last year 

and stated that, quote, ‘‘the Air Force needs to increase F–35A procurement to a minimum of 60 aircraft per year as quickly as possible,’’ end quote. I will also note that 3 years ago, the Air Force 

planned to procure 60 F–35As in fiscal year 2019. 

Regarding physiological episodes [PEs], we continue to be concerned by the increased rate of physiological episodes occurring in 

Navy and Air Force aircraft. 

We recognize that work is being done to mitigate these events, 

but remain concerned about the overall progress that is made in 

determining a root cause. This is a good opportunity for the witnesses to provide some detail as to how this budget request supports mitigation efforts. 

Regarding aviation readiness and strike fighter inventories, it is 

my understanding the Navy continues to absorb risk in its management of the strike fighter inventory. I understand the Navy has 

submitted a request for F/A–18 multiyear procurement authorization which if authorized should make the procurement of Super 

Hornets more efficient and less costly. 

Last year, the Navy and Marine Corps continued to fall short of 

the number of ready basic aircraft. We will look to better understand what efforts are currently underway to mitigate potential 

strike fighter shortfalls and improve readiness. 

Regarding training aircraft, the subcommittee continues to have 

concerns regarding the overall age of the training aircraft fleet. I 

believe that if we are fielding fifth-generation aircraft then we 

should be fielding a fifth-generation trainer. I look forward to hearing an update on the Air Force’s next-generation trainer, the TX 

program. 
3 

Regarding munitions, while everyone in the committee is pleased 

to see many critical munition programs are being kept at maximum production in the budget request, I am concerned that years 

of underinvestment has created shortfalls in munition inventories 

that are being exacerbated by current operations. We need to better understand the challenges you currently face with managing 

munition programs, as well as this critical industrial base. 

And finally, let me—let there be no doubt that we are experiencing a crisis in military readiness and that we must address 

now. More U.S. military service members have died recently in aircraft mishaps over the past year than have died while serving in 

Afghanistan. 

Over the last 31⁄2 weeks we have witnessed a series of aviation 

accidents where 16 service members have tragically lost their lives. 

One of the service members was a constituent of mine. Gunnery 

Sergeant Derik Holley was a 33-year-old enlisted Marine and he 

was killed while conducting training missions in a CH–53E helicopter, a helicopter that has been in service since the 1970s. 

Many of these tragic events are a result of lack of training hours 

due to constrained resources and/or the current state of aging 

equipment, all of which resulted from years of underfunding our 

military, and clearly shows the magnitude of the problem that we 

are dealing with. 

This is why we have fought so hard to raise the Department’s 

topline budget request. We have to do whatever it takes to ensure 

that our aircraft are safe and that pilots get the training they need. 

Before we begin with witness statements, I would like to turn to 

my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Ms. Niki Tsongas, for comments that she would like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

STATEMENT OF NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

MASSACHUSETTS, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our 

witnesses. Good to have you with us today. I would like to thank 

you for being here today to answer questions about the fiscal year 

2019 budget request for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aviation-related programs. 

Taken together these programs constitute the largest amount of 

funding in the DOD’s [Department of Defense’s] procurement and 

research budgets, so it is important to review them carefully. Overall, it appears that most aviation programs for the three services 

are well-funded. 

The performance of these programs are, however, more of a 

mixed story, with some programs performing well and some running into difficulties. Before we get into our witnesses’ statements 

and member questions I did want to touch on a few issues of note. 

First, the issue of high rates of physiological episodes which 

Chairman Turner has referenced continues to be a challenge, particularly for the Navy’s F–18 fleet. Recently, similar issues have 

come up regarding other aircraft, including some operated by the 

Air Force. 
4 

The Navy recently provided an update to Congress on its efforts 

in this area. And I am encouraged by the amount of upgrade efforts 

underway and the significant progress on T–45 event rates. 

However, I remain concerned that event rates for the F–18 remain well above acceptable levels. Hopefully, the many efforts to 

upgrade airframes that are underway will improve the situation 

soon. 

In the meantime, the committee must decide how to proceed with 

a request from the Navy to enter into a 3- to 5-year multiyear contract for F–18 aircraft starting in fiscal year 2019. Before committing billions of additional dollars to the F–18, I want to make sure 

we fully understand the path to reducing physiological event rates 

to acceptable levels. 

Second, I remain concerned with some aspects of the F–35 program. While production costs are down and the initial development 

effort is coming to an end, much work remains to be done to get 

the plane the military needs. 

Importantly, the detailed schedule and potential cost of the follow-on development or Block 4 also known as C2D2 [Continuous 

Capability Development and Delivery] effort is still not known, 

even though the budget request contains almost $1 billion for this 

effort. 

Finally, I am troubled by the Air Force and Navy’s extended 

problems getting the AIM–120 missile program’s production rate 

up to where we need it to be to meet the demands of potential conflicts. 

After years of problems with productions of AIM–120 missile motors, the program’s production rate is now hobbled by a critical 

parts obsolescence problem. While I know the DOD is working 

closely with the contractor to address this issue, the delays to this 

vital program are of concern. 

I will have some questions in all these areas and look forward 

to today’s hearing. Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Admiral Grosklags, please proceed followed by General Rudder, Admiral Conn, General Bunch, and General Harris. 

STATEMENT OF VADM PAUL A. GROSKLAGS, USN, COMMANDER, NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, HEADQUARTERS 

U.S. NAVY; LTGEN STEVEN RUDDER, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION, HEADQUARTERS U.S. MARINE 

CORPS; AND RADM SCOTT CONN, USN, DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE, HEADQUARTERS U.S. NAVY 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to make an opening statement for the entire Department. So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tsongas, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, on behalf of myself, Lieutenant General Steve Rudder, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, and Rear 

Admiral Scott Conn, the Navy’s Director of Air Warfare, we thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the 

Department of the Navy’s fiscal year 2019 aviation programs budget request. 

We believe our PB19 [President’s budget for fiscal year 2019] request is well-aligned with and is supportive of the National Defense Strategy, rebuilding our readiness while building a more le-
5 

thal force. Our ability to achieve this alignment is greatly facilitated by the additional budget flexibility provided by the recent 

budget agreement and the recently enacted fiscal year 2018 budget. 

The lethality which naval aviation brings to bear in support of 

our Nation’s interests will be greatly enhanced by the increased 

procurement numbers for aircraft and weapons, increased investment in the development of new and advanced capabilities, and increased funding of our critical readiness and sustainment accounts. 

The need to transform our business and acquisition practices is 

being directly addressed with investments in agile accelerated capabilities-based acquisition, leveraging authorities provided by the 

Congress in the fiscal year 2016 through 2018 NDAAs [National 

Defense Authorization Acts], and investment in Naval Aviation 

Sustainment Vision 2020 which will leverage commercial tool sets 

and best practices in making fundamental changes to the processes 

by which we plan and execute aviation sustainment activities. 

In support of the National Defense Strategy and to ensure readiness for combat while modernizing and building a more lethal 

force, specific naval aviation priorities included in the PB19 request 

include for the Marine Corps: F–35 procurement and sustainment; 

CH–53K development and continuation of low-rate initial production; Marine air-ground task force unmanned expeditionary capability, also known as MUX; completion of the H1 upgrades procurement; and maintaining the lethality of our legacy F–18 aircraft. 

For the Navy, priorities include F–18 Super Hornet service life 

modernization and procurement of F–18 Block III, F–35s, E–2s, P– 

8s, CMV–22s and Triton, and development of MQ–25 and our NextGeneration Jammer. 

For both services a critical priority is full funding to the PB19 

request for all of our aviation readiness accounts including spares. 

Now as both the chairman and ranking member noted, I would 

also be remiss if I did not mention our continuing challenge with 

physiological episodes. This remains naval aviation’s stop safety 

concern and continues to have our complete attention. 

While we have made clear progress in some areas, solutions to 

the broader problem do remain frustratingly slow. In parallel with 

pursuit of root causes, we are continuing implementation of hardware, software, and procedural mitigations. We are conducting additional flight testing and system characterization. And following 

NASA’s [National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s] independent review of last year, we have a greatly increased focus on 

aircrew physiology and the operational environment. 

Full funding of the PB19 PE specific request is critical to continuation of these efforts. In closing, we thank the subcommittee 

for your efforts in reaching the current budget agreement and for 

your continuing support of our sailors and Marines. 

We look forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Grosklags, General 

Rudder, and Admiral Conn can be found in the Appendix on page 

36.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Bunch. 
6 

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

THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION; AND LT GEN JERRY D. 

HARRIS, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC 

PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR 

FORCE 

General BUNCH. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Turner, 

Ranking Member Tsongas, and the distinguished members of the 

subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today to 

talk about the Air Force’s priorities for fiscal year 2019. 

We appreciate your service and the support this subcommittee 

provides United States Air Force, our airmen, and their families. 

Today, I am accompanied by Lieutenant General J.D. Harris, Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategic Plans and Requirements. 

We have prepared a joint statement and I will provide brief 

opening remarks, but I would ask that the full statement be entered into the official record. For the past 70 years, the Air Force 

has been breaking barriers as a member of the finest joint warfighting team on the planet through the evolution of the jet aircraft 

to the advent of the ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile], satellite-guided bombs, remotely piloted aircraft, and development of 

satellites. 

In the same timeframe, your Air Force has also secured peace by 

providing decisive warfighting advantage in, through, and from air, 

space, and cyberspace. Today’s demand for Air Force capabilities 

continues to grow as the United States now faces a more competitive and dangerous international security environment than we 

have seen in many generations. 

The fabric of our Air Force weaves multi-domain effects and provides our joint warfighters the blanket of protection and ability to 

project power—power project America’s full range of combat capabilities. We are always there. 

Today, 670,000 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen 

meet these challenges by defeating our adversaries, deterring 

threats, and assuring our allies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 

days a year. 

With global trends and intensifying pressure from major challengers, our relative advantage in air and space is eroding in a 

number of critical areas. We are supporting combatant commander 

requirements in response to growing challenges from Russia, 

China, North Korea, and Iran, in addition to an ever-present counterterrorism mission in the Middle East and around the world. 

In accordance with the new National Defense Strategy, this 

year’s budget request prioritizes long-term competition with China 

and Russia. The Air Force must build a more lethal and ready 

force, strengthen alliances and partnerships, and deliver greater, 

more affordable performance. 

Future wars will be won by those who observe, orient, decide, 

and act faster than adversaries in an integrated way across all domains. With your support of our fiscal year 2019 budget request, 

the Air Force will drive innovation, reinforce budget discipline, and 

deliver capabilities with greater affordability at the speed of relevance. 
7 

The demand for air, space, and cyber capabilities is growing and 

our Chief is committed to ensuring that America’s airmen are 

resourced and trained to fight alongside our sister services to meet 

all national security obligations. 

The Air Force seeks to balance risk across capacity, capability, 

and readiness to maintain our Nation’s advantage. I would like to 

thank the members of this committee for the passage of the fiscal 

year 2018 budget and the relief of the Budget Control Act restrictions in fiscal year 2018 and 2019. This allows us to relook at some 

of the tough tradeoffs made between force structure, readiness, and 

modernization. 

Today’s modernization is tomorrow’s readiness. Readiness is not 

static. While our forces have been heavily engaged in deterring or 

addressing counterterrorism, other adversaries have taken the opportunity to invest in and advance their own capabilities. To address ever-narrowing capability advantages, the Air Force needs 

your support in the form of steady, predictable, and timely appropriations that fulfill our annual budget request. 

The Air Force budget request for 2019 builds on the progress we 

are making in 2018 to restore the readiness of the force, to increase 

our lethality, and cost-effectively modernize our top priorities. 

Sustaining these efforts requires predictable budgets at the requested funding levels. It is critical to ensure we can meet today’s 

demand for capability and capacity without sacrificing modernization for tomorrow’s high-end fight against the full array of potential 

adversaries. 

Timely funding of our request allows us to—ability to modernize 

faster, be ready sooner, and be capable of achieving our National 

Defense Strategy task in a timely manner. 

You asked us to identify the Air Force’s top five combat aviation 

modernization priorities for fiscal year 2019. Today, in this area, 

the priorities are the traditional big three for the Air Force: the F– 

35, both procurement—to include procurement, sustainment, and 

modernization; the KC–46 for the role that it plays in being able 

to power project; and the B–21. 

The other two areas are the next-generation air dominance efforts that we are embarking on and our fourth-generation modifications to keep our legacy fleet flyable and viable and more capable. 

These efforts are key to our ability to answer the Nation’s call 

when needed. 

Like Admiral Glosklags, we are very focused on unexplained 

physiological events, particularly in the recent T–6 incidents number of increase that we have incurred. We have multiple attack vectors in that area and I will be happy to discuss those in more detail. 

As critical members of the joint team represented here today, the 

Air Force operates in a vast array of domains and prevails in every 

level of conflict. However, we must remain focused on integrating 

air, space, and cyber capabilities across all of those domains so that 

we can project power. General Harris and I look forward to answering questions from the committee this afternoon. 

Thank you for your continued support of the greatest Air Force 

on the planet. 
8 

[The joint prepared statement of General Bunch and General 

Harris can be found in the Appendix on page 67.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Harris, do you have an opening statement? 

Thank you. 

Well, gentlemen, I have only one question. And I think it is the 

most important one of all of the issues that we have been facing. 

And you don’t have to be on the Armed Services Committee and 

you don’t have to have the uniform on to understand that we have 

a crisis in aviation mishaps. People are dying. Our chairman has 

made the statement that it is more risky for a service member to 

be in training and exercises than in combat right now. 

This needs to be addressed. As I said in my opening statement, 

we need to make certain our aircraft are safe and that pilots get 

the training that they need. General Mattis says that we must 

prioritize rebuilding readiness while modernizing our force. 

How does the budget that we are looking at for the upcoming 

year address this issue and what do we need to be doing and what 

will you be doing to address this issue so that we can end the risky 

nature of these mishaps that are resulting in deaths of our military 

service members, our men and women? 

I will begin with you, General Grosklags—Admiral. 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, we are very 

much aware as you are of the recent mishap trends. And we are 

working very hard. Now, each one of those mishaps has to be dealt 

with on an individually unique basis to determine the root cause, 

and that is certainly our focus on each and every one of those individually to determine the root cause. 

Along with that, we are certainly using the funding that we have 

in the fiscal year 2018 budget along with the request in PB19 to 

focus on those areas that may influence our ability to reduce the 

mishap rate in the future. 

We know we need to do that, but again each one of those mishaps will have a unique cause and so there is not a universal panacea if you will that we can invest money in a certain spot. 

Things that will help us get after the potential causes are making sure that our maintainers have the tools and equipment they 

need to maintain the aircraft to the best of their ability; making 

sure that the material condition of those aircraft in terms of spare 

parts and readiness on the flight line is at an absolute maximum 

condition; and making sure that our aircrew have the requisite 

number of hours to make sure they are trained for the missions 

that they are being asked to fly. 

All of those things we will make improvements on based on the 

additional funding we have received, but again, I can’t tie any one 

of those specific things directly to certainly any of the recent mishaps which we are still investigating or even make a direct tie to 

the mishaps that we have experienced over the last number of 

years. 

We try to make those linkages every time we have a mishap, 

identify the root cause. In many cases we do, in all cases that is 

not possible. But we continue those efforts. So, I guess in wrapping 

it up, the investments that we are able to make in 2018 and 2019 

will certainly help us rebuild some of the foundational things that 

we have lost over the last 6 or 7 years. And it is certainly our in-
9 

tent to try and reduce the mishap rate based on those foundational 

elements. 

Mr. TURNER. Admiral, I appreciate your dedication to get to root 

cause, but I don’t buy that, that it is merely just individual 

incidences. If you have vehicular accidents that occur at a particular intersection repeatedly, they each have their own story, but at 

times there is something wrong with the intersection. 

And at this point, we have an aggregate of these mishaps. I 

think they go to a systemic issue, not just the isolated instances 

in which they happened and I certainly want as we look to this 

budget and our oversight that that attention is paid, because this 

is unprecedented in what we are seeing. 

General Rudder, your thoughts? 

General RUDDER. We also are looking at each one of the mishaps 

and certainly the last CH–53 Echo mishap hit home as well. I was 

in Dover last Friday night with the Secretary of the Navy and that 

was a tough night for all of us. 

When we look at all of these mishaps, we too are looking at the 

hours. And one of the things we are focusing on for 2019 is just 

like we did in 2018. We are maximizing our readiness accounts. We 

are going to—we are giving maximum amounts to our depots, okay, 

maximum amounts to buy spares. We are getting maximum 

amounts to our program managers so they can fix the airplanes. 

The CH–53 Echo in particular, we are still executing our max 

[maximum] funds to reset that airplane on both the east and west 

coast and in a few other areas in the Pacific and up in Oregon. For 

the modernization it will help us as well. As we are able to—you 

have graciously given us the funds to be able to not only reset the 

airplanes themselves, but also buy new and get out of some of 

these older aircraft. 

We have seen some positive movement on the hours. In 2016, we 

are at 13.5 average for the Marine Corps. In 2017, 15.4, and in 

both February and March we are at 18.8 and 19.3 is the average 

throughout the Marine Corps. So, we are seeing some positive 

trends, but certainly any type of readiness recovery is fragile. 

Certainly, the devastating ones, Class A, individually we look at 

every single mishap and pull apart and we make the corrective actions. One thing that we have seen and I think the article brought 

out is certainly our Class Cs. We are finding that experience level 

down in our maintenance departments and certainly our ops [operations] tempo is creating a lot of people towing airplanes into 

things and doing maintenance practices that may be not in accordance with the experience level we are used to. 

And we are addressing that, trying to provide more stability with 

our enlisted manpower down there by giving them reenlistment bonuses if they have the higher qualifications and stabilizing them in 

the squadron. 

For instance, if you are a collateral duty inspector, a collateral 

duty QAR, or quality assurance representative, now, you have a 

separate MOS [military occupational specialty]. And if you reenlist 

with that designator, you get an extra $20,000 kicker and you stabilize, you will be in that squadron for another 2 years. 

So, I think as an example, we have had 676 Marines, corporals 

and sergeants and staff sergeants, take that and now we have sta-
10 

bilized that manpower in the garage. But back to your original 

point, Chairman, each one of these mishaps is hurting and we are 

certainly addressing each one of those mishaps in case by case 

basis. 

Mr. TURNER. General, I appreciate your detailed answer and the 

passion which you have about this. 

Admiral Conn. 

Admiral CONN. Yes, sir. Well we lost two officers off Key West 

not too long ago. And we can always replace the airplanes, but we 

can’t replace those sons to their families, sons or brothers who, indeed it was a tragic event. 

Overall, for our Class A and Class B for the last 5 years, it has 

been relatively stable, although loss of one life is one too many. 

And every time we have a mishap, we look hard of what the root 

causes were. We put the corrective actions in place. We educate our 

people so we do not repeat those mistakes whether it would be a 

procedural error, a maintenance error, or whatnot. 

We too have seen in terms of the rise in mishaps, majority being 

into our Class C. And in those Class C in terms of the analysis by 

the Naval Safety Center, we are seeing far too many maintenance 

supervisor and maintenance skill-based errors. We need to get back 

to the basics in terms of ensuring those sailors know how to fix the 

airplane, but it is not just fixing airplanes in hangars. It is fixing 

airplanes on flight lines while you are trying to meet a schedule. 

And then when you put that flight line on an aircraft carrier, with 

other aircraft turning, aircraft taxiing, jet exhaust blowing, there 

is a level of experience there and awareness that those sailors 

need. 

And whether or not the reduction in flight hours is not getting 

those sailors the reps [repetitions] and sets that they need as pilots 

and aircrew do, I can’t answer that directly, but there is appear to 

be a correlation that we need to get after and provide those sailors 

the opportunity to do the job we expect them to do in the environment in which they need to perform with the right tools and experience to succeed. 

Mr. TURNER. Admiral, thank you for your answer. 

General Bunch or Harris. 

General BUNCH. I will go first. I will hit a couple of modernization things and I will hand it over to General Harris to go into 

some of the other details. Safety is our number one priority. The 

safety of our aircrew is critical and we need to take every step we 

can to keep them as safe as possible. 

This is a risky business. We don’t need them having undue risk 

though, we need to make sure we are doing those things. We are 

putting a lot of work into the program offices to make sure we are 

focused on giving the aircraft, making them available, attacking 

sustainment issues to keep the fleet viable and provide the aviators 

the opportunity to fly and get the training that they need and be 

sure that they are proficient and make sure that we are able to 

turn aircraft. 

Each case is, [inaudible] in a platform, an incident is its own incident. It has to be investigated as has been said previously. As we 

identify those things though, we work with the program offices to 
11 

aggressively and rapidly address those actions that have been identified that we need to take steps on. 

A couple of areas where I think it shows that we are trying to 

move more forward in that. We have recently worked with the JPO 

[joint program office] and the Navy has worked with us. We are 

pulling auto [automatic] ground collision avoidance system to the 

left in the F–35 because collision with the ground is a key area. 

That is a program that we have got funded and we are getting 

started that we are moving forward to take that step. In the F–16, 

the post Block 40 F–16s, we have had seven times that has activated to save aircrew, eight lives we believe have been saved thus 

far. And we are trying to make sure we get that into the F–35, our 

newest fighter. 

The other one that I would bring up in that area is we are working on the pre-Block 40s. Those are the older versions of the F–16s 

that many of our Reserve Components fly, as well as some Active 

Duty units. 

We are entering into a program to get that mod [modification] 

put into that system, to get it out into the field in the future and 

try to make sure we are taking that which is one of our biggest 

reasons as a ground collision that we are trying to take that out 

of the equation to make our fighter aircraft safer. 

General HARRIS. Chairman Turner, sir, thank you for your question, for highlighting our shortcomings in this area. Safety is our 

number one concern and readiness has been the focus of where our 

Chief, General Goldfein, and Secretary Wilson are taking us. 

To that end, we have aligned our fiscal year 2019 budget request 

with both the National Defense Strategy and our readiness efforts 

to make sure that we can accelerate what will be a multiyear climb 

to get back to being ready. 

Those scenarios will drive our airmen into scenarios for the highend conflict that can actually be tougher than the conflict we are 

in today, but that doesn’t explain all the training accidents we have 

which are coming across, some from inexperience, but some from 

some of our highest qualified aircrew, and we suffer with each one 

of those losses. 

Our readiness recovery strategy is focused on disciplined investments that cover our critical skills availability, so our people, training resource availability, the things they train with, the weapons 

support systems, so across the WSS to make sure that they—the 

aircraft have the parts and that they are ready to go, our flying 

hour program to make sure that each one of the airmen are flying 

the hours they need to stay not just to be current, but to be proficient in the missions we are assigning them to. 

And then also on the policy side, sir, the ops [operations] tempo 

and the training to make sure that the people get the time they 

need to both prepare to fly, to fly, and then also have the downtime 

that they need. So, we are working on that. 

From our perspective, we appreciate the support that you have 

given us in both an increased budget with 2018 and we are hopeful 

that you are supportive of our growth, because with readiness our 

number one concern right now is our people. We don’t have enough 

airmen doing the job that we have got doing so the growth is get-
12 

ting at the readiness. And we are also stepping out in the budget 

to recapitalize and modernize the fleets across what we are doing. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I think you can see that the chairman 

and I share a real concern about the safety of aircrew and that’s 

why we are so concerned by some of the numbers. And I wanted 

to turn our conversation to the efforts related to the physiological 

events that have been of such concern to this committee. 

From our briefings, we know that numerous efforts are underway 

to reduce that rate of physiological events in the F–18 fleet, specifically the Navy is modifying the software for the environmental control system, installing upgrades to deal with icing in some fluid 

lines, redesigning two pressure valves, developing a cabin monitoring system, and installing an upgraded emergency oxygen system. However, I think there are some other efforts underway that 

I wanted to ask about. 

Admiral Grosklags, what is the status of designing a new onboard oxygen generation system? How do you imagine the timeline 

for getting the first one fully tested, and what are the challenges? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. There are two efforts going on right now 

that are related. The first is for the T–45 actually and we are calling that as a GGU–25. Excuse me. It is a replacement for the one 

they have now. It is largely intended as a reliability replacement 

with some improved performance. 

But it also provides a response to one of the key NASA recommendations, was that we provide an oxygen scheduling, oxygen 

concentration scheduling capability in our Navy aircraft, which we 

do not have in any of our tactical platforms today. That will take 

us partway to answering that NASA recommendation. 

The next step, which is a combined T–45 and F–18, is to get to 

a mil standard [military standard] 3050. That is a very recent 2015 

mil standard to get to a 3050 compliant oxygen generation system. 

That is something that we are going to compete between the two 

companies that are out there that do oxygen generators because 

today there is not a system on the shelf that meets that new mil 

standard. So, we want to see what both of them have to bring to 

the table. 

For the first effort, we believe we will be able to start installing 

that in our aircraft late next year. It will be the following year, depending on what we get back from industry, it would likely be the 

following year, so 2020 before we can get that new mil standard 

compliant oxygen generator. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Along those same lines, where is the Navy with 

the plan to install the cabin pressure and oxygen monitoring system and when will that—similarly, what would the timeline be for 

that? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. Right now, the timeline for getting that into 

our F–18s is the third quarter, so about a year from now, third 

quarter of 2019. In the interim, what we are actually going to do 

is install in a limited number of aircraft the same monitoring system, the CRU–123 that we put in the T–45s. That is not a good 

long-term solution for the F–18s, but it will start to again provide 

us some information like we are getting from the T–45s that will 
13 

hopefully get us to some of the root cause of what is going on in 

the aircraft. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And the Air Force F–16s have had an automatic 

ground collision avoidance system for many years. And we know it 

has saved many lives and in the past the Navy has resisted efforts 

to install a similar system on the F–18. Where is the Navy on this 

issue today given the track record that is demonstrated in the Air 

Force? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. I will let Admiral Conn answer that. 

Admiral CONN. I will answer that. For the automatic recovery for 

terrain avoidance is something that could be put in the airplane, 

right now it is not funded. From a physiological episode, that is not 

what it is designed to do. We have not had a controlled flight into 

terrain in the F–18 E or F in its lifespan. But it is something that 

we will continue to reevaluate whether to put that capability in the 

aircraft. Thank you. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. And then in previous briefings and 

hearings on this topic, we have been told that the Marine Corps 

fleet of relatively old F–18 aircraft are not experiencing the high 

rates of events that the Navy’s older F–18s have. 

So, General Rudder, is that still the case? And if so, how do you 

explain it? Are there maintenance, operational, or reporting differences between the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft? 

General RUDDER. No. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are tracking this right along with the Navy and I believe if ‘‘Clutch’’ Joyner 

tells us to do something, we do it and we jump and do it. We are 

in step with the reporting procedures. 

This year, we have had only one in the F–18 and two in the Harrier. In years prior, most of our events have been pressurization 

issues in the older F–18 and we have reported and go through all 

the protocols that do that. 

I can’t answer it exactly. I think if you look at the numbers, 

sometimes they get skewed with the training command and operational units and just where units are in the pipeline. But I assure 

you, whether it is a slam stick, excuse me, slap stick or sorbent 

tube, whether it is working through the simulators, we are right 

in step with the Navy and everything has to do with PE. But I 

don’t have a great answer for you, but this year we are having another very low year with the F–18 so far, knock on wood, with just 

one F–18 event. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, that is good news as long as it is the case 

that the reporting is essentially the same. 

I have another issue related to the F–35. Yesterday, there was 

a press report stating that DOD has stopped accepting deliveries 

of F–30 aircraft from Lockheed Martin due to a dispute over who 

will cover the cost of production errors in 2017 involving more than 

200 aircraft. In the story, Lockheed Martin confirmed that deliveries have been suspended. So, I have several questions about this 

report for General Bunch and General Grosklags. Is the report accurate? Is this report accurate? 

General BUNCH. So, ma’am, I will start and I will let Admiral 

Grosklags pick it up. It is a pause. I would not say it is a complete 

stop. There have been 14 of the Lot 10 aircraft that have been delivered. There are a total of five aircraft that have not been accept-
14 

ed at this time, three of those are Air Force aircraft, one of those 

is from Norway, and one of those is from Australia. 

Those are aircraft that the program executive officer, within his 

authorities, has made that decision in coordination with Ms. Lord 

to make sure they knew what we were doing to address this quality issue and we do not see it as a long-term problem. And if we 

have an operational need for the aircraft, we have discussed with 

Admiral Winter and he is willing to entertain the idea and willing 

to work with us that if we need the aircraft for an operational 

need, we will work with him to get those aircraft out of the hold 

that they are on right now. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And then what is the production defect in question? What is the issue here? 

General BUNCH. Ma’am, it goes back to a corrosion prevention in 

one of the holes that was drilled that was not corrected, properly 

treated that was found during inspection at Hill Air Force Base. 

And we are now working through how that made it out of the factory and what we were doing to try to get that rectified in the fleet. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And why is there any question or dispute as to 

who is going to pay to fix it? 

General BUNCH. Ma’am, that is why I am letting Admiral Winter 

work that with the company and he is carrying our water in that 

area. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Admiral Grosklags, so, yes, the report is accurate. 

We know the defect. Anything you want to add? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. Let me add. I agree with everything General Bunch said. We know what the technical solution is. This is 

purely about who is responsible for the cost. And I agree with Admiral Winter’s decision at this point in suspending delivery of those 

aircraft. Quite honestly, this is a mistake made by the contractor 

during production and they should pay for that out of their bottom 

line, not our top line. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you both. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Our questioners next are Cook, Gallego, and 

McSally. 

Mr. Cook. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This morning, we had General Mattis here and I asked him some 

questions about the F–35 and it is kind of in line with what we are 

talking about, and this was about you know our allies, so-called allies, that are purchasing F–35s. And, of course, the Canadians 

backed out of their deal and then the question is about the Turks. 

And there is people on this committee and certainly the Foreign Affairs Committee that are concerned about the sale to the Turks and 

how this would inflate the overall cost of the F–35, which every 

year that I have been in Congress we are always talking about this 

is a big ticket item. 

And I think we have come a long, long ways, and unless we get 

this foreign military sales or anticipate what is going on on this, 

we could have maybe they are not quite similar scenarios, but I 

think you see what I am getting at. 

The general was very diplomatic in how he handled that question. I wasn’t so diplomatic as I have some issues with the Turks, 
15 

but that could be a very real-world scenario. Any comments on that 

or you want to duck that one? It is kind of a political foreign affairs, but it affects the overall price based upon what certain allies 

do. Do you have a contingency plan in place? 

Mr. TURNER. Perhaps I can help, but perhaps and if you could 

speak to the importance of our foreign partners both in contribution of parts and in overall cost. 

General BUNCH. So, sir, overall this has been a unique program 

from the very beginning as we formed it with allies who invested 

all the way along. They have been there for the entire development 

and we have done it in a completely different manner than we have 

done previous programs. 

There is no other program that I am familiar with in my experience. Admiral Grosklags may have a different history than mine 

where we have had the partners in as voting members from the 

very beginning and contributing so much to the development of a 

platform. 

So, if they pull out or if something changes in those scenarios, 

there would be an impact to us. Each country contributes a certain 

percentage. We would have to go back and look at those percentages. They have a certain number of aircraft they are supposed to 

buy in certain years. And we would analyze that and then we 

would make decisions on how we, the U.S. Government, will work 

with the other partners to make up any differences in how we 

would go forward, because this is a critical capability that we, the 

United States Air Force, are counting on for our ability to execute 

our mission for the future. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, General. 

Going back to the F–35s, and General, we have broached this 

subject with the Marine Corps about operating in an expeditionary 

mode. And recently I was at Twentynine Palms and that is an expeditionary airfield. And there was, the wind kicked up and then 

the dust storm kicked up. And I remember the last time I was 

there, there was an MV–22 and, I mean, it was like Cook goes back 

in history to when he was infantry in Vietnam and the sand and 

all that crap. 

And I am thinking, how is this $100 million aircraft going to 

exist in that environment, which is very comparable to the Middle 

East, Afghanistan. You pick a country there and the climate. I am 

very, very worried about that because maintenance, maintenance, 

maintenance just might be overcome by elements, elements, elements. 

General RUDDER. Thank you, Congressman. And we actually did 

take the F–35B up to Twentynine Palms and we put the ALIS system in a tent and we operated it out of that. And actually we almost lost a tent because of the dust storm up there. The Marines 

held it down like good Marines and we were able to continue to operate. 

Because we built the STOVL [short take-off and vertical landing] 

model we are going to continue to operate that in an expeditionary 

manner. In fact, our concept, that you are probably well aware of, 

the expeditionary air base concept, that is how we are going to survive in the future. 
16 

And just recently having our first six F–35s on the USS Wasp, we just executed some of these expeditionary distributed STOVL 

operations off that ship into a land-based system keeping the airplane running, fueling it off an MV–22, hot-loading it with a weapon system and then taking right back off again into the fight. So, 

we are going to continue to maneuver that concept and look for 

ways to enhance that ability to operate in these austere environments. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, General. And I am optimistic, I am just 

saying you are a lot younger than I am. And I don’t want a repeat 

occurrence of the Harrier at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, which 

it is going to land there where a phone call had to go to the Marine 

Corps base so you could have the sweeper out there on Limon Road 

so we wouldn’t have any dust and particles. And then when that 

happens in Twentynine Palms, you are going to hear from me I 

guess, but thank you very much. I am optimistic, but I am always 

nervous about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gallego. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

In this committee and other, the full committee, we have talked 

a lot about something I think that particularly scares me, a concern that we have some adversaries that could take advantage of 

this, is the lack of munitions in our stockpiles specifically because 

we are drawing so much of our munitions out of—for CENTCOM 

[U.S. Central Command] that we are probably diminishing in other 

areas. 

So, I guess my question is can I just get an update on where we 

are in terms of our stockpiles in munitions? You could go by areas 

if you want. And also do we have sufficient stockpiles for example, 

in Asia right now, should something, should the balloon go up? 

General BUNCH. So, sir, Congressman, that is a great a question. 

What I will do is give you a top level of what activities we are trying to do to replenish. I am reticent to go too far down—— 

Mr. GALLEGO. Understood. 

General BUNCH [continuing]. Exactly how we are in specific 

areas for operational reasons. 

Mr. GALLEGO. We could talk about that offline, yep. 

General BUNCH. We could do that in another forum if you would 

like. I will talk about two weapon systems in particular for us, 

Joint Direct Attack Munitions [JDAM] and Small Diameter Bomb 

I, both of which are weapons that are principally ones that a lot 

of people are being used and are getting a lot of use today. 

Over the last years, we have now ramped up JDAM production 

in coordination and partnership with Boeing to the rate of 45,000 

a year. That is the highest we have ever had that rate. And we are 

starting to put stockpiles back in and we have got some we can 

give to, sell to our foreign military sales partners. And there is 

some excess capacity there Boeing may be able to get out. We just 

recently got to that level, though, so I wouldn’t be willing to commit that we will be able to produce more than that, but we are now 

up to 45,000 a year. 

On the Small Diameter Bomb I, that one is a weapon that when 

we did the full-rate production decision for the Air Force we were 
17 

only producing 3,000 of those a year. Over the last 2 years, we are 

now up to the point that we are on contract to bring in 8,000 a 

year. So, we have rapidly ramped that up to increase. That is another one that has been in partnership. So, we are trying to increase those numbers to get those weapons up so that we can rebuild those. 

The piece that we have to keep in—that we have to remember 

and that we stress to our program executive officer and he has 

done it without us even having to really stress it, you have to take 

a holistic look at this. For the JDAM, it is not just the tail kit, it 

is the bomb body. It is the fill material. It is everything associated 

with getting that weapon to be a weapon, not just a kit. Same with 

Small Diameter Bomb. And what we have done or I have done is 

gone to the vendors and said, ‘‘If you run into an issue with your 

subs and they are going to be a problem, I cannot find out about 

it late. You have to tell us so that we can work as a partnership 

to get that problem solved so that we can keep weapons going forward because we are expending so many today.’’ 

Mr. GALLEGO. Admiral. 

Admiral CONN. From a PB19 perspective for the Navy and under 

the same restrictions that Lieutenant General Bunch mentioned, 

for us our investments is just going after some high-end weapons 

for the high-end fight, LRASM [Long Range Anti-Ship Missile], 

AARGM [Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile], AIM–9X [Sidewinder short-range multi-mission missile], SDB II [Small Diameter 

Bomb II], RDT&E [Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation], 

as well as addressing some of our PANMC [Procurement of Ammunition, Navy/Marine Corps] accounts, our JDAM, APKWS [Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System], and the funding profiles 

that will get us to that we will call our total munitions requirement 

on our carriers throughout the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. 

One thing that does not fall into WPN [Weapons Procurement, 

Navy] is our sonobuoys and we are expending more sonobuoys than 

we planned for across the globe. So, we need—we would ask your 

support for all the investments we are making in PB19 for our 

sonobuoys to include the unfunded list. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Have you seen this actually—let us call it shortage. Have you seen this shortage actually have an effect on live fire 

practice or exercises? 

Admiral CONN. For our non-combat expenditure allocation, we 

are shooting. That is a firm belief we have in naval aviation is the 

value of live fire end-to-end validation of the weapon system itself. 

And then the aircrew’s ability to execute that or deliver that weapon in accordance with procedures. We have some weapons that are 

getting ready to demil [demilitarize] and we are going to shoot 

them instead of demilling them. 

Mr. GALLEGO. That is a good idea. 

Lastly and this could go for anyone, how comfortable do we feel 

being able to move munitions from one theater to the other quickly 

and efficiently should the balloon go up? 

General HARRIS. Moving munitions is not an easy task because 

of the explosives associated with that, so we prefer to pre-position 

them. And our FY 2019 plan that we started earlier in 2018, 
18 

thanks to your help, is already doing that, so we are on a get-well 

slope right now. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Anybody else? I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. McSally. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Harris, I am talking about the A–10 re-winging, go figure. So, we have had lots of conversations about this with the Air 

Force leadership. We finally did get the resources to start the production line back up again in the funding bill. It is unfortunate 

that it closed back down. It is going to cost more in the long run 

to do it this way. 

But either way, in this year’s funding bill that is enough for 4 

wing sets. The request for next year, we understand, is for somewhere between 8 and 12 wing sets. I know you were told there 

would be no math, but there is 109 left in the fleet that need to 

be re-winged. So, at that rate for between this year and next year, 

that is 93 to go. It is our understanding that Hill’s maximum capacity is 32 a year. Is there some other reason why you are not 

asking for max capacity? Is it because we can’t have that many in 

the fleet that are out for that period of time, just operational requirements? So, that is my first question. 

And then how many aircraft will be grounded this year, next 

year, the year after? Your testimony says that you are asking for 

the wing program to avoid any further groundings beyond 2025. So, 

can we get some specifics on how many aircraft will be grounded 

every year between now and then? And I know some of that is dependent on operational tempo, but I also want to talk about what 

innovative things can be done to smooth that out, because, as you 

know, certain squadrons are taking a beating more than others and 

there are ways to smooth that out. So, there’s a lot of questions in 

there, but it is all about the re-winging. 

General HARRIS. Congressman, thank you for the question and 

for continuing to take care of the A–10 fleet. We do not expect to 

have any groundings for the A–10s based on the way we are flying 

them now. And we are rotating those that are close to being 

grounded into BAI [backup aircraft inventory] status so we can 

preserve them, so we don’t expect in the next couple of years to 

have an issue with that. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

General HARRIS. We kept the production of new wing sets low. 

We kept it open with the 8 to 12 wings until we complete our studies. Many have been passed to this committee to make sure that 

we understand where it is we are going with the profile. So, until 

we have an answer for that to include the F–35 OT&E [operational 

test and evaluation] test and comparison we are not going to make 

a further commitment until we know where we are going with both 

the A–10 and the F–35. So, we will have to get back to you on a 

grounding per year, per airplanes, and we will—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. So, you said the next few years, but the testimony says to avoid any further groundings beyond 2025. So, are 

you saying between the next few years and 2025 for sure there is 

going to be groundings unless something changes? The word ‘‘further’’ is jumping out at me. 
19 

General HARRIS. Okay. We are not confident that we are flying 

all the A–10s that we currently possess through 2025 with our 

plan. So, as we are looking at our CAF [Combat Air Force] roadmap and where we are going with our modernization program, our 

intent is not to have groundings that impact the fleet. So, between 

now and 2025 we are comfortable and, as we said, we will be flying 

A–10 we expect to the 2030 timeframe and we will make sure that 

we re-wing enough of the aircraft to have that capability and capacity. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So, can I again read into that because I know this 

is where we do differ, I mean, you have got in the testimony going 

down to six squadrons where there is currently nine squadrons 

and, as you know, there are less PAA [primary assigned aircraft] 

than the old squadrons had. They are down to 18 versus 24 PAA. 

From my view, again, for the millionth time, with them being 

south of the DMZ [demilitarized zone] and deployed to Afghanistan 

and just coming back from shwacking ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq 

and Syria], and working with our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies, and all that we have on our plate, three Active 

Duty and then six Guard and Reserve squadrons for a total of nine, 

like that is already stretching it for the types of capabilities that 

they bring to the fight. So, how is it that we would provide that 

capability to the combatant commanders if we went down to six? 

I just, I don’t see it. 

And we obviously mandated 171 minimum combat capability in 

the last couple of NDAAs. I expect to fight to continue to have that 

number in there as long as I am around. So, how does that square 

itself, because I just—at least you are all agreeing well into the 

2030s, which I appreciate and partnering with you on that. But it 

is the six versus nine that I just think we are still out of sync. 

General HARRIS. Okay. Part of it as we go from nine to six if we 

execute the plan as we are studying right now, we will make the 

remaining A–10 squadrons healthy back to 24 PA [primary aircraft]. Some of the Guard units may only be able to get to 21 PA. 

We are trying to fix the ones we have. I am not committing to well 

into the 2030s for the A–10. As I said, we will fly the A–10 to 2030. 

Ms. MCSALLY. The Secretary said 2030. Okay. Sorry. 

General HARRIS. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So, well into, got it. 

General HARRIS. Okay. 

Ms. MCSALLY. 2032 is in the testimony, but okay. 

General HARRIS. And we continue to have a discussion and a 

study to look at we are not walking away from the CAS [close air 

support] mission so we will continue to keep it minimum of 55. We 

are trying to grow to 70 fighter squadrons and we are looking at 

our ramp to get there, and as we bring in light attack that can actually help relieve some of the requirements on the fourth-gen 

[generation] platforms that we are seeing right now. 

The A–10 only does about 20 percent of our CAS missions. It continues to be a great airplane and we will fly it while it fits into our 

program. But it doesn’t support the National Defense Strategy of 

our high-end fight for Russia and China, and we continue to make 

those choices and those discussions for our future modernization. 
20 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. And I very much support obviously the National Defense Strategy, but as long as we have Americans on the 

ground in harm’s way, in certain circumstances we need the best 

capability overhead to get them home alive to their families and we 

know that this is a unique one that does that. So, thanks. I am out 

of time. 

Mr. TURNER. We are going to have a number of provisions that— 

our informational provisions concerning the A–10 and one of the 

ones is going to go directly obviously to what Ms. McSally said, and 

that is since the production line was shut down while Congress was 

deciding whether or not the A–10 was going to be preserved, someone made a decision that cost the American taxpayer an enormous 

amount of resources, and we are going to be requiring an assessment of what that was. So, as we deal with these issues in the future hopefully at DOD someone will understand that until Congress takes action they ought not take action that affects the American taxpayer until the debate has been completed. 

I would like that assessment because I would like that figure to 

be known so that people know that that contrary action really does 

affect the taxpayer. 

With that we are going to Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think my question is for the Navy and Marines. I recently had 

the opportunity to visit the Naval Air Station Oceana, a great facility, and I am really excited about what the men and women there 

are doing. I met with the commander of the Strike Fighter Wing 

Atlantic and had an opportunity to tour the hangar and the other 

spaces that are used by the Strike Fighter Squadron 106. 

We talked about the Hornet, the Super Hornet, and I see that 

in the budget request for the fiscal 2019 we are looking for—the 

request is for additional F–18s as we wait for more F–35s to come 

online. 

One of the issues that came up during my conversation and my 

observations at Oceana is that the supply shortages and if we are 

looking to extend and increase the use and demand on the F–18, 

then the question is where are we, what is your assessment about 

the supply chain. 

For those F–18s that are non-mission capable, are we attributing 

more to supply versus maintenance. Understand there is, you 

know, continues to be cannibalization that is happening. When I 

was an Army Aviation pilot, I don’t know what the official policy 

was, but we never cannibalized, but I get that you have got to do 

that. It is not good for keeping aircraft up, it is not good for morale, 

for maintenance personnel, but if you could just talk to supply and 

cannibalization, particularly as it pertains to the F–18. Thank you. 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. Sure, I will start. And then perhaps Admiral Conn will jump in with something that I may have missed. 

Not mission capable for supply is our number one driver for readiness on the F–18, particularly the E and F. You are well aware 

that we have underfunded those accounts over the last 7 or 8 

years. The average over the last 8 years were funded to about 72 

percent of the requirement across the 8 years, so you can see how 

over time that would build up a very significant deficit in our spare 

support for that platform. 
21 

Starting with the RAA [request for additional appropriations] in 

FY 2017 and continuing into fiscal year 2018 and now into our 

PB19 budget request, funding for all of our aircraft, not just E and 

F spares has been increased dramatically into the 90, 95, almost 

100 percent range across each of those fiscal years. That will take 

a little bit of time to have some effect as we have to go to industry, 

put those on contract, and get them delivered. But that is our primary effort at going after the spares shortage. 

As you said, there is far too much cannibalization going on, but 

you can’t really blame the squadrons at this point because that’s 

what they are using to get their other jets up, so it is incumbent 

upon the rest of us to give them the resources they need in order 

to get those aircraft back on the flight line and the additional supply money will be a big part of that. 

Admiral CONN. The only thing I would add is it is not just about 

the APN [Aircraft Procurement, Navy] 6, the new parts, it is making sure we can repair the parts we already bought. And with the 

investments we have in our APN 7 accounts to make sure our 

FRCs [Fleet Readiness Centers] have the right tools, the right 

benches to be able to turn around those parts is just as critical. 

That those FRCs have that equipment and the tools to turn around 

the parts we already bought, because quite frankly those parts are 

cheaper than the new ones and I think it is about 30 percent of 

the parts that we need in the fleet. 

The cannibalization rate, you are exactly right, not only is it a 

bad way to do business, it takes twice the time, because you got 

to take the part out and you got to put the part back in and the 

sailors are doing twice the work for one job and there is a risk 

when you cannibalize that you break the part, as I think that you 

are well aware, sir. 

So, this is an all-in strategy. You know, the investments we 

made in parts in 2017 will reach in full in 2019. There are investments we made in 2018 will realize that full effect in 2020, and 

then 2019 will be in full effect in 2021. There are other things we 

have to do before those parts show up and supply chain management is one of those, making sure that we got the right parts to 

the right aircraft to get them in the air, and part of that is tied 

to the Vision 2020 that Admiral Grosklags mentioned in his opening comment about supply chain management, predictive maintenance, and use of data analytics to make those good choices 

throughout the process. 

Mr. BROWN. Thanks. And just for the 30 seconds I have I will 

get parochial. At Pax River Naval Air Station, do a lot of research, 

development, testing, et cetera. 

We have got an aircraft prototype facility. They are waiting for 

funding, Phase 3 funding. It is on the DOD’s unfunded priority list, 

but not the Navy’s unfunded priority list. So, I would just like you 

to take a look at that and we will certainly follow up with you on 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gaetz. 

Mr. GAETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Conn, you made mention of the tragic event where we 

lost some brave aviators down in Key West. I had occasion to meet 
22 

with the outstanding command staff that we have got down there 

and they took occasion while I was there to stress the importance 

of maintaining the Military Mission Line, so that the Navy could 

continue their operations in the eastern Gulf of Mexico free of the 

congestion that the erosion of that line or the movement of that 

line could create. 

The Air Force has stated under the signature of General Goldfein 

that unequivocally the Air Force opposes any change to the Military Mission Line. Does the Navy hold a similar view? 

Admiral CONN. I apologize, for the mission line for—— 

Mr. GAETZ. The Military Mission Line that preserves the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico for training, test and evaluation missions that benefit both the Air Force and the Navy. If it is something that you 

would like to get back to me on that’s fine. 

Admiral CONN. Let me get back to you on that, sir, and make 

sure that I fully understand the problem—— 

Mr. GAETZ. Yes, my question is do you have a different view of 

the Air Force since the Air Force has been unequivocal on this. 

Have I mischaracterized the Air Force’s position, General Harris? 

General HARRIS. No, we—unequivocal, we need to protect those 

range assets. 

Admiral CONN. I would agree with that. 

Mr. GAETZ. Wonderful. Thank you. 

General Bunch, when we first met I was a country lawyer running around Okaloosa County, Florida, and you were doing great 

work at Eglin Air Force Base guiding our community through an 

EIS [environmental impact statement] process where we were anticipating a certain number of Air Force variant F–35s along with 

variants for the Navy and the Marines. The Navy and Marines 

have made other plans. They are going elsewhere. 

In our current EIS caps, the universe of Air Force variants that 

we can have of the F–35 and we have these unfilled slots for the 

other branches of our services. 

Does the Air Force believe that refreshing that EIS to reflect the 

need for more Air Force aircraft at Eglin could help us save money, 

could be advantageous, or do we live under the current EIS forever? 

General HARRIS. Sir, if you don’t mind I will speak to that from 

a plan perspective. 

Mr. GAETZ. Certainly. 

General HARRIS. We are looking at that. As the F–35 community 

grows, our ability to get trained aircrew pilots in this case through, 

we are looking at both the airplanes that are possessed there which 

are some of the oldest in the fleet, looking at how we can modernize and refresh those along with looking at the EIS because it 

is limited to 59 total F–35s and we recognize that, that there is 

some room to work. So, we will take that through our strategic basing process and make sure that we get a good look at it. 

Mr. GAETZ. So, it is a goal then of the Air Force to have more 

of the F–35 A variant allowed under that 59 cap? 

General HARRIS. I can’t say it is a goal. It is something that we 

are studying. 

Mr. GAETZ. Great, and is there a timeline for that decision calculus? 
23 

General HARRIS. Not yet, no, sir. We are looking at it. We still 

have room to grow at Luke, but as Luke fills out looking at Eglin 

to make sure we have got the decisions made in time if that is 

where we are going. That would have to be a couple of years before 

Luke completes its build. 

Mr. GAETZ. I would simply offer to you that when General Bunch 

and I went through that process previously there were factors and 

circumstances that I think no longer would present a challenge to 

allow us to be able to fully utilize that Air Force asset to fulfill the 

mission. 

Admiral Grosklags, I wanted to ask you about plans on the TH– 

57. The TH–57 fleet right now is old. The chairman I believe talked 

about training aircraft and what our plans were, is there a replacement strategy for the TH–57? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. There is. I think Admiral Conn can probably address this better than I can. 

Mr. GAETZ. Wonderful. 

Admiral CONN. Our strategy for replacing the TH–57 is to go 

commercial off-the-shelf. We are going to buy a commercial aircraft 

and integrate it into the training down in Florida. That timeline 

will probably start in 2020 and we will start buying aircraft in 

2020 and be divested by the TH–57 by approximately 2023. So we 

don’t have to do any testing on the aircraft. So, it is a buy and start 

flying. 

Mr. GAETZ. I greatly appreciate that sense of urgency. I know at 

Whiting we have got over 200 circumstances a year where a helicopter that takes off at the base has to come back on a truck for 

that purpose. Have we contemplated a strategy that would be turnkey training or have we dismissed that as an alternative? 

Admiral CONN. We have not. All options are on the table. 

Mr. GAETZ. And what are you evaluating or what can you share 

with me about where the Navy’s thinking is on the benefits and 

drawbacks of turnkey training versus a procured and purchased 

commercial system? 

Admiral CONN. I think the fact that we are getting ready to compete this, both the aircraft and then potential turnkey solutions, I 

am hesitant to address the strengths and weaknesses at this point. 

Mr. GAETZ. That is fine. I just want to make sure that as the 

RFP [request for proposal] goes out that it is sufficiently permissive 

where if someone has a turn—and I am not a partisan for turnkey 

versus a procured commercial system. I simply want to make sure 

that the Navy has both of those options to compare and it sounds 

as though that is your plan. 

Admiral CONN. That is correct. 

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you all for being here today. My question is for Admiral 

Grosklags. 

The Navy’s physiological events team obviously led by Admiral 

Joyner has been keeping us well up-to-date as a matter of fact on 

the progress with PE issues that her organization continues to look 

at. And, you know, they take a holistic approach to examining 

those problems and obviously the solutions. 
24 

My question to you is, can you speak for just a minute on the 

difficulties that the Navy could encounter if Congress attempts to 

legislate some specific mechanical solution rather than just letting 

the Navy continue to maintain its approach and flexibility as you 

learn and test new things? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. Yes, sir. As you know, we are taking a very 

holistic approach. And that was I will say reemphasized if you will 

to us by the NASA study last year, where they looked at what we 

were doing and said you are actually focusing too much on just mechanical solutions and you really need to get the aviator, the physiology, the operational environment into your considerations more 

than just fixing the eaches on the aircraft. 

We fully recognize we need to continue to fix each one of those 

mechanical things if you will that we have identified to date, and 

that Congresswoman Tsongas mentioned many of those in her 

opening remarks and her follow-on question. But there are other 

things that have been put on the table for several years now, mechanical fixes that in the end as we have examined them have 

panned out to not be as valuable as originally thought. So, the real 

focus that we have right now is on getting to the root cause of 

things and changing only those things that we have demonstrated 

by fact that impact the rate of physiological events. 

A very simple recent example, actually I can give you two of 

them very quickly. The software fix that Congresswoman Tsongas 

referenced, we introduced that to the fleet about 2 months ago. We 

had a PE on an aircraft about 3 weeks ago I believe. That aircraft 

did not yet have that software fix installed. If it would have, it 

would have prevented that PE. 

There is a ram air dump switch that was inadvertently activated 

during one of our physiological events. When we looked at that 

mishap we said, well, or that physiological event, we said we are 

probably not going to change that dump switch location because of 

one PE. But when we looked at it further, when we pulled the 

string through that root cause corrective action process, it turned 

out that the pilots were hitting that dump switch many more times 

that weren’t causing physiological events, but had the potential to. 

So, now we are going to go in and make a fix to the location of 

that switch to address that specific problem. Those are the kind of 

eaches that we have to get at while we are doing this along with, 

again, the aircrew physiology stuff that NASA recommended. 

Mr. GRAVES. I appreciate your answer. My worry is always when 

Congress gets involved and tries to legislate specific fixes all it does 

is end up creating problems, costing money, and it is very counterproductive. So, thank you for your answer. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank our panel of witnesses. Thank you all for 

your testimony and for your service to the country. 

It is important with all budget requests that we really strike the 

appropriate balance between building and procuring new next-generation systems and modernizing systems that still have plenty of 

life in them. My question is, how are you thinking about including 

game-changing capabilities such as directed energy weapon sys-
25 

tems which are low-cost, high-range, deep magazine capable technologies, both from the outset in the requirements building phase, 

as well as through the modernization processes? 

General HARRIS. Congressman, if you don’t mind, I will start 

with that down here from an airman’s perspective. Because of the 

budget increases and what we are looking at are some of the gaps 

in some of the areas that we are not sure of if we can get further 

ahead than we currently are, we are making some healthy bets in 

some of those areas. 

The ones you mentioned in addition to advanced computing, big 

data, artificial intelligence, robotonomy and autonomy—I am sorry, 

robotics and autonomy. We are looking at each one of those and 

coming together as a group of services through CAPE [Office of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] to see how we can best 

pool our capabilities, so that when one of us makes an advance, it 

applies and helps all of us as we move forward, because each one 

of the services has a budget line to support those efforts and we 

are figuring out what is our best way, because just going at things 

the same way of modernizing old stuff, it is still going to be old 

stuff, just going to last longer, but it may not be as effective as you 

would like it to be. 

So, we are working in that direction to make sure that we do 

have game-changing technology headed our way. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, General. 

Anyone else want to chime in? 

Admiral GROSKLAGS. I will touch on two things. I will stick with 

directed energy first. We are not pursuing anything that we can 

talk about here right now on aviation platforms, but we do plan to 

have a directed energy capability on one of our surface ships that 

we will have back out there in fiscal year or in calendar year 2019. 

So, the Navy is pursuing directed energy. But right now, it is more 

focused on our sea-based than our aviation platforms. 

The other place that I think, as General Harris said, we are collectively making significant investment right now is in hypersonics, 

not only in the defensive side, but also just as importantly, perhaps 

more importantly, on the offensive side of the house. And as he 

said, this is really about the services coordinating as opposed to 

going down an individual service path. And I think our service acquisition executives and our service secretaries have kept us very 

focused on that joint effort, joint pursuit of these new technologies. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

General RUDDER. I will just offer for the directed energy thing for 

this discussion, one of the things you are going to see very quickly 

is the counter-UAS [unmanned aerial system] piece. So, we are 

working through that right now. That seems to be proving very valuable as far as that going against those type of systems. 

I will also mention something a little more simple and that is 

taking all the information that is being derived from the F–35 series of aircraft and what do you do with that information. There 

are several different efforts out there right now to take a broadly 

how to take all the waveforms and condense them into the ability 

to get it down to the corporal on the ground. 

And we are doing some experimentation right now out at our 

weapons tactics squadron with tablets and using the ability to use 
26 

tablets out on the battlefield. So, the goal would be if you look into 

the future is that corporal, that squad leader that is going into the 

objective area, on his tablet, he has got the same information that 

the F–35 is seeing or any unmanned system in the area is providing to him. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. Thank you, General. 

So, I am interested, greatly interested in the pilot shortage as 

well, particularly combat pilots which is most acute I know right 

now in the Air Force. Though, if time permits, I would like responses from each of the services. My understanding right now reaffirmed by a GAO [Government Accountability Office] report released yesterday is that pilots are leaving for the civilian sector not 

because of pay or promotions or op tempo in the service, but primarily due to career dissatisfaction from the lack of flying when 

not deployed. 

So, I am sure you have your own analysis as to why good combat 

pilots are leaving, but what do we need to do to keep them? 

Admiral CONN. I will go first. One, we are in a war for talent for 

our folks that fly our aircraft. They are going to the airlines. They 

are going to med [medical] school. They are going to law school. 

They are going to get their MBA [Master of Business Administration] and they are starting their own businesses. 

My focus is on reducing distractions and one of those distractions 

is not flying enough particularly in our maintenance and basic 

phase where we are struggling with our readiness. We are paying, 

we are putting the folks forward with the proper readiness training 

and certification, but it is at the expense of folks on the bench. And 

that is what we have to fix through our readiness accounts. The 

GAO report, the only thing that I will say from the Navy perspective in the shortfalls they addressed, it is not from a retention 

shortfall. It is from our T–45 challenge of shutting down T–45 operations, taking a pause and that is causing a shortfall in the fleet. 

Today, it is about 70 pilots short for 58 squadrons. Yes, that will 

increase to about 160 short in FY 2019 for those 58 squadrons, but 

we are going to work our way through that T–45 pause through 

manning actions, increasing tour lengths, and as well as taking 

risk in manning levels for those squadrons in the maintenance and 

basic phase. 

General HARRIS. And, Congressman, if you don’t mind, I will add 

to that. I would second what the admiral has said about why the 

pilots are leaving. Ours are very similar from an airman’s perspective and this is a very talented pool of people who if we give them 

the right circumstances will stay longer and do what we need in 

our Nation’s defense. So, we are working that. 

To help, the Air Force has stood up an aircrew crisis task force 

that is looking at each one of these topics. It is partly on retention, 

partly focused on bringing in new pilots in a bigger quantity because this is a national crisis. You are seeing it first in your services, but you are going to see it very soon in your airlines where 

there are just not enough pilots to go around as the airlines are 

hiring 5,000 pilots a year and us at the table are only producing 

2,000 a year. There’s going to be an issue. 

So, you will see it first in your regional then moving up to your 

bigger aircraft, just the availability of pilots writ large. So, we will 
27 

solve a portion of that and try and keep those pilots under a highly 

demanded skill set in our services longer across all three of us. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Is there a plan to finally distribute the findings 

of the task force? What is going to be the result of that? 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. But, it is not just an Air Force piece. 

So, we are doing this with the services that you see at the table. 

But we are also working with our commercial industry to figure out 

how can we solve this together as a national problem. So, as we 

get to completion and we look to funding what we can to solve 

some of these issues, if it is a funding issue or freeing up white 

space, or getting more aircrew available so that they can focus 

their time on the flying rather than doing additional duties that 

don’t necessarily improve their combat capability, we will certainly 

share that information. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, all. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Turn to Ms. Tsongas, for closing comments? 

Ms. TSONGAS. I just want to thank you all for your testimony and 

for your service. 

And, Admiral Grosklags, I wanted to specially commend the 

Navy for finally taking a look at the human physiology, the human 

being who is the aircraft crew as you are addressing the issue of 

physiological events. I am grateful the NASA report focused on 

that and that you have taken it seriously. So, thank you all for 

your service and for being here today. 

Mr. TURNER. And with that, we will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 12, 2018 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 12, 2018 

(33) 

Statement of the Honorable Michael Turner 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs 

April12, 2018 

The hearing will come to order. 

The subcommittee meets today to review Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps 

combat aviation programs and the fiscal year 20 19 budget request. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses: 

• Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags, Commander of the Naval Air Systems 

Command; 

• Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, Deputy Commandant of the Marine 

Corps for Aviation; 

• Rear Admiral Scott Conn, Director of the Navy's Air Warfare Division; 

• Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch, Military Deputy in the Oftice of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; and 

• Lieutenant General Jerry Harris, Air Force Deputy Chief ofStafffor 

Plans, Programs, and Requirements. 

I thank all of you for your service and look forward to your testimony today. 

This hearing continues the subcommittee's ongoing oversight of combat 

aviation modernization and represents the third hearing the subcommittee has held 

this year alone on this topic. 

Last year when the Subcommittee held this hearing on the fiscal year 2018 

budget request, we heard how years of continuous combat operations and deferred 

modernization had created a crisis in military readiness. 

The bipartisan budget agreement signed by the President in February and the 

Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act will help provide much needed 

stability and relief. Combined with the fiscal year 2019 budget request, the mi I itary 

services should be able to begin digging out of this hole. 

Our witnesses today have been asked to identify their top five modernization 

requirements for the combat aviation portfolio and briefly summarize how this 

budget request helps to restore full spectrum readiness. 

We also expect the witnesses to articulate how these requirements are 

aligned with the goals and objectives of the new National Defense Strategy. 

We expect to examine a broad range of issues today that I'll highlight later 

in this statement, but first 1 want to address some issues brought to my attention by 

F-35 pilots and maintainers at Hill Air Force Base when I traveled there last week. 

The pilots were very concerned about their visual acuity during night 

refueling operations using the F-35 pilot helmet, describing the situation as a safety 

issue. 
34 

The pilots also stated that Navy pilots conducting night aircraft carrier 

landings in the F-35C and Marine Corps F-358 conducting night landings on 

amphibious ships have a similar safety concern. 

The maintenance personnel are still very disappointed in the autonomic 

logistics information system, or ALIS. They continue to have to use manual 

workarounds that take time and effort, resulting in lower aircraft availability and 

mission capable rates. 

I'd like for each of the witnesses to address these concerns and strongly urge 

each of you to work with the F-35 program office to get these items fixed. 

I 'I! just briefly touch on a few other key areas that we expect to cover this 

afternoon. 

Regarding F-35A production. The subcommittee would like to better 

understand the rationale for this year's F-35A request which amounts to 48 aircraft 

and why there is no real significant increase given last year's unfunded 

requirement for 14 additional aircraft. General Harris, you testified before this 

Subcommittee last year and stated that "the Air Force needs to increase F-35A 

procurement to a minimum of 60 aircraft per year as quickly as possible." I would 

also note that three years ago, the Air Force planned to procure 60 F-35As in fiscal 

year 2019. 

Regarding Physiological Episodes. We continue to be concerned by the 

increased rates of physiological episodes occurring in Navy and Air Force aircraft. 

We recognize the work that is being done to mitigate these events but remain 

concerned about the overall progress made in determining a root cause. This is a 

good opportunity for the witnesses to provide some detail into how this budget 

request supports mitigation efforts. 

Regarding Aviation Readiness and Strike Fighter Inventories. It's my 

understanding the Navy continues to absorb risk in its management of the strike 

fighter inventory. I understand the Navy has submitted a request for F/ A-18 

multiyear procurement authorization, which if authorized, should make the 

procurement of Super Hornets more efficient and less costly. 

Last year the Navy and Marine Corps continued to fall short the number of 

ready basic aircraft. We'lllook to better understand what efforts are currently 

underway to mitigate potential strike fighter shortfalls and improve readiness. 

Regarding Training aircraft. The Subcommittee continues to have concerns 

regarding the overall age of the training aircraft fleet. I believe if we're fielding 5th 

generation aircraft then we should be fielding a 5th generation trainer. I look 

forward to hearing an update on the Air Force's next generation trainer, the T-X 

program. 

Regarding munitions. While I'm pleased to see many critical munition 

programs are being kept at maximum production in the budget request, I am 

concerned that years of under-investment has created shortfalls in munition 

inventories that are being exacerbated by current operations. We need to better 

understand the challenges you currently face with managing munition programs as 

well as this critical industrial base. 
35 

Finally, let there be no doubt that we are experiencing a crisis in military 

readiness and we must address this now. 

More U.S. military service members have died in aircraft mishaps over the 

past year than have died while serving in Afghanistan. 

Over the last three and a half weeks we have witnessed a series of aviation 

accidents where 16 service-members have tragically lost their lives. One of those 

service-members was a constituent of mine. Gunnery Sergeant Derik Holley was a 

33-year old enlisted Marine and he was killed while conducting training missions 

in a CH-53E helicopter, a helicopter that has been in service since the 1970s. 

These tragic events are a result of lack of training hours due to constrained 

resources and/or the current state of aging equipment; all of which resulted from 

years of underfunding our military, and clearly shows the magnitude of the 

problem we are dealing with. This is why we have fought so hard to raise the 

Department's topline budget request. 

We have to do whatever it takes to ensure that our aircraft are safe and that 

pilots get the training they need. 

Without objection, all witness' prepared statements will be included in the 

hearing record. 

Admiral Grosklags please proceed, followed by General Rudder, Admiral 

Conn, General Bunch and General Harris. 
36 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY 

THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF 

VICE ADMIRAL PAUL GROSKLAGS 

REPRESENTING THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 

(RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION) 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL STEVEN RUDDER 

DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION 

AND 

REAR ADMIRAL SCOTT CONN 

DIRECTOR AIR WARFARE 

BEFORE THE 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

ON 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY'S AVIATION PROGRAMS 

APRIL 12,2018 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTfL RELEASED BY 

THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 
37 

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tsongas and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the Department of the Navy's (DoN) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 aviation programs. Our 

budget request aligns to the current National Defense Strategy which identifies a more 

complex global security environment characterized by overt challenges to the current 

international order and the resurgence of long-term, strategic competition between 

nations. This request recognizes that we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy 

that has resulted in the erosion of some of our competitive military advantage. 

DoN aviation remains highly capable today and we are prepared to respond as the 

nation requires. The Navy-Marine Corps team provides a maritime strike and 

expeditionary power projection force that is continuously forward-deployed. We provide 

the persistent presence and multi-mission capabilities that represent a majority of U.S. 

influence across the global commons. To protect our Nation and support our allies and 

partners, Naval Aviation programs require your continued support. As we prioritize our 

preparedness, we request your assistance to improve the resilience of our current force 

posture, modernize key capabilities, and accelerate technological advancements to 

address new adversary challenges in every domain. 

Our FY 2019 investments are focused, balanced and prioritized to deliver a ready, 

capable, global sea-based and expeditionary force. We request your support for the 

continued transition of the major components of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW), 

Expeditionary Strike Group, Amphibious Ready Group, and land-based Expeditionary 

Wings. We ask you to help us expand on the assimilation and teaming of manned and 

unmanned systems and the further integration of advanced platforms, sensors, networks, 

the electromagnetic spectrum and long-range strike weapons that provide the necessary 

military advantage over those challenging the global posture. 
38 

As part of our enduring commitment to fiscal responsibility and accelerating 

delivery of advanced capabilities to the warfighter, the Department continues its pursuits 

of accelerated acquisition and business process reforms. 

We are maturing accelerated acquisition authorities Congress provided under the 

FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (Sections 803, 804 and 806). These new 

measures include implementation of accelerated acquisition policies for Rapid 

Prototyping, Experimentation and Demonstration, establishment of Maritime Accelerated 

Capability Office programs, and the use of Rapid Deployment Capability processes. As 

part of these efforts, we are actively promoting innovation, government/academia 

partnerships, and the transition of key manufacturing technologies and processes with 

investments focused on affordability and those most beneficial to the warfighter. 

Our business reform measures include new focus on achieving full auditability of 

operations, improving financial control systems, and providing advanced tools to our 

workforce to better understand, manage and reduce cost. We intend to reform our 

business operations and leverage savings to improve readiness and increase the lethality 

and capacity ofNaval Aviation. 

The strategic environment continues to be complex, uncertain, and technologically 

advanced; the proliferation of modern conventional and cyber weapons from state and 

non-state actors is anticipated to propagate as rival states and organizations attempt to 

contest our influence. With the sustained support of Congress we can begin to restore our 

competitive naval advantage, enhance global deterrence, and ensure Naval Aviation 

remains uncontested in an increasingly complex global security environment. 

TACTICAL AVIATION 

Strike Fighter Inventory Management Overview 

The Naval Aviation Enterprise continues to actively manage strike fighter 

inventory challenges. The President's FY 20 19 budget request puts us on track to reach 

2 
39 

our desired force structure no later than FY 2022 (est.). The key enabler will be stable, 

on-time funding over multiple years to achieve the desired results. 

The FY 2019 request addresses the strike fighter shortfall with procurement of 20 

F-35Bs, nine F-35Cs, 24 FA- 1 8E/F Block lil Super Hornets and additional aircraft across 

the FYDP. In tandem with these procurements, Service Life Modification (SLM) 

initiatives and capability upgrades enhance our inventory by maintaining the tactical 

relevance of the F/A-18 ElF and legacy ['/A-18 A-D aircraft. 

Based on current requirements and inventory modeling, we will maintain a portion 

of the Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 A-D aircraft to meet operational requirements 

through the FY 2030 timeframe. Navy will expedite its divestiture from the legacy 

Hornet- seven years ahead of schedule with the last Navy active component squadron 

transitioning to the F/A-18E/F in 2018. As the Navy divests legacy F/A-18 A-D, the 

"best of breed" aircraft will be transferred to the Marine Corps, Naval Warfare 

Development Center, Blue Angels, and the Naval Reserves. The FY 2019 request will 

allow the DoN to completely divest from the legacy A-D Hornets no later than the FY 

2030 timeframe. 

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 

The F-35 Lightning II will form the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for 

decades to come. Whether the mission requires the execution of strike, close air support 

(CAS), counter air, escort, or electronic warfare (EW), both the f<-35B and F-35C are 

vital to our future as they become the lethal cornerstone of our naval air forces. The 

Navy and Marine Corps will transition 25 squadrons over the next 10 years as we replace 

our aging legacy fleet. Delivering this transformational capability to front-line forces as 

soon as possible remains a top priority. 

The DoN is committed to reducing F-35 costs. The Department's goal is to reduce 

the flyaway cost of the Marine Corps F-35B to be no greater than $104 million dollars 

and the Navy F-35C cost to be no greater than $98 million dollars no later than Low Rate 

3 
40 

Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 14. We are also working to decrease operation and 

sustainment costs by 30 percent over current projections. 

The baseline program has delivered over 250 aircraft to test, operational, and 

training sites. The F-35 program continues to mature with base stand-up, sustainment of 

fielded aircraft and maturation of a global sustainment enterprise. 

The FY 2019 President's budget requests $4.2 billion in Aircraft Procurement 

funds (APN) for 20 F-358 and nine F-35C aircraft, modifications and spares. 

F-35 Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery (C2D2) 

As the F-35 program looks to close Block 3F System Development and 

Demonstration, we must continue to modernize the aircraft with advanced capabilities to 

maintain the advantage over advancing adversary fighters and ground-based radar threats. 

Towards that end, the Department is restructuring the original Block 4 Follow-on 

Modernization acquisition strategy into a more agile Continuous Capabilities 

Development and Delivery (C2D2) model. The C2D2 approach leverages commercial 

practices, develops capability in smaller, more easily managed increments, and 

accelerates delivery ofwartighting capability. The approach also advances Departmental 

goals of reducing C2D2 risk and lowering cost. In support of FY 2019 C2D2 ramp-up 

we request $644.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funds 

(RDT&E). 

F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet 

Service Life Extension Plan (SLEP) efforts extended the F/A-18 A-D beyond its 

original service life of 6,000 hours to 8,000 hours, and in select aircraft, up to I 0,000 

flight hours. Along with flight hour extensions, these aircraft require capability upgrades 

to maintain tactical relevance as the Marine Corps plans to fly a portion of the legacy 

F/A-18 A-D fleet through the FY 2030 timcframe to bridge the transition gap to an F35B/F-35C fleet. 

4 
41 

The FY 2019 budget requests $273.2 million in APN to implement aircraft 

commonality programs, enhance capability, improve reliability, and ensure structural 

safety of the F/A-18 A-D inventory, and $67.0 million for the continuation of the Hornet 

SLEP. 

F/A-l8E/F Super Hornet 

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be the numerically predominant aircraft in 

CVWs into the mid-late 2030s. Continued investment in new aircraft and capability 

upgrades and flight hour extensions significantly improves CVW lethality. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $1.99 billion in APN for procurement of 

24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and $301.4 million of RDT&E for Block III, Infrared 

Search & Track (IRST) development/test, F I A-18E/F SLM initiatives and RADAR 

upgrades. 

AV-8B Harrier 

The FY 2019 budget requests $46.4 million in RDT&E funds to continue design, 

development, integration and test of platform improvements. These improvements 

include continuation of an Engine Life Management Program, Escape System upgrades, 

Joint Mission Planning System updates, Link-16 Digitallnteroperability (DI) integration, 

Operational Flight Program block upgrades (mission and communication systems), 

navigation improvements, weapons carriage updates, countermeasure improvements, and 

updates to an Obsolescence Replacement/Readiness Management Plan. 

The FY 2019 budget also includes $58.6 million in APN to continue the 

incorporation of Obsolescence Replacement/Readiness Management Plan systems, 

electrical and structural enhancements, LITENING Pod upgrades, F402-RR-408 engine 

safety and operational changes, Dl upgrades that include Link 16, and inventory 

sustainment and upgrade efforts to offset obsolescence and attrition. 

5 
42 

Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems 

The Department is continuing a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) 

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to address the anticipated retirement of the F/ A-18E/F 

and EA-18G aircraft beginning in the mid-2030s. 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the Initial Capabilities Document that ti·ames 

NGAD study requirements to support the full range of military operations from carrierbased platforms. The AoA is considering the widest possible range of materiel concepts 

while balancing capability, cost/affordability, schedule, and supportability. It will assess 

manned, unmanned, and optionally manned approaches to fulfill predicted 2030+ mission 

requirements. Analyses will consider baseline programs of record (current platforms), 

evolutionary or incremental upgrades to baseline programs (including derivative 

platforms), and new development systems or aircraft to meet identified gaps in required 

capability. We anticipate the NGAD AoA to report out in FY 2019. 

AIRBORNE ELECTONIC ATTACK (AEA) 

EA-18G Growler 

The EA-l8G Growler is a critical enabler for the Joint force as it brings fully 

netted electronic warfare capabilities to the fight, providing essential capabilities in the 

Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare environment. 

The EA-18G program will complete deliveries in FY 2018, with a total 

procurement quantity of 160 aircraft. This fulfills current Navy requirements for 

Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) for nine CVWs and five expeditionary squadrons plus 

one reserve squadron. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $147.4 million of RDT&E for additional 

modernization to ensure the EA-18G maintains its edge in the electromagnetic spectrum 

domain. 

6 
43 

EA-68 Prowler 

The Marine Corps currently has one remaining operational EA-6B squadron to 

support joint AEA operational requirements through FY 2018. These organic AEA 

capabilities include the Intrepid Tiger II EW pod, which provides communications 

electronic attack and support for the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The FY 

2019 President's Budget request includes $18.5 million in RDT &E and $11.5 million in 

APN for Intrepid Tiger II updates and procurement. 

Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) 

The NGJ is the follow-on to the legacy AN/ ALQ-99 initially fielded in 1971. The 

ALQ-99 has reached capability limits both technologically and materially and is 

challenged against modern state-ot~the-art digital surface-to-air missiles systems. NGJ 

will provide improved capability in support of Joint and coalition air, land and sea 

tactical strike missions and is critical to Navy's vision for the future of strike warfare. It 

will become the Defense Department's only comprehensive tactical airborne electronic 

attack platform and is essential to counter current and emerging threats. 

NGJ will be implemented in three increments: Mid-Band (formerly known as 

Increment 1), Low-Band (formerly known as Increment 2), and High-Band (formerly 

known as Increment 3). The April 2017 NGJ-Mid-Band Critical Design Review revealed 

deficiencies in the design of the pod structure that necessitated a redesign effort to meet 

air worthiness requirements. The in formation available to date about this redesign 

indicates a potential for a schedule impact of more than six months. A collaborative 

government/industry analysis effort to redesign the structure is expected to complete in 

April/May 2018. Once the redesign of the pod structure is complete, we will realize the 

full impact to the NGJ-Mid-Band program. Independent of the structural issue, the 

design, integration, manufacture, and testing of all other pod components, sub-assemblies 

(such as the arrays, power generation, cooling, common electronics unit), and software 

continue. Platform integration et1orts remain aligned to the EA-18G Hl6 System 

7 
44 

Software schedule; the next Generation Jammer Low Band program is investigating 

possible accelerated acquisition strategies to accelerate Initial Operating Capability 

(IOC). 

Our FY 2019 budget requests $459.5 million in RDT &E to maintain Mid-Band 

schedule, continue procurement and assembly of the Engineering and Development 

Models, and commence developmental flight testing. In addition, we also request $115.3 

million RDT&E to complete Low-Band technology feasibility studies and initiate 

technology demonstration efforts. 

AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING AIRCRAFT 

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) 

The E-2D AHE is the Navy's carrier-based Airborne Early Warning and Battle 

Management Command and Control system. The E-20 AHE provides Theater Air and 

Missile Defense and is a cornerstone of the Naval Integrated Fire Control- Counter Air 

system of systems capability. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $223.6 million in RDT&E for 

continuation of added capabilities, to include Aerial Refueling, Secret Internet Protocol 

Router chat, Advanced Mid-Tenn Interoperability Improvement Program, Counter 

Electronic Attack, Multifunctional Information Distribution System /Joint Tactical Radio 

System Tactical Targeting Network Technology, Sensor Netting, and Data Fusion, 

Navigation Warfare, Fighter to Fighter Backlink, ALQ-217 Electronic Support Measures, 

and Crypto Modernization/f'requency Remapping. 

In the first year of what will be a 24 aircraft Multi-Year Procurement contract 

covering FYs 2019-2023, the budget also requests $983.4 million in APN for four Full 

Rate Production (FRP) Lot 7 aircraft and Advance Procurement for FY 2020 FRP Lot 8 

aircraft. 

8 
45 

ASSAULT SUPPORT AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

MV -22B/CMV -22B 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $143.1 million in RDT&E for continued 

product improvements and development of the Navy variant, the CMV-22B; $843.2 

million in APN for seven Lot 23 CMV -22Bs, procurement of long lead items for FY 

2020 (Lot 24) aircraft; and $214.8 million to support 'Operations and Safety 

Improvement Programs' (OS!Ps). Planned OSIP efforts include the correction of 

deficiencies, readiness improvements, common configuration modernization, aerial 

refueling, and avionics improvements. 

C-2 Greyhound 

As the DoN recapitalizes the long-range aerial logistics support and Carrier 

Onboard Delivery (COD) capabilities with CMV-22B, the C-2A fleet will continue to 

provide critical COD support for operations worldwide until the FY 2024 timeframe. 

The FY 2019 budget request provides for $11.32 million in APN and $0.8 million in 

RDT&E to manage remaining C-2A aircraft mission systems obsolescence, including 

critical Center Wing Section repair kits to maintain sufficient capacity and readiness to 

safely complete the transition to CMV -22B. 

CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $326.9 million in RDT &E to continue 

the CH-53K Engineering Manufacturing Development phase and $1.3 billion in APN for 

procurement of eight Lot 3 LRIP aircraft, including Advance Procurement and initial 

spares. 

During FY 2019, the program will continue to execute developmental test flights 

including propulsion testing, initial shipboard testing, avionics qualification testing, 

service ceiling testing, and hot/high altitude testing. 

9 
46 

CHIMH-53E 

To keep the CH-53E and MH-53E viable through their remaining services lives, 

the FY 2019 President's Budget requests $52.0 million in APN and $17.0 million in 

RDT &E. The funding will provide for Condition Based Maintenance software upgrades, 

cockpit upgrades, Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, T64 engine reliability improvements, survivability upgrades, satellite communications kits, 

and Phase 1 ofCH-53E's Degraded Visual Environment capability. These critical safety 

and avionics upgrades are essential to address obsolescence issues within the cockpit, 

increase overall situational awareness, and maintain mission effectiveness. 

Maintenance on both variants of the H-53E becomes more challenging as they 

approach 30 years of service. The unprecedented operational demand of the CH-53E 

degraded the material condition of the heavy lift assault support aircraft sooner than 

expected; therefore, modernization to the CH-53K King Stallion is vital. The MH-53E 

will continue to perform its primary mission of airborne Mine Countermeasures as well 

as transport of cargo and personnel until it is replaced by the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). 

ATTACK AND UTILITY AIRCRAFT 

AH-lZIUH-lY 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $907.9 million in APN for 25 AH-1Z 

aircraft and system improvements and $58.1 million in RDT &E for continued product 

improvements/upgrades. 

The H-1 upgrades program integrates a DI environment established throughout the 

MAGTF. H-1 Dl and Full Motion Video efforts have expanded this capability for both 

the Venom and the Viper. With the integration of Intrepid Tiger ll, the Marine Corps' 

Light Attack llelicopter Squadron community provides MAGTF Commanders multidomain maneuverability. 

10 
47 

MH-60R/S 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $130.7 million in APN and $23.4 

million in RDT&E. APN funds support safety related systems improvements, correction 

of deficiencies, war fighter upgrades, and obsolescence issues such as Mission Computer 

modernization and procurement of kits for the Helmet Display Targeting System and 

Advanced Data Transfer System. RDT &E,N is requested to support development efforts 

that include MH-60S Service Life Assessment Program, software integration of the 

Advanced Off-board Electronic Warfare pod, and implementation ofLink-16111 and 

Jl2.6 series messages that will enabling the helicopter to provide in-flight target updates 

to Net Enabled Weapons. 

EXECUTIVE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

VH-3DNH-60N Executive Helicopter Series 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $23.6 million of APN to continue 

programs that ensure the in-service Presidential fleet remains safe and reliable. Ongoing 

efforts include a Communications Suite Upgrade (Wide Band Line of Sight) that provides 

persistent access to the strategic communications network, the continuing Structural 

Enhancement Program necessary to extend platform service life, and Obsolescence 

Management needed to sustain and improve system readiness for both VH-60N and VH3D platforms. The Cabin Interior and Environmental Control System upgrade is a critical 

obsolescence management effort for the VH-3D, reducing aircraft operational weight and 

improving maintainability. Where appropriate, technology updates for legacy platforms 

will be directly leveraged for the bene tit of the VH-92A program. 

VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $245.1 million in RDT &E to continue 

Engineering Development Model (EDM) activities, to include, contractor test for 

airworthiness certification and modifications of EDM and System Demonstration Test 

11 
48 

Article aircraft. Additionally, $649.0 million ofAPN is requested to procure six LRIP 

Lot I aircraft and associated support. 

FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT 

KC-130J (USMC) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $270.4 million to procure two KC-130Js 

and spares as part of a proposed multi-year procurement (MYP Ill) and $78.1 million in 

APN for targeted improvements. Key improvements include increased survivability 

through advanced electronic countermeasure modernization and obsolescence upgrades 

to the Harvest HAWK Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance/Weapon Mission 

Kit. The obsolescence upgrade includes compatibility with additional Hellfire variants 

and an improved full motion video data-link. Today, the KC-1301 remains in high 

demand, providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support, CAS and Multi-sensor 

Imagery Reconnaissance capabilities in support of Special Purpose MAGTFs and 

deployed Marine Expeditionary Units. 

KC-130J (Navy) 

New in the FY 2019 President's Budget, Navy has started a recapitalization effort 

for its legacy C/KC-130T aircraft. This initiative creates a uniform DoN procurement of 

KC-1301 model aircraft. To support the plan, we request $12.0 million in FY 2019 APN 

(Advance Procurement) to pay for up-front costs needed to support the multi-service KC130J MYP Ill. This effort begins the recapitalization of a 25 aircraft program of record. 

MARITIME SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

P-SA Poseidon 

The P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the wide area Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), 

Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) and armed ISR capabilities of the aging P-3C Orion. The 

P-SA combines the proven reliability of the commercial 737 airframe with modern 

12 
49 

avionics that enables the integration of modern sensors and robust military 

communications. 

In FY 2019, we request $1.98 billion in APN for ten aircraft and $197.7 million in 

RDT &E for aircraft updates to include the addition of Networked Enabled Weapons 

capabilities, satellite communications, track management and sensor fusion capability. 

P-3C Orion 

The aging P-3C fleet will continue to provide critical ASW, ASuW and !SR 

support for operations worldwide until the fleet completes transition to P-8A. The FY 

2019 budget request includes $0.8 million to manage P-3C aircraft mission systems 

obsolescence and $2.13 million to fund the P-3 Fatigue Life Management Program to 

maintain sufficient airframe safety margins and capacity to complete transition to P-8A. 

EP-3 Aries 

The EP-3E Aries is currently Navy's only Maritime ISR and Signals Intelligence 

(SIGINT) platform. The Joint Airborne SIGINT Common Configuration includes MultiINT sensors, robust communication, and data links employed by the P-3 air vehicle to 

ensure effective fleet support across the full spectrum of military operations. 

The FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Navy to sustain EP3E airframe and associated mission systems to minimize SlGlNT capability gaps until the 

systems are fully recapitalized with a system or family of systems that in aggregate 

provide equal or better capability and capacity. The Navy's family of systems approach 

to ISR shifts the focus from platforms to payloads to deliver increased capacity and 

persistence by the end of this decade. To support these efforts, we request $9.0 million 

for the EP-3 program as we transition Navy's maritime ISR. 

13 
50 

C-40A 

The C-40A is a military variant of the Boeing 737-700C, a combination 

passenger/cargo aircraft, with military avionics and aircraft survivability equipment. In 

FY 2019, we request $206 million in APN to procure two C-40As for the Marine Corps. 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) 

The DoN has placed a priority on the development of unmanned systems leading 

to a fully integrated manned and unmanned fleet. Unmanned technology will not replace 

our Sailors and Marines; instead it will unlock their full potential as we integrate this 

technology within our total force. 

MQ-4C Triton UAS 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $14.4 million in RDT &E to continue 

Triton baseline development activities; $219.9 million in ROT &E for Multi-INT 

modernization; and $719.4 million of APN for procurement of the fourth lot ofLRIP 

aircraft and spares, retrofit of the LRIP Lot I aircraft to the Multi-INT configuration, and 

procurement oflong-lead materials for the fifth lot ofLRIP aircraft. 

MQ-25 Stingray 

MQ-25 will deliver the Navy's first carrier-based UAS to function primarily as a 

mission tanker to extend the range, reach, and lethality of the CVW, with secondary 

recovery tanking and ISR capabilities. MQ-25 will reduce current use ofF/A-18E/Fs as 

CVW tankers, treeing F I A-18E/Fs to execute strike fighter missions, effectively 

increasing strike tighter capacity within the CVW. The FY 2019 President's Budget 

requests $718.9 million in ROT &E for MQ-25 development activities. 

14 
51 

MQ-8 Fire Scout 

The MQ-8 Fire Scout is a rotary-wing system that includes two airframe types, the 

MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The MQ-8C is a larger, more capable and more cost-effective 

airframe that uses the same mission control system, avionics and payloads as the MQ-8B. 

Both systems are designed to operate from any suitably-equipped air-capable ship, carry 

modular mission payloads, and operate using the Tactical Control System (TCS) and 

Line-Of-Sight Tactical Common Data Link. 

In FY 2019, we request $9.8 million ofRDT&E to continue hardware and 

software modifications, payload integration, cyber vulnerability closure and safety 

capability improvements and $92.7 million in APN to procure four MQ-8 mission control 

systems and three MQ-8C Active Electronically Scanned Array radar kits. Included in 

the procurement request is support for ancillary shipboard equipment, trainers/aircraft 

support equipment, technical support, and the logistics to outfit suitably-equipped aircapable ships and train the associated Aviation Detachments. 

Tactical Control System (TCS) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $8.5 million in RDT&E for the MQ-8 

System's TCS. TCS provides a standards-compliant open architecture with scalable 

command and control capabilities for the MQ-8 Fire Scout system. In FY 2019, we will 

continue the transition of the Linux operating system to a technology refreshed mission 

control system, enhance the MQ-8 System's Automatic Identification System and sensor 

track generation integration with ship systems, overcome hardware obsolescence issues 

with the Solaris based control stations, provide lower cost software updates using DoD 

common application software, and enhance collaboration with the Navy's future UAS 

Common Control System. 

15 
52 

RQ-2IA Blackjack 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $16.3 million in RDT &E ($5.4 million 

USN, $10.9 million USMC) and $21.8 million in APN for support of Marine Corps and 

Naval Special Warfare forces to address ISR capability requirements. 

MAGTF Expeditionary UAS (MUX) 

As the Marine Corps recapitalizes toward a more diverse, lethal, amphibious and 

middleweight expeditionary force, Marines require a UAS that is network-enabled, 

digitally interoperable, and built to execute responsive, persistent, lethal, and adaptive 

full-spectrum operations. MUX is planned to be the system that will provide the 

MEF/MEB-sized MAGTF with an advanced multi-mission platform. 

The FY 2019 budget requests $20.4 million in RDT &E for the MUX program to 

conduct an AoA and begin development of an acquisition strategy; $4.9 million in 

RDT&E for KMAX operations (i.e. CQ-24A Cargo UAS Experimentation and Support 

Services) in support of MUX technology demonstrations and Concept of Operation 

development (included under the MUX line). 

Common Control System (CCS) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $49 million in RDT &E and Other Procurement 

Navy (OPN) for continuation of Common Control System (CCS) activities. The primary 

mission of CCS is to provide common control across the Navy's unmanned systems 

(UxS) portfolio to add scalable and adaptable warfighting capability, implement robust 

cybersecurity attributes, leverage existing government owned products, eliminate 

redundant software development efforts, consolidate product support, encourage 

innovation, improve cost control, and enable rapid integration ofUxS capabilities across 

all domains (air, surface, sub-surface, and ground). CCS leverages existing government 

owned software to provide UxS Vehicle Management (VM), Mission Management (MM) 

and Mission Planning (MP) capabilities. CCS uses an open and modular architecture and 

will integrate with MQ-8B/C in FY 2019 with future integration ofMQ-4 and Large 

16 
53 

Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle. CCS VM (Increment 1) was delivered to 

the MQ-25 program office in FY 2017 and planned updates are being accelerated to 

maintain alignment with the MQ-25 schedule. In FY 20\9, CCS/Increment 1 will 

conduct VM integration and test in both MQ-25 and MQ-8. Concurrently, CCS, 

Increment II will continue to develop MM/MP capabilities to meet platform operational 

requirements with the first release planned for mid-2020. 

STRIKE WEAPONS PROGRAMS 

Cruise Missile Strategy 

The Department's Cruise Missile Strategy (CMS) provides for the development of 

stand-off attack capabilities from air, surface, and undersea platforms against both 

Surface and Land Domain targets. The key CMS tenets are: 

I. Maintain and upgrade legacy cruise missiles. 

2. Pursue advanced near/mid-term capabilities. 

3. Plan and develop next generation integrated solutions. 

Tactical Tomahawk (T ACTOM) Block IV Cruise Missile 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $282.4 million in RDT &E, $98.6 

million in Weapons Procurement Navy (WPN) and $92.9 million in OPN. 

RDT&E will be used for development/test of navigation and communications 

upgrades to improve TACTOMs performance in Anti-Access/ Area Denial environments 

(A2/AD), development/test of Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST), development/test of a 

Global Positioning System M-Code capability, development/test of the Joint Multiple 

Effects Warhead System and Fuse, and associated Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control 

System (TTWCS) and Tomahawk Mission Planning Center (TMPC) updates that support 

all upgrades and address usability, interopcrability and information assurance mandates. 

17 
54 

WPN is required for the transition from a missile production to a missile 

recertification phase, production line shutdown, procurement of 112 A2/AD kits and 

completion of 87 missile recertifications. 

OPN is required for procurement and installation ofTMPC and TTWCS 

hardware/software modifications to address evolving security requirements, critical 

program information protection, obsolescence updates, and modern computing 

architecture improvements. 

Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 (Long Range Anti-Ship 

Missile (LRASM)) 

OASuW Increment 1 (LRASM) will provide Combatant Commander's the ability 

to conduct ASu W operations against high-value surface combatants protected by 

Integrated Air Defense Systems with long-range Surface-to-Air-Missiles and deny 

adversaries sanctuary of maneuver against 2018-2020 threats. The program is scheduled 

to achieve Early Operational Capability on the Air Force B-1 B by the end of FY 2018 

and Navy F/A-18E/F by the end of FY 2019. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget request $143.1 million in RDT&E for LRASM 

development and testing and $81.2 million in WPN to purchase 25 LRASM All-UpRound weapons. 

Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2 

OASuW Increment 2 is required to deliver the long-term, air-launched ASuW 

capabilities to counter 2028 threats (and beyond). The Department continues to plan for 

OASuW Increment 2 to be developed via full and open competition. To inform the longterm path forward, the DoN will leverage Next Generation Land Attack Weapon 

(NGLA W) AoA results to inform the required ASuW capabilities. Due to Increment 2 

budget marks, Navy requests support for an incremental upgrade to LRASM to bridge the 

18 
55 

gap until an OASuW Increment 2 program of record can be established. Increment 2 

IOC is now planned for the FY 2028-2030 timeframe. 

Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLA W) 

NGLA W will provide the next generation of long-range, kinetic strike capability 

to destroy high-priority fixed, stationary and moving targets as well as those targets 

hardened, defended or positioned at ranges such that engagement by aviation assets 

would incur unacceptable risk. NGLA W will be capable of kinetic land and maritime 

attack 1rom both surface and sub-surface platforms. NGLA W initially complements, and 

then eventually replaces the Tomahawk Weapon System. IOC is planned for the 2028-

2030 time frame (est.). The FY 2019 budget requests $16.9 million to begin the transition 

ofNGLA W to a program of record. 

Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $40.1 million in RDT &E and $78.3 million i 

WPN. RDT&E will be applied toward the Engineering Manufacturing Development of 

critical hardware redesign driven by obsolescence; developmental test of System lmprovemer 

Program missile software (Version 9.4); and design and development of Insensitive Munition 

(IM) improvements (Joint Chiefs ofStaffiM mandate). 

WPN funding is requested to procure a combined 192 All-Up-Rounds and Captive Air 

Training Missiles and associated missile/trainer related hardware. 

Advanced Medinm-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-1200) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $32.5 million in RDT&E for continued 

software capability enhancements and $212.2 million in WPN for 141 All-Up-Rounds 

and associated missile/missile-related hardware. 

ROT &E resources support the development and test of an Electronic Protection 

Improvement Program and a System Improvement Program to counter emerging 

electronic attack threats. 

19 
56 

Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $104.4 million in RDT&E for continued 

development/test of the SDB II weapon, the BRU-55 bomb rack modification (required 

for JOC onboard F/ A-18E/F aircraft), and the BRU-61 bomb rack modification (required 

for the F-35B/C platform launch). The DoN also requests $91.3M in WPN to procure 

750 All-Up-Round weapons. 

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) & AARGM Extended Range 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $6.3 million ofRDT&E for AARGM 

Foreign Material Assessment; $15.3 million for AARGM Global Positioning System MCode development, AARGM Derivative Program transition, and Block I follow-on 

development; $99.2 million of RDT &E for AARGM Extended Range development; and 

$188.0 million of WPN for production of 257 AARGM Block I modification kits for 

integration into All-Up-Rounds and Captive Training Missiles. 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $6.8 million in RDT &E to complete 

JAGM integration onto the Marine Corps AH-IZ platforms and $24.1 million in WPN to 

procure 71 tactical missiles and four captive air training missiles. 

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) 

APKWS II has become a weapon of choice in current operations as it provides an 

unprecedented precision guidance capability to the DoN rocket inventories, thereby 

significantly improving accuracy and minimizing collateral damage. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $108.8 million in PANMC for 

procurement of3,686 APKWS II guidance section kits for use on both rotary-wing and 

fixed-wing platforms. 

20 
57 

Direct Attack Weapons and General Purpose Bombs 

Fully funding General Purpose Bombs and the Joint Direct Attack Munition 

(JDAM) line items are critical to building the DoN's direct attack weapons inventory. In 

the last forty-two months of ongoing contingency operations DoN aircraft have expended 

nearly two times the number of 500 lb JDAM kits than we have taken delivery of during 

the same period. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget requests $142.4 million in PANMC for Direct 

Attack Weapons and General Purpose Bombs and an additional $180.9 million to procure 

7,594 JDAM kits to enhance readiness and prepare for future contingencies. 

CONCLUSION 

Naval Aviation continues to operate forward - fully prepared for conflict in the 

full range of military operations while managing near-term service-life, mid-term 

capability improvements and long-term investments in research and development for 

delivery of future capabilities. We are building and sustaining a lethal, resilient force 

through balanced investments across readiness, capability and capacity. Naval Aviation 

is actively pursuing and seizing innovation and advantage wherever it can as we 

implement our vision to provide the right capability in the hands of the warfighter, on 

schedule, and in the most affordable manner possible. 

21 
58 

Physiological Episodes (PE) 

Addendum A 

SAFETY 

(Part I of2) 

All Navy senior leadership views the occurrence of Physiological Episodes (PE) in 

our tactical aircraft and trainers as our number one aviation safety priority until we fully 

understand all causal factors and mitigate PEs as a risk to flight operations. To date, we 

have identified multiple interrelated causal factors but the entirety of the root cause(s) of 

physiological episodes remains unidentified. Mitigation efforts cmTently in place, to 

include software modifications, personnel education, and equipment changes are 

positively affecting the PE rate for all Type/Model/Series aircraft but most notably in 

T-45s. With these mitigations, Naval Aviation is currently meeting operational 

requirements and personnel are working in an operational environment with an 

acceptable level of risk. 

For our T-45 aircraft we have reduced the overall PE rate substantially with over 

30,000 flight hours flown and only seven minor events since the return to flight. Five of 

the seven cases post return-to-flight were attributed to human factors; in all T -45 cases, 

negligible contaminants were found in the monitoring devices, all well below 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Beyond mitigating the 

identified flow problem from the engine, we are integrating an Automatic Backup 

Oxygen System (ABOS) to improve oxygen generating system performance overall. 

In our F/A-18 aircraft, we continue to implement changes that are improving the 

Environmental Control System, increasing system stability of failure modes and 

improving the cockpit environment for our aviators. More work remains to be done, but 

mitigation and redesign efforts are producing positive results in all FA-18 variants. We 

are collaborating across the DoD to leverage research efforts to help characterize the 

cockpit environment to ensure we reach a long-range, holistic solution rather than 

interlaced mitigations in both current and future aircraft. We have investigated every line 

22 
59 

of inquiry recommended by the NASA report to include measuring breathing gas quality 

at the mask. We are drafting a request for proposal for a new MIL-STD-3050 compliant 

On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) concentrator designed to replace the 

existing well performing but less capable concentrator currently in the F/A-18 and EA-18 

aircraft. This eflort will provide digital data logging of performance, increased reliability 

and oxygen scheduling in compliance with the MIL-STD. The replacement OBOGS 

concentrator will be the first in the DoD inventory to comply with the MIL-STD that was 

created in 2015. 

We have also assigned a Flag Officer to oversee a Physiological Episodes Action 

Team (PEAT). Together, our engineers, industry partners, physiologists and outside 

support from groups as diverse as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

and Naval Medical Research Units are working diligently to find a solution to the 

physiological episodes issue. 

RDML Joyner, the Department's PEAT lead, recently testified to the House 

Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018. Her formal statement provides a 

comprehensive update on all PE efforts to-date and the hearing transcript provides 

additional relevant data. Both can be found at: 

biiJ2s :/I arm edsP1:0 ccs~hou s~Q.Y!l£g\;)_Lati on/hearing;;igddryssing:n hvs i o l ogi C'.\~.;;Q!.i cstlghter-attack-and-training-aircraft-0 

SAFETY 

(Part 2 of2) 

Class A, B, and C Aviation-Related Safety Issues Summary 

A summary of all Naval Aviation Class A, B and C aviation-related safety issues, 

including recent mishaps, trends, and analysis from October 2015 through March 2018 

follows. The rates presented in the table are based on total mishaps per I 00,000 night 

hours and include Flight, Flight-Related and Ground mishaps. 

23 
60 

Year Flight Hours Class A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C 

Rate Rate Rate 

FY16 1,098,519 18 1.64 26 2.37 216 19.66 

FYI7 1,072,156 25 2.33 33 3.08 242 22.57 

FY18 500,414 8 1.6 22 4.40 114 22.78 

The most recent (FY 2017-26 Mar 20 18) DoN f1ight Class A mishaps include: 

19 Mar 2018: (MCAS Futenma, Okinawa) CH-53E main rotor damper failed in flight 

and caused significant damage. No injuries. 

14 Mar 2018: (NAS Key West, FL) F/A-18F crashed on short final, single engine. Two 

fatalities. 

11 Dec 2017: (Tinker AFB, OK) E-6A struck birds during descent, leading to number 4 

engine flameout. 

04 Dec 2017: (NAS Fallon) F/A-18A right leading edge flap departed aircraft in flight 

and hit the vertical stabilizer. 

22 Nov 2017: (Philippine Sea) C-2A ditched while inbound to CVN with 11 onboard. 

Three fatalities. 

11 Oct 2017: (Futenma MCAS, Japan) CH-53E engine fire in flight, emergency landing. 

No injuries. 

01 Oct 2017: (Monroe County, TN) T-45C crashed on low-level training route. Two 

fatalities. 

28 Sep 2017: (Syria) MY -22B crashed on landing during support mission. 

12 Aug 2017: (Bahrain) F/ A-18E departed runway during landing after a ship to shore 

divert due to an engine malfunction. Pilot ejected. No injuries. 

09 Aug 2017: (25 Miles South of Key West, FL) F-5N went down over water. Pilot 

ejected safely. 

05 Aug 2017: (15 nm offNE Australia IYO Shoal Water Bay) MY -22B struck LPD flight 

deck on final approach and then crashed into water. Three personnel are missing and 

presumed deceased. 23 recovered. 

05 Aug 2017: (North Island NAS, CA) F/A-18F struck round down with right horizontal 

stabilator upon landing. Diverted successfully. 

16 Jul2017: (Bay of Bengal) F/A-18F engine borescope plug backed out in flight 

causing hot air to burn to engine bay and aircraft skin. 

I 0 Jul 2017: (Indianola, MS) KC-130T crashed on logistics flight from Cherry Point to El 

Centro. 16 fatalities. 

27 Apr 2017: (Off the Coast of Guam) MH-60R collided with water on initial takeoff 

from ship. No injuries. 

24 
61 

21 Apr 2017: (Philippine Sea) F-18E lost on approach to landing on carrier. Pilot ejected 

without injury prior to water impact. 

05 Apr 2017: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E landed hard and rolled on day training flight. Crew of 

five uninjured. 

28 Mar 2017: (El Centro NAF) HH-60H main rotor blades contacted tail rotor driveshaft 

on landing. 

17 Jan 2017: (NAS Meridian, MS) T-45 crashed following a BASH incident on takeoff. 

Both crewmembers ejected. No fatalities. 

12 Dec 2016: (Off the Coast of Okinawa, Japan) MV-22B attempted a precautionary 

emergency landing (PEL) to dry land but crash landed in shallow water. Crew of five 

evacuated with injuries. 

07 Dec 2016: (Off the Coast oflwakuni MCAS, Japan) F/A-18C crashed into the water 

while conducting a night mission. One fatality. 

21 Nov 2016: (Upper Mojave Desert Region) F/A-18F struck a tree while instructor pilot 

was conducting a currency flight event. Returned to base safely. No injuries. 

09 Nov 2016: (OtTthe Coast of San Diego) Two F/ A-18As were conducting basic flight 

maneuvers and had a mid-air collision. One aircraft crashed in the water. Pilot ejected 

successfully. One aircraft landed with significant damage. 

27 Oct 2016: (MCAS Beaufort, SC) F/A-358 had an inflight weapons bay fire followed 

by an uneventtullanding. No injuries. 

25 Oct 2016: (Twentynine Palms, CA) F/A-18C crashed on final approach. Pilot ejected 

successfully. No injuries. 

20 Oct 2016: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E main rotor contacted building causing damage to the 

aircraft. 

DoN Class A aviation ground and Flight Related mishaps (AGM and FRM): 

21 Feb 2018: (MCAS Camp Pendleton, CA) During aircraft startup, aerial observer was 

struck by tail rotor. One fatality. 

17 Aug 2017: (NW of San Clemente Island) MH-60R lost SONAR transducer at sea. 

(FRM) 

J 1 Jul 2017: (New River MCAS, NC) Maintenance personnel struck by lightning on the 

flight line while working on MV -228. One fatality. Two others were treated and released. 

(AGM) 

25 Jun 2017: (MCAS Miramar, CA) Two Marines injured and F/A-18A damaged after 

flammable material in drip pan caught fire. (AGM) 

19 Jan 2017: (NAS Norfolk, VA) Three E-2C aircraft damaged in an engine oil related 

event. (AGM) 

18 Dec 2016: (Kadena AFB, Japan) Tow har separation resulted in aircraft/tow collision 

with damage to nose gear and lower fuselage of P-8A. (AGM) 

15 Dec 2016: (NAS Whidbey Island, WA) Canopy on EA-180 exploded/jettisoned 

resulting in severe injuries to two personnel. (AGM) 

25 
62 

10 

fY 07 FV 08 10 FY FV FY FY FY 18 

BFM 

DoN Historical Mishap Rate Trend per lOOK Flight Hours per Mishap Class 

(As of 26 Mar, 2018) 

CLASS A FLIGHT MISHAPS 

Class A Manned Flight MISHAP Historical Data for U.S. Navy 

26 
63 

.. ., 

.Ill 

E 

:! 

31) 

15 

ro 

15 

10 

5 

0 

CLASS A FLIGHT MISHAPS 

1!1.00 

Class A Manned Flight MISHAP Historical Data for U.S. Marine Corps 

UCI Upper Con11dence Interval I TI = Lower Confidence Interval 

Rate values above the UCI or below the LCI infer a statistically significant change is probable. This is 

Significance cannot he determined until cnd~of-year. Values between the UCI and LCI inlCrthat nothing 

occurred to increase or decrease mishap rate. 

End of Addendum A 

27 
64 

Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags 

Commander 

Naval Air Systems Command 

Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags is a native ofDeKalb, Illinois. He graduated from the U.S. Naval 

Academy in 1982, is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School Class '99, and holds a 

Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. 

After being designated a naval aviator in October 1983, he immediately reported to Training 

Squadron (VT) 3 at North Whiting Field in Milton, Florida, as a T-34C flight instructor. 

Grosklags served operational tours with Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadrons (HS) 34 and 42, 

where he flew the SH-2F and SH-608, respectively. Grosklags made multiple deployments with 

the USS John Hancock (DD 981 ), USS Donald B. Beary (FF I 085), USS Comte de Grasse (DD 

974) and USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55). He later served as both executive and commanding officer of 

Helicopter Training Squadron (HT) 18. 

Grosklags' acquisition tours include engineering test pilot and assignments as MH-60R assistant 

program manager for systems engineering, H-60 assistant program manager for test and 

evaluation, MJJ-60R deputy program manager and ultimately as program manager for MultiMission Helicopters (PMA-299), during which time the MH-60R was successfully introduced to 

the fleet. Grosklags also served as operations officer and subsequently as deputy program 

executive officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault and Special Mission Programs 

(PEO(A)). 

Grosklags has served flag tours as commander, Fleet Readiness Centers and Naval Air Systems 

Command (NA V AIR); assistant commander for Logistics and Industrial Operation, NA V AIR, 

vice commander, PEO(A) and principal military deputy for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Research, Development & Acquisition). In October 2015, he assumed responsibilities as 

Commander, Naval Air Systems Command. 

He has more than 5,000 military flight hours in numerous types of rotary and fixed-wing aircraft. 

Grosklags is a proud but humble co-owner of the Green Bay Packers and works weekends 

providing free labor on his wife's farm. 

Updated: 26 October2015 
65 

Lieutenant General Steven R. Rudder 

Deputy Commandant for Aviation 

Lieutenant General Steven R. Rudder assumed his current position as the Deputy Commandant 

for Aviation, Headquarters Marine Corps in July 2017. LtGen Rudder is a native of Canton, CT, 

and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in June 1984. LiGen Rudder previously served 

as the Director of Strategic Planning and Policy (J5), U.S. Pacific Command. 

LtGen Rudder's previous assignments include: Serving in Co B, 3rd Amphibious Assault 

Battalion; Student, NAS Pensacola, FL, designated a Naval Aviator; HMT-303, AH-11 

helicopter training; HMLA-367, Maintenance Quality Assurance 

Officer and Weapons and Tactics Instructor; unit deployments to Futenma, Okinawa, and 

Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM; HMM-161 (REIN), Weapons and Tactics Officer 

deploying with the lith MEU(SOC) back to North Arabian Gulf; AH-1 Division Head, Marine 

Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One; Operations Officer, HML/A-167; Future 

Operations Onicer, deploying with the 22nd MEU(SOC) to EUCOM and CENTOCM AOR, 

HMM-261(REIN); Office of Net Assessment, the Office of the Secretary of Defense serving as 

Mr. Andrew Marshall's Military Assistant; Squadron Commander, HMLI A-167 deploying to 

EUCOM AOR in support of Dynamic Mix; Senior Watch Officer, O!F, 3rd Marine Air Wing 

Tactical Command Center; J5 Lead planner for Afghanistan and Pakistan, CENTCOM, Tampa, 

FL; deployed to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Qatar in support of Operation ENDURING 

FREEDOM; Commander, Marine Air Group 26, deploying to AI Asad, Iraq, in support of 

Operation IRAQI FREEDOM 9.1; Branch Head of Aviation Expeditionary Enablers (APX), 

Headquarters Marine Corps Aviation; Legislative Assistant to the Commandant, Headquarters 

Marine Corps, Office of Legislative Atl'airs; Commanding General, I st Marine Air Wing, 

Okinawa, Japan; deployed Wing to Thailand and South Korea. 

LtGen Rudder holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration from Boston 

University, a Masters of Military Studies Degree from the Marine Corps Command and Statl' 

College, and a Masters of Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College. 

Personal decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit with Gold 

Star, Distinguished Flying Cross with Combat 'V', Defense Meritorious Service Medal with 

Gold Star, Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Start, Air Medal Strike Flight 4, Navy 

Commendation Medal with Gold Star and Combat 'V', Joint Achievement Medal and Navy 

Achievement Medal. 
66 

Rear Admiral Scott D. Conn 

Director, Air Warfare, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNA V N98) 

Rear Adm. Scott Conn is a native ofLancaster, Pennsylvania, and a 1985 graduate of 

Millersville University of Pennsylvania. He was designated a naval aviator in May 1987. Conn is 

also a graduate of the Naval War College. 

Conn's command tours include Carrier Strike Group 4; Naval Aviation Warfighting 

Development Center; Carrier Air Wing 11; the FA-18 series Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) 

Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 106; and VFA-136. 

Conn's sea tours involved seven deployments on five different aircrafl carriers in support of 

Operations Deliberate Force, Southern Watch, Deny Flight, Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. He has 

flown in excess of l 00 combat missions, has accumulated over 4, 700 flight hours and 1,000 

arrested landings. 

Ashore, Conn had multiple flying tours involving flight in the A-4, F-5, F-16 and FA-18 series 

aircraft. His staff tours include serving as the staff general secretary and U.S. Pacific Command 

(P ACOM) event planner at the Joint Warfighting Center; as the executive assistant to 

Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command; and as the strike branch director for Director Air 

Warfare (N98) on the staff of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. 

Conn was the recipient of the 2004 Vice Adm. James Bond Stockdale Inspirational 

Leadership award and is authorized to wear the Legion of Merit (six awards), Defense 

Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal (five Strike Flight), Navy and 

Marine Corps Commendation Medal (five awards, one with Combat "V") and the Navy and 

Marine Corps Achievement Medal, as well as various service and campaign awards. 

Updated: 7 December 2017 
67 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY 

HOUSE ARMED SERVJCES COMM!TTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TlVES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTA TlON TO THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE 

HEARING DATE/TIME: Aprill2, 20!811400 

SUBJECT: Air Force, Force Structure and Modernization Programs 

STATEMENT OF: 

Lt. Gen. Arnold W. Bunch, Jr. USAF 

Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

Of the Air Force (Acquisition) 

Lt. Gen. Jerry "JD" Harris Jr., USAF 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

(Strategic, Plans and Requirements) 

NOT FOR PUBLICA TTON UNTIL RELEASED BY 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
68 

2 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Tsongas and distinguished members of the Tactical 

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the 

United States Air Force Modernization programs and Force Structure. For the past 70 years, from 

the evolution of the jet aircraft to the advent of the ICBM, satellite-guided bombs, and remotely 

piloted aircraft, the Air Force has been breaking barriers as a member of the finest joint warfighting 

team on the planet. Today's demand for Air Force capabilities continues to grow as the United 

States now faces a more competitive and dangerous international security environment than we 

have seen in generations. 

In, through and from air, space, and cyber, the fabric of our Air Force weaves multi-domain 

effects and provides joint warfighters the blanket of protection and ability to power project 

America's full range of combat capabilitics ... we arc 'Always There'. With global trends and 

intensifying pressure from major challengers, our relative advantage in air and space is eroding in 

a number of critical areas. Any American weakness emboldens competitors to subvert 

international order and challenge the alliance and partnership network that underpins it. We are 

supporting Combatant Commander requirements in response to growing challenges from Russia, 

China, North Korea and Iran, in addition to the ever present counterterrorism mission in the Middle 

East and around the world. 

While our forces have been heavily engaged in deten·ing or addressing these operational 

challenges, our adversaries have taken the oppmiunity to invest in and advance their own 

capabilities. To address ever narrowing capability gaps, the Air Force needs your support in the 

form of, steady and predictable appropriations that fulfill our annual budget requests. fn 

accordance with the National Defense Strategy (NDS), this budget prioritizes long-term 
69 

3 

competition with China and Russia. The Air Force must build a more lethal and ready force, 

strengthen alliances and partnerships, and deliver greater, more affordable perfonnance. Future 

wars will be won by those who observe, orient, decide and act faster than adversaries in an 

integrated way across all domains. Budget levels under the current Budget Control Act restrictions 

will force the Air Force to continue making unacceptable tradeoffs between foree structure, 

readiness. and modernization. With your support of our Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request, the 

Air Force will drive innovation, reinforce budget discipline and affordability, and deliver 

performance with the funds entrusted to us. This budget reinforces the Air Force commitment to 

our allies and international partners through programs such as the European DeteJTence Initiative 

and Indo-Pacific security initiatives. 

Stitched together, the fabric of our Air Force weaves multi-domain ell"ects and provides 

U.S. servicemen and women the blanket of protection and the ability to power project America's 

full range of combat capabilities. Make no mistake, your Air Force is always there. 

READINESS IN A CHANGING WORLD 

Being "always there" comes at a cost to our Ainnen, equipment, and infrastructure, and we 

are now at a decision point. Sustained global commitments and funding constraints have affected 

capacity and capability for a full-spectrum fight against a near-peer adversary. In 2013, 

sequestration forced hard decisions that sacrificed the readiness and size of the Total Force in order 

to ensure our technological superiority against future adversaries. In the FY 16 and FYI7 budgets, 

we made the necessary adjustments to balance near-term readiness with future modernization, but 

due to continuous combat operations, reduced manpower, an aging fleet, and inconsistent funding, 

our readiness has suffered. 
70 

4 

In a world of increasing threats, stronger adversaries and a persistent war against violent 

extremism, there is a greater disparity between commitments and the resources necessary to 

achieve our national security objectives. Instead of rebuilding readiness for near-peer conflicts, 

your Air Force is globally engaged in operations against lesser-equipped, but still highly lethal and 

adaptive enemies. Airmen serve at home and abroad to underpin joint force success but it comes 

at the expense of full-spectrum readiness. 

To regain full-spectrum readiness, The Air Force must rebuild our Operational Training 

Infrastructure. This includes not only live, virtual and constructive environments, but also the 

ranges and space necessary to train against high-end threat systems in a multi-domain 

environment. Once established, our 41

h and S'h generation tighter units need relief from current 

tasking against low-end adversaries in order to train for emerging threats. We prioritized this 

initiative by creating a directorate on the Air Staff dedicated solely to this monumental effort. 

However, the complexity of linking all of the systems needed for tomorrow's fight and 

deconflicting training requires both manpower and finances. 

Your Air Force needs permanent relief from the current BCA caps, sufficient funding, 

tlexible execution authority, and manpower to recover full-spectrum readiness. We will continue 

to do all we can to innovate, transform, and improve how we maximize our resources. 

PEOPLE 

Airmen are our greatest resource and our Air Force needs to increase end strength to meet 

national security requirements. Manpower shortfalls in key areas remain the number one issue 

limiting readiness and is our top priority as we rebuild squadrons across the Air Force. At the start 

of 2016, our end strength stood at 311,000 active duty Ainnen, down from more than 500,000 

during Desert Storm-a 38 percent decrease. Though we appreciate your support to build the 
71 

5 

Active Duty force up to about 325, I 00 in 2018, we will still be stretched to address national 

security requirements. 

To improve readiness and attain manning levels matching our mission requirements, we 

worked with the Secretary of Defense to address personnel shortages in the FY 2019 President's 

Budget to include an increase in our Active Duty end strength to 329,100, and Total Force military 

end strength to 506,200 (adding approximately 4,700 personnel across the Active, Guard, and 

Reserve components). Our Total Force model (incorporating our Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, 

civilians, and our contracted capabilities) not only recognizes the value of an integrated team, but 

helps guarantee today's and tomorrow's capability. We will develop plans to address experienced 

personnel and critical skills shortfalls in a number of career fields such as aircrew, space nuclear, 

cyber and battlefield Airmen. 

As a Service, we face an aircrcw shortage crisis across all disciplines. Your Air Force has 

the world's finest aircrew who enable an incomparable duality of global mobility and combat 

lethality. As airlines continue hiring at unprecedented rates, they draw away our experienced 

pilots. Without a healthy pool of pilots, we risk the ability to provide airpower to the nation. 

Pilots are strategic national assets and the pilot crisis extends beyond the Air Force and 

military. It is a national problem which requires senior-level attention in Congress, the Commercial 

Industry, and the DoD. To address this national challenge, since 2014 the 'Air Force -Airline 

Collaboration', fonnally known as the National Pilot Sourcing Forum has increased efforts to 

effectively utilize and train an adequate number of pilots to meet our nation's pilot demand signal. 

However, pilot retention has declined for five straight years. At the conclusion ofFYI7 the 

Air Force had a rated manpower shortfall (including remotely piloted aircraft pilots) of 

approximately 2,000 pilots across the Total Force. This shortfall is most pronounced in our regular 
72 

6 

Air Force fighter community which is short more than 950 pilots. We are grateful for your support 

to increase the pilot bonus, and we will continue to ensure our retention programs are appropriately 

sized and utilized. Your Air Force will utilize the FYI7 NDAA Aviation Bonus authority ($35K 

per year maximum) and implement a tiered-model using a directed business case model to identify 

areas of greatest need. 

Retaining our pilot force goes beyond financial incentives ... it is about culture. Your Air 

Force is implementing many non-monetary efforts to reinvent the culture and improve the quality 

of life and quality of service for our Airmen. We have reduced additional duties and superfluous 

training courses, as well as acquired contracted support in fighter squadrons to perform 

burdensome administrative tasks, enabling our pilots to focus on their primary duty: flying. We 

have also increased the transparency ofthe assignment process and increased flexibility to promote 

family stability. Your Air Force is exploring opportunities to reduce deployment burdens by 

enabling more Air Reserve Component volunteers Jor 179/365-day deployments. We must show 

our Airmen that we are creating a culture that reminds them they serve in something bigger than 

themselves ... defending America. 

In addition to retaining our talented personnel, the Air Force must also increase pilot 

production and absorption while reducing requirements. The increased end-strength provided in 

the FYI7 NDAA will allow us to maximize the training pipeline and fill out under-manned units, 

which are vital to our recovery. Our fighter pilot production targets have increased 15% (to 335 

Total Force pilots) per year while we surge the number of new aircraft maintainers by more than 

1,500 per year to better man flying squadrons and reestablish sortie generation rates with a 

completion target of3-5 years. However, other options beyond manpower increases exist to season 

our young pilots while accelerating readiness recovery. 
73 

7 

SAFETY ISSUES 

Over the past year the Air Force has continued its 10-year trend of reducing Class A and B 

mishaps. In fact, FY17 was the second safest year in Air Force history. Our trends indicate that the 

Air Force's efforts to prevent mishaps through all means possible, including material, nonmaterial, and technological improvements, is having the desired effects. Although we have not 

achieved a rate of zero Class A and B mishaps, we have made great strides in several areas. 

The Air Force remains dedicated to solving the challenge of physiological events across 

the Air Force and other services. Physiological events are not isolated to one aircraft or to one 

oxygen delivery subsystem. As a result, there is almost certainly not a single solution. The 

Headquarters Air Force Unexplained Physiological Event Integration Team and the Navy's 

Physiological Episodes Action Team, both led hy general officers, continue to work closely 

together to thoroughly investigate this issue. Together, they have engaged a broad range of internal 

and external partners, including subject matter experts from the Air Force and Navy, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, industry, academia, dive 

communities, and medical field to develop a successful resolution and keep our aviators safe. 

A major factor in reducing the loss of Airmen from fatal mishaps in fighter/attack aircraft 

is the development and fielding of the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto 

G-CAS). To date, this advancement has produced seven automatic recoveries and saved at least 

eight lives in the F-16. Auto G-CAS has proven its worth and we have accelerated our effort to 

implement this life and resource-saving system on our F-35 fleet with flight testing slated to begin 

April of2019. 
74 

8 

Another challenge we face every day is aircraft-wildlife strikes. In Fiscal Year 2017, we 

sustained 3,990 wildlife strikes, costing more than $30M, or $1.7M per 100,000 flight hours. We 

continue to address this challenge through many different efforts and have successfully reduced 

this rate by 50% since FYI4. 

The Air Force strives to prevent mishaps by finding, highlighting, and mitigating hazards 

before they become mishaps. The Air Force employs a set of proactive programs to help 

commanders at all levels accomplish this goal. We recently launched a smartphone and personal 

device application that enables Airmen around the world to quickly and easily report hazards. 

Mitigating hazards before they injure our Airmen or damage and degrade our combat capabilities 

fundamental to the Air Force's proactive mishap prevention program. 

FORCE STRUCTURE AND MODERNIZATION 

The Air Force budget request of$156.3 billion for FYI9 builds on the progress made in 

2018 to restore the readiness of the force, increase lethality, and cost-effectively modernize. 

Sustaining these efforts requires predictable budgets at the requested funding levels. Testament to 

this reality are the force structure and modernization challenges resultant of past underfunding and 

volatile budget landscapes. Acknowledging that the Bipartisan Budget Agreement increased the 

Department topline, the Air Force developed a $1.9B targeted UPL that aligns and accelerates 

National Defense Strategy. The FY19 unfunded list prioritizes space requirements to deliver 

capability to the Joint Force at the speed of relevance, Nuclear and Multi-domain Command & 

Control to enable a more lethal force and support NC3 modernization, and classified programs to 

deter adversaries by keeping them off balance and unsure of our capability. 

Five years ago during a period of severe fiscal constraints, the Air Force rebalanced its 

fighter force structure using analysis which showed the Air Force could decrease fighter force 
75 

9 

structure by approximately 100 aircraft if we were willing to accept higher risk. This resulted in 

the current fighter inventory of approximately 1,145 primary mission aircraft and slightly more 

than 1,950 total aircraft. The current inventory complies with FYI6 NDAA language on the 

limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft; however, sustained operational demand for 

rotational fighter presence continues unabated. 

The FY19 President's Budget (PB) retains 56 combat squadrons and lays the foundation 

for fighter force recapitalization. The Air Force is in the process of detennining how many 

squadrons we need to deliver the combat capability required to execute the new defense strategy. 

Due to underfunding modernization for over a decade, the Air Force must also manage a 

bow wave in modernization over the next ten years The budget funds our priority modernization 

initiatives with the purchase of 48 F-35 fighters in FY19 and 258 F-35A aircraft over the next five 

years in addition to upgrading F-16 and F-15 C/D aircraft to retain affordable capacity. Integrating 

the F-35 and its unparalleled global precision attack capability with fourth-generation aircraft as 

well as space and unmanned aircrall, will help us maintain air superiority in highly contested 

environments. 

However, the Air Force's ability to ensure the freedom from attack, freedom to attack, and 

freedom to maneuver that we provide to the Joint warfighter is being increasingly challenged by 

potential adversaries who are developing and implementing advanced Anti-Access I Area Denial 

(A2/ AD) capabilities. Adversary A2/ AD technologies continue to advance at a pace where they 

will soon out-match our current capabilities, and are being proliferated world-wide as 

demonstrated by the introduction of advanced Surface-to-Air Missiles in Syria. Modernizing our 

fleet to address this shrinking gap in capability is one of our top priorities. 
76 

10 

Increasing lethality includes our ability to gain and maintain air superiority when and where 

needed against potential adversaries in 2030 and beyond. Over the next five years, we will develop 

an integrated family of systems that can establish and maintain air superiority in a contested 

environment. The FY 19 budget includes $11.0 billion as part of a $63.8 billion effort over the fiveyear plan. This will be a multi-domain effort with a renewed emphasis on electronic warfare, 

networked capabilities, and control of the electromagnetic spectrum. 

Fighter fleet capacity is predicated on the capabilities oft he aircraft that make up that fleet 

and thus, finding the right balance of 5th and 4th generation aircraft will remain fluid as we 

continually assess evolving threats. The "4th/5th" generation balance discussion is quickly 

becoming a "5th/6th" generation balance discussion and the FY19 PB adds $2.7 billion over the 

Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to fund the next generation of air dominance capabilities. 

The Air Superiority Family of Systems will utilize an agile acquisition strategy in order to facilitate 

parallel development and prototyping activities that puts the Air Force on a timeline needed to 

close air superiority capability gaps identified in the Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan. The Air 

Superiority Family of Systems will provide a complementary capability to the F-35A and will not 

impact JSF program objectives. 

The F-35 continues to be an acquisition priority as its capabilities ensure lethality and 

survivability against emerging high-end threats. The program recently delivered full (Block 3F 

configuration) warfighting capability and system development and demonstration is on track to 

complete this calendar year. The price per copy of an F-35A is now less than $100 million and 

the FY19 PB procures 48 aircraft for the Air Force as the program readies to jump to 54 a year in 

FY21. FY19 will also see the F-35 modernization program begin to shift to a Continuous 

Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2) acquisition strategy that will deliver continuous 
77 

II 

modernization, enhancements, and improvements that will deliver Block 4 capability. This 

capability is geared toward meeting the estimated threat in the 2025 timeframe and beyond. We 

cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we fully fund Block 4 to prevent delaying 

required capabilities for American and Coalition warfighters, including the integration of 

additional weapons and upgrades to the electronic warfare system, data link systems and radar. 

The F-22, currently the only U.S. fighter capable of operating in highly contested 

environments, is also an integral piece of the Air Force's force structure modernization plan. Its 

stealth, super cruise, integrated avionics and sensors combine to deliver the Raptor's unique 

capability. We plan to retain the F-22 until the 2060 timeframe, and the FYI9 PB reflects this 

commitment as we look to increase its capabilities and mission effectiveness through a myriad of 

modernization efforts. These efforts include sensor enhancements, datalink upgrades, enhanced 

GPS and the integration of a new helmet mounted display cueing system. 

In addition to pursuing new capabilities and modernizing fifth generation fighters, the Air 

Force also seeks to extend the service lite and modernize critical capabilities of key fomih 

generation aircraft. Doing so will help maintain Service capacity and readiness to meet the needs 

of the Warfighter while ramping up the F-35 production line and developing the Air Superiority 

Family of Systems. 

FYI9 continues the increase in the Air Force's commitment to fielding a future penetrating 

counterair capability following the recommendations of the Air Superiority 2030 Enterprise 

Capability Collaboration Team. As our adversary capabilities advance, a new Next Generation Air 

Dominance (NGAD) capability will play a critical role in targeting and engaging future threats in 

the most highly contested environments. It will also be instrumental as a node in the larger 

network, providing data from its sensors to enable complementary weapon systems. This 
78 

12 

capability will provide the survivability, lethality and persistence to meet emerging worldwide 

threats across the spectrum of conflict. 

The Air Force continues to assess fleet sustainability and alternatives for meeting 

warfighter close air support (CAS) demands, pmiicularly in pennissive environments. The A-10 

has been the backbone of the CAS mission for more than 40 years and has proven to be the least 

costly 4'11 generation fighter platform but has exceeded its original service life. This year the 

original A-1 0 re-winging program completes as the 173'd wing set will be installed later this 

summer. Additionally, a new rc-winging progrmn will begin third quarter of PY18 with the release 

of a Request for Proposals for up to 109 additional wing replacement sets. The new wing program 

will aim to avoid any further groundings beyond 2025 and will ensure a minimum of six combat 

squadrons remain in service until 2032. In addition tore-winging efforts, the Air Force is exploring 

ways to augment the A-10 fleet. 

In FY17, the Air Force continued experimentation efforts, including executing Phase I of 

the Light Attack Experiment. This was a live-fly event conducted at Holloman Air Force Base, 

New Mexico in August 2017 which assessed the military utility of various non-developmental, 

light-attack platforms. This first phase of the experiment allowed the Air Force to assess the 

potential of these off-the-shelf, light attack aircraft to accomplish various permissive, close air 

support missions. The Air Force leveraged Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements, 

including industry cost-share agreements, to execute the experiment within five months of 

authorization. The Air Force plans to hold Phase li of the Light Attack Experiment in Fiscal Year 

2018 as we develop the acquisition strategy for a potential procurement in the coming years. 

To ensure the F-16's lethality and air dominance we are pursuing an active electronically 

scanned array radar upgrade that offers advanced capabilities and improved reliability to support 
79 

13 

USNORTHCOM's critical Aerospace Control Alert (ACA) mission. The Air Force has an initial 

72 radars on contract, with a plan to procure and field up to an additional 300 over the next five 

years. Installation of these radars are slated to begin next year, with all ACA units having the 

capability by the end of 2021. We are also upgrading the F-16's mission computer, display 

generator, electronic warfare components, and the ALQ-131 self-protection jamming pod to enable 

advanced technology jamming techniques. Additionally, the legacy service life extension program 

wi II extend the F -16 airframe stmctural service life fl·om the current 8,000 hours to 12,000+ hours, 

adding fifteen to twenty years of service for selected F -16s. 

Along with the F-16, the Air Force expects the F-15E to be an integral part through at least 

2040, and we are pursuing a new electronic warfare self-protection suite, the Eagle Passive/ Active 

Warning Survivability System tor the Strike Eagle Jleet. The F-15C/D t1eet is fhnded through the 

FYDP and will undergo multiple offensive and defensive upgrades to ensure its warfighting 

effectiveness until any recapitalization plans are finalized. 

To transform at the pace necessary to meet the challenges of global competition, as well as 

operations in a denied environment, the Air Force must develop an integrated force able to fight 

across all domains. The future security environment is more complex and volatile than any other 

we have experienced, demanding a more lethal, resilient, and rapidly innovating Air Force. The 

Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability (AFWIC) is how the Air Force will answer this 

challenge to rapidly evolve a more lethal force. AFWIC will drive enterprise-wide integration and 

future force design enabling the Air Force to rapidly transition into a networked multi-domain 21st 

Century force. AFWIC centralizes enterprise design and capability planning, identifies prioritized 

ways and means to guide resourcing priorities that improves Air Force lethality and enhances AF 
80 

14 

capabilities for the joint and coalition fight. AFWIC is more than a re-organization. AFWIC 

evolves the way we design and plan in order to adapt and transfom1. 

Previously, integration occurred at the 4-star level, and after independent plans, concepts, 

and budgets were already built. AFW!C integrates at the earliest and lowest possible levels, driving 

integration at the very beginning of concept development and future force design. AFWIC's 

centralized future force design, produced upfront, establishes a singular Air Force blueprint, sets 

priorities for investment, and appropriately aligns resources to implement the Air Force Strategy 

across a 15-year timeframe. Harnessing the ingenuity of the warfighter, AFWIC will be staffed by 

creative, innovative, and experienced personnel from every warfighting domain and functional 

capability who will leveraging their own experience and the insights of the MAJCOMs and 

Combatant Commands to pursue potential future force design options. This ecosystem of 

operators, engineers, and technologists will shepherd future force design elements from an 

innovative opportunity through concept exploration, experimentation, wargaming, and capability 

development, ultimately leading into the tuture force design. 

By creating a future force design blueprint, and capability development guidance that more 

clearly links Strategy to Planning within the SPPBE process, the AFWIC enables the prioritization 

of resources to achieve the unified vision. When combined with centralized capability 

development, we are able to address our previously stovepiped modernization processes and 

provide clear priorities for the acquisition and technology development communities. By working 

together with the Commands, Requirements and Acquisition communities, and the planners & 

programmers in an iterative, collaborative, and fully teamed way, the AFWIC will fill a key design 

void with respect to previous processes. When combined, these process changes and activities 
81 

15 

will allow the Air Force to more elearly and consistently articulate our strategy and priorities with 

a single voice and transform into a truly networked multi-domain force. 

MUNITIONS 

Over the past year, the demand for munitions continues to grow. To meet this demand, the 

Air Force continues to work with the other services and industry partners to efficiently ramp 

production capacity across the preferred munitions programs. The 2019 Budget request continues 

to leverage overseas contingency operations funding to replenish the vast number of munitions 

expended to date in operations around the globe. The budget request also incorporates more Air 

Force base funding to build munitions inventories to support the National Defense Strategy and 

meet future operational requirements. The services continue to balance today's immediate needs 

with a long-term, sustainable capacity, ultimately fueling a more resilient industrial base for the 

future. 

Hellfire missiles continue to provide a time-sensitive, direct-strike capability for our 

remotely-piloted vehicles and remain in high demand. Partnering with the Army, production 

capacity was ramped from 9,500 missiles per year in FY18 to 11,000 missiles per year starting in 

FYI9. The Air Force plans to procure 4,338 missiles in FY19. With the other Services' and 

critical foreign military sales partners, the production line will remain funded to maximum 

production capacity for the foreseeable future. 

The Joint Direct Attack Munition (.lOAM) is also a weapon of choice for today's operators 

with an average of 50-70 expended daily to support ongoing operations. JDAM production 

capacity increased to 45,000 tailkits per year in FYIS to meet the needs of the services and FMS 
82 

16 

partners. The Air Force plans to procure 36,000 tailkits in FY19 with Navy and FMS partners 

procuring the remaining 9,000 tailkits available in FYI9. 

Another significant achievement, the Air Force teamed with the Navy and industry to 

rapidly procure and field the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). The Services 

have tean1ed with industry to ramp production from roughly 2, 700 guidance kits per year to 20,000 

guidance kits starting in FYI9. The Air Force plans to procure 7,279 kits in FY19. 

Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB I) continues to provide precision, lethal strike capacity with 

reduced collateral damage effects and increased load-out per sortie for our warfighters. The Air 

Force has ramped the line from 3,000 weapons per year in FYI5 to 8,000 weapons in FY18. The 

Air Force plans to order 6,826 weapons in FY19 with I, 174 weapons for partner nations. All of 

these production increases expedite the inventory replenishment of our critical munitions and build 

stockpiles. 

As the Air Force responds to current operational demands, we are also looking toward the 

future to ensure we are prepared to defend against more advanced threats as directed in the National 

Defense Strategy. Advanced weapons capabilities are necessary to address sophisticated threat 

systems. The FY19 budget request reflects the Air Force's plan to continue investing in advanced 

weapon capability, specifically with the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 

(AMRAAM), Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) and SDB II. 

These weapons provide unique capabilities in a more contested, anti-access/area denial (A2/ AD) 

environment. 

Production of AMRAAM missiles, a critical air dominance weapon, remained consistent 

with FY 18 procurement levels as industry partners continue to work through parts obsolescence 

issues through the Fonn Fit Function Refresh (F3R) effcni. JASSM-ER is the premier A2/AD 
83 

17 

weapon for striking advanced ground threat systems, and production will remain at maximum 

capacity in FYJ 9 and beyond. The Air Force plans to procure 360 missiles in FY19 while also 

improving the weapon's capabilities and addressing upcoming parts obsolescence issues. Finally, 

SDB ll enters its fifth and final low-rate initial production lot in FY19, and in conjunction with the 

Navy, the Air Force's order of 510 weapons maximizes the production capacity as it prepares to 

ramp in FY20. Though not yet fielded, the SOB II will soon provide a key air-to-ground capability 

to kill mobile and fixed targets through adverse weather from standoff ranges. 

ROTORCRAFT 

The FY19 PB continues investment in your Air Force's critical rotorcraft modernization 

programs. The FY19 PB requests $78.9 million for the CV-22 fleet to assist in execution of the 

National Military Strategy by providing transformational mission capability to special operations 

forces warfighters. The Air Force continues to make improvements to the CV-22 with 

modifications designed to improve reliability, survivability and capability. Future efforts will 

make the CV-22 more cost-effective, while ensuring the viability of its unique long-range payload 

capacity coupled with vertical take-off and landing capability. 

The Air Force is the only Service with a dedicated force organized, trained, and equipped 

to execute theater-wide Personnel Recovery. The newly designated Combat Rescue Helicopter 

(CRH) will be specifically equipped to conduct Combat Search and Rescue across the entire 

spectrum of military operations. Due to the advancing age and current attrition rates of the 

HH-600, the Air Force must continue to modifY existing HH-600 helicopters while utilizing the 

Operational Loss Replacement program to meet Combatant Command requirements until we can 

fully recapitalize with the CRH program. In addition to 112 air vehicles, the CRH program 

provides for training devices, suppmt equipment and the necessary post production support to 
84 

18 

successfully field a replacement for the HH-60G. The Air Force has accelerated procurement and 

fully funded the CRH program across the FYDP to meet National Military Strategy objectives 

through Personnel Recovery missions. The FYI9 PB requests $96.1 million and $1.1 billion for 

the HH-60G and CRH programs. Furthennore, the current UH-IN fleet supports a wide range of 

missions for five Major Commands. However, it does not meet speed, range, payload, or 

survivability requirements. The risk created by these capability gaps makes replacing the UH-1 N 

a critical priority and a vital element of our nuclear enterprise reform initiative. The FYI9 

President's Budget requests $288 million for the UH-IN Replacement Program which will fund 

the continued integration of non-developmental items, the non-recurring engineering work 

required to certifY the modified air vehicle, and preparations for the test program. We are currently 

conducting the source selection and look forward to a contract award following resolution of the 

current GAO protest. 

SUMMARY 

The demand for air, space, and cyber power is growing and our Chief is committed to 

ensuring that America's Ainnen are resourced and trained to fight alongside the Army, Navy, 

Marines and Coast Guard to meet national security obligations. The Air Force seeks to balance 

risk across capacity, capability, and readiness to maintain an advantage, however persistently 

unstable budgets and fiscal constraints have driven us to postpone several key modernization 

efforts. These delays created a rapid approaching modernization bow wave that includes programs 

critical to meet our capacity and capability requirements across all mission areas. The delays have 

also opened an opportunity to our competitors to close gaps and negate our traditional advantages. 

The result of these changes by the world is a marked decrease in our technological 

advantage. The Air Force once had a decided advantage across all fronts. Today, the Air Force 
85 

19 

has some advantage in some technological areas however potential adversaries are nipping at our 

heals or shoulder to shoulder with us in others. To address the shrinking technology gap, we must 

modernize and continue to invest in S&T so we can ensure we grow back the technology gap. 

Although we are grateful for the recent fiscal relief, we still face uncertainty. The Air Force 

budget request of $156.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2019 builds on the progress made in 2018 to 

restore the readiness of the force, increase lethality, and cost-effectively modernize. Sustaining 

these efforts requires predictable budgets at the requested funding level. It is critical to ensure we 

can meet today's demand for capability and capacity without sacrificing modernization for 

tomorrow's high-end fight against a full array of potential adversaries. With additional funds we 

can modernize faster, be ready sooner, and be capable of achieving our NDS tasks in a timely 

manner. 

As critical members of the joint team, the USAF operates in a vast array of domains and 

prevails in every level of contlict. However, we must remain focused on integrating air and space 

capabilities across the domains through our core missions of Air Superiority, Space Superiority, 

Global Strike, and Rapid Global Mobility to continue to provide our nation with security it enjoys. 

We look forward to working closely with the committee to ensure the ability to deliver combat air 

power for America when and where we are needed. 
86 

SAFETY ADDENDUM 

FY 2017 USAF flight Class A mishaps include: 

18 Sep 2017: (RAF Lakcnheath, UK) F-l5E Engine fire on take-off No injuries 

06 Sep 2017: (Nellis AFB, NV) Midair collision between two A-1 Os. Both pilots 

successfully ejected. 

20 

23 Jun2017: (Dayton, OH) F-16 departed the runway on landing. Aircrew was injured. 

21 Jun 2017: (Ellington Field, TX) F-16 bird strike on takeoff led to a high speed abort. 

Pilot ejected successfully. 

13 Jun 2017: (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK) F-22 engine malfunction in flight. 

No injuries. 

13 Apr 2017: (CENTCOM AOR) C-17 engine compressor stall and oil pressure loss in 

flight. No Injuries. 

05 Apr 2017: (Andrews AFB, MD) F-16 engine failure in flight. Pilot ejected 

successfully. 

14 Mar 2017: (Cannon AFB, NM) U-28A crashed on a training sortie. Three fatalities. 

06 Mar 2017: (Moody AFB, GA) A-29 crashed on a training sortie. Pilots ejected 

successfully. 

4 Jan 2017: (Minot AFB, NO) B-52H had the #3 engine separate from the aircraft during 

flight. No injuries. 

03 Dec 2016: (Osan AB, ROK) F-16 departed the runway on landing. Pilot ejected 

successfully. 

01 Nov 2016: (Mountain Home AFB, ID) KC-10 boom loss in flight. No injuries. 

\,J 

•:.• U.S,.AU't P:CUtCit 

Class A Aviation Flight 

Mishaps thru FY17 

:moe 2009 -2010 201.1 2012 2013 2014 201:5 2016 2:017 

'llctru;sAAightMi~ ~ftateper1DOK'fioufs 
87 

Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch Jr. 

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

Air Force for Acquisition, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for research and 

development, test, production, and modernization of Air Force programs worth more than $32 

billion annually. 

General Bunch was commissioned in 1984 as a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. I Ie 

completed undergraduate pilot training in 1985. He completed operational assignments as an 

instructor, evaluator and aircraft commander forB-52 Stratofortresses. Following graduation 

from the Air Force Test Pilot School, General Bunch conducted developmental testing in the B-2 

Spirit and B-52 and served as an instructor in each. Additionally, he has commanded at the 

squadron, group and wing levels. Prior to his current assignment, he was the Commander of the 

Air Force Test Center, headquartered at Edwards Air Force Base, California. 

EDUCATION 

1984 Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

1991 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1994 Master of Science degree in mechanical engineering, California Stale University Fresno 

1996 Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. 

2000 Master of Science degree in national security strategy, National War College, Fort Lesley J. 

McNair, Washington, D.C. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

l. July 1984 -July 1985, Student, undergraduate pilot training, Columbus Air Force Base, Miss. 

2. August 1985 -December 1985, Student, B-52 Combat Crew Training School, Castle AFB, Calif. 

3. January 1986- June 1990, Standardization and Evaluation Instructor Aircraft Commander, 325th 

Bomb Squadron, Fairchild AFB, Wash. 

4. July 1990- June 1991, Student, USAF Test Pilot School, Edwards AFB, Calif 

5. July 1991 ·June 1992, Test Pilot, 6512th Test Squadron, Edwards AFB, Calif. 

6. July 1992 -June 1995, Test Pilot, 420th Test Squadron, Edwards AFB, Calif. 

7. June 1995 -June 1996, Student, Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. 

8. July 1996- July 1999, Chief, B-1 Test and Evaluation, B-1 System Program Office, Wright-Patterson 

AFB, Ohio 

9. August 1999- June 2000, Student, National War College, Fott Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 

10. June 2000- July 2002, Commander, 419th Flight Test Squadron, Edwards AFB, Calif. 

11. August 2002- Apri12003, Chief, Senior Officer Management, Air Force Materiel Command, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio 

12. April2003- June 2004, Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

13. June 2004 -January 2006, Director, Munitions Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Eglin 

AFB, Fla. 

14. January 2006- May 2008, Commander, 412th Test Wing, Edwards AFB, Calif. 

15. June 2008- March 2010, Vice Commander, Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, Fla. 

16. March 2010- June 2011, Director and Program Executive Officer for the Fighters and Bombers 

Directorate, Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 

17. June 2011 -June 2012, Commander. Air Force Security Assistance Center, AFMC, Wright- Patterson 

AFB, Ohio 

18. June 2012- June 2015, Commander, Air Force Test Center, Edwards AFB, Calif. 

19 . .June 2015 -present, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: command pilot 

Flight hours: more than 2,500 hours 

Aircraft flown: B-52, B-2, KC-135, F-16, T-38 and others 
88 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters 

Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf clusters 

Aerial Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

Air Force Achievement Medal 

Combat Readiness Medal 

National Defense Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Global War on Terrorism Service Medal 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant May 30, 1984 

First Lieutenant May 30, 1986 

Captain May 30, 1988 

Major Dec. 1, 1995 

Lieutenant Colonel Sept. l, 1998 

Colonel June I, 2004 

Brigadier General May 7, 201 0 

Major General Aug. 23, 2013 

Lieutenant General June 24, 2015 

(Current as ofJune 2015) 
89 

Lieutenant General Jerry D. Harris .Jr. 

Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris is Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. In support of the Chief of Staff and Secretary of 

the Air Force, General Harris leads the development and integration of the Air Force strategy, 

long-range plans and operational capabilities-based requirements. He directs and coordinates 

activities ensuring the Air Force builds and employs effective air, space and cyber forces to 

achieve national defense objectives. 

General Harris entered the Air Force in 1985 as a graduate of the ROTC program at Washington 

State University. He has served as a flight commander, operations officer, weapons officer and 

inspector general. The general served on the staffs of two numbered Air Forces and one major 

command, all in operations. He has also served as the Combined Air and Space Operations 

Center Battle Director for operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. General Harris has 

commanded at squadron, group and wing levels. Prior to his cunent assignment, General Harris 

was the Vice Commander, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, responsible 

for organizing, training, equipping and maintaining com bat-ready forces for rapid deployment 

and employment while ensuring strategic air defense forces are ready to meet the challenges of 

peace time air sovereignty and wartime defense. General Harris is a command pilot with more 

than 3,100 flying hours in the F-16. 

EDlJCATION 

1985 Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Washington State University 

1992 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala 

1997 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1997 Master of Science in Aeronautical Science Technology, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 

Daytona Beach, Fla. 

1998 School of Advanced Airpowcr Studies. Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1998 Master of Science in Airpower Art and Science, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell 

AFB,Ala. 

1998 Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va. 

2001 Air War College, by correspondence 

2006 National Defense College, New Delhi, India 

2011 Capstone General and Flag Officer Course, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

I. February 1986- January 1987, Student, undergraduate pilot training, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

2. January 1987- Aprill987, Student, AT-38B lead-in fighter training, Holloman AFB, N.M. 

3. April1987 -December 1987, Student, F -16 B-Course, MacDill AFB, Fla. 

4. December 1987- July 1989, Chief, Current Operations Division; Squadron Assistant Programmer; 

Training Officer; and Mobility Officer, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

5. August 1989- January 1992, Chief of Weapons and Tactics and Air-To-Surface Weapons Officer, 

Moody AFB, Ga. 

6. January 1992- February 1992, Student, Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

7. February 1992- March 1994, Chief of Mid-range Programming and Student, Fighter Weapons School, 

Luke AFB, Ariz. 

8. March 1994- June 1996, Weapons and Tactics Flight Commander; Chief of Wing Weapons; and Chief 

of Squadron Weapons, Eielson AFB, Alaska 

9. July 1996- July 1998, Student, School of Advanced Airpower Studies and Air Command and Staff 

College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

I 0. July 1998 - September 1998, Student, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va. 

ll. September 1998- March 1999, NATO Joint Staff Officer, Long-range Plans, Plans and Policy, 

Headquarters, Southern Region Air Command, Naples, Italy 

12. March 1999- August 2000, Chief of Strategy, Crisis Action Group, Headquarters Southern Region 
90 

Air Command, Naples, Italy 

13. September 2000- January 2001, Student, F-16 rcqualification, Luke AFB, Ariz. 

14. January 2001 - February 2003, Operations Officer and Chief of Standardization and Evaluation, 20th 

Operations Group; and assistant Director of Operations, 79th Fighter Squadron, Shaw AFB, S.C. 

15. March 2003- February 2005, Commander, 79th Fighter Squadron, Shaw AFB S.C. 

16. March 2005- July 2005, StatTDirector and Inspector General, 20th Fighter Wing, Shaw AFB S.C. 

17. July 2005 -December 2005, Deputy Commander, 20th Operations Group, Shaw AFB S.C. 

18. January 2006- January 2007, Student, National Defense College, New Delhi, India 

19. January 2007- July 2008, Commander, 505th Training Group, Hurlburt Field, Fla. 

20. July 2008- November 2008, Director of Air, Space and Information Operations. 13th Air Force, 

Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

21. November 2008 - September 2009, Commander, 8th Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base, South Korea 

22. September 2009- September 2010, Assistant Director of Operations, Plans, Requirements and 

Programs, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

23. September 2010- September 2012, Commander, 56th Fighter Wing, Luke AFB. Ariz. 

24. September 2012- March 2014, Vice Commander, 5th Air Force, Yokota Air Base, Japan 

25. March 2014- April2015, Director of Programs, Office of the Deputy Chief ofStatffor Strategic 

Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

26. Apri12015- February 2017, Vice Commander, Air Combat Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, 

Va. 

27. February 2017- Present, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans, Programs, and Requirements, 

I Ieadquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

September 1998 -August 2000, NATO Joint Statl Officer, Long-range Plans, Plans and Policy; and Chief 

of Strategy, Crisis Action Group, Headquarters Southern Region Air Command, Naples Italy, as a major 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: command pilot 

Flight hours: more than 3,300 

Aircraft t1own: F-16, T-37, T-38, Mig-29 and Mig-21 

A WARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Distinguished Service Medal 

Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters 

Defense Meritorious Service Medal 

Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Aerial Achievement Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

Joint Service Achievement Medal 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze stars 

Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) 

Kuwait Liberation Medal (government of Kuwait) 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant May II, 1985 

First Lieutenant Sept. I, 1987 

Captain Sept. 1, 1989 

Major Sept. 1, 1995 

Lieutenant Colonel April 1, 2000 

Colonel Jan. 1, 2006 

Brigadier General Nov. 3, 20 I 0 

Major General June 27, 2014 

Lieutenant General Feb. 22, 2017 

(Current as of February 2017) 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 12, 2018 

(93) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. Please describe the increase in capability that the K model CH–53 

will provide the Marine Corps and is the CH–53K program still on schedule? 

General RUDDER. The CH–53K provides nearly three times the current CH–53E 

lift capability under the same ambient conditions, and is the only fully marinized, 

heavy-lift rotorcraft capable of supporting current and future warfighting requirements. The CH–53K will be a game changer for the MAGTF by providing unprecedented heavy lift capability and capacity, along with increased range, interoperability, and survivability at approximately the same projected O&S cost as the legacy CH–53E. Regarding the program schedule, most major test discoveries are behind us and the aircraft is performing well. However, achieving all credited test 

points has proven more time consuming than expected. Due to a number of factors 

NAVAIR/Marine Corps has informed the defense committees that they have underfunded the R&D account for FY19 and will need to increase the FY19 R&D funding 

to accommodate the additional push in testing for both FY19 and FY20. There will 

be an increase in R&D funding compared to previous PB projections. While this 

funding increase is significant, it covers unanticipated shortfalls. 

Mr. TURNER. Regarding the Marine Corps’ F–35 procurement plan, you already 

have F–35B IOC squadrons. How do you plan to employ the F–35C? Could you use 

more of them? 

General RUDDER. The Marine Corps’ F–35Cs will be integrated into United States 

Navy Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployments with the Carrier Air Wing as 10- 

plane squadrons; this is in support of the USMC and USN TACAIR Integration 

(TAI) policy. When the USMC F–35C squadrons are not assigned to a USN Master 

Aviation Plan (MAP) carrier air wing deployment, they are incorporated into the 

USMC deployment rotations to meet global force requirements. The first USMC F– 

35C squadron stands up in fiscal year 2020. Timely procurement of the Marine 

Corps’ F–35Cs is a priority in order to meet Department of the Navy TAI deployments. Due to the planned integrated deployments, unfunded and congressional additions of F–35Cs for the USMC have a greater immediate impact than F–35B additions. This is due to increased F–35C training requirements, fleet replacement 

squadron production requirements, and the necessity to build and source squadrons 

with enough F–35Cs to train with, deploy with, and have ready while aircraft are 

being modified as part of the F–35 program continuous capability development and 

delivery (C2D2) modification and modernization plan. It is in this light that we are 

currently assessing the requirement for additional F–35Cs—beyond what is currently programmed. The F–35 modernization plan is mapped in detail over the next 

decade, both in terms of the technologies that we pursue and in terms of managing 

our fleet so that we can modify earlier lot aircraft and seamlessly incorporate new 

developments into the production line. This aircraft will meet operational requirements for decades with the long term view to continuously improve capabilities designed to counter and win against pacing threats. 

Mr. TURNER. The Chief of Naval Operations has described all of the attributes 

which increase naval power and mentioned the need to ‘‘have your magazines full’’ 

when he describes the ‘‘ready fleet.’’ How do the weapons procurement investments 

in the fiscal year 2019 budget request make the fleet a more ‘‘ready fleet’’? 

Admiral CONN. Building a more lethal force is one of the lines of effort our National Defense Strategy (NDS) is centered on; and the ‘‘ready fleet’’ attribute you 

describe from the CNO’s Heritage Foundation speech is one of six specific dimensions for increasing Naval Power to achieve the ‘‘Navy the Nation Needs’’—which 

is the Navy’s maritime expression of the NDS. With PB19 and the support of this 

Congress, all major weapons acquisition programs remain consistent or increase 

from FY18 levels and support the Navy’s goal of increased capability and capacity, 

supporting the more lethal force line of effort. To ensure our superiority in all domains, PB19 improves weapons capability by funding additional RDT&E efforts in 

AIM–9X, SDB II, AARGM and LRASM ($85M increase in RDT&E), while simultaneously ramping up these weapons procurement over FY18 levels ($79M increase 

in WPN). 
94 

Mr. TURNER. The Navy has talked about utilization rates of the F/A–18 fleet being 

much higher than planned and how this negatively impacts aviation readiness. With 

no relief in sight on asset demand, when do you expect Super Hornets to begin 

reaching the end of their service life? Also, can you describe what efforts are underway to prevent the same challenges, which are plaguing the legacy fleet? Has the 

Navy taken steps to ensure adequate depot capacity, parts and engineering analysis 

to better predict what work is required to extend Super Hornet service life? Finally, 

what funding is dedicated to these efforts in the fiscal year 2019 budget request? 

Admiral CONN. The first F/A–18E/F aircraft begin reaching the end of their service life this year with four airframes being inducted into F/A–18E/F Super Hornet 

Service Life Modification (SLM) in FY18. The Navy is aggressively pursuing Strike 

Fighter Inventory management strategies to include: a combination of new strike 

fighter procurement; funding depot efficiency enabling accounts; increasing airframe 

service life and capabilities through concurrent repairs and modifications; and procuring long-lead material and spares. The lessons learned from the legacy F/A–18A– 

D Hornet Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) inform evolving F/A–18E/F Super 

Hornet and EA–18G Growler SLM. Additionally, to validate fatigue analysis and inform corrosion discovery, Boeing engineers are completing the full destructive teardown of two High Flight Hour Super Hornets in preparation for SLM. Initial SLM 

induction, and subsequent modifications and repairs, will be conducted by The Boeing Company under contract to Naval Air Systems Command, PMA–265. In addition 

to service life extension, SLM will also be used to validate engineering and fatigue 

analysis, evaluate corrosion discovery, and inform Engineering Change Proposal 

(ECP) development. The ultimate goal of several years of SLM events (FY 2018–FY 

2022) is the development of standard ‘‘kitted’’ modification packages. The Department’s PB–19 budget submission makes significant progress in reversing the downward trend in strike fighter capacity and readiness while also investing in a future 

Navy strike fighter force mix. The PB–19 Future Years Defense Program submission provides $9.2 billion for 110 F/A–18E/F Block III and $11.9 billion for 97 F– 

35C aircraft—an increase of 29 strike fighters over the PB–18 plan. Additionally, 

the Department is planning to procure 76 MQ–25 air vehicles to extend the range 

and reach of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW) and supplant the F/A–18E/F Super Hornet 

as the primary carrier-based inflight refueling aircraft, thereby decreasing F/A–18E/ 

F utilization rates. 

Mr. TURNER. What funding is the Air Force requesting in the FY2019 President’s 

budget to support plans to extend the F–15C/D’s service life? 

General BUNCH. The FY19 President’s Budget supports extension of the F–15C/ 

D’s service life by requesting funding for new longerons and new wings. The requested budget provides $132.6M in APAF to procure 93 sets of longerons and to 

complete 73 longeron installs through the FYDP. In addition, the requested budget 

funds $5.7M in RDT&E to complete wing development and $103.9M in APAF to procure and install seven sets of wings. 

Mr. TURNER. What is the new timeline for the next steps in the source selection 

process for the T–X? In addition, what is the next funding piece for the T–X? 

General BUNCH. The T–X contract award is projected by the end of summer 2018. 

The FY19 President’s Budget requests $265.5 million for the T–X program. 

Mr. TURNER. What is your current plan for A–10 wing upgrades, and is this effort 

fully funded in fiscal year 2019? 

General BUNCH. The A–10 SPO released a request for proposal on May 25, 2018 

to procure up to 109 wings. Proposals are expected by the end of August 2018. The 

Air Force currently has $79.2M budgeted for wing procurement in FY19. 

Mr. TURNER. How is the progress in the research and development of advanced 

munitions to take full advantage of the Air Force’s 5th generation fleet? 

General HARRIS. The USAF is engaged in and committed to developing advanced 

munitions to exploit the full capabilities of 5th gen platforms and their ability to 

perform in the A2/AD environment. These cooperative systems are essential to accomplishing our part of the National Defense Strategy and are a top priority as we 

evolve our force and increase lethality. For example, R&D is actively occurring in 

sensors, propulsion systems and munitions designs to make our next weapons as responsive and survivable as the launch platform. Internal carriage is also considered 

a top priority and integrated into the earliest USAF decisions to ensure airframe 

compatibility. This development of complimentary traits will allow our 5th gen fleet 

to engage future targets with surety of success. 

Mr. TURNER. It is our understanding that training opportunities could be limited 

due to munition inventory shortfalls? Is this true, and if so, what impacts are low 

inventories of critical munitions having on your overall mission readiness? 

General HARRIS. Munitions expenditures in support of enduring combat operations have strained USAF inventories and has limited some training opportunities 
95 

for our warfighters. Training opportunities are available and planned for with live 

air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions, but often not with the most preferred munitions due to their necessity in the current fight. Efforts over the last several years 

are now yielding increased munitions deliveries and our stockpiles are rapidly improving. These increases will allow for more and better training opportunities where 

warfighters can have more opportunities to employ live weapons prior to being 

asked to do so in combat. 

30MM Training Ammo: The anticipated retirement of the A–10 led to stopping the 

procurement of 30MM ammo. With the retention of the A–10 until 2030(?), contracts 

are being restarted, but deliveries of the additional rounds will take time. 

HELLFIRE: Initial USAF inventories were not sufficient to support the rapid increase in combat ops tempo starting in 2014. The USAF was forced to restrict training opportunities for the preferred HELLFIRE versions in favor of supporting the 

warfighter. Starting in 2015, a major effort by both the Army and USAF to dramatically increase production along with CENTCOM AOR to husband these critical assets has allowed the USAF inventory to begin to recover. We are looking to start 

a controlled release of HELLFIRE ‘‘R’’ variants starting with the FY19 training 

cycle, and will continue to release more assets for training based on inventory condition thru the FY19 training cycle. We anticipate few—if any—training impacts 

starting with the FY20 training cycle. 

Small Diameter Bomb (SDB): The rapid increase in ops tempo in CENTCOM, 

growing concerns to limit collateral damage as well as inventory limits imposed on 

other low collateral munitions such as HELLFIRE, led to an increased reliance on 

SDB. We expect to be better able to support SDB training in the FY20 training cycle 

due to increased USAF purchases mirrored with greatly expanded industry output. 

Additionally, because of the stand-off range of the weapon, training opportunities 

are limited due to safety factors and training range capabilities. 

Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS): This is a new system just entering USAF inventory. Since its introduction into the current fight, it has proven 

an exceptional weapon and the warfighter wants far more than we can procure up 

to this point. As a new item that went directly to the field, Air Combat Command 

has not developed a training requirement. We are addressing this at this time and 

will have training requirements in place to support FY20 training cycle. In the interim, as our inventory posture improves, we plan a measured effort to release 

APKWS to support training, especially for our aircrew weapons officers. 

Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM): Increases in JDAM use has taken a toll 

on USAF inventories. To maintain sufficient stocks, the USAF restricted JDAM use 

in training, with priority going to support units preparing to rotate into the 

CENTCOM AOR and especially to those individual aircrews who have never employed JDAM before. We have already been increasing the numbers of JDAMs to 

support both the FY18 and now the FY19 training cycles as gently increasing deliveries bolster inventories. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN 

Mr. BROWN. I would appreciate your perspective on the importance of the Aircraft 

Prototype Facility, and particularly, Phase 3 of the facility. I would also like to understand why this Aircraft Prototype Facility is on the DoD’s Unfunded Priority 

List, but not on the Navy’s own Unfunded Priority List—in fact it appears the ‘‘APF 

Phase 3’’ project could be slipping to the right?’’ 

Admiral GROSKLAGS and Admiral CONN. The Aircraft Prototyping Facility, Phase 

3 project remains an important requirement to the Navy for supporting naval aviation research and development. Within military construction budget constraints, 

this project will continue to be evaluated among Navy priorities for a future budget 

request to Congress. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON 

Mr. BACON. For Phase 2 of the OA–X Light Attack Experiment, will each operational test pilot fly and evaluate both the A–29 and the AT–6 to ensure they can 

directly compare the strengths and characteristics of both aircraft? If not, how will 

the USAF ensure a fair and objective comparison to ensure we select the best possible aircraft for this mission? 

General BUNCH. and General HARRIS. Operational aircrew flew their designated 

aircraft while Developmental Test aircrew flew both aircraft to assess system performance against a fixed set of threshold requirements. Evaluation criteria to select 
96 

the best possible aircraft for the mission will be developed as part of the source selection process. 

Mr. BACON. How are AFSOC’s Light Attack Support Special Operations (LASSO) 

mission requirement being folded into the USAF’s OA–X experiment? If not, why 

not? 

General BUNCH. and General HARRIS. AFSOC’s LASSO effort is being worked in 

coordination with the overall Light Attack effort. As such, the Light Attack Experiment will inform the LASSO. 

Mr. BACON. What is the Air Force’s current acquisition strategy for the OA–X aircraft? What are your plans for spending the FY18 $100M provided by Congress for 

OA–X? Is additional funding needed and will a reprogramming be necessary to execute your acquisition strategy? 

General BUNCH. The Air Force is currently pursuing rapid acquisition fielding authorities under Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016. The 

FY18 funding is being utilized for the Light Attack effort to include: the actual experiment, Program Office stand up and staffing, and risk reduction activities such 

as Live Fire testing (planning and execution, parts, equipment, material, and re-test 

activities). Additional funding is not needed at this time. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP 

Mr. BISHOP. Recent reports indicate that unless F–35 sustainment costs are 

brought down by 38%, the AF may need to reduce their purchase by 500+ aircraft. 

In what ways can the committee help in the upcoming NDAA cycle to improve F– 

35 sustainment costs, particularly in regards to depot level maintenance? 

General BUNCH. The USAF is working toward greater collaboration with the F– 

35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin to further analyze and control sustainment costs. The USAF is also accelerating depot activation and working to implement other cost reduction initiatives in concert with the Joint Program Office. 

While we are concerned about current and rising sustainment costs, it is too early 

for us to make any decision today on reducing the total buy of 1,763. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROOKS 

Mr. BROOKS. In order to be good stewards of the F–22 assets that the Air Force 

has said we will continue to fly until the mid 2040s, what is the status of upgrades 

on the F–22 to counter advancing threats that specifically target the aircraft’s capabilities? When can the F–22 operationally expect to see data link capabilities to talk 

and connect with other aircraft? When can the F–22 operationally expect to carry 

the AIM–9X Block II? 

General BUNCH. The TACLink 16 program will add a Link 16 transmit datalink 

upgrade, in addition to its existing Intra Flight Data Link capability. TACLink 16 

fielding is scheduled to begin 3QFY20. The F–22 Increment 3.2B program, which 

will provide AIM–9X Block II capability, is on track to begin fielding in the second 

half of FY19. 

Mr. BROOKS. Why has the Air Force decided not to budget for a Helmet Mounted 

Display for F–22 pilots? Not only does a Helmet Mounted Display provide situational awareness for all aspects of flight, to include safety issues, visual lookout doctrine and instrument scan, it also couples with missile capabilities that yield first 

shot opportunities in a within visual range engagement. 

General BUNCH. For FY19 the Air Force has requested $1.82M of RDT&E funding 

to support the F–22 Helmet Mounted Display and Cueing System (HMDCS) effort. 

As part of the FY19 request, the Air Force included $12.9M of Procurement funding 

in FY22 for HMDCS, when it is anticipated the system will begin procurement activities. 

Æ