U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

20–065 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–113] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR 

AND LAND FORCES HEARING 

ON

FISCAL YEAR 2017 ARMY AND AIR FORCE 

ROTORCRAFT MODERNIZATION 

PROGRAMS 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 16, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

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

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

MARK TAKAI, Hawaii 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

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 

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................ 2 

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

WITNESSES 

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

Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition); and Lt Gen James M. ‘‘Mike’’ 

Holmes, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Williamson, LTG Michael E., USA, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology); and MG Michael D. Lundy, USA, Commander, Army Aviation Center of Excellence ...... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bunch, Lt Gen Arnold W., joint with Lt Gen James M. ‘‘Mike’’ Holmes ..... 38 

Turner, Hon. Michael R. .................................................................................. 25 

Williamson, LTG Michael E., joint with MG Michael D. Lundy .................. 27 

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. Brady .......................................................................................................... 59 

Mr. Gibson ......................................................................................................... 59 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 55 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 ARMY AND AIR FORCE ROTORCRAFT 

MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 16, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:36 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. 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 

convenes to review the current posture of Army and Air Force 

rotorcraft modernization programs and receive testimony on the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Lieutenant General Michael E. Williamson, Military Deputy to the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. Major General Michael D. Lundy, Commander, Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, 

Jr., Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force, Acquisition. Lieutenant General James M. ‘‘Mike’’ Holmes, 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today, and thank you for 

your service. 

Our witnesses today will provide testimony on the fiscal and programmatic challenges currently facing Army and Air Force rotorcraft modernization. Because of the fiscal realities and increased 

missions, the military services have been forced to prioritize nearterm readiness at the expense and assumed risk of modernization 

programs, and rotorcraft modernization has been particularly impacted in the fiscal year 2017. 

We know the proposed budget request for fiscal year 2017 does 

not follow the balanced budget agreement, BBA, of 2015. While our 

near-peer adversaries continue to invest in more modern capabilities and continue to close the technology gap, this budget request 

cuts force structure and modernization programs from the Department’s base programs. 

For example, the Army states in their written statement that, 

quote—‘‘though aviation modernization is a priority, FY 2017 will 

reflect over $2 billion in reduced funding when compared to fiscal 

year 2016. This has caused the Army to decelerate fleet moderniza-
2 

tion by procuring fewer UH–60 Black Hawks, AH–64 Apaches, and 

CH–47 Chinooks in FY 2017,’’ end quote. 

I can assure you, this committee is working to reverse this dangerous trend in rotorcraft modernization and is working to provide 

the necessary funding to help mitigate some of these current challenges. For fiscal year 2017, this subcommittee will continue to 

support the need for fielding most modernized rotorcraft available 

for both the Active and Reserve Components. 

Two critical issues this committee has been concerned about for 

many years is in regards to accelerating aircraft survivability 

equipment and degraded visual environment capability onto current rotorcraft programs. We expect to hear today about how the 

Army and Air Force are addressing these critical needs in a timely 

manner. 

We are also interested in hearing the Army’s position on the recent recommendations put forward by the National Commission on 

the Future of the Army, relating to the Army’s aviation restructuring initiative, ARI, and get a better understanding of the costs 

associated with implementing these recommendations. 

I would also like to hear about the Air Force’s plans to replace 

the legacy helicopters that are used by the Air Force in providing 

security in the ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] fields in 

Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and several other States. 

The commander of U.S. STRATCOM [Strategic Command] has 

stated, as has the Secretary of the Air Force, that it is not possible 

to mitigate the alert requirement without replacing these helicopters, so I look forward to hearing about your plans to address 

this urgent issue. 

I would like to now recognize my good friend from California, the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, for any 

comments that she would like to make. 

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

STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

the generals for being before us to talk about what is incredibly important, the Army and Air Force helicopter programs. And it comes 

at an important time before the Armed Services Committee because, as you know, we are trying to make decisions about the 

DOD [Department of Defense] budget for 2017. As I said this morning in full committee, it comes with some very hard choices because 

we cannot choose everything, we cannot do everything. 

If we are going to augment what the President’s budget or 

change the President’s budget that came over, then we have to ask 

ourselves, well, do we need it, how are we going to pay for it. It 

would be nice to pretend that we can fund everything. Unfortunately, that is not the case. 

Given that context, the budget request from Army and Air Force 

helicopter programs has shown us that choices were made, what a 

true choice really looks like. For both services there simply wasn’t 

enough funding to continue building new helicopters, start new 
3 

programs for the future, and also upgrade the helicopters that we 

have in service right now. 

Both services had to make the tough choices and the budget request does reflect that. For example, in order to keep AH–64 

Apache production on track, the Army was forced to dramatically 

cut back the Black Hawk production compared to last year. The reduction in Black Hawk helicopters is, for me, a little bit troubling, 

of course as you know, because we were looking to the National 

Guard units, including those in California, to eliminate the old A 

model helicopters that they now have. 

These helicopters in California, it hits right home because they 

are the ones that we use to fight the fires that we have seen in 

California and other natural disasters. The Army was planning to 

get rid of all the old Black Hawk helicopters and replace them by 

2013, and in last year’s bill we asked for ways in which to accelerate that program. 

So the cuts in fiscal year 2017 appear to be moving us in the opposite direction. And as concerning as those cuts are, they actually 

could get worse if the Army is required to keep a large number of 

Apache helicopters in the National Guard, as was proposed by the 

National Commission on the Future of the Army. Keeping those 

Apaches in the Guard may make sense, but it comes at a much 

higher price tag. 

The Army also had to cut back on the Chinook and on the Lakota 

helicopter production, both of which are successful programs that 

are otherwise doing just fine. But again, Mr. Chairman, when we 

look at it, real choices were made. 

On the Air Force side we also see limited funding leading to 

some very difficult decisions. The Air Force is trying to keep its 

combat search and rescue helicopter program on track, but to do 

that it had to slow its plan to replace aging UH–1 helicopters that 

are currently used in ICBM field tests you had mentioned earlier. 

In terms of future investments, it is good to see that both services managed to protect research and development efforts, like the 

future vertical lift programs, the improved turbine engine program, 

and critical new aircraft defensive equipment investments. 

You have made some hard choices, so I am interested in trying 

to figure out how you came about that, why, and what it really 

means to us. And with that I will yield back. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. And without objection, all witnesses’ 

statements will be included in the hearing record. And we only 

have two opening statements here today, General Williamson followed by General Bunch. General Williamson. 

STATEMENT OF LTG MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON, USA, MILITARY 

DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY); AND MG MICHAEL D. LUNDY, USA, COMMANDER, ARMY AVIATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 

General WILLIAMSON. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member 

Sanchez, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, thank you for the invitation to discuss 

the Army’s fiscal year 2017 rotorcraft modernization programs. And 
4 

for the opportunity to appear with our Air Force counterpart, Lieutenant General Bunch. 

With me today is Major General Mike Lundy, the Commander of 

the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for making our written statement a part of the record for today’s 

hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, aviation is the Army’s largest portfolio of programs, and the one most impacted by our current budget environment. The high level of operational demands, combined with the 

fiscal challenges, contributed to a substantial reduction in Army 

aviation funding. As you mentioned in your opening statement, a 

$2 billion reduction from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017, and 

an additional $531 million reduction as a result of the fiscal year 

2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. The immediate result is the procurement of fewer Black Hawks, Apaches, and Chinooks. 

The Army presented the aviation restructuring initiative, also 

known as ARI, as part of our fiscal year 2015 budget plan. By reinvesting the savings and the cost avoidance garnered by ARI, Army 

aviation was able to continue to field its most modernized aircraft 

while developing and fielding the right disruptive technologies to 

improve mobility, lethality, survivability, and mission command. 

The Army is currently reviewing and assessing the recently released report from the National Commission on the Future of the 

Army [NCFA], which contains a number of recommendations in addition to what we have done on ARI for which resourcing and modernization may need to be adjusted. 

Still, we are moving forward with our rotorcraft modernization 

effort, including identifying, addressing known capability gaps, but 

at a much slower pace. The fiscal year 2017 funding request breaks 

down as follows. 

In science and technology [S&T], the Army supports several critical efforts to enable the next generation of rotary-wing capability, 

including advanced threat detection system, degraded visual environment mitigation, and joint multi-role technology demonstrator, 

which will inform affordable requirements and reduce the risk associated with the future vertical lift program. 

With regard to new systems, the fixed-wing utility aircraft, a replacement for the C–12 and the C–26 platforms, is projected to be 

selected and begin fielding in fiscal year 2018. In the area of modernization we are focused on improving the Apache, Black Hawk, 

and Chinook helicopter fleets, as well as saving money for the 

American taxpayer by pursuing a multiyear contract in fiscal year 

2017 for the Apache. 

We will award the ninth multiyear contract for Black Hawk, and 

complete the second 5-year multiyear contract for Chinook in fiscal 

year 2017. In addition, we are continuing to modernize our unmanned aircraft systems fleet, comprised of small, the Raven and 

the Puma, medium, the Shadow, and the large, the Gray Eagle 

components. 

In the area of reset and sustainment, we are focused on returning Army equipment to the required level of combat capability so 

that we will be prepared for the next fight or the next contingency. 

We are also divesting the aging TH–67 training helicopters, as 

well as the OH–58 Alpha and Charlie Kiowa, and the Kiowa War-
5 

riors, and we are also doing everything possible to reduce the number of UH–60 Alpha Black Hawks in our fleet. 

Other key investments in fiscal year 2017 include the improved 

turbine engine program for Apache and Black Hawk, to meet 

worldwide operational requirements for high-altitude and hot conditions, the joint air-to-ground missile, the next generation of aviation-launch missiles, and in the area of aircraft survivability equipment, acceleration of the common infrared countermeasure system. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, 

we are grateful for your strong and steadfast support for America’s 

soldiers, for our soldier aviators, as well as our Army civilians and 

their families. 

This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and we look 

forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Williamson and General Lundy can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Bunch. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN ARNOLD W. BUNCH, USAF, MILITARY 

DEPUTY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

AIR FORCE (ACQUISITION); AND LT GEN JAMES M. ‘‘MIKE’’ 

HOLMES, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC 

PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS 

General BUNCH. Thank you, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member 

Sanchez, and other distinguished members, for the opportunity to 

address the subcommittee. We greatly appreciate the work you do 

and the support you provide our airmen and their families. It is a 

privilege to be here, and General Holmes and I look forward to answering your questions. 

General Holmes and I prepared a joint written statement and we 

have submitted that for the record. I will not go through that statement and read it here. I will just make a few opening remarks for 

both of us and then will be ready to answer your questions. 

We are happy to be here with the Army, as our collaboration on 

science and technology efforts, development and procurements is 

critical. They are great teammates and we must continue that 

teamwork to be successful. We are here to discuss the fiscal year 

2017 budget that we have submitted and some of the tough choices 

we made as we finalize that budget. 

Air Force rotary-wing assets are critical to the Air Force’s ability 

to accomplish our mission and provide worldwide support to combatant commanders. Our rotary-wing fleet has been and continues 

to be heavily engaged. They have conducted operations across the 

spectrum, and we are committed to modernizing and recapitalizing 

our fleet as we balance readiness and modernization in this budget 

environment. 

Although fiscal constraints may have required us to reassess the 

timing of some rotary-wing modernization efforts, the fiscal year 

2017 PB [President’s budget] reflects the Air Force’s commitment 

to sustaining, modernizing, and recapitalizing our rotorcraft fleet. 

Our efforts are focused on modernizing and/or recapitalizing to 

address our most critical needs. The limited resources available 

since the Budget Control Act of 2011 have hampered our ability to 

balance readiness, capability, and capacity. And while we are 
6 

grateful for the additional resources the Bipartisan Budget Act provides, we need your support in the form of stable and predictable 

budgets for the future. Your help in this area will be greatly appreciated. 

We look forward to working closely with the committee to ensure 

the Air Force retains the ability to deliver rotorcraft airpower for 

America when and where needed. Again, we thank you for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee and we look forward 

to answering your questions, sir. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Bunch and General 

Holmes can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. General Williamson and General 

Bunch, aircraft survivability equipment, and degraded visual environment technology of course are two areas of concern, as I stated 

in my opening statement. General Williamson, you spoke of this 

issue also. 

We have held several classified threat briefings, and I understand there is a sense of urgency for improving and fielding this 

technology on current platforms, and we certainly are aware of the 

amounts for each that are in the budget request. 

But if you would, to the extent that you can in an unclassified 

environment, please explain to the subcommittee your current acquisition strategies for ASE [aircraft survivability equipment] and 

DVE [degraded visual environment] technology, and what can we 

do to help accelerate them. Starting with General Williamson and 

then General Bunch. 

General WILLIAMSON. Sir, thanks for the question. I would also 

like to start by thanking you and this committee for your not only 

focus but your support of funding in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 

2016, with your understanding of the criticality and the importance 

of this issue. 

So my immediate response is to tell you that we have taken a 

two-tier approach to how we approach this. So the first is we have 

existing programs of record, and I will talk a little bit about those. 

But there is also this understanding that there are immediate 

needs that have to be addressed, and it starts with the threat. 

So, sir, as you and I have talked about in the past, so the threat 

today, our potential enemies have more and more access to technologies, so the threat comes on a number of vectors, whether it is 

MANPADS [man-portable air-defense systems] that have advanced 

in technology, or it is a cyber threat, or whether it is things like 

position location. We have to address all of those when you look at 

aircraft survivability. 

So as you know, we have current programs that look at common 

infrared countermeasures, advanced radar detection, and laser detection programs. But those programs we have invested in. It will 

give us a modular solution as we look at our entire aircraft fleet. 

But we also have to deal with the immediate threat, and so we 

have worked with our joint partners to identify immediate solutions that we can give to deploying aircraft so that they can have 

a countermeasure against the threat. 

I would like to also offer that General Lundy might have a couple 

of thoughts. 
7 

General LUNDY. And, sir, I want to reiterate my thanks for the 

committee’s support because, you know, this is a clear and present 

threat today, and it is also—there is a long-term issue that we 

have here. And so as we look at our current strategy, I think we 

are on the right path. We have a joint solution that Congress has 

helped fund and accelerate, and we are moving that as fast as technology will allow to allow us to put it on capabilities that are currently deployed today. 

We have also been able to accelerate our current program of 

record and bring it forward sooner about 3 years, which is great. 

And then we have a huge S&T effort that is focused on the next 

generation of survivability capabilities, and that is really where us 

and the Air Force, frankly the Navy and the Marines, are working 

very closely together with our SOCOM [Special Operations Command] partners on a number of S&T efforts that will help us build 

capabilities for the future that will get ahead of this threat as opposed to reactionary. 

I think that is the key. We can’t do what we did in Iraq. I mean, 

there was not a lot of threat there, but we waited until the threat 

appeared before we reacted to it. We need to be ahead of this. 

I think that is my key concern as the aviation branch chief, is 

how do we get ahead of the threat. That is going to take consistent 

S&T work, consistent funding. And your committee and the Congress have been very helpful with being able to do that and give 

us a stable way ahead. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Bunch. 

General BUNCH. Sir, thank you for the question. As you know, 

first off we are great partners with Army and there is no way we 

can do this without the S&T efforts. We think that is critical in 

how we go forward in the future in that investment. We all share 

the benefits of that and we look forward to continuing that partnership. 

On the aircraft that are in the field, we do have systems already 

to counter many of the threats that we regularly update on MODS 

[modifications], and put software and new hardware in to keep it. 

But the threat has evolved and it has changed. We are taking steps 

to change what we have on the CV–22 with a limited number right 

now. We are going to see how that performs. And we are also doing 

that on the HH–60. 

What we are focused on are countermeasures dispensing capabilities and active infrared countermeasure systems in response to 

things that I will not go into a whole lot more detail. We have active programs in both of those. We are going to field on limited 

numbers of those platforms, and then we will field those on the remainder of the platforms in the future. 

General WILLIAMSON. Sir, I just wanted to highlight another 

point, and that goes back to something that General Lundy said 

about the ability to get ahead of the threat. So you and I had a 

conversation about cyber as an example, and so what concerns me 

is people who think about it being a point solution, this is something that, as the enemy learns, they will adapt. And so it is really 

important for us to have programs that not only deal with the current threat, but are also projecting out. I think that is critical for 

us as we move forward. 
8 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you for the responses. 

General Williamson and General Lundy, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, I would like to see comment on the status of 

the Army’s aviation restructuring initiative, or ARI, and hear your 

views on the recommendation put forward by the National Commission on the Future of the Army regarding ARI. 

In addition to this I would like to get a better understanding of 

the unfunded requirements associated with ARI and the Commission’s recommendation. Given that we are operating under constrained budgets and that Army aviation has already been reduced 

in the President’s budget request, if the Army were to adopt the 

Commission’s recommendations, what would be your most pressing 

requirements in fiscal year 2017, and what are your must-haves? 

General LUNDY. Sir, as you well know, the report from the National Commission came with over 60 recommendations without resources. So certainly many of those recommendations, as the Chief 

has testified to, are absolutely—they are great ideas but the resources are the challenge we have to look at. 

Currently they are being assessed by the Chief of Staff of the 

Army, the Secretary of the Army, on the decisions they are going 

to make as we go forward. 

If we were to look at the specific aviation recommendations that 

are in there to retain an 11th CAB [combat aviation brigade] in 

Korea, as well as the four AH–64 battalions, our assessment right 

now is that is about a $2.4 billion bill that would come back into 

the Army, would require, you know, a Department of Defense solution or additional funding from Congress. With that $2.4 billion, there are lots of options on how we would 

go about doing that, but certainly if it came back into the aviation 

portfolio, it would have a huge impact, which is one of the reasons 

why really we did ARI. And as I testified last year on ARI, if we 

had the resources, we wouldn’t be doing ARI. 

So again, we are kind of back at square one in some respects. 

But I know the Army is going to take a serious look at that. I know 

the Chief has been very actively involved in that, and we will see 

he will make some decisions here shortly. And then we will make 

a determination on, you know, whether we resource that internally 

or not. 

If we were to execute, there would be some immediate demands 

obviously for long-lead purchases, for AH–64s, as well as training 

aircraft for the training base. If we were to add the 11th CAB and 

the four AH–64 battalions, that would increase our demand in the 

training base, so we would need more LUH [light utility helicopters], and we would also have to add AH–64s to the inventory. 

That would be probably the two most pressing needs that I would 

see if we were to do those. 

Mr. TURNER. On my last question. I would like General Bunch 

and Holmes, if you would, to respond to the issue concerning 

STRATCOM and Secretary James’ concern that we might not meet 

the alert requirement while replacing legacy rotorcraft. 

Is it correct that, aside from the fact that we have the security 

of nuclear weapons in the United States, we are also talking about 

the expense of mitigations, including mitigations in place to meet 

the convoy escort mission, including additional defenders, as well 
9 

as a potential request for forces to provide Army National Guard 

Black Hawks at all ICBM wings? 

How much does all this cost? Does the Air Force expect new helicopters? What would you be able to save? What are your thoughts 

on that topic? 

General HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So over the last 

couple of years as we have done a review of our entire nuclear enterprise, one of the areas we looked at is this mission that supports 

the security of nuclear weapons on the missile fields. 

As you pointed out in your opening statement, sir, we have been 

doing it with the legacy helicopter, the UH–1, for several years and 

our update program has been delayed by the budget turmoil with 

the Budget Control Act and the decrease in buying power that happened there. 

In the short term we have taken some mitigation steps, and General Robin Rand, our four-star commander of Air Force Global 

Strike Command, has been personally involved in doing some 

things to support really both our ability to meet both of those missions better on the missile field, both the convoy escort and then 

the response mission. 

The mitigations include things like having forward area refueling 

points that give you more time on station, that allow you to go for 

a further range and stay out there more, and some other things I 

won’t go into for security reasons. 

We are looking at the full range of mitigations to address that 

until we can field the new helicopter, and we recognize Admiral 

Haney’s view that it is critical that we move forward now. We 

agree. One of the things that the BBA was able to do for us was 

to give us a little bit of that buying power back that we can apply 

to a new helicopter program. 

We have the money laid out in this FYDP [Future Years Defense 

Program] to be able to do that. And then to accomplish it, you 

know, General Bunch and our AQ [acquisition] guys are working 

on strategy for what is the fastest and best way to make sure we 

get the right helicopter out there into the missile fields, in the 

shortest timeline that we can. 

General BUNCH. Sir, I think it is important to start off with the 

UH–1 end is just one part of a multilayered defense of our nuclear 

resources, and our nuclear deterrent force remains safe, secure, effective, and ready if needed. 

We have taken steps, as General Holmes relayed, to mitigate the 

things, but there are still areas that we can’t address the full requirement. The Secretary of the Air Force has directed us to lean 

forward and consider more aggressive steps to see how we can go 

faster. 

We have requested the requirements, notes, and urgencies from 

Admiral Haney and others. Those notes—those memos, I shouldn’t 

say notes, are going to come in with the urgency of that requirement and we are going to lay that out to see if we have enough 

information there to be able to do an Economy Act determination 

and findings, and make that determination to go forward. 

We should be making that decision within the next month to 

start those actions, to see if we want to go forward and do that in 

a more timely manner. And the other piece we have to remember 
10 

in this, it is not just getting iron on the ramp. It is everything else 

that goes with it that we are trying to focus on as well. 

So we are leaning forward. We think we will have an answer 

within the next month or so, on whether we are going to go that 

direction. 

Mr. TURNER. Just to underscore, we have no margin of error 

here, so we look forward to your recommendations and success. 

Congresswoman Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to 

the question that you—or the subject matter that we are talking 

about here because the budget request shows a clear path to finally 

getting at the requirement with the competition that would pick a 

winner in fiscal year 2018 and deliver—start delivering the helicopters in 2020. Am I correct? That is the way I read it, at least 

when I took a look. 

General BUNCH. Ma’am, that is correct, and when we would have 

the competition resolved, who the winner of that, may determine 

exactly when do we get to the field. That is all part of the acquisition strategy we are developing at this time, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So I know that the Air Force has been pressured 

by some Members of Congress to skip the competition and to give 

it as a sole-source contract to one company. So I understand that 

could speed up the program a bit, but it doesn’t appear to me to 

meet any of the normal tests for a noncompetitive contract award. 

In this case it seems to me like that contract could be close to 

about a billion dollars of work. So my questions are, how many potential competitors does the Air Force think it might get if this was 

done on a competitive program? 

And as far as the requirement goes, has the Joint Staff approved 

this as urgent need, and how do you define that urgent need? Is 

it something like what we saw for our troops who were in Afghanistan and Iraq? 

And if the Air Force does go to a sole-source contract, what 

would be the justification, and how big a sole-source contract are 

we talking about? 

General BUNCH. Okay, Ma’am, let me step through those, and if 

I miss one I will let you re-attack me on the ones that I may have 

missed as you went through that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I was trying to figure out how to make a billion 

dollars competitive. 

General BUNCH. I understand. First off, we have not made a determination that we are going to go this way. We still have to get 

the requirement documents in to outline to us the urgency before 

we would make that decision. That decision has not been made. 

That is something we will do over the next few weeks to a month. 

The number that we are talking about to try to do this would be 

focused solely on the helicopters that would be needed to support 

the nuclear mission, and right now that number is 41. That number is being reviewed by General Holmes and his team, but right 

now that number is 41 that we would look to do that. Economy Act, 

the D&F [determination and findings], if we determine the urgency 

is there. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Forty-one? 
11 

† Lieutenant General Bunch specified post hearing: The cost to procure 41 HH-60 helicopters 

using the Economy Act is $1.4B. 

General BUNCH. Forty-one helicopters. We would not do it for the 

remainder of the fleet. It would only be focused on those, ma’am, 

that—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Given the ballpark of 41 helicopters, how big a 

wallet do I have to go to shop for 41 helicopters? 

General BUNCH. It would be in the $800, $900 million dollar 

range, ma’am.† 

Right now as we get our market research, ma’am, to set this up 

for a competition, we think there are about five folks who have expressed interest as we have done our market research and we get 

ready to set up the competition as we build our acquisition strategy. 

So that is part of the determination we are weighing out is, how 

urgent is the requirement, what is that requirement, and is there 

a need—is the urgency of the requirement, does it merit us using 

the Economy Act D&F and delaying, or wait for the competition. 

That is the decision we have to make. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. So you are saying that there is a possibility 

I would have to go to people and say, sure, we did a sole-source 

contract for $900 million? 

General BUNCH. That is what we are going to look at, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I hope you look at it carefully and figure out a way 

to make a competitive process of it rather than just handing out 

contracts like that. 

General BUNCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Let’s go back to, and I hate to be provincial, but 

I am going to go back to my California helicopters for a moment, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Having enough Black Hawk helicopters for the National Guard 

I think is crucial. So how would the loss of 36 new helicopters over 

2 years affect the Army’s plans to upgrade all the National Guard 

existing helicopters by 2023, General? 

General WILLIAMSON. So, ma’am, I will start from a programmatic impact and then operationally I will ask General Lundy 

to step in. So as you well know, we only produce N number of helicopters a year, so the loss of 36, and having to add that back in 

programmatically would be significant. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What does that mean, programmatically? I hope, 

Major General, you are going to—— 

General LUNDY. Yes, ma’am. So as we look at California, and I 

will talk about—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I don’t want to be so provincial. California is a big 

State, however. I will say that. We need those helicopters because 

that is one of the ways we cover some of the ground we have. 

General LUNDY. We will talk about kind of this total aviation 

force, what the impacts are. With respect to California, so we have 

one A model Black Hawk left in California to modernize, and it is 

going to get modernized in June. So we will have California fully 

modernized with L models by June. 

We have about 600, about 550 A model Black Hawks across the 

National Guard and the Active Components. It is about an even 
12 

split between the two. We are still on track right now to finish 

modernizing the Guard in 2023, and we will modernize the Active 

Component in 2025. So we are a couple of years behind on finishing up all the Active Component Black Hawks. 

If we were to go in and enact some of the National Commission 

recommendations, that is really what is going to impact our ability 

to finish modernization as fast as we think we can. And that potentially could—some of the options might be that we slip some of that 

modernizing both the Guard and the Active Component in Black 

Hawks to the right 2 or 3 years. So that is some of the decisions 

we are going to have to make, as the Chief and Secretary of the 

Army consider the National Commission recommendations. 

But right now we are still on track. Even though we are buying 

less Mike model Black Hawks this year, we are still on track with 

the Victor model program, which is going to be the recapping of L 

models into a new fully integrated glass cockpit. That is going to 

be our newest Black Hawk. 

So I am comfortable right now that we are still on track for 2023 

for the Guard and 2025 to 2026 for the Active Component. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So going back to that ARI, if you were saying that it was about a $2.4 billion request or suggestion, or whatever we 

want to call it at this point, how much of that would be in 2017, 

and for what programs? 

General LUNDY. On that, none of it is in 2017 because the decision has not been made for the National Commission recommendation. I know we have asked for—to set conditions for that if we 

make that decision. I know we have asked for some additional advance procurement on, you know, AH–64s that would help us set 

the conditions for that decision. 

But we are not using any—we have not adjusted our budget at 

all this year in 2017 to accommodate for the National Commission 

recommendations. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So if we adjusted the Army and let’s say you took 

the ARI suggestion and it started to be covered in fiscal year 2018 

and beyond, what gets cut? I mean, aside from the 2- or 3-year 

push that you talked about with respect to the Black Hawk, what 

do we have to give up that we think right now we are going to get? 

General LUNDY. There are a lot of options, and we are going to 

present all those options to the Chief. I mean, if it is internal to 

the aviation portfolio, there will certainly be a further slowing 

down of modernization. So, you know, pushing modernization efforts farther to the right, dependent upon which—where he wanted 

to take risk at, and which aircraft, and which capabilities would 

dictate that. 

Or if it became an all, a total Army solution or a solution at the 

Department level, or if we receive additional funding. So it is kind 

of hard to say what exactly would be impacted, but if it comes back 

into the portfolio, $2.4 billion is a huge hit in the portfolio over the 

FYDP, so it would be very significant. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Well, I think I am going to have a lot more questions on that for the record. I don’t want to take up everybody’s 

time, but that is a big issue here. So thank you very much. 

Mr. TURNER. Dr. Wenstrup. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
13 

General Lundy, can you tell me a little bit about using guided 

rockets in combat, and the effectiveness between unguided and 

guided and implementation of either? 

General LUNDY. Yes, sir. You know, the guided rockets have recently really proven to be very effective. We are modifying our 

lethality strategy to bring more guided rocket capability in. A guided rocket is less expensive than some of our missiles, and for certain targets they are appropriate. So we get a better cost curve, I 

guess you would say. And it allows us to service different kinds of 

targets. So guided rockets are definitely a part of our strategy. 

We are reducing the amount of unguided rockets that we previously shot for mostly suppression because of the lethality and improvements in the guided rocket field. So we certainly see a path 

ahead. We have a current program of record, it is a Navy program 

of record that we are using called APKWS [Advanced Precision Kill 

Weapon System]. 

We have an S&T effort right now with our S&T team, AMRDEC 

[Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering 

Center], that is the modular missile system. It is a modular, can 

be a guided rocket, can be a missile, can be air-to-air. It is a modular capability or it can be a drop glide that we can drop off of unmanned systems. That is our future program of record that we are 

going to transition to. It has got good stable funding right now, so 

I am confident we will continue down that path. But that is currently how we are using guided rockets in our portfolio. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. In our current engagements, say in Iraq and Afghanistan, do rules of engagement come into play as far as which 

one you can use? 

General LUNDY. Guided rockets are definitely what we want to 

use, precision capabilities, when we have tight rules of engagement 

and you have potential for collateral damage. And a guided rocket 

has less collateral damage potentially than some of our missiles, 

some of our larger weapons, so they have got less blast and they 

are more accurate. So those are certainly the kind of munitions 

that we want to use in and around urban areas or areas where we 

are concerned about collateral damage, so, yes, sir. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, General. 

I yield back. 

General LUNDY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask you about the divesting of the Kiowa Warriors, 

particularly to General Williamson or General Lundy. Do you feel 

that the Army will be able to fulfill some of the missions that may 

be foreseeable in the future? 

Like for instance trying to prevent the spread of terrorism in 

sub-Saharan Africa by divesting of a helicopter that is very proven 

when it comes to reconnaissance and scouting in a terrain where 

you will need it to do just that? And it can probably perform that 

capability better than the helicopter that we are keeping. Can you 

kind of just touch on that a little bit? 

General LUNDY. Well, sir, I would tell you, we have done some 

pretty extensive study. I am a Kiowa Warrior aviator, been flying 

them my entire life. I have flown every model and version of them, 
14 

and unfortunately as the branch chief I am the one that is taking 

them out of the inventory. 

It is a great aircraft. It has tremendous capabilities and has 

proven itself in combat. I have got lots of combat time in 58s. I 

have also got time in Apaches and I have seen what Apaches can 

do with unmanned systems. 

Currently right now the AH–64 can meet a broader range of missions, especially teamed with unmanned systems. But we still have 

a requirement for a scout, and we are pursuing a scout requirement as we move forward. 

Again, it is much like all of the other tough decisions that we 

have to make. We have a budget, and I certainly would like to be 

buying a scout tomorrow, but we are looking at a strategy on how 

we can proceed forward within the budget constraints that we 

have. 

But there is definitely a viable mission there. The requirement 

is still viable, but we have a viable solution to bridge that gap until 

we can get to, and we see it probably coming with future vertical 

lift. That family of systems is when we will see a scout aircraft 

come back into the inventory. 

Industry is doing a lot of work right now. There is a lot of IRAD 

[independent research and development] that we are very interested in, so it may be able to come earlier, if there is something 

we can procure commercially off-the-shelf and the budget suggests 

a little bit. So there are a lot of options that we are exploring. But 

the mission is still viable, the requirement is still viable. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mrs. Walorski. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thanks for being here. General Williamson, good to 

see you again. 

General Lundy, I had a follow-up question to Representative 

Wenstrup on the issue of guided rockets and not guided rockets. 

My follow-up question quickly was, can you just comment on how 

the Army plans to implement enhanced warhead technology that is 

capable of neutralizing a wider spectrum of targets, such as light 

and up-armored vehicles, bunkers, and structures? 

And I have another question. 

General LUNDY. Yes, ma’am. We have a couple of initiatives 

going on right now. As a matter of fact, we were just doing some 

test shots this week, where we are developing some particular fusing capabilities that allow for delayed reaction so they perform better against bunkers. 

We have also tested some of the other commercial systems that 

are out there, and as a part of our lethality strategy we are not 

only looking to improve the warheads that we have on our rockets, 

but we are also looking at improving our missile performance because there are some advanced targets that are out there now and 

some of our great power competitors that we have got to be able 

to deal with in the future. 

So certainly looking at improved warheads is a part of our 

lethality strategy, and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 2 weeks 
15 

ago approved our way ahead on that. So we do have a pretty solid 

path moving forward. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thanks. I appreciate it. I just, General, have another follow-up question. Chairman Turner alluded to this, that regarding the ever-present friction of modernizing the existing inventory while preparing for the future, not denying that our aircraft 

and soldiers who fly and maintain have done exceptionally well 

over the past 15 years of nearly constant deployments, but we have 

to continue looking to the future. 

So I am concerned that this year’s budget forces Army aviation 

to the bill payer for too many other programs that does not adequately prioritize future Army aviation programs. 

Where are we assuming the most risk in terms of modernizing 

our fleet of Army aviation? 

General LUNDY. Yes, ma’am, I think as the Chief has looked at 

readiness as being the number one priority, and I absolutely agree 

with that because readiness for the aviation force is not just buying 

platforms. It really is to make sure that our aircrews are trained 

and ready to go out there and fight. 

And we have for the last, you know, 12 to 14 years we have been 

fighting a different kind of fight than we potentially are going to 

fight in the future. And it has been very team centered for us. As 

we move into potentially facing more advanced threats that are out 

there at the higher end of combat, we have got to be able to fight 

collectively at the company, troop, battalion, squadron, brigade 

level. This is not something we have been doing for 14, 15 years. 

So as we look at taking some of this risk, I think it was very evident why we needed to do it, is to make sure—the thing that is 

most important, the combat power that we have when—we equip 

soldiers, and those soldiers have to be able to fight. They are the 

weapon system. So I think the trades that we have had to make 

are important trades, to get after training and leader development, 

while still maintaining very important modernization capabilities. 

With respect to that, where I think we have the most risk again, 

is just the pace that we are modernizing. And I mean, that is always our great challenge is aviation is very expensive. And I mean, 

we are the most expensive part of the Army’s portfolio. 

So as we look at, you know, we can only really afford to field two 

battalions of AH–64Bs a year, a couple of battalions of UH–60s. So 

that brings capability very slowly into the force. 

So when you look across our 23 brigades, across the total aviation force, only 2 of them are fully modernized with all of their battalions, all of their equipment, and we are slowly modernizing each 

one of those. And they are all in various states. We have some that 

are modernized on Apaches, but not Black Hawks. 

It is the pace, I think as we are, you know, we are taking the 

most risk. But again, I think we have to focus very heavily on the 

readiness piece, and I think it is important for us to take that risk, 

to make sure that our crews can fly and fight, first and foremost. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate that. 

General LUNDY. Yes, ma’am. 

General WILLIAMSON. So, ma’am, I would just like to add to that, 

the pace. So this goes back to this notion of the agility that the 

Chief looks for. So when you take that pace, and if you use the ex-
16 

ample that General Lundy just used, if you are only doing 2 to 3 

units a year, and you have 23, it becomes simple math. It will take 

me 10 years before I have everyone at the same capability. 

And so now you are not only forced to talk about what unit I 

send, but also understand what capability they have against the 

threat for that region or that environment. And so pace becomes 

very important. And we are having the discussion focused on aviation today, but we are making those kinds of choices within all of 

our portfolios, and we have stretched out modernization. 

And so as we are incorporating what was the technology of the 

day, that year, I now have to figure out how to introduce the next 

technology or deal with the next threat. So every time we expand 

this, we make it complicated. 

And then it also adds the factor associated with interoperability, 

and so we have to make sure that we are always interoperable 

backwards because it is taking me so long to field those systems. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate it. Thank you, gentlemen. 

And I yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Graham. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Don’t worry, I can think on my feet. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Have we talked about the future vertical lift program in our discussion here? If you all would discuss where we are with that right 

now, I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

General LUNDY. Yes, ma’am. Future vertical lift is a joint program. The Army has the lead for the joint force, but I will tell you 

that we are working very closely with all of our joint partners. We 

are going through a milestone decision, or an MDD [materiel development decision], this year, so it is on track. 

We have the joint multi-role tech demonstrator, which is the 

S&T effort that supports it, and it is going to start flying in 2017, 

and there’s two competitors that are flying those vehicles. That is 

going to help inform our requirements. So the program is on track. 

But we are looking really as we, from a timing perspective, we 

will start seeing kind of low-rate production on the aircraft, the 

first capability set that we bring in in the late 2020s, early 2030s. 

And we will see really going to full operational capability in the 

early 2030s. That is when we will see the first units fielded. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Is that jointly with the Air Force? Are you all pursuing that as well? 

General BUNCH. We are teamed with them, ma’am, and we are 

watching them. We are collaborating. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Okay. And this is to allow this one hovercraft to 

do—perform multiple responsibilities? What is the objective of—— 

General LUNDY. Well, really, when you look at future vertical lift, 

it is going to give us better speed, significantly better speed, significantly better range, significantly better maneuverability in the objective area, which improves survivability, improves our operational reach, strategic reach, ability to self-deploy. So those are 

the capabilities that it is going to bring. 

But there will not just be one aircraft type. There are five different capability sets that we look at for the different missions. We 

have a light variant, which will do things like scouting and some 

of the special operation missions. We have a lower end, medium 
17 

variant which the Navy is very interested in. It is going to do antisubmarine work, things like that. 

The Marine Corps and us are very interested in kind of the middle assault variant, which will be a multi-role aircraft that can do 

things the Marines want to do and things we will want to do. And 

then there are some heavier variants out there that will replace 

our cargo aircraft. 

So there is a number of variants, but really the intent is to go 

into a family of vehicles that have a common architecture, that 

have common cockpits, things like that. They may not look exactly 

the same behind the cockpit, but there will be a lot of commonality 

to reduce costs, and also reduce training costs. That is kind of the 

broad overview of the program. 

Ms. GRAHAM. So it is sort of like the F–35 approach, one sort of 

base aircraft and then make it different for—— 

General LUNDY. It will be somewhat different from the F–35 approach. There will be some very different variants because just of 

the size differentials. Now inside those different capability sets 

there will be some multi-roles. So like capability set 3, which is 

what the Army is calling the assault variant. What the Marine 

Corps is looking at is their assault and attack variant. That would 

be a common airframe, will look the same, but is going to have different mission equipment package on it. 

But then when you go down on the lower end, the smaller aircraft, what SOCOM ends up needing may be different than our 

scout variant. We are still looking through those, and we will see 

what industry is able to produce and what the technology shows 

us. 

But we are going to get as much commonality as we can, but we 

are also not going to sub-optimize an aircraft to try to do a bunch 

of missions and end up with, you know, some missions not done 

very well and other missions done very well. So we are looking very 

closely at that and doing commonality in other areas that will give 

us the savings. 

Ms. GRAHAM. General Williamson, did you have anything? 

General WILLIAMSON. Yes, ma’am. I just want to make sure that 

we are clear in terms of so at the component level you might see 

things like a common engine across a couple of the different 

variants, so it is not about making the same platform. It is about 

looking for where there are areas that we can share across the joint 

force. Some of that could be some of the avionics. Some of it is in 

taking advantage of technologies and using those on each of the 

platforms. But it is not about building one single platform. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Well, thank you. I appreciate you all’s answers, as 

always. Thank you so much. 

I yield back any time I might have left. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TURNER. The last question series, Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the panelists. Thank you for your leadership, your service, and the sacrifices 

you have rendered, and your families. 

So I am late coming here, so if these questions have already been 

asked, I apologize, but I do have two. The first has to do with the 

Commission’s recommendation for the four Apache battalions. I am 
18 

interested to know the perspective of the Army on that recommendation. And also how do we balance that with of course the 

need for the modernization of the UH–60, both Active and Reserve 

Component? So that is really the first question on the Commission, 

the Apaches and UH–60s. 

And the second one may be a little bit out of your current set 

of responsibilities. But in your best military judgment I am interested, as professional aviators how do you perceive the European 

Reassurance Initiative from the vantage point of aviation? What 

concerns, challenges, and anything you would recommend for us to 

know about? 

I think it is a very important initiative and I just want to make 

sure that we are taking into consideration, and if the Air Force 

wants to take a shot at that one too, that would be great. We will 

start with the Army. 

General LUNDY. Well, sir, good seeing you again. I did talk earlier about the NCFA recommendations and where we are at on the 

AH–64s. As I talked last year with respect to ARI, you know, if we 

had the right funding, I would want to have kept all that force 

structure. 

I think, you know, the Chief is looking at that, the Secretary of 

the Army are looking right now. We are providing recommendations and analysis for them. I think they are going to make some 

decisions on where the Army is going to go with respect to the National Commission in the upcoming months. 

If decisions are made—I mean, right now the assessment is about $2.4 billion just for the decision to keep the 11th CAB and 

the four 18-ship AH–64 battalions in the National Guard. So that 

is the bill that we are facing out there. Then there will be a part 

of the recommendations that we make on how we pay that bill. If 

it comes out of the aviation portfolio, it is going to have significant 

impacts, as I discussed last year on why we had to go to ARI. 

Obviously if it goes up to the Army level, it is going to have impacts on other Army programs, and we are already scrambling 

right now for money. So there will be a significant bill with it, and 

a significant impact somewhere. 

Mr. GIBSON. Can I just get a clarification. The $2.4 B [billion], 

is that over 10 years, or what is that? 

General LUNDY. It depends on how we approach it. It is really 

going to be over kind of the FYDP is about the way it is going to 

work out. And that will put the appropriate amount of AH–64s 

that we need. It will be able to re-cap those 64s because were going 

to have to add to the top line of AH–64, or add to the acquisition 

objective. 

It will also put some training aircraft back into Fort Rucker that 

we will need because we will have more units to train, so we got 

to increase the training base. And that is really only on the equipping side of the house. There is also an OMA [Operations and 

Maintenance, Army] bill that is about we think probably a little bit 

less than $200 million a year, I think is what the latest number 

is. 

So that really would be over about a 5- to 6-year period. But 

again, it could be spread out as well, but depending upon how we 

approach the strategy. 
19 

With respect to the European initiative, I was over in Europe in 

January looking at what Army aviation is doing there. I’ll tell you, 

a lot of challenges in the theater. Currently Army aviation, we 

have got a battalion task force over there on rotational. They have 

a company that is currently in Romania. They have got one up in 

Latvia. There is 600 miles difference between where their company 

is and where their battalion headquarters is, so it presents some 

real challenges. 

Is a great opportunity for a young captain, I will tell you, truly 

exercising mission command, and representing our Nation very 

well. I mean, frankly, is pretty impressive. So, one, they are doing 

a great job. But it is a tough mission. It is a very challenging mission. It is tough to sustain. 

I know General Hodges has expressed concerns about not having 

adequate aviation over there, and certainly the Army is looking at 

that, and there has been a request that has come up through the 

Joint Staff for additional aviation over there. 

Looking at the distances, the number of countries that they operate in, there is definitely a requirement. There is definitely a demand for increased Army aviation, and I think the rotational concept is a great concept for us to do that. It builds proficiency in our 

force, and I think that is the direction we are headed. And look forward to going back and visiting more aviation over there in Europe. 

General HOLMES. Congressman Gibson, thanks for that question. 

For us, the European Reassurance Initiative does three main 

things. It funds the F–15C squadron at Lakenheath that had been 

planned to be brought home, and that is the EUCOM [European 

Command] commander’s only air-to-air resource and his only airto-air training tool that he can use to train with our European allies and reassure them. 

It funds exercises and training for us to bring stateside units 

over to trade with our European partners there, and then it funds 

some improvements to European airfields that let us bring those 

airplanes in there. So things like arresting gear, and taxiway condition, and the things that make it possible for us to get in there. 

So it’s a shot in the arm. It helps us do the things that we need 

to do in support of the EUCOM commander. 

Mr. GIBSON. I agree with that assessment. Any concerns that you 

want to address on that right now as that is developing? 

General LUNDY. As regards to our support to the EUCOM commander? 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes. 

General LUNDY. Well, you know, the EUCOM commander and 

his air assets are in a tough position because we use them to rotate 

and support requirements all over the world, and then he has got 

a growing requirement. 

So those units that we keep there rotate to do their share in the 

Middle East conflict, and when they are not there, they are the 

forces that you turn to things like strike targets in Libya or do 

those things on short notice. 

So I am sure he would like to do more. As we revisit that balance, the first step was to leave that F–15 squadron that we had 
20 

actually planned to retire those assets, but we are able to keep 

them and keep them in the right place. 

Mr. GIBSON. Okay. Very well. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. General, thank you for your comments. During 

these times of restraint and difficult budgets, your management 

skills are absolutely incredibly crucial, but also the information you 

provide to us so that we can continue to advocate for additional resources is incredibly important. Without your narrative and expertise, that advocacy would be certainly hampered. So thank you for 

your honesty and for your management skills. 

Thank you. We will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 16, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 16, 2016 

(25) 

Statement of the Honorable Michael Turner 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Rotorcraft Modernization Programs 

March 16,2016 

The hearing will come to order. 

The Subcommittee convenes to review the current posture of Army and Air Force 

rotorcraft modernization programs and receive testimony on the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget 

Request. 

I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses: 

• Lieutenant General Michael E. Williamson, Military Deputy to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Anny (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), 

• Major General Michael D. Lundy, Commander, Army Aviation Center of 

Excellence 

• Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr., Military Deputy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) 

• Lieutenant General James M. "Mike" Holmes, Deputy ChiefofStafffor 

Strategic Plans and Requirements 

Gentlemen thank you for being with us today, and thank you for your service. 

Our witnesses today will provide testimony on the fiscal and programmatic 

challenges currently facing Army and Air Force rotorcraft modernization. 

Because of fiscal realities and increased missions, the military services have been 

forced to prioritize near-term readiness at the expense and assumed risk of modernization 

programs; and rotorcraft modernization has been particularly impacted in fiscal year 

2017. 

We know the proposed budget request for fiscal year 2017 does NOT follow the 

Balanced Budget Agreement (BBA) of2015. 

While our near-peer adversaries continue to invest in more modern capabilities and 

continue to close the technology gap, this budget request cuts force structure and 

modernization programs from the Department's base programs. 

For example the Army states in their written statement that, "Though Aviation 

Modernization is a priority, FYI7 will reflect over $2 billion in reduced funding when 

compared to FY 16. This has caused the Army to decelerate fleet modernization by 

procuring fewer UH-60 Black Hawks, AH-64 Apaches, and CH-47 Chinooks in FYI7." 

I can assure you this committee is working to reverse this dangerous trend in 

rotorcraft modernization and is working to provide the necessary funding to help mitigate 

some of these current challenges. 
26 

For fiscal year 2017, this subcommittee will continue to support the need for 

fielding the most modernized rotorcraft available for both the Active and Reserve 

Components. 

Two critical issues that this committee has been concerned about for many years is 

in regards to accelerating Aircraft Survivability Equipment and Degraded Visual 

Environment capability onto current rotorcraft platforms. We expect to hear today about 

how the Army and Air Force are addressing these critical needs in a timely manner. 

We are also interested in hearing the Army's position on the recent 

recommendations put forward by the National Commission on the Future of the Anny 

relating to the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), and get a better 

understanding of the costs associated with implementing these recommendations. 

I'd also like to hear about the Air Force's plans to replace the legacy helicopters 

that are used by the Air Force in providing security in the ICBM fields in Montana, North 

Dakota, Wyoming and several other states. 

The Commander of U.S. STRATCOM has stated, as has the Secretary of the Air 

Force, that it is not possible to mitigate the alert requirement without replacing these 

helicopters so I look forward to hearing about your plans to address this urgent issue. 

l would now like to recognize my good friend from California, the Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez for any comments she would like to 

make. 
27 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON 

PRINCIPAL MILITARY DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY AND 

DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION CAREER MANAGEMENT 

AND 

MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL D. LUNDY 

COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY AVIATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 

AND FORT RUCKER 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 ROTORCRAFT MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS 

SECOND SESSION, 114TH CONGRESS 

MARCH 16,2016 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
28 

Introduction 

Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, thank you for this opportunity to discuss 

the Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) President's Budget request for Army Rotorcraft 

Modernization Programs. We are pleased to represent Army leadership, the military 

and civilian professionals of the Army acquisition workforce, and the courageous men 

and women in uniform who rely on us to provide them with aviation systems and 

equipment for mission success. 

Aviation is the Army's largest portfolio, and an important element of the Joint, interorganizational, and multi-national team. Aviation provides significant capabilities to 

maintain superiority over our adversaries by increasing lethality and survivability of the 

force, providing enhanced mobility into and within the theater of operations, and 

enabling unprecedented situational awareness and battlespace integration. 

Over the past several years and into the near future, fiscal constraints and an 

unpredictable budget have caused the Army to reduce end strength and prioritize 

readiness at the expense of modernization programs. Aviation has been particularly 

impacted. The high level of operational demands combined with fiscal challenges 

contributed to a substantial reduction in Army Aviation funding. This situation continues 

to challenge Rotorcraft Modernization efforts to improve current capabilities while 

closing key operational capability gaps within the future Aviation force. 

In FY17, the Army equipment modernization objective remains focused on maintaining 

technological overmatch in our combat formations to deter and defeat potential 

adversaries. We are working to achieve this by ensuring we have the proper mix of 

capabilities enabled by a flexible and rapid acquisition process by working with 

Congress. We are also exploring the activation of a rapid capabilities office to address 

the immediate and near-term equipping needs of our Warfighters through rapid 

programs of record. Currently, near-term capability gaps are mostly mitigated through 

2 
29 

incremental improvements to existing platforms and systems, while we make prudent 

investments in emerging and breakthrough technologies to address future gaps. 

While the Army's modernization budget remains near historic lows, our modernization 

mission remains essential. We must always ensure our Soldiers and Soldier Aviators 

have the right equipment, at the right time, and at the right place to accomplish the 

assigned mission. 

On behalf of our Acting Secretary, the Honorable Patrick Murphy, and our Chief of Staff, 

General Mark Milley, we look forward to discussing with you the Army's FY17 Rotorcraft 

Modernization Programs. 

Resourcing Army Modernization 

Because of fiscal constraints, today's Army prioritizes readiness while assuming risk 

to modernization. The Army cannot equip and sustain the entire force with the most 

modern equipment. Still, it is the Army's responsibility to address current and 

emerging threats and to ensure every deployed Soldier and Soldier Aviator is 

equipped to achieve decisive overmatch, regardless of the situation. 

In FY17, the President's Budget request totals $22.6 billion for the Army's Research, 

Development, and Acquisition (RDA) program, which includes $15.1 billion for 

Procurement and $7.5 billion for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

(RDT&E). The Army will continue to invest in Aviation to sustain fleet modernization 

and target other investments to close key capability gaps in survivability and lethality. 

Though Aviation Modernization is a priority, FY17 will reflect over $2 billion in reduced 

funding when compared to FY16. This has caused the Army to decelerate fleet 

modernization by procuring fewer UH-60 Black Hawks, AH-64 Apaches, and CH-47 

Chinooks in FY17. 

In addition, the FY15 Bi-Partisan Budget Act continues to impact the Army in FY17 

with more than a $531 million cut in Aviation Modernization plans to support the 

3 
30 

Army's total reduction of $3.8 billion. Still, while accepting risk, the Army is able to 

move forward with its Aviation Modernization efforts at a slower pace. 

Our FY17 RDA resources for Rotorcraft Modernization are focused on the following 

areas: 

1. Science and Technology (S&T). Protected S&T funding ensures the next 

generation of breakthrough technologies can be rapidly applied to existing or 

new equipment designs. We are implementing a strategic approach to 

modernization that includes an awareness of existing and potential gaps; an 

understanding of emerging threats; knowledge of state-of-the-art commercial, 

academic, and Government research; and an understanding of competing 

needs for limited resources. In this area, the Army supports several critical S&T 

programs that will enable the next generation of rotary wing capability, including 

the Advanced Threat Detection System; the Joint Multi-Role Technology 

Demonstrator, which will inform affordable requirements and reduce risk for the 

Future Vertical Lift (FVL) planned Program of Record; and Degraded Visual 

Environment mitigation. 

2. New Systems. The Army is making modest developmental investments based 

on critical operational requirements and capability shortfalls. In this area, the 

Fixed-Wing Utility Aircraft (FUA), a replacement for the C-12 and C-26 

platforms, is projected to be selected and begin fielding in FY18. 

3. Modification/Modernization. The Army must incrementally modify or 

modernize existing systems in order to increase capabilities and extend service 

life. In addition, the continuous improvement of existing systems helps to 

sustain the industrial base. In this area, we are focused on improving the 

Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopter fleets, as well as our Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems. 

4 
31 

4. Reset and Sustain. Returning Army equipment to the required level of combat 

capability remains central to both regenerating and maintaining equipment nearterm readiness for contingencies. 

5. Divest. The Army divestment process seeks to identify equipment and systems 

that are excess across the Total Army in order to reduce and eliminate 

associated sustainment costs. In this area, the Army continues to divest its 

aging TH-67 training helicopters, as well as the OH-58A/C Kiowa, OH-58D 

Kiowa Warrior, and UH-60A Black Hawk aircraft fleets. 

Aviation Restructure Initiative 

In response to declining budgets and an effort to maintain the most capable and 

available Aviation force, the Army presented the Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) 

as part of its budget plan in FY15. By reinvesting the savings and cost-avoidance 

garnered by ARI, Army Aviation was able to continue to field its most modernized 

aircraft while developing and fielding the right 'disruptive technologies' to improve 

mobility, lethality, survivability, and mission command. Because the recently released 

National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA) report contains 

recommendations in addition to ARI, resourcing and modernization may need to be 

adjusted. For example, the recommendation that the Army retain an 111

h Combat 

Aviation Brigade stationed in Korea and retain four attack/reconnaissance battalions in 

the Army National Guard, each equipped with 18 AH-64s, will increase equipping 

costs in the Aviation portfolio by approximately $2.4 billion. If accepted, these 

recommendations will require offsets from within the existing portfolio, other Army 

programs, or from elsewhere in DOD's budget to preclude significant impacts to Army 

Aviation. 

5 
32 

FY17 Aviation Key Investments 

Army Aviation investments include required capability in the 

reconnaissance, attack, unmanned systems, utility, cargo, fixed wing, 

and aviation enabler systems mission profiles. Specific investments in 

this portfolio include the following: 

The Army will pursue a Multi-Year Contract (MYC) in FY17 for the AH-64 Apache in 

order to achieve cost avoidance and efficiencies, while completing the AH-64E 

Apache Remanufacture Program. This program is designed to renew the current 

Apache fleet by incorporating current technologies and a new airframe to extend the 

aircraft's useful life and make it one of the most technologically advanced weapon 

systems on the battlefield. 

The UH-60 Black Hawk continues to be the Army's workhorse and, at 2,135 total 

airframes, is our largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft. Fleet modernization efforts focus 

on the continued procurement of the UH-60M aircraft, recapitalization of UH-60A into 

UH-60L aircraft, the development of the UH-60V aircraft with a digital cockpit, and 

divestment of legacy aircraft. In FY17, the Army will enter into the ninth MYC to be 

awarded through FY21. 

The Improved Turbine Engine Program is designed to provide significant horsepower 

and fuel savings to enable current AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk fleets to 

meet worldwide operational requirements for high altitude and hot conditions. The 

program continues in FY17 with two vendors undergoing Preliminary Design Review, 

which will lead to a down select in FY18 to a single vendor for engine development. 

The CH-47 Chinook, the Army's only heavy lift helicopter, is projected to remain in 

service through 2060, making it the Army's first, and only, aircraft in service for more 

than a century. The planned H-47 Block II upgrade to the H-47F/G will restore 

operational payload capability, efficiently incorporate engineering changes, and 

increase commonality between SOCOM and the conventional Army. 

6 
33 

The Army has an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) fleet comprised of small (Raven 

and Puma), medium (Shadow), and large (Gray Eagle) components. All systems are 

existing programs of record and are under active acquisition programs to meet fleet 

size objectives over the next five years. Gray Eagle is a dedicated, assured, multimission UAS being fielded to all 1 0 Army divisions to support combat operations, as 

well as the National Training Center. Additionally, the Improved Gray Eagle, which 

achieves significant increases in payload, range, and station time through fuselage 

and engine enhancements, is fielded to Special Operations Forces and Intelligence 

organizations in support of global Department of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance (ISR) requirements. Shadow is a dedicated Reconnaissance, 

Surveillance, and Target Acquisition UAS fielded to Army and Army National Guard 

Brigade Combat Teams, Special Forces Groups, the Ranger Regiment, and performs 

Manned-Unmanned Teaming with Apache in Combat Aviation Brigades to meet the 

Armed Aerial Scout requirements in lieu of the divested OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. 

Shadow Platoons are currently undergoing a major block upgrade that provides 

enhanced encryption, increased endurance, improved optics, and a high bandwidth, 

digital data link capable of support secure transmission of multiple payloads. 

FY17 funds for the Army's fixed wing fleet include procurement of the FUA, which will 

begin replacing the current C-12 platforms and later the C-26 platforms. 

The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) is an Army-led Acquisition Category 1 D 

program with Joint interest from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. JAGM is the 

next generation of aviation launched missiles to replace the laser Hellfire II and the 

Longbow radar missiles. FY17 funds the first JAGM Low Rate Initial Production lot 

Other Key FY171nvestments 

In the area of Aircraft Survivability Equipment, the FY17 budget request will accelerate 

the Common Infrared Countermeasure system and will begin fielding in the near-term. 

This will be coupled with the Advanced Threat Detection System (ATDS) to improve 

7 
34 

infrared threat detection. Essential to protection of aircraft against emerging threats, the 

Army will pursue S&T efforts to develop follow on systems that are able to defeat a 

threat system irrespective of its targeting and guidance systems, propulsion means, or 

warhead type. In addition, FY17 funds the development of an ATDS (Detect) to replace 

the Common Missile Warning System. 

Our S&T investments are essential in maintaining an advantage to enable us to never 

send Soldiers and Soldier Aviators into a fair fight, long into the future. Examples of 

these S&T investments in our aviation portfolio include the Joint Multi-Role Technology 

Demonstrator (JMR-TD) and Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) mitigation. We are 

pursuing the next generation of aircraft to fly faster and farther than our current aging 

rotorcraft fleet. In FY17, JMR-TD will fly demonstration aircraft to prove out FVL 

technology and inform requirements development. FVL will conduct an Analysis of 

Alternatives and begin development of the initial variant. A Materiel Development 

Decision for the first FVL variant will occur in FY17. Degraded visual environments 

have been the cause of a significant number of Army aviation accidents in the last 

decade. S& T efforts towards DVE mitigation explore the integration of flight controls, 

sensors, and cueing necessary to assist Army aviators in take-off, limited hover, and 

landing in both aircraft induced conditions such as brown-out and aircraft independent 

conditions such as smoke or fog. FY17 resources development activities for an 

integrated rotorcraft situational awareness augmentation system to facilitate operations 

in DVE conditions. 

Conclusion 

The generous support from Members of Congress for our efforts to strengthen the Army 

Acquisition Workforce, a critical component in the success of a well-equipped, ready 

force, is greatly appreciated. With more than 37,000 Army military and civilian 

acquisition professionals worldwide, this dedicated component of the Defense 

acquisition workforce is comprised of engineers, scientists, logisticians, contract 

specialists, testers, program managers, cost estimators, and many other acquisition 

career field specialties who effectively manage the Army RDA enterprise in a 

8 
35 

challenging budget environment. Army Acquisition Workforce professionals are the 

critical assets to the Army's ability to design, develop, and deliver capability to the 

Soldiers so they can dominate on the battlefield. 

Your continued advice and support is also greatly appreciated. These are 

challenging times, and it is clear that the security challenges of tomorrow will be met 

with the Rotorcraft Modernization Programs we develop, improve, and procure today. 

Because adversaries will continue to invest in technology to counter or evade U.S. 

strengths and exploit vulnerabilities, resource reductions and insufficient Army 

Rotorcraft Modernization will place the Army's ability to overmatch its opponents at 

risk. 

We can assure you that the Army's senior leaders are working hard to address current 

challenges, as well as the needs of the Army now and in the future. We are doing so 

with affordability as our watchword as we endeavor to remain good stewards of our 

nation's resources while meeting the equipping needs of our Soldiers. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for your 

steadfast and strong support of the outstanding men and women in uniform, our Army 

Civilians, and their Families. 

9 
36 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHAEL E. WILLIAMSON 

Lt. Gen. Michael E. Williamson assumed his duties as the Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) and Director of 

Acquisition Career Management on April 4, 2014. 

Born in Tucson, Arizona, he was commissioned at the University of Maine as a Second Lieutenant in 

the Air Defense Artillery in 1983. 

His earliest assignments include Chaparral Platoon Leader, Vulcan Platoon Leader, Maintenance Officer 

and Executive Oflicer in C Battery, I 08th Brigade, Hahn Air Force Base, Germany. After attending the 

Air Defense Artillery Advanced Course, he commanded B Battery, 3/1 ADA (Hawk) in the II th 

Brigade at Fort Bliss, Texas and B Battery, 3/1 ADA BN, 31st ADA BDE at Ft. Hood, Texas. His 

acquisition experience began as Senior Military Software Analyst at NATO's military headquarters in 

Mons, Belgium. After attending Command and General Staff College, Lt. Gen. Williamson served as 

the Chief oflnfonnation Technology, Acquisition Career Management, within the Office of the 

ASA(ALT). As a Congressional Fellow he served as a legislative assistant on Capitol Hill. LTG 

Williamson has served as Product Manager for the Global Command and Control System-Army; the 

Acquisition Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army; Commander of Software Engineering 

Center-Belvoir; Project Manager Network Systems Integration within Program Manager, Future Combat 

Systems (Brigade Combat Team); Director of Systems Integration within ASA(ALT); Deputy Program 

Executive Officer, Integration and Joint Program Executive Officer for the Joint Tactical Radio 

Systems. After serving as the Assistant Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management, Lt. Gen. 

Williamson was selected to be the Assistant Military Deputy to the ASA(ALT). His most recent 

assignment was as the Deputy Commanding General, Combined Security Transition CommandAfghanistan. 

Lt. Gen. Williamson's awards and decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion 

of Merit with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two 

Oak Leaf Clusters, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with two 

Oak Leaf Clusters, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak 

Leaf Clusters, and the Army Staff Identification Badge. 

Lt. Gen. Williamson's education includes a Bachelor of Science from Husson College in Business 

Administration, a Master of Science in Material Acquisition Management from the Naval Postgraduate 

School and a PhD in Business Administration from Madison University. He also has graduate 

certificates in Public Policy from the JFK School of Government at Harvard University and the 

Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. He is a graduate of the Army Command and 

General Staff College, the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School and was a 

Senior Service College Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin. Lt. Gen. Williamson is Level Ill 

certified in Program Management and Information Technology. 
37 

MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL D. LUNDY 

Commanding General 

United States Anny Aviation Center of Excellence 

Major General Mike Lundy was commissioned as an Aviation Second Lieutenant in 1987 from 

McNeese State University. After completing Basic Rotary Wing Training and the OH-58D 

transition, he was assigned to TF 23, 3 10 in Giebelstadt, Germany as a Company Executive 

Officer and Platoon Leader. In 1990, his platoon was attached to 4/2 ACR and deployed to 

Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Following Desert Storn1, he was reassigned to CBTF, 

3 10 in support of Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq. 

In 1991, MG Lundy attended the Armor Officer Advanced Course and Cavalry Leaders Course 

at Fort Knox. He was then assigned to 4-17 Cavalry at Fort Bragg, where he served as an 

Assistant S3, Squadron S4 and commanded A/4-17 Cavalry and N/4/2 ACR. During his troop 

command, he deployed to Haiti for Operation Support Democracy. In 1995, MG Lundy was 

reassigned to the Eagle Team, Operations Group, National Training Center at Fort Irwin. 

Following the Command and General Staff College in 1998, Lundy was assigned to lOth 

Mountain Division as the XO TF 1-10 ATKHB and deployed to Bosnia in support ofSFOR6. He 

then served as the 1Oth Aviation Brigade S3 and Brigade XO. In November 2001, he deployed to 

Afghanistan as the Deputy CJ3 and Chief of Operations for CJTF Mountain in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom I. 

In June 2003, MG Lundy assumed command of 1st Battalion (Attack), 25th Aviation Regiment 

and deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom II. Following battalion command in 2005, 

Lundy served as the Operations Group Senior Aviation Observer Controller at the Joint 

Readiness Training Center, and then attended the Army War College in 2006. Following the 

A WC, Lundy assumed command of the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade in January 2008 and 

deployed the brigade to Northern Iraq. 

In October 2010, MG Lundy was reassigned as the 25th Infantry Division Deputy Commander 

(Rear), and then was reassigned as the Deputy Commanding General 1 AD at Fort Bliss in July 

2011. From July 2012 to March 2014, MG Lundy served as the Deputy Commanding General 

Combined Arms Center-Training. MG Lundy is cmTently serving as the Commanding General, 

United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker, Alabama. 

MG Lundy's awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit (2 OLC), Bronze Star Medal (2 

OLC), Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (4 OLC), Air Medal (2 

Valor Devices and the Numeral4), Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation 

Medal (1 OLC), Army Achievement Medal (4 OLC), Humanitarian Service Medal, Joint 

Meritorious Unit Award, Valorous Unit Award, Army Superior Unit Award, Meritorious Unit 

Citation (1 OLC), Master Aviator Badge, Parachutist Badge, Combat Action Badge, and the 

Ranger Tab. MG Lundy is married to the former Paula Blanchette and they have two daughters, 

Kacie and Sydnie. 
38 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACT! CAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENT A TTON TO THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: FYI7 Air Force Rotorcraft Modernization Programs 

STATEMENT OF: Lieutenant General Arnold W. Bunch, Jr. 

Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

of the Air Force (Acquisition) 

Lieutenant General James M. "Mike" Holmes, USAF 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

(Strategic Plans and Requirements) 

March 16, 2016 

NOT FOR PUBLICA TTON UNTIL RELEASED BY 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

ITS H()J TSF ()F RFPRFSFNTATIVFS 
39 

Introduction 

Chainnan Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for calling this hearing and for the opportunity to provide you with an 

update on Air Force rotorcraft modernization efforts important to our Air Force and to the 

Nation. Air Force rotary wing assets are critical to the mission of the Air Force and provide 

worldwide support to Combatant Commanders. The HH-60G continues to support the full 

spectrum of the Service's Core Function of Personnel Recovery until replaced by the Combat 

Rescue Helicopter. The UH-lN provides security fbr the Air Force's nuclear missile fields, 

supports continuity of government and continuity of operations in the National Capital Region, 

and provides vertical airlift supp01i for a variety of other missions. Finally, the CV-22 provides 

US Special Operations Command and the geographic combatant commanders with a unique 

long-range vertical lift capability. 

2 

Regarding Science & Technology (S&T) the Air Force collaborates and coordinates with 

our Service partners through Reliance 21 and multiple DoD Communities of Interest (COl's) to 

synergize our activities and investments and our roles and responsibilities in the research and 

development of military air vehicles, including rotorcraft. Reliance 21 is the overarching 

framework of the DoD's S&T joint planning and coordination process. With regards to rotorcraft 

research and development (R&D), the Army is the lead Service. The Air Force watches and 

follows Army rotorcraft S&T programs, including the Army-led Joint Multi-Role Technology 

Demonstrator (JMR-TO). This Army effort will fly demonstration aircraft to prove out Future 

Vertical Lift (FVL) technology and inform requirements development. The Air Force and Army 

coordinate their rotorcraft S&T efforts, leveraging each other's expertise and technology to 

ensure synergy and efficiency. In addition, Air Force patinerships extend to other government 

agencies and industry through S&T consortiums such as the Versatile Affordable Advanced 

Turbine Engines Program (V AA TE), which covers air-breathing propulsion and includes turbine 

engines for rotorcraft. 
40 

The Air Force is dedicated to sustaining, modernizing, and recapitalizing our rotorcrafl 

assets as necessary to accomplish the combat search and rescue, nuclear security, continuity of 

government, and special operations missions. 

Combat Search and Rescue (HH-60G and CRH) 

3 

The Air Force makes a significant investment to train and equip dedicated Rescue Forces 

capable of providing Personnel Recovery in support of the Joint Force. Air Force Rescue Forces 

recover isolated personnel in contested environments, marginal weather areas, and during very 

low illumination. Since September 11,2001, our Rescue Forces have flown over 15,000 

missions to recover isolated personnel in hostile enemy territory. During Operations Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) and Enduring Freedom (OEF), for example, Air Force Rescue Forces repeatedly 

landed in contested areas to recover 5,400 injured American and Coalition Soldiers, Sailors, 

Airmen and Marines. Our rescue crews also assist with casualty evacuations, medical 

evacuations, special operations support, and humanitarian relief missions all over the world 

while putting their own lives at risk. Since 9/11, 50 of our Airmen have received Distinguish 

Flying Crosses, 34 earned Purple Hearts, and 25 made the ultimate sacrifice so that others may 

live. 

Today, Air Force Rescue Forces remain fully engaged in Personnel Recovery efforts 

across the globe. From supporting operations in Africa, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan to 

performing civilian search and rescue operations off the coast of Alaska, no one does rescue 

better than the United States Air Force. The FY17 President's Budget request fully supports this 

core capability by continuing to fund the new Combat Rescue Helicopter and improving aircraft 

availability and survivability issues for our legacy HH-600 fleet. 

The Air Force's primary means of accomplishing the rescue mission, the HH-600 Pave 

Hawk, is a low supply/high demand asset. The fleet contains only 97 of the original 112 aircraft 

program of record, of which 37 had to undergo unscheduled depot maintenance in2015 and 50 

of the 97 have received combat damage since 2001. The $91.4M requested in the FY17 PB 

continues modernizing the HH-600 fleet to preserve our high end rescue capability. Most of 
41 

these funds will be used to install Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) kits and for the 

Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) FY 17 new start modification. 

Aircraft availability remains a top concern for Air Force Personnel Recovery leadership. 

Ongoing modification programs are keeping the HH-60G a viable Combat Search and Rescue 

(CSAR) weapon system until the Air Force's replacement program is complete. The 

modifications address sustainment issues, safety features, defensive systems, and avionics 

upgrades that enable the HH-60G to continue safe and effective operations in a joint/multinational environment under austere combat conditions. 

Aircraft survivability is also at the top of our priority list. The HH-60G is currently 

equipped with infrared/radar missile warning systems and countenneasure dispensers. In FY16, 

with help from the Navy, the Air Force is initiating a program to update the onboard sensors on 

our deployed aircraft to address the evolving threats ofthe combat environment. 

4 

Another survivability concern of our HH-60G fleet is operating in degraded visual 

environments. As mentioned previously, in FY17 the Air Force will procure, as the DVE mod, a 

new sensor to enhance the situational awareness of pilots by providing a digitized picture of the 

landing zone in the cockpit. This sensor will greatly minimize the hazards of degraded 

environments to prevent mishaps and the loss oflives. 

The HH-60 OLR program, also previously referenced, is a short-term fix to address 

current availability issues and provide combat capable aircraft to the warfighter. This program 

upgrades 21 Army UH-60L aircraft into the current Air Force HH-60G configuration to replace 

operational losses and address obsolescence issues. All 21 kits for OLR have been procured and 

installations will begin later this year. 

The Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program will replace the aging HH-60G fleet with 

112 air vehicles, training systems, and support equipment. Despite delays to program initiation 

due to internal portfolio trades caused by the Budget Control Act and thanks to continued 

Congressional suppoti, CRH is fully funded and remains on schedule to meet Initial Operational 
42 

Capability in FY21. The FY17 PB requests $319.3M to continue CRH development efforts and 

rephases funding in future years from previously projected requirements to properly align 

funding for execution. Recent accomplishments include setting the functional baseline by 

successfully completing the Systems Requirements Review and the System Functional Review 

for both the air vehicle and training systems, held in April and July of 2015 respectively. The 

next major program milestones are the air vehicle Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in April 

2016, followed by the training systems PDR later this year. 

Nuclear Security and Continuity of Government (UH-1 N) 

5 

The UH-1 N "Hucy" is a versatile helicopter whose service in our Air Force has spanned 

five decades. Entering the USAF inventory in 1970 to provide search and rescue capabilities, the 

UH-1 N mission set has expanded and transformed over the years to include nuclear missile field 

security support, National Capital Region (NCR) continuity of government/continuity of 

operations (COG/COOP), operational support airlift, test range support, and aircrew survival, 

evasion, resistance, and escape (SERE) training. The Air Force's 62 UH-lN helicopters are 

assigned at bases in Maryland, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Washington, New Mexico, 

and Japan. 

The primary missions for the lJH-1 N are nuclear missile field security support and NCR 

COG/COOP. The nuclear security support mission includes emergency security response and 

nuclear convoy support operations. During an emergency security response mission, ICBM 

security helicopters are expected to provide timely transport of tactical response forces to defend, 

secure, and/or protect an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch facility. Once at the 

site, security helicopters insert, provide surveillance, and provide communications support for 

tactical response forces, potentially in a hostile environment. For nuclear convoy support 

missions, these helicopters will provide armed overwatch for the ground convoy and the ability 

to insert a tactical response force if necessary to ensure the safety and security ofthe nuclear 

convoy. 
43 

6 

The UH-lN also provides the Federal Govemment COG/COOP support. These missions 

include a 24/7 rapid response alert force, senior leader airlift within the NCR, local area search 

and rescue/medical evacuation, and Defense Support of Civil Authorities. 

The UH-1 N Replacement program builds on the requirements developed for the 

Common Vertical Lift Support Platform, which was cancelled in the FY13 PB due intemal 

portfolio trades caused by the Budget Control Act funding reductions. However, we can no 

longer delay replacement of these helicopters. Upon enactment of the 2016 Defense 

Authorization and Appropriations Bills, the Air Force initiated the UH-lN Replacement program 

to replace the current fleet with a non-developmental, off-the-shelf helicopter that will close 

current operational capability gaps and provide improved payload capacity, airspeed, range, 

endurance, and survivability capabilities. The FY 17 PB, which requests $14.1 M in development 

and $18.3M in procurement funds, reflects the Air Force's commitment to this critical program. 

We are requesting sufficient funding to accelerate the procurement and fielding of new 

helicopters to support urgent needs to enhance the security posture in our ICBM tields. The 

projected funding requirements in FY 16 and FY 17 are both predicated on a full and open 

competition to replace the entire UH-JN fleet. The Air Force is currently examining potential 

acquisition approaches for the program, with nuclear security support mission as our top priority. 

Approval of the final program acquisition strategy is expected by April/May of2016, after which 

we will have a more precise understanding of our future funding requirements. 

As we work to replace the UH-1 N, we are concurrently taking steps to ensure the existing 

Ull-1 N fleet can provide the best possible support to our using commands. We are installing 

night vision compatible cockpits to enable full spectmm operations and crashworthy seats to 

enhance the safety of our flight crews. Additionally, upgrades to UH-1 N training systems are 

underway to decrease the wear and tear on our existing UH-lNs while ensuring a high state of 

readiness, particularly for the NCR COG/COOP mission. 

In conjunction with the UH-IN Replacement program, the Air Force has implemented a 

number of materiel and non-materiel risk mitigation efforts to further reduce the operational risks 

associated with nuclear missile field security and COG/COOP support. Though the nature and 
44 

effectiveness of these eiTorts cannot be openly discussed, they further ret1ect the Air Force's 

investment to secure our ICBM forces in the face of an ever-changing threat environment. 

Special Operations (CV-22) 

7 

Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) uses the CV-22 Osprey's long range, 

speed, and vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) abilities to provide special operations 

warfighters with specialized air mobility. The CV-22 has consistently demonstrated its 

worldwide deployability and combat effectiveness in support ofOEF, OIF, and many other 

contingencies around the globe. The current CV -22 fleet consists of 46 aircraft, with an 

additional four aircraft in production and scheduled for delivery later this calendar year. 

Consistent with projected requirements in FY 16, the FY 17 PB requests $16.7M in development 

and $64.3M in procurement funds to continue etTorts to improve the CV-22 fleet. CV-22 is fully 

funded and has been protected from adverse impacts caused by the Budget Control Act. The 

attrition reserve aircraft added by Congress in the FY16 Appropriations Bill will be put on 

contract in June 2016 and will likely deliver in the I Q/FY20 timeframe, bringing the total fleet 

inventory to 51 aircraft. 

Concurrent with aircraft production, the joint V-22 Program Office is developing 

improvements to the CV-22's operational capabilities and is focused on improving the aircraft's 

reliability and availability. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the CV-22's engine timeon-wing metric, where development efforts will address sand, dirt, and other foreign object 

ingestion problems that severely degrade engine performance and necessitate costly engine 

removals and repairs. 

Improvements to the CV-22 are being made in block increments and each block includes 

a number of modification upgrades installed as they become available. Block B/10 retrofit 

modifications brought the oldest CV-22s to a common baseline configuration. The on-going 

Block C/20 modification program is retrofitting CV -22s with modifications that improve 

operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness, correct deficiencies identified in testing and 

operations, enhance self-deployment capabilities, and improve overall aircraft reliability and 
45 

availability. Future modifications and improvements to the CV-22 will fl.1rther improve 

operational effectiveness and suitability, while mitigating the growth in aircraft operations and 

support costs. The CV-22 will be the focal point in AFSOC's long range VTOL capability for 

many years to come. 

Air Force Science & Technology (S&T) 

8 

To address near-term rotorcraft propulsion needs, the Army started the Improved Turbine 

Engine Program (ITEP) to provide increased engine performance, operability, and affordability 

in cmTent rotorcraft such as the H-60 Black Hawk. Army S&T supports lTEP through Advanced 

Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE), which is a program under the VAATE consortium to 

validate new engine technologies to achieve ITEP goals. The Air Force participates in VAATE 

and supports AATE by providing technical subject matter expertise and test facilities as needed. 

The Air Force S&T community has assisted the Army in the past in overcoming 

operational rotorcraft challenges. Eighty percent of helicopter mishaps are due to non-hostile 

action from Degraded Visual Environments (DYE), Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT), 

wire/object strike, dynamic rollover, or hard landing. The Three-Dimensional Landing Zone 

Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration (JCTD) program successfully demonstrated an 

integrated capability to mitigate these hazards, culminating in a successful Hight test using an 

U.S. Army El I-60L Black Hawk helicopter in operationally realistic conditions at Yuma Proving 

Ground Arizona. 

This JCTD integrated both Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and U.S. Army 

Aeroflightdynamics Directorate's (AFDD) technologies into a high-resolution three-dimensional 

imagine Laser Detection And Ranging (LA DAR) system. First, the AFRL-developed LADAR 

provides imagery of a landing zone while highlighting hazards to provide a persistent image for 

decision-making on approach and landing during brownout. The imagery is coupled with the 

AFDD Integrated Cueing Environment providing symbology and landing guidance enabling 

pilots to perform visual quality landings. Second, the LADAR detects and highlight obstacles 

such as wires and poles enroute. Third, the real-time LA DAR data are fused with a static 
46 

geographic database to enable a Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System to prevent 

CFlT. 

Since the conclusion of the JCTD in 2014, the Air Force has continued to refine the 

LADAR technologies necessary to enable more ilexibility for helicopter installation, to include 

integration in a modified AN/AAQ-29 FUR turret for the Air Force HH-600 Pave Hawk 

Combat Search and Rescue helicopter. The AN/AAQ-29 compatible LADAR will be flown at 

Yuma Proving Ground in April2016. 

9 

The Air Force S&T program developed the Multi-Function LADAR which was used as 

the test unit during the JCTD flight tests, provided simulation and aircrew training along with 

landing guidance development, and sponsored the development of a distributed architecture 

LADAR which was critical to reducing the weight and volume of the LADAR components to be 

placed on the nose of the helicopter. 

Closing 

Although the Budget Control Act forced us to reassess the timing ofthe CRt-! and UH-lN 

modernization efforts, the FY17 PB rcilccts the Air Force's commitment to sustaining, 

modernizing, and recapitalizing our rotorcraft fleets. We will continue to modernize our 

HH-600 and CV-22 fleets and continue to press forward to purchase CRH and the Ull-IN 

Replacement. These platforn1s are required to accomplish the critical combat search and rescue, 

nuclear security, continuity of government, helicopter training, and special operations missions. 

We look forward to working closely with the committee to ensure the ability to deliver rotorcraft 

air power for America when and where we are needed. 
47 

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 biUion annually. 

General Bunch was commissioned in I 984 as a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. He completed 

undergraduate pilot training in I 985. He completed operational assignments as an instructor, evaluator 

and aircraft commander for B-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 State University Fresno 

1996 Army Command and General Staff College, Fott Leavenworth, Kan. 

2000 Master of Science degree in national security strategy, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, 

Washington, D.C. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

I. July 1984- July 1985, Student, undergraduate pilot training, Columbus Air Force Base, Miss. 

2. August 1985 -December l 985, 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, Cali[ 

6. July 1992- June 1995, Test Pilot, 420th Test Squadron, Edwards AFB, Cali[ 

7. June 1995- June 1996, Student, Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenwmth, 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, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 

10. June 2000- July 2002, Commander, 419th Flight Test Squadron, Edwards AFB, Calif 

l I. August 2002 -April 2003, Chief, Senior Officer Management, Air Force Materiel Command, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio 

12. April2003- June 2004, Deputy Chic!~ 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 20 I 0 - June 20 l I, Director and Program Executive O!licer 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 
48 

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. l, 1995 

Lieutenant Colonel Sept. l, 1998 

Colonel June 1, 2004 

Brigadier General May 7, 2010 

Major General Aug. 23, 2013 

Lieutenant General June 24,2015 

(Current as of June 201 5) 
49 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES M. "MIKE" HOLMES 

Lt. Gen. James M. "Mike" Holmes is Deputy ChiefofStatTfor Strategic Plans and Requirements, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. In support of the ChiefofStaffand Secretary of the Air 

Force, General Holmes 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 Holmes entered the Air Force through Officer Training School in 1981 after receiving a degree 

in electrical engineering from the University of Tennessee. He has commanded the 27th Fighter 

Squadron, the 14th Operations Group, the 4th Fighter Wing and the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. He 

has served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on headquarters staffs ufthe United States Air 

Force, U.S. European Command and Pacific Air Forces. Prior to his current position, he was the Vice 

Commander, Air Education and Training Command, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas 

responsible for the recruiting, training and education of Air Force people, including the Air Force 

Recruiting Service, a numbered air force and Air University. He is a command pilot with more than 

4,000 hours, including more than 500 combat hours in the F-15A/B/C/D/E, and has also l1own the T-38, 

T-37 and T-IA. 

EDUCATION 

1981 Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

1986 F-15 Fighter Weapons lnstructor Course, U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

1987 Squadron Officer School. Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. 

1993 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1993 Master of Arts degree in History, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 

1994 Master of Airpower Arts and Sciences degree, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, 

Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1995 Armed Forces StatTCollege, Norfolk. Va. 

2000 Air War College, by correspondence 

200 I Master's degree in national defense studies, Naval War College, Newport, R.I. 

2006 National Defense Studies Fellow, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, 

N.Y. 

2007 Joint Force Air Component Commander Course, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

2010 AFS021 Executive Leadership Course, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

2011 Coalition Force Maritime Component Commander Course, Naval War College, Bahrain 

20 l3 Joint Flag Officer Wartighting Course, Air University. Maxwell AFB. Ala. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1. September 1981 -August 1982, Student, undergraduate pilot training, Columbus AFB, Miss. 

2. September 1982 -November 1982, Student, fighter lead-in training, Holloman AFB, N.M. 

3. November 1982- April 1983. Student, F-15 conversion training, Luke AFB. Ariz. 

4. May 1983- December 1985. F-15 Instructor Pilot and Assistant Squadron and Wing Weapons Officer, 7lst 

Tactical Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, Va. 

5. January 1986- May 1986, Student, USAF F-15 Fighter Weapons Instructor Course, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

6. May 1986- May 1989, F-15 Chief of Weapons and Tactics, 44th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Kadena Air Base, 

Japan 

7. May 1989- June 1992, F-15 Chief of Weapons and Tactics, Assistant Chief of Wing Weapons and Tactics, 

Flight Commander and Assistant Operations Officer, 7th Tactical Fighter Squadron and 9th Fighter Squadron, 

Holloman AFB, N.M. 

8. July 1992 -June 1993, Student, Air Command and Staff College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

9. July 1993 -June 1994, Student, School for Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

10. July 1994- October 1996, Air Operations Otlicer and Crisis Action Planner, Operations Directorate, 

Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany 
50 

11. October 1996- December 1997, Assistant Operations Officer, 27th Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, Va. 

12. January 1998- May 1999, Operations Officer, 7lst Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, Va. 

13. May 1999- July 2000, Commander, 27th Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, Va. 

14. July 2000- July 2001, Student, Naval War College, Newport, R.L 

15. July 2001- August 2002, Chief, Strategy, Concepts and Doctrine Division, Directorate of Operational Plans 

and Joint Matters, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington. D.C. 

16. August 2002- July 2004, Commander, 14th Operations Group, Columbus AFB, Miss. 

17. August 2004- September 2006, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. 

18. September 2006- June 2007, Chief, Checkmate, Directorate of Operational Plans and Joint Matters, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

19. July 2007- December 2007, Director of Strategic Plans, Programs and International Affairs, Headquarters 

Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

20. December 2007- March 2008, Special Assistant to the Director of Operational Planning, Policy and Strategy, 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

21. March 2008 -April 2009, Commander, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan 

22. April2009- July 2009, Special Assistant to the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, and Director, Air Staff, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

23. July 2009- August 2011, Principal Director for Middle East Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

24. August 2011 -January 2012, Director, Strategic Planning, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and 

Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington D.C. 

25. January 2012- July 2013, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, 

I !eadquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

26. August 2013- July 2014 Vice Commander, Air Education and Training Command, Joint Base San AntonioRandolph, Tex. 

27. August 2014- present, Deputy Chief ofStafffor Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air 

Force, Washington, D.C. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

I. July 1994 - October 1996, Air Operations Officer and Crisis Action Planner, Operations Directorate, 

Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Gennany, as a major 

2. March 2008- April 2009, Commander, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing and Senior Airfield Authority, Bagram 

AB, Afghanistan, as a brigadier general 

3. July 2009- Aug 2011, Principal Director for Middle East Policy, Ollice of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., as a brigadier and major general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: command pilot 

Flight hours: more than 4,000 

Aircraft flown: F-15A/B/C/D/E, T/AT-38, T-37 and T-IA 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Distinguished Service Medal 

Defense Superior Service Medal 

Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster 

Bronze Star Medal 

Defense Meritorious Service Medal 

Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Aerial Achievement Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Army Commendation Medal 
51 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant Aug. 28, 1981 

First Lieutenant Aug. 28, 1983 

Captain Aug. 28, 1985 

Major May I, 1993 

Lieutenant Colonel Jan. l, 1998 

Colonel July l, 2002 

Brigadier General May 2, 2008 

Major General Jan. 28, 20 ll 

Lieutenant General Aug. 2, 2013 

(Ctment a' of October 2014) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 16, 2016 

(55) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. I understand the Army is divesting legacy TH–67 training helicopters and the OH–58 Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance scout helicopters. What impact is this divestment having on the industrial base, and would you please provide 

more details on how you are considering Foreign Military Sales to help mitigate impacts? 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army tasked the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Industrial Base Group to assess the 

potential impact of the divestment of TH–67 and OH–58 with the task of analyzing 

the impact on the lightweight single engine (LSE) rotary wing industry sector. The 

AMRDEC analysis found no adverse impact to the LSE industrial base resulting 

from the Army’s planned divestiture of OH–58 variants and TH–67 aircraft. The 

Army’s ongoing strategy has been to support the execution of Aviation Restructure 

Initiative while minimizing cost to the United States taxpayer, supporting industry 

partners, and Building Partnership Capacity through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). 

The Army is only making OH–58D Kiowa Warriors available to partner nations 

through FMS. The first OH–58D FMS case was signed with Croatia for 16 aircraft 

in February, 2016. Additional FMS cases with Greece, Tunisia and Austria are in 

various stages of negotiations. Project Manager Armed Scout Helicopter will deliver 

30 TH–67 aircraft in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) to the Regional Helicopter Training 

Center (RHTC) in Colombia to support the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) 

and Department of Justice (DOJ) counter-narcotics mission. An additional 30 TH– 

67 aircraft are scheduled for delivery in FY17, bringing the total quantity to 60 TH– 

67s. The Army will continue to explore FMS opportunities for both OH–58D and 

TH–67 aircraft to mitigate impacts on the lightweight single engine industrial base. 

Mr. TURNER. The National Commission on the Future of the Army recommended 

that the Army retain four Apache battalions in the National Guard. What’s the 

Army’s position on the Commission’s recommendation? 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army’s position on the National Commission’s recommendation to retain four battalions of Apaches with 18 aircraft in each battalion 

will be provided to Congress as part of the Army’s initial assessment of the National 

Commission’s recommendations. The National Commission also recommended retention of an 11th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army, as well as 

the forward stationing of a CAB in Korea. The Army’s initial assessment will address these aviation-related recommendations from a holistic perspective. 

Mr. TURNER. In light of the three recent aircraft accidents in Army Aviation, what 

do you believe is leading to these incidents and is there a technology solution to help 

prevent them from occurring in the future? If so, what we can do to help accelerate 

the development and integration of this technology on existing platforms? 

General WILLIAMSON. Human error remains the primary cause of Army Aviation 

mishaps. Between March 2014 and March 2016, materiel failure was the primary 

cause in 3 (11 percent) of 27 Class A Army Aviation flight accidents and 22 (81.5 

percent) were the result of human error. Additionally, one was the result of a 

weather phenomenon and another remains under investigation at this time. Historically, 80 percent of aviation accidents are caused by human error. The CSA directed 

a Holistic Review of Army Aviation. Among other topics, this team is examining 

aviation training strategy, funding, execution and assessment. Programmed technology solutions will help mitigate risk of future aviation accidents. Degraded Visual 

Environment (DVE) conditions account for roughly 25 percent of rotary wing mishaps. The Army is addressing this challenge by investing in technological solutions—such as the Brownout Rotorcraft Enhancement System (BORES) and modernization of flight controls and symbology—that will enable Army Aviation to operate in all environmental conditions. The Army is addressing insufficient aircraft 

power at high altitudes, high temperatures, and high payloads through the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which will provide greater lift and capability to existing aircraft. The President’s FY17 budget request includes $80.5 million for DVE programs and $126 million for ITEP. Both DVE and ITEP are projected to be integrated into planned Future Vertical Lift capability sets. 
56 

Mr. TURNER. What are your current acquisition strategies for aircraft survivability equipment? How can we help accelerate them? 

General WILLIAMSON. The rapid proliferation of advanced threat technologies increases the risk to the fleet. The Army requires an Aircraft Survivability Equipment 

(ASE) suite to defeat these emerging threats. 

The Army’s acquisition strategy includes a number of modernization and development ASE programs to address infrared, radar, laser, and hostile ground fire 

threats. The most critical priority is the development of a comprehensive ASE package to detect, declare, and defeat a wide range of emerging infrared man-portable 

air-defense system (MANPADS) threats. The Army’s MANPADS threat strategy is 

divided into three temporal phases: (1) near-term (or now), (2) mid-term (Fiscal Year 

2016–2023), and (3) long-term (Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond). 

a. In the near-term, the Army is updating the fielded Common Missile Warning 

System (CMWS) and Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) software algorithms to address these associated emerging threats. The Army is also 

working with other services to identify improved flare countermeasures. These enhancements will be integrated on all ASE-equipped Army aircraft. 

b. In the mid-term, the Army is developing the Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM) program, for initial fielding in FY19. However, the Army is initially leveraging the Navy’s Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasure (DoN LAIRCM) 

for installation on a limited quantity of Apache, Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters 

deploying by FY17. For the subsequent deployment, the Army will modify the DoN 

LAIRCM detect sensor, and combined with a CIRCM Quick Reaction Capability 

(QRC), will provide a reduced size, weight, and power system. To accelerate the 

CIRCM QRC, the Army has submitted a request to reprogram $41.3 million to procure CIRCM QRC for the initial deployment aircraft addressed above. These funds 

are required by June 2016. 

c. The long-term strategy is a fleet-wide solution that accelerates development and 

fielding of an advanced missile warning system and continues the fielding of 

CIRCM. These two programs will replace CMWS and ATIRCM. 

Separate from the strategy to address the MANPADS threat, the Army is developing a Modernized Radar Warning Receiver (MRWR) to address radar-based 

threats. 

Mr. TURNER. What are the operational impacts of slowing aviation modernization 

programs on the readiness of the force and the aviation modernization strategy? 

General WILLIAMSON. The operational impacts of slowing modernization programs 

are delayed divestment of less effective equipment and delayed fielding of advanced 

aircraft and capabilities to the operational force. The rate at which we field new capabilities has short and long term effects on the operational force and the aviation 

modernization strategy. As fielding timelines increase, the effectiveness of the new 

capability decreases. Specifically, divestment of the UH–60A from the ARNG would 

be delayed by 2 years from Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) to FY25. UH–60M modernization in the Army would be delayed by 2 years from FY28 to FY30. Also, four key 

modifications to the CH–47F would be delayed by 5 years: cargo platform health environment; adjustable pitch change link; engine improvement; and simulation obsolescence. 

Mr. TURNER. Please comment on the effectiveness of small guided rockets used 

by rotorcraft in combat and the role this technology will play in future combat operations. 

General WILLIAMSON. Small guided rockets, such as the Advanced Precision Kill 

Weapon System (APKWS II) in use by the U.S. Army, are effective against light 

skinned vehicles and troops in the open. Recently, the APKWS has proven extremely effective in engagements in current theaters of operation. These weapons 

provide the Army’s Apache aircraft with a precision strike capability larger than the 

30mm cannon, yet smaller and less expensive than the Hellfire missile. It also increases stowed kills—the number of precision weapons the Apache can carry without increasing platform payload weight. In the future, the Army will continue to develop technologies for small guided munitions that will provide greater lethality 

with increased efficiency by allowing Army aviators to employ the most appropriate 

munitions against a range of threats. 

Mr. TURNER. Please comment on the Army’s plan to implement warhead technology on small guided munitions used by rotorcraft that are capable of neutralizing 

a wider spectrum of targets such as light and up-armored vehicles, bunkers, and 

structures. 

General WILLIAMSON. The Army will field scalable and tailorable Aviation munitions and their associated equipment to improve precision and lethality. Currently, 

the Army is employing the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), in 

support of a current operational need. To further enhance this capability, the Army 
57 

is exploring the feasibility of expanding guided rocket capability through warhead 

modernization and ensuring capabilities are integrated on current manned and unmanned platforms. 

Additionally, research into precursor warheads for larger anti-tank munitions suggests their suitability for penetrating warheads for small guided munitions. A feasibility study of a small diameter penetrator coupled with a follow-through grenade 

also indicated suitability against personnel in urban structures, bunkers, and medium armor. 

Mr. TURNER. What can the Congress do to accelerate the procurement of ICBM 

support helicopters in fiscal year 2017? 

General BUNCH. The Air Force is refining the acquisition strategy for the UH– 

1N Replacement program. Until the program content, timing, and costs are finalized, we request that Congress support the fiscal year 2017 President’s Budget request as submitted. 

Mr. TURNER. We’ve recently read that the commander of Air Force Special Operations Command has indicated that three more CV–22s are required for attrition 

reserve aircraft. Does the Air Force plan to address this requirement in the Future 

Years Defense Program? 

General BUNCH. Any future Air Force decision to procure additional CV–22 aircraft would be driven by a validated user requirement and subsequently added to 

future budgets. However, the Air Force CV–22 fleet size requirement and program 

of record remains set at 50 aircraft, with no additional requirements to increase 

that number at this time. 

Mr. TURNER. What can the Congress do to accelerate the procurement of ICBM 

support helicopters in fiscal year 2017? 

General HOLMES. The Air Force is refining the acquisition strategy for the UH– 

1N Replacement program. Until the program content, timing, and costs are finalized, we request that Congress support the fiscal year 2017 President’s Budget request as submitted. 

Mr. TURNER. We’ve recently read that the commander of Air Force Special Operations Command has indicated that three more CV–22s are required for attrition 

reserve aircraft. Does the Air Force plan to address this requirement in the Future 

Years Defense Program? 

General HOLMES. Any future Air Force decision to procure additional CV–22 aircraft would be driven by a validated user requirement and subsequently added to 

future budgets. However, the Air Force CV–22 fleet size requirement and program 

of record remains set at 50 aircraft, with no additional requirements to increase 

that number at this time. 

Mr. TURNER. I understand the Army is divesting legacy TH–67 training helicopters and the OH–58 Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance scout helicopters. What impact is this divestment having on the industrial base, and would you please provide 

more details on how you are considering Foreign Military Sales to help mitigate impacts? 

General LUNDY. The Army tasked the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Industrial Base Group to assess the potential impact of the divestment of TH–67 and OH–58 with the task of analyzing 

the impact on the lightweight single engine (LSE) rotary wing industry sector. The 

AMRDEC analysis found no adverse impact to the LSE industrial base resulting 

from the Army’s planned divestiture of OH–58 variants and TH–67 aircraft. The 

Army’s ongoing strategy has been to support the execution of Aviation Restructure 

Initiative while minimizing cost to the United States taxpayer, supporting industry 

partners, and Building Partnership Capacity through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). 

The Army is only making OH–58D Kiowa Warriors available to partner nations 

through FMS. The first OH–58D FMS case was signed with Croatia for 16 aircraft 

in February, 2016. Additional FMS cases with Greece, Tunisia and Austria are in 

various stages of negotiations. Project Manager Armed Scout Helicopter will deliver 

30 TH–67 aircraft in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) to the Regional Helicopter Training 

Center (RHTC) in Colombia to support the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) 

and Department of Justice (DOJ) counter-narcotics mission. An additional 30 TH– 

67 aircraft are scheduled for delivery in FY17, bringing the total quantity to 60 TH– 

67s. The Army will continue to explore FMS opportunities for both OH–58D and 

TH–67 aircraft to mitigate impacts on the lightweight single engine industrial base. 

Mr. TURNER. The National Commission on the Future of the Army recommended 

that the Army retain four Apache battalions in the National Guard. What’s the 

Army’s position on the Commission’s recommendation? 

General LUNDY. The Army’s position on the National Commission’s recommendation to retain four battalions of Apaches with 18 aircraft in each battalion will be 

provided to Congress as part of the Army’s initial assessment of the National Com-
58 

mission’s recommendations. The National Commission also recommended retention 

of an 11th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) in the Regular Army, as well as the forward stationing of a CAB in Korea. The Army’s initial assessment will address 

these aviation-related recommendations from a holistic perspective. 

Mr. TURNER. In light of the three recent aircraft accidents in Army Aviation, what 

do you believe is leading to these incidents and is there a technology solution to help 

prevent them from occurring in the future? If so, what we can do to help accelerate 

the development and integration of this technology on existing platforms? 

General LUNDY. Human error remains the primary cause of Army Aviation mishaps. Between March 2014 and March 2016, materiel failure was the primary cause 

in 3 (11 percent) of 27 Class A Army Aviation flight accidents and 22 (81.5 percent) 

were the result of human error. Additionally, one was the result of a weather phenomenon and another remains under investigation at this time. Historically, 80 percent of aviation accidents are caused by human error. The CSA directed a Holistic 

Review of Army Aviation. Among other topics, this team is examining aviation 

training strategy, funding, execution and assessment. Programmed technology solutions will help mitigate risk of future aviation accidents. Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) conditions account for roughly 25 percent of rotary wing mishaps. The 

Army is addressing this challenge by investing in technological solutions—such as 

the Brownout Rotorcraft Enhancement System (BORES) and modernization of flight 

controls and symbology—that will enable Army Aviation to operate in all environmental conditions. The Army is addressing insufficient aircraft power at high altitudes, high temperatures, and high payloads through the Improved Turbine Engine 

Program (ITEP), which will provide greater lift and capability to existing aircraft. 

The President’s FY17 budget request includes $80.5 million for DVE programs and 

$126 million for ITEP. Both DVE and ITEP are projected to be integrated into 

planned Future Vertical Lift capability sets. 

Mr. TURNER. What are your current acquisition strategies for aircraft survivability equipment? How can we help accelerate them? 

General LUNDY. The rapid proliferation of advanced threat technologies increases 

the risk to the fleet. The Army requires an Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) 

suite to defeat these emerging threats. 

The Army’s acquisition strategy includes a number of modernization and development ASE programs to address infrared, radar, laser, and hostile ground fire 

threats. The most critical priority is the development of a comprehensive ASE package to detect, declare, and defeat a wide range of emerging infrared man-portable 

air-defense system (MANPADS) threats. The Army’s MANPADS threat strategy is 

divided into three temporal phases: (1) near-term (or now), (2) mid-term (Fiscal Year 

2016–2023), and (3) long-term (Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond). 

a. In the near-term, the Army is updating the fielded Common Missile Warning 

System (CMWS) and Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) software algorithms to address these associated emerging threats. The Army is also 

working with other services to identify improved flare countermeasures. These enhancements will be integrated on all ASE-equipped Army aircraft. 

b. In the mid-term, the Army is developing the Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM) program, for initial fielding in FY19. However, the Army is initially leveraging the Navy’s Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasure (DoN LAIRCM) 

for installation on a limited quantity of Apache, Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters 

deploying by FY17. For the subsequent deployment, the Army will modify the DoN 

LAIRCM detect sensor, and combined with a CIRCM Quick Reaction Capability 

(QRC), will provide a reduced size, weight, and power system. To accelerate the 

CIRCM QRC, the Army has submitted a request to reprogram $41.3 million to procure CIRCM QRC for the initial deployment aircraft addressed above. These funds 

are required by June 2016. 

c. The long-term strategy is a fleet-wide solution that accelerates development and 

fielding of an advanced missile warning system and continues the fielding of 

CIRCM. These two programs will replace CMWS and ATIRCM. 

Separate from the strategy to address the MANPADS threat, the Army is developing a Modernized Radar Warning Receiver (MRWR) to address radar-based 

threats. 

Mr. TURNER. What are the operational impacts of slowing aviation modernization 

programs on the readiness of the force and the aviation modernization strategy? 

General LUNDY. The operational impacts of slowing modernization programs are 

delayed divestment of less effective equipment and delayed fielding of advanced aircraft and capabilities to the operational force. The rate at which we field new capabilities has short and long term effects on the operational force and the aviation 

modernization strategy. As fielding timelines increase, the effectiveness of the new 

capability decreases. Specifically, divestment of the UH–60A from the ARNG would 
59 

be delayed by 2 years from Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) to FY25. UH–60M modernization in the Army would be delayed by 2 years from FY28 to FY30. Also, four key 

modifications to the CH–47F would be delayed by 5 years: cargo platform health environment; adjustable pitch change link; engine improvement; and simulation obsolescence. 

Mr. TURNER. Please comment on the effectiveness of small guided rockets used 

by rotorcraft in combat and the role this technology will play in future combat operations. 

General LUNDY. Small guided rockets, such as the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS II) in use by the U.S. Army, are effective against light skinned 

vehicles and troops in the open. Recently, the APKWS has proven extremely effective in engagements in current theaters of operation. These weapons provide the 

Army’s Apache aircraft with a precision strike capability larger than the 30mm cannon, yet smaller and less expensive than the Hellfire missile. It also increases 

stowed kills—the number of precision weapons the Apache can carry without increasing platform payload weight. In the future, the Army will continue to develop 

technologies for small guided munitions that will provide greater lethality with increased efficiency by allowing Army aviators to employ the most appropriate munitions against a range of threats. 

Mr. TURNER. Please comment on the Army’s plan to implement warhead technology on small guided munitions used by rotorcraft that are capable of neutralizing 

a wider spectrum of targets such as light and up-armored vehicles, bunkers, and 

structures. 

General LUNDY. The Army will field scalable and tailorable Aviation munitions 

and their associated equipment to improve precision and lethality. Currently, the 

Army is employing the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), in support of a current operational need. To further enhance this capability, the Army is 

exploring the feasibility of expanding guided rocket capability through warhead 

modernization and ensuring capabilities are integrated on current manned and unmanned platforms. 

Additionally, research into precursor warheads for larger anti-tank munitions suggests their suitability for penetrating warheads for small guided munitions. A feasibility study of a small diameter penetrator coupled with a follow-through grenade 

also indicated suitability against personnel in urban structures, bunkers, and medium armor. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GIBSON 

Mr. GIBSON. I am aware that there are American companies currently researching 

commercial technologies that combine three-dimensional (3–D) visualization using 

camera, thermal and satellite imagery, recording and networking capabilities into 

a single cockpit platform to facilitate mission planning and execution. My understanding is that this technology already exists within the SOF aviation community. 

Is the plan to also purchase this technology to incorporate into the conventional 

Army aviation community and where does the R&D priority for this technology fall 

within the overall Army R&D efforts? 

General LUNDY. There is no plan for the Army to incorporate 3D visualization into 

the cockpit of the current Army helicopter fleet. 

The Army is pursuing development and demonstration of technologies for displays 

and cueing to enhance pilot situational awareness, both in normal operations and 

Degraded Visual Environments. The Army is aware of commercial research in the 

area of 3–D visualization and will continue to monitor the progress of this technology for possible insertion into the efforts mentioned above. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRADY 

Mr. BRADY. DARPA has embarked on the development and flight demonstration 

of the Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System (ARES) VTOL UAS. The objective 

of this demonstration is the flight validation of a modular and affordable VTOL 

UAS with a small footprint that can provide multi-mission support to small units 

conducting distributed and expeditionary operations. We understand the Army Aviation is exploring the benefits of evolving its current fixed wing ISR UAS capabilities 

toward a more forward deployed embedded VTOL capability. And that US Army’s 

CASCOM has also identified autonomous aerial resupply as a top priority in the future force. Is a multi-mission VTOL UAS with multi-role capability across broad 

range of military operations and environments of interest to the Army? Is the 

DARPA ARES flight demonstration relevant to informing development of these re-
60 

quirements, and does the Army have plans to fund further development and demonstration of such capabilities in the future. 

General LUNDY. Yes, a multi-mission Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) is of interest to the Army. The Army is currently coordinating a ‘‘Family of UAS’’ requirements document which addresses a VTOL UAS 

with multi-role capability. The desired capabilities would effectively correct the current overreliance on runways, shortfalls in survivability, and operations in Global 

Positioning System-denied environments. The document will also require the materiel solution to work with modular payloads to address current gaps in unmanned 

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance and logistics resupply 

The DARPA ARES flight demonstration is also relevant to informing development 

of VTOL UAS requirements. The Army does have plans to fund development and 

demonstration of like capabilities in the future. The Army’s Aviation Center of Excellence, in particular, is interested in multi-mission VTOL UAS. We believe this 

innovative technology has potential applications providing the Army, the Marine 

Corps, and other Services an unmanned vertical lift capability. Technology such as 

ARES also has the potential for a runway-independent UAS and to serve a broad 

range of mission requirements for tactical Army formations. 

Æ