U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

i 

29–462 2019

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–84] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND 

PROJECTION FORCES HEARING 

ON

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 14, 2018 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama, Vice Chair 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

BRUCE JOHNSON, Professional Staff Member 

PHIL MACNAUGHTON, Professional Staff Member 

MEGAN HANDAL, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces ........................................... 3 

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

WITNESSES 

Roper, Hon. William B., Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Headquarters U.S. Air Force; Lt Gen Jerry D. Harris, Jr., USAF, 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Programs, Headquarters 

U.S. Air Force; and Lt Gen Mark C. Nowland, USAF, Deputy Chief of 

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

Force ...................................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Roper, Hon. William B., Jr., joint with Lt Gen Jerry D. Harris, Jr., 

and Lt Gen Mark C. Nowland ..................................................................... 33 

Courtney, Hon. Joe ........................................................................................... 31 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J. .................................................................................. 29 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Garamendi ................................................................................................. 53 

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

Mr. Norcross ..................................................................................................... 53 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2019 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION 

FORCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 14, 2018. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J. Wittman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

Mr. WITTMAN. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Projection Forces. Today the subcommittee convenes 

to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2019 Air Force budget request regarding bomber, tanker, and airlift acquisition programs. 

The distinguished panel of Air Force leaders testifying before us 

today are the Honorable Dr. William Roper, Assistant Secretary of 

the Air Force for Acquisition; Lieutenant General Jerry D. Harris, 

U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Programs; and Lieutenant General Mark C. Nowland, U.S. Air Force 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Requirements. 

Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here with us today. 

The fiscal year 2019 budget request for projection forces continues to modernize and recapitalize critical Air Force weapons systems. I am pleased to see increasing investments in the B–21 Raider bomber, and the high-visibility VC–25B Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization effort. 

Also, this budget proposes funding to continue modernizing the 

legacy Guard and Reserve C–130H tactical airlift fleet. 

Throughout the past year, in testimony to Congress, Air Force 

senior leadership indicated that the Air Force is one of the busiest, 

smallest, and oldest, and least ready fleets in our history. It is my 

firm conviction, in light of the threats posed by China, Russia, 

North Korea, and Iran, that we must provide the Air Force the resources it needs to fully support critical recapitalization programs. 

With regard to bombers, the Air Force outlined its plan for its 

bomber fleet in the fiscal year 2019 budget submission. Under this 

plan, the B–52, the oldest bomber in the fleet, will remain on duty 

for the next few decades, while the newest B–2 and B–1 bombers 

will be retired. 

As I have said, the B–52 is the workhorse of the fleet, and we 

understand too what it is capable of doing. And doing some service 
2 

life extension on it will make it an aircraft that will take us many 

years into the future. 

I am interested to hear from the witnesses today about factors 

being used to make the bomber vector decisions in retiring the B– 

1 and B–2. 

As for the B–21, I fully support this critical program and am 

pleased to see that we are moving forward with the project. 

The B–21 will be needed for projecting power over long distances 

into denied environments in the future of warfare as it faces us in 

the era of great power competition. Timely delivery of the B–21 is 

necessary to ensure our national security. And while I believe that 

Northrop Grumman is doing a very good job at managing the risk 

across the entire portfolio, I look forward to assessing in better detail the B–21 program to ensure sufficient progress on both design 

and construction. 

With regard to tankers, I am concerned that continued forecast 

delays for KC–46A deliveries, coupled with the Air Force’s plan to 

begin retiring 47 KC–10A aircraft across the FYDP [Future Years 

Defense Program] beginning in fiscal year 2019, may add unacceptable risk to combatant commanders’ ability to execute war plans. 

In General McDew’s testimony to my subcommittee last week he 

indicated ‘‘we already know the convergence of an aging air refueling fleet with protracted KC–46 production puts the joint force’s 

ability to effectively execute war plans at risk.’’ He went on to say 

‘‘it is clear, the tanker fleet’s end strength will require careful synchronization between KC–10 and KC–135 retirements, and KC–46 

production and delivery to sustained current force projection capabilities.’’ 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this program and how 

the Air Force intends to manage the transition from KC–10A and 

KC–135 aircraft to the KC–46A. Furthermore, I look forward to 

hearing why Air Force believes robust investment into KC–46A is 

warranted considering continued delays in the program. 

I am encouraged with the Air Force’s sustained effort to ensure 

that its mobility aircraft will comply with the FAA-mandated [Federal Aviation Administration] NextGen [Next Generation] air traffic management standards by July 1, 2020, with the exception of 

a few aircraft that will be undergoing depot modifications. But I 

am becoming increasingly concerned about other military equities 

that may be impacted as we move to support the FAA mandate. 

While I support the migration of our tankers and airlift assets 

to NextGen, I do worry about the lack of security protections associated with the bomber and fighter force structures. We need to 

carefully monitor this transition. 

While I believe that the Air Force’s fiscal year 2019 budget request continues to make up lost ground, I remain concerned about 

the Air Force’s ability to fulfill combatant commander requirements 

given the shortfalls in strategic airlift, aerial refueling, and the increased risk posed by the complexities of managing the tanker and 

bomber transitions. 

In the words of the immortal air power theorist General Giulio 

Douhet, ‘‘In order to assure an adequate national defense, it is necessary and sufficient to be in a position in case of war to conquer 

the command of air.’’ Like Douhet, it is my firm conviction that we 
3 

need a strong Air Force equipped with the most capable aircraft 

that enable our highly skilled and motivated airmen to defend our 

great Nation. 

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

our hearing this afternoon, and I look forward to discussing these 

important topics. 

With that, I turn to my good friend and colleague, the ranking 

member of our subcommittee, Joe Courtney. 

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

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for testifying today at the Seapower and Projection 

Forces Subcommittee. 

We are obviously here today on the projection part of our portfolio. And again, we welcome the opportunity to discuss with Air 

Force leadership the bomber, tanker, and airlift platforms that ensure that we can respond anywhere at any time around the world. 

The 2019 budget request for these programs reflects the challenging balancing act facing Air Force and the Congress. For instance, the budget continues significant investment in major replacement programs like the B–21 bomber and the KC–46 tanker. 

At the same time, a large portion of the request also covers a range 

of modernization efforts aimed at keeping older legacy bombers and 

tankers operational and relevant for years to come. 

This is not an easy balance to maintain, and your input today 

will help our subcommittee evaluate whether we have—what we 

have right in this year’s defense bill. 

With that in mind, I want to quickly highlight a few areas of 

focus. 

As I noted earlier, the 2019 budget continues significant and 

needed investment in the KC–46 tanker replacement. However, I 

remain concerned about additional delays in this high-priority program. Just last week, the Air Force announced the delivery of the 

first operational tankers may not occur until next year. I hope our 

witnesses today will explain how the Air Force is working to address the program’s schedule and the impact of delays on the rest 

of the tanker fleet. 

Another area of ongoing concern and bipartisan interest in our 

subcommittee is the modernization of our C–130H fleet. This subcommittee has led the way in moving upgrades like the Avionics 

Modernization Program, AMP, forward after years of delay. And I 

appreciate the Air Force’s continued support for AMP in the 2019 

budget. 

However, I am disappointed that the budget does not fund other 

needed upgrades like new high-efficiency propellers and engines for 

this fleet. I look forward to exploring this issue more in our session 

today. 

And lastly, I also hope that our witnesses will provide additional 

clarity into recent developments on the Air Force One replacement 

program. There have been very public and high-level pronounce-
4 

ments about a deal to save $1 billion on the new aircraft. Unfortunately, to date very little detail has been provided to our subcommittee or the American public about this arrangement. 

At the same time, the Air Force is moving forward on costly solesource contracts to sustain and upgrade the current Presidential 

aircraft. I believe our subcommittee deserves greater insight into 

what is happening with this program, as well as begin our work 

on this year’s defense bill. 

I have additional remarks but, again, time is the enemy here 

with votes about to take place. So I am just going to ask those be 

submitted for the record. 

And again, thank you to the witnesses for being here today. We 

look forward to your testimony and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Without objection. 

Dr. Roper, we will go to you. I understand that you will be giving 

the opening statement for the panel, and we turn now to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. ROPER, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE; LT GEN JERRY D. HARRIS, JR., 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND PROGRAMS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE; AND LT GEN MARK 

C. NOWLAND, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. 

AIR FORCE 

Dr. ROPER. Thank you, Chairman Wittman and Ranking Member 

Courtney and distinguished members of the subcommittee. We 

want to start by thanking you for the opportunity to be here, and 

for your support of U.S. Air Force, our airmen, and their families. 

It is much appreciated. 

General Harris, General Nowland, and I have submitted a joint 

statement that we would like to be entered into the record. And I 

will provide a few brief opening remarks so that we can turn our 

focus to your questions later on. 

Throughout our 70-year history in the Air Force, we have conceived, acquired, and operationalized some of the world’s most 

high-tech systems. From jet engines to ICBMs [intercontinental 

ballistic missiles], to stealth, to satellite-guided bombs, to remotely 

piloted planes, and many things we cannot name, we have made 

science and technology the whetstone of the world’s most lethal air 

force. 

But despite our current lethality, 27 years of continuous combat 

operations have done more than just take a toll on airmen and 

equipment. It has allowed the national security environment to 

change, while our time, talent, and treasure were otherwise engaged. 

I know the committee is well aware that many capabilities developed decades ago have been studied, copied, and, in many cases, 

exploited by adversaries. The new National Defense Strategy 

makes it clear we must pick up the gauntlet and modernize the 

force. We are committed to this task, and to doing it cost effectively. 
5 

I know the subcommittee is also aware of the warfighting and 

deterrence advantages that unmatched bombers, tankers, and airlift bring to the joint force. This is an awesome portfolio of capabilities, giving commanders global options at the speed of need. 

Let me give you a few supporting facts. Last year our bombers 

flew 650 missions in the Indo-Pacific and European theaters, 

strengthening security and assuring allies and partners during 

troubling times. We transported and delivered nearly 1 million personnel, 738 million pounds of warfighting equipment and humanitarian supplies, and over 1 billion pounds of fuel in-flight. 

The military implication of these numbers speaks for itself. To 

maintain this advantage, the fiscal year 2019 budget submission is 

a balance between readiness and needed modernization. This is no 

easy task, being ready for today’s war, while preparing for tomorrow’s. But we look forward to sharing steps we are taking. 

We also applaud your recent efforts to lift the sequestration caps 

for fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2018. Stable and timely budgets 

devoid of continuing resolutions and budget caps are absolutely 

necessary to build, sustain, and operate the Air Force this country 

needs and deserves. 

Thank you again for your continued support of your Air Force, 

and we look forward to your questions today. 

[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Roper, General Harris, and 

General Nowland can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Dr. Roper. I am going to yield. I will 

provide my questions a little bit later, I will yield to my colleague, 

Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I 

will be brief because I know we have a lot of members here. 

Again, I would like to just go back for a second to the C–130H 

program, which—again, this subcommittee, over the last two or 

three NDAAs [National Defense Authorization Acts] has been very 

deeply involved, in terms of trying to balance all of the different 

stakeholders in terms of that and, again, on a very bipartisan 

basis. 

Again, just for the record, last year Air Force officials testified 

that the first part of the Avionics Modernization Program was on 

track to be in compliance with FAA and international airspace requirements before the 2020 deadline. I was just wondering, again, 

for the record, just want to confirm that we are still moving forward in terms of achieving that goal. 

General HARRIS. We are. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Okay. The second part of AMP was 

to be focused on longer-term cockpit upgrades. And again, there is 

about $400 million in the budget to conduct research and development before beginning that procurement. 

Last week, Dr. Roper, you came over and testified, you know, 

about the fact that, you know, we, as part of acquisition reform, 

should be using available technology and open new opportunities 

for the Air Force to leverage commercial technology at commercial 

speed. 

I mean I am not sure how much you have had a chance to sort 

of, you know, dig into this program, but it does seem like the AMP 

2 upgrade in the cockpits is a perfect example of a place where we 
6 

could maybe accelerate that process, and probably save some 

money, as opposed to sort of what is in the budget here today. You 

know, we are talking about upgrades that, again, are happening in, 

you know, commercial areas, as well as, you know, other parts of 

the world. 

And I was wondering if you could sort of comment on that. 

Dr. ROPER. Of course, Congressman. I think what you are seeing 

in the modernization efforts is we have got planes with good bones, 

but it is time to work on the innards, on the networking, on the 

enablers that allow them to be so potent. 

Whenever you are dealing with sensing technology or networking 

technology, you really are playing into commercial technologies 

that can be a large contributor. And so, it is going to be a major 

role for me in this position to make sure that we are adopting the 

best of breed from commercial tech. And I think these programs 

are no exception. 

I think the general caution—something we are going to have to 

learn across the Air Force—is how do we use commercial tech safely. We can’t put people up in airplanes if there is a cyber vulnerability, or something that might be compromised on the battlefield. 

I don’t think that is insurmountable. I don’t think it should be cold 

water on the issue. It is just a different kind of design philosophy, 

to figure out how to use something that you didn’t control during 

its whole life. And that is not just going to be part of the airlift 

or the bomber portfolio; I think that is going to be across the Air 

Force, including the space portfolio. So just general lessons to 

learn, sir. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Good. And, you know, as I think we discussed 

offline earlier, I mean, this subcommittee is very willing to embrace, you know, ways to create authorities, to promote more efficiencies and, you know, save speed, in terms of programs. I think 

this is one that you really should maybe put on the dance card, in 

terms of, you know, possibilities where you can achieve those goals 

that you articulated, again, last week. 

The last question I have is on KC–46. As I mentioned, you know, 

we are looking at another sort of delay that seems to be sort of 

causing—being caused by the testing part of the pipeline that is 

there. And I mean it seems like the production side of it is moving 

along, nonetheless. 

And I just wonder if you could sort of comment in terms of how 

we can—whether or not we can sort of get this centipede sort of 

moving along, rather than having a—sort of it bunched up, you 

know, after the planes are coming out of the factory. 

Dr. ROPER. Yes, sir. I have been spending a lot of time on KC– 

46. And I share your concern. This is an important year for the 

program. And even though it is a fixed-price contract, and any of 

the delays and issues that we see are not things that the taxpayer 

is paying for, we are still taking time away from warfighters if we 

delay. 

The big thing on any program like this is you have got to be out 

testing. And so, the delays in getting FAA certifications, the supplemental certification and then the military certification, is a concern to me. Because having those certifications will allow us to do 

more aggressive flight testing. And if you have ever done an engi-
7 

neering program, stuff is going to go wrong, that is just the nature 

of the beast. You tackle that by testing early, putting your finger 

on problems, and being able to retire them. 

So the fact that there are issues in the program is less concerning to me. What will concern me during this year, if issues 

don’t get retired quickly—so it is the speed at which they get retired that is going to be a key metric for me. 

If you step back from the program, though, there are a lot of requirements that have to be met. I think it is 738. We are about 30 

percent through them, roughly, to date. So there is a lot that has 

to happen this year to deliver on time. We have a great team working it. 

You asked earlier what is the government doing to help. We are 

trying to make every flexibility available, so that Boeing, which is 

being a great partner for us, they are committed to the program— 

we are trying to give them the flexibility to prioritize task in the 

program, so that they can tackle the biggest risk as early as possible. So risk burn-down-driven program. So that is something that 

we can do on the government side, and we are doing. 

And there will be more to follow on this program. So I expect to 

stay in close connection with this committee on how we are doing. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. We will now go to Mr. 

Byrne. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question for the 

two generals. 

The Nuclear Posture Review states the necessity of maintaining 

the nuclear triad, and our bomber fleet remains a key element of 

that plan. 

In this year’s Presidential budget request, the Air Force outlined 

its plan that calls for the retention of the B–52 and eventual retirement of the B–1 and B–2 bombers. 

Can you both explain the logic associated with B–1 and B–2 retirement, and what factors led the Air Force to the decision to retain the service’s oldest bomber, the B–52? 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. If you don’t mind, I will start with that. 

Mr. BYRNE. Sure. 

General HARRIS. So thank you, that is a great question. And we 

actually get that one a lot, based on the age of the platform. 

But we based that decision on independent studies, and then 

multiple factors when it came to why we got to the selection of 

keeping the B–52. Those factors include our maintenance and our 

sustainment capabilities and the metrics that are associated with 

those, such as aircraft availability, downtime for maintenance, or 

downtime for supply, and the cost in terms of maintenance manhours per flight hour. And the B–52 was the leading candidate for 

the keeping of the current fleet that we have. 

So as we look forward into B–21 production and deliveries, you 

will see a phase-out between the B–1s and the B–2s to associate 

us keeping roughly 175 to 170-ish type bombers, between the B– 

21 and the B–52. 

General NOWLAND. Yes, if I may add? 

Mr. BYRNE. Yes. 
8 

General NOWLAND. It is a great question. The future of the Air 

Force is a combination of penetrating, non-penetrating, manned, 

unmanned, stand-off, penetrate, and drop from above. So the combination of the strategy of a B–52 with stand-off munitions and its 

capacity with a B–21 for the future gives us the warfighting punch 

that we think we will need, as we look to the future against China 

and Russia and the threats that we need to prepare for. 

Mr. BYRNE. Well, let me just follow up on that for a second. I 

know all of us are re-evaluating things in light of changes in what 

we have seen as the posture by both China and Russia. And I don’t 

want you to go into anything that is classified, but was that in part 

what was driving your decision? 

General HARRIS. It was. That was definitely a part of it. And we 

allowed the National Defense Strategy that was recently published 

to help drive that. 

Mr. BYRNE. I see that, and I appreciate your explanation. That 

does remove just a source of curiosity for me to understand it. 

Dr. Roper, just a quick comment to you. It was 10 years ago last 

month that the tanker project was originally awarded to another 

company other than Boeing. We have American aircraft that are 

being refueled by that company’s tankers. We are 10 years later, 

and the tanker we awarded to Boeing can’t refuel our tankers yet. 

So I have concerns that this is going to continue to be a problem, 

that the assurances we have gotten before about ‘‘No, it is going 

to be this time, no, it is going to be this time’’ are just going to continue. Relieve me of my concerns, please, sir. 

Dr. ROPER. Congressman, I wanted to start by saying we really 

appreciate the acquisition reforms that this committee and others 

in Congress have championed, and I think they will go a long way 

to help get control of acquisition. 

Just to give you a little bit of insight to what running a program 

would be like in the past is you would have the rein of the horse, 

and then there would be 100 other people in the Pentagon holding 

the other. And the idea that you could somehow drive that horse 

straight to destination is just really hard to imagine. 

By giving authority back to the Air Force, you really are able to 

hold people accountable again, look at me and say why is this program not on track. 

Now, I wish we had a time machine and could go back in time 

and fix some of the program issues that we have had. And we are 

going to do our very best to fix it forward and play the ball as it 

lies. But I think on the new programs that we are starting to use 

these authorities on, we are going to see a lot more prototyping, 

which is a big thing for me. Don’t let risks snowball. Go out and 

start building early. Put your finger on hard-to-do things. 

The Air Force has a great history of doing that. Back during its 

experimental plane heyday, built a lot of advanced technology, and 

it had the discipline to only put one new hard thing in each new 

plane. And if you couldn’t do it, then you needed to keep focusing 

on that thing because that is where your risk was. 

So I think that is—that discipline is going to come back, because 

you have given us the authority to implement it again, that scale. 

Mr. BYRNE. Well, I appreciate your comments. I certainly look 

forward—you can’t go back in a time machine, I get that. But you 
9 

can learn from your past mistakes and make sure you don’t replicate them in the future. 

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

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Byrne. We will now go to Ms. 

Bordallo. And after Ms. Bordallo finishes with her line of questioning, we will adjourn for votes and then return. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one 

question, so I guess I will meet the deadline. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Gentlemen, thank you all for being here today, 

and thank you for your service. 

We have been told that the current U.S. TRANSCOM [United 

States Transportation Command] requirements for air refueling 

tankers is 567 aircraft. But the service is only fielding 455 tankers 

to meet the warfighting requirements. 

So, in lieu of the results of the command’s mobility capabilities 

requirement study, can one of you speak to the service’s plan to 

balance KC–46 production with the retirement of the KC–135s to 

meet mission requirements? And furthermore, how do you intend 

to work through the basing requirements for a larger fleet? 

General HARRIS. Yes, ma’am. I would be happy to start with that 

and see if my colleagues have more to add. So thank you. 

We are looking at the study for the KC–46 and what it brings 

to us, and we have determined that the best platform for us to retire is actually the KC–10. And our—you are correct, we do have 

455 of the tankers in the fleet now, and our intent is to grow to 

479. So you will see that, as the KC–46s that Dr. Roper has been 

talking about add to our fleet, we will stand down KC–10s, but we 

will actually grow our 135s. 

So as we replace the 135s initially, they will move to other units, 

and we will preserve those tankers to actually grow our fleet, adding 25 to that capability. 

When it comes to TRANSCOM and the requirements, we look at 

this fleet as one of the things that separates us from other countries’ air forces, and it allows us to be that expeditionary force and 

take the fight to our adversaries. And they are extremely important to what we do, but we are comfortable with the moderate-level 

risk, once we grow that 479 with a mix of KC–46As and 135Rs, 

that we will have the fleet we need to meet the combatant commanders’ intent. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Any other—— 

General NOWLAND. Congresswoman Bordallo, hafa adai. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Hafa adai. 

General NOWLAND. It is a great question, particularly from 

Guam. As you know, power projection, our tankers, are key towards this. We give three million pounds of gas a day right now 

in the Central Command area of responsibility. 

The key to it, though, is managing the requirements, working 

the—what we call the schedule. And we have actually made some 

advancements with that. DIUx [Defense Innovation Unit–Experimental] created a tanker tool for us that allows us to schedule a 

little bit more efficiently. 

And then the other reality, ma’am, is manning those airplanes. 

You can have all those airplanes, but because of the nature of our 
10 

fleet, if we were going to have to use all of those—which they surge 

to do, but over a sustained period of time—would probably require—would require a partial mobilization to be able to do all of 

that at one time. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, and hafa adai to you, too. And I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. We will recess for the 

votes. 

I would ask members, after the third vote, to return back here, 

and we will resume the line of questioning. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. We are going to reconvene and continue our line 

of questioning. And we will go to Mr. Norcross. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you, Chairman. I want to follow up on the 

discussion that two or three other members have already talked 

about, and that is our tankers. 

The original date that we expected the delivery to start, when 

this began, what year? 

Dr. ROPER. So, Congressman, I will take that one for the record. 

I know we are behind, but I want to get you the precise date. 

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

page 53.] 

Mr. NORCROSS. Give me a year. 

Dr. ROPER. We are years behind. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Give me a decade? 

Dr. ROPER. I mean it is one of the many programs where we have 

been delayed, sir. So yes, it is years of time. And I will get you the 

precise number for the record, sir. 

Mr. NORCROSS. So you went through a discussion on how we 

used to embrace change, but at some point you made a decision to 

go with a program the way it is, no major changes. 

As I understand it, with the new tanker, the boom camera system seems to be top of the issue board. Would you agree to that? 

Dr. ROPER. Yes, sir. We are having both issues with the centerline drogue, as well as the remote visual system, which is what allows the operator to determine if the drogue or the boom is working. If you can’t see, then you can’t control it properly. So that is 

correct, sir. 

Mr. NORCROSS. When was that spec changed to go from the original camera system? 

Dr. ROPER. So, sir, the requirements, to my knowledge, the requirements have not changed. As the E&D [engineering and design] contract with Boeing was let, it had requirements. There are 

738, to my knowledge, that have to be met. They include all aspects of operation, including allowing the operator to be able to see 

appropriately, allowing the drogue to be employed appropriately. 

And so it is the development testing that is proving that some of 

the choices that have been made in the program are not meeting 

those requirements. 

I mentioned a little earlier in testimony, issues and programs 

don’t give me concern, per se. Most programs have issues. What I 

am going to be tracking very carefully as I start this job is how 

long does it take issues to be retired. If you are designing correctly, 
11 

if you are doing good engineering, you find something, you should 

be able to fix it quickly because you have designed for it. 

And so, these new issues that have appeared, I am tracking 

them. And what I am going to be very focused on is how long do 

they persist. And if they persist for a long time, then that is indicative of a problem with the program, sir. 

Mr. NORCROSS. So when they finally come through the delivery 

date, are you going to have the personnel to fly them, maintain 

them, and the construction done? 

And—because as I go out to two of the bases, they are not ready 

for it. 

General HARRIS. Sir, I will take that one. We are not starting 

this as a new fleet. So the KC–46, as it comes on, will replace current squadrons. So the initial ones going to the trainers, once we 

are done with the testing of these, they will start to work their way 

through probably a normal contract type of initial training, and 

then start to do the—the formal training unit themself will pick 

that up, and then we will work through it. 

Because these are all replacements, it will take us a while, but 

they will replace squadrons of KC–10s and KC–135s, and we do 

have those people onboard already. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Trained in the KC–46s? 

General HARRIS. No, sir, they are not—that is what I am saying. 

When we get the first one to start that training, we will start with 

our formal training unit, our schoolhouse. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Right. 

General HARRIS. They will build up, and then they will become 

the instructors with an assist from the contract team, as it is written—— 

Mr. NORCROSS. So you have adjusted your schedule—the construction of the new facilities and the personnel to reflect—— 

General HARRIS. We are staying on time with those, because if 

the airplanes come to us we don’t want to be late with those facilities. So we are continuing to push forward with the MILCON [military construction] and the people that will be used—or put into the 

effort. 

Dr. ROPER. Congressman, you are right to point out that the delivery of the tankers alone impacts a lot of other things. It impacts 

training. It also impacts how long we have to keep the KC–10 and 

the KC–35s flying, right? 

So there are a lot of coupled factors that touch that tanker. So 

it is high priority, and I think, for me, if these new deficiencies are 

not retired quickly, then it is going to make me be very concerned 

about hitting our delivery date this year. This is a very critical year 

for the tanker. 

Mr. NORCROSS. I agree. I yield back the balance. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. We will now go to Mr. 

Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Air Force’s 2019 budget called for the retention of B–52s and 

ultimate retirements of B–1s, B–2s, once the B–21 is in base. Can 

you talk to us about the mechanics for how that decision came 

about, in terms of the retirements of the B–1s and B–2s? 
12 

And then have basing decisions been made as to where the B– 

21s are going to be based? 

General HARRIS. Sir, I will start with that, if you don’t mind. The 

B–52 was selected based on a lot of factors and an independent 

study done within our Air Force A9 [Studies, Analysis and Assessments] team. And those factors looked at the maintenance and 

sustainment metrics of the platforms themself, the aircraft availability, the maintenance availability versus supply rates, and the 

B–52 was the winner of that. 

So that was the selection that, when we applied what the airplane can do in the near future, when we looked at the B–2, the 

B–1, and the B–52, as paired with the B–21, and then applied the 

National Defense Strategy to this, it was the clear winner for us. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So can you talk to us, though, about you—you 

know, the basing decisions on the B–21? Are you just going to simply replace the B–1s, B–2s with B–21s in its place? You going to 

move around the world? What are you going to do with them? 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. Based on the strategic capabilities of 

the bomber, they are all continental-based. So we have them forward-deployed, but for temporary status. 

So I would expect that, if you are flying bombers now, a B–1 or 

a B–2, in the future you will probably—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Say out of Dyess Air Force Base. 

General HARRIS [continuing]. B–21s, yes, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

General HARRIS. And that is where the school is for one of those 

platforms. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Right. 

General HARRIS. We will probably start there. But we are working through the strategic basing decision, and we have not released 

any of those locations. We are just looking at it from those are the 

locations currently flying bombers, have the facilities to support 

bombers. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right, thank you, yield back. 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Conaway. 

I want to get the panelists’ perspective on both the new national 

defense study and then some of the comments made by General 

McDew. If you combine those two together, it appears as though 

the Air Force is looking to increase its airlift capacity and its 

tanking capacity over that which you have today. So, additional 

aircraft over which you have today. 

And I know the mobility capability requirements study is going 

to come out this fall to look at what the requirement would be into 

the future, and what you need for the entire demand signal that 

is going to come your way. 

In looking at where that is, it appears to me as though the place 

where you will find yourself is increased airlift and tanker force 

structure. That is, a larger number of aircraft. 

So the question then becomes, with the projected numbers of 

tankers that you will build, and lift capacity that you will build, 

it seems like your number—if you completely retire existing aircraft, it seems like your number is going to be lower, rather than 

higher. 
13 

So how do you reconcile where you end up with total force structure for lift and for tanker based on where the build ends up, and 

completely retiring both KC–10, KC–135 aircraft, as well as 

transitioning to the—both the tactical lift we have in C–130s, but 

also C–17 line is done, you know, we have some demand going on 

out there, we have some C–5s that are at the boneyard. 

So the question then becomes, with the demand signal increasing, and with the era of great power competition, give us your perspective on what appears to be a demand signal for increased lift 

and tanker force structure. 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. That is a very good question that—it 

will take a couple of us to answer that, I suspect. If you don’t 

mind—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

General HARRIS [continuing]. We will do that. Let me start with 

the tankers. 

We are not retiring all of the KC–135s. When we have the complete fleet of KC–46As, we will have retired all of the KC–10s and 

some of the 135s. So we will have a fleet of 300 135s and 179 KC– 

46s. That gets us to our fleet of 479, as compared to today 455. So 

that tanker fleet is growing. 

To help us with that, we are also reducing the requirements. Because as we go through and modernize the B–52, the new engines 

will actually require a significant—the improvements we are getting out of the new technology will significantly reduce the fuel required for that platform to fly. So while we grow the platforms and 

the tankers, we will also decrease the requirement, which helps us 

solve some of those issues. 

From a bomber perspective, retiring the B–1 and the—actually, 

you didn’t talk bombers, you—STRAT [strategic] lift, I am sorry, so 

C–5s. To help us with our C–5 lift, we had—initially, for budget 

reasons, we had moved 8 C–5s into BAI [backup-aircraft inventory] 

status, which means we still had the airplanes flyable on the flight 

line, but we didn’t have the ops maintenance and the money behind them to fly them. We just rotated them through. 

We are pulling two out last year, two again this year with our 

fiscal year 2019 proposal, and we intend to do two each of the next 

2 years—basically, have an additional squadron push back out into 

the force to have additional C–5s, which is one of our best airlifters. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

General HARRIS. We will marry that up with the C–17 fleet—we 

have 222 aircraft—and then a smaller C–130 fleet, which should 

meet our TAC [tactical] lift. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

General HARRIS. So, at this point, when we look at what we are 

doing with our strategic lift, we are fairly comfortable with where 

we are headed on the operations plan, but we do have a study that 

is—the mobility capabilities and requirements study is ongoing and 

we will address through that, if we need to, when it completes here 

in several months. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Got it. 

General. 
14 

General NOWLAND. Sir, if I may add, you know, as the operations, we are always looking at our plans. And you are absolutely 

correct, there is always stress on our mobility and our tanker fleet. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

General NOWLAND. Because as we look at the National Defense 

Strategy, everybody wants it quicker and sooner and more rapid, 

so concepts of operation are super important, as we think about 

how we mix the future force mix. And as General Harris said, modernization reduces some, but then you are still going to get other 

people that want to fill in with other capability. 

So, working with TRANSCOM and General Everhart, who is our 

Air Mobility Command commander, is really looking at this hard, 

because command and controlling this and scheduling it really becomes the secret sauce of how you do it, because there is going to 

be a lot of friction as you think about the distances that we have 

to cover in a new National Defense Strategy [NDS]. 

Mr. WITTMAN. It certainly seems like the demand signal is going 

to continue to increase, especially based on NDS. Give me this perspective: The KC–10As are scheduled—a group of them are scheduled for retirement in fiscal year 2019. As KC–46A moves to the 

right, it seems like you are going to have a gap there. 

So tell me what the scheduling happens if KC–46A gets pushed 

to the right, and what the scheduling is for retirement of KC–10s. 

General HARRIS. Sir, we had that study ongoing, but I fully expect the requirements levied on us by the TRANSCOM commander 

will force us to readdress our retirement schedule. If we are late 

on delivery, I would expect we would have a similar delay in retirement of the aircraft, so that we stay at our min [minimum] that 

we have now, but we intend to grow the fleet, rather than actually 

get smaller in that fleet. 

Mr. WITTMAN. And in your plan, too, do you address the issue 

of attrition? We all talk about our fighting platforms in the air and 

on the sea, operating in contested environments. And the days of 

us being able to go in and gain air superiority in a day or two and 

then fly unimpeded in that airspace is a thing of the past. 

So if our lift is going to be operating in contested airspace, if our 

tankers are going to be operating in contested airspace, being able 

to put it—be put at risk at long distances, how do you factor for 

attrition, and how do you factor for support for those aircraft? Because, again, that is the critical link to be able to fight your way 

in. 

So give me that perspective about how the plan considers that. 

General HARRIS. So, expect each one of us to bounce through on 

this question, also. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, please. 

General HARRIS. But certainly, Chairman, there is risk associated with this. We have BAI, or battlefield interdiction—or attrition aircraft within each of the squadrons. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. 

General HARRIS. It is normally about a 10 percent level. So we 

have some initially. 

As you are aware, in our boneyard and different types of storage, 

we also have C–5s. We have other aircraft that are there. Part of 

our concern for our strategic lifters, other than what we have in 
15 

the boneyard, we don’t have an open line. And we hear that regularly as a concern: You are not buying any cargo aircraft right now. 

Well, to be honest, in a way, we are. The KC–46 is a dual-role 

aircraft. We intend to use them fully as a tanker, but with a dualrole capability. They do bring to us a capability to have strict cargo, 

if necessary. And that is an open line. So that is one of the things 

that we can look at. 

And we are also working on the fighter—I am sorry, the nextgeneration air dominance portion to be able to make sure that we 

can operate and survive in that contested airspace, as you talked 

about, before we bring those aircraft forward. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Good, very good. Thank you. 

Dr. ROPER. Congressman, I think the point about having enough 

aircraft available is extremely important. And as a mathematician 

coming into this job, the number that we so often talk about are 

the number of aircraft. But the one that concerns me the most are 

the availability. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Dr. ROPER. So I am starting to read aircraft availability reports. 

And, you know, it is shocking to see some of the issues that we are 

having, in getting planes up in the air. 

So the questions I have been asking as an acquisition person is 

where is our investment in research and development to go after 

sustainment and maintenance, where we are spending most of our 

budget. I think it is an area that we can improve on in the Air 

Force. We are spending most of our money there. There are many 

commercial practices that could be applied that we should be applying. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROPER. I brought a 3D printed part from a C–5 today, which 

shuts off a valve on the outside of the plane. I am seeing little efforts like this across the Air Force, but I don’t see the enterprise 

effort. And so that is one of the areas that I am going to be interested to work with Air Force leadership and go after that part of 

the aircraft availability equation. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, I think that is key. 

Lieutenant General Nowland. 

General NOWLAND. Back to concepts of operation, one of the advantages of the KC–46, our chief says the future battlefield we 

need to be networked, we need to share, and we need to learn. 

So as we look at our fleet, some of the capabilities that we will 

bring on a KC–46 will enhance the situational awareness of the 

overall joint force commander, which will then allow us to adjust 

our concept a little bit so that when we get into that contested environment we are sharing greater information to improve the survivability and the resiliency of our operation. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. I think those are all important points as we 

look at, you know, how we operate in the future in both a strategically challenging environment, but also a resource-challenged environment, to do all that we can there. 

I think the sustainability idea, too, and looking at life-cycle costs, 

looking at best value in purchasing—not low price, technically acceptable—and, as you know, we made a big change last year in 
16 

how acquisition takes place with that, and really minimizing the 

classes where we use LPTA [lowest price technically acceptable]. 

Listen, LPTA may be great for buying jet fuel and toilet paper, 

but for advanced systems in service, it is probably not the best way 

to go about it. So I appreciate you all doing that, because there are 

certainly some models out there—the airlines are tremendously effective in sustaining operations and making sure that they don’t 

miss a minute of avoidable flight time, because when that aircraft 

is on the ground it is not generating revenue. And if we look at it 

the same way in seeing if our aircraft aren’t generating sortie capability or mission capability, then we are missing out on what we 

have invested in. So I think that is the right way to look at it. 

Gentlemen, thank you. We will now go to Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, 

thank you very much for the testimony thus far. I want to follow 

up on some of this KC–10 issues. And specifically, this—the chairman was talking about attrition. And I think you said BAI, which 

was a new term for me. But I think I understand what it is. 

The Air Force intends to recapitalize the KC–10 fleet as part of 

its legacy tanker recapitalization strategy, with retirements beginning in 2019. Representing Travis Air Force Base, I have a longtime interest in this issue. 

Can you explain what that sentence means? 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. Congressman, had the KC–46A been 

delivering on time, we would have retired KC–10s just in time to 

receive the KC–46s at that base from the selection that has been 

made. Now that we are seeing the delays in those deliveries, we 

fully expect to actually slow down our retirement plans. We are 

going through a study to make sure that it is going to tell us—but 

455 tankers with the throw weight that they can get, number of 

booms downrange, along with the number of gas, KC–10 is one of 

our best airplanes for that. And we intend to make sure that we 

are not just retiring it, but we are replacing it with KC–46As. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Given your testimony, given that it is public, I 

expect I am going to get a question from Fairfield, California. Has 

the beddown of the 46 timing changed at all? 

General HARRIS. The timing beddown has changed only based on 

the delivery, sir. So if we don’t have the aircraft to bed them down, 

then yes, it will have changed. But we are still working through 

the actual timing, as it slips. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I agree with one thing that—with all that you 

are saying. But obviously, concerns about the KC–46 and its availability, or its arrival. 

The KC–10 is a spectacular airplane. And it seems as though the 

recapitalization means that this airplane is going to be around 

somewhere, not in a boneyard, but somewhere probably waiting to 

be deployed. Is that a strategy that is going to carry forward for 

the—assuming the KC–46 comes on, KC–10s go somewhere? 

General HARRIS. No, sir. We do intend to retire the KC–10. We 

are one of the—there is only two other organizations in the world 

still flying that aircraft, and the parts availability are extremely 

hard to get. And the operating cost and the maintenance cost are 

not in our best interest. So—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Dr. Roper has his additive machine there. 
17 

[Laughter.] 

General HARRIS. Yes, sir. He does. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. It might be the only way. Okay. I appreciate 

that. 

What is the range of the B–21? 

Dr. ROPER. Congressman, we would be happy to discuss the B– 

21 with you in a closed session. But for any of its performance 

characteristics, they are just not things we can discuss in an open 

hearing. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Fair enough. I probably have other questions, 

but I will yield back at this point. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. We will now go to 

Mrs. Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Good afternoon, gentlemen. It is good to see you 

again. As you know, I have the privilege of representing the Whiteman Air Force Base, home of the B–2 stealth bomber, which is the 

only bomber with the A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] capability, as 

well as the most flexible leg in our nuclear triad. 

And the Air Force’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal eliminated 

funding for the B–2 Advanced Extremely High Frequency [AEHF] 

satellite communications program, which would have provided the 

B–2 two-way, high-speed survivable communications during A2/AD 

operations. And while I fully support the recapitalization of the 

bomber fleet with the B–21 bomber, the B–2 must also continue to 

be modernized to mitigate capability and capacity gaps in the near 

to mid-term. 

So, in light of the termination of the B–2 AEHF program, what 

is the Air Force doing to ensure communications with the B–2 remain viable in A2/AD environments? 

General HARRIS. Ma’am, if you don’t mind, I will start with that. 

Great question, and clearly you are tied in with your community. 

The B–2 is an awesome aircraft that is capable of doing that penetration support. This particular radio is still a long way away, and 

our concern is, had we continued funding it the way it was, it 

would not have delivered until 2026 to 2028 timeframe with our 

bomber vector that we were planning to retire it just a few years 

later. 

In accordance with the National Defense Strategy that was just 

published, this is one of the areas that we looked to take some risk 

on communications, because we will continue to modify the aircraft 

to make sure that it has the survivability it needs to be fully viable 

through that period. And we do have survivable radio connectivity 

using different system appropriate on that airplane that we didn’t 

think a second one that delivered so late in its life span would be 

the right effect for us. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. And that was going to be my follow-up question. 

Can you expound on that a little bit? 

So you have an alternative secure communication solution to replace that to help it go ahead and carry out to the end of its life? 

General HARRIS. Yes, ma’am. This—the radio you are talking 

about is the secure EHF [extremely high frequency]. That would 

have been the second one to deliver. The first one we are looking 

at is an LF/VLF [low frequency/very low frequency] system that 
18 

will deliver before, and actually give the capability that we have 

been missing for a while. 

So when we looked at it from a risk perspective, having at least 

one assured com in there so that we can have the communications 

required for this in a nuclear role that is survivable in that type 

of an environment we think will be sufficient for the life span of 

that aircraft. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. And when will this LF/VLF be added? 

Dr. ROPER. So, ma’am, I will get you a firm date on the fielding 

date. The first money for it comes in place in our fiscal year 2019 

budget. 

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

page 53.] 

Dr. ROPER. And just to speak a little more broadly about B–2 and 

the 2019 budget, it is an important system. It is going to be an important system for us until the B–21 fields. And so the big workhorse in our budget regarding the B–2 is the defense management 

system, which is a large program about $1.3 billion over the FYDP, 

and it is meant to ensure that the B–2 maintains its ability to go 

into the most denied spaces of the world and be able to do its 

power projection mission. 

So it is not neglected, we are just focusing on the things that we 

think are most relevant in the interim period between now and the 

B–21 fielding. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Yes, that is good to know. I was pleased to see 

the new start in the fiscal year 2019 proposal for the radar-aided 

targeting system, or RATS, software upgrade. What is the timeline 

for the RATS upgrade? And when can we expect to see it fielded 

in the B–2? 

Dr. ROPER. So, ma’am, the RATS has about $43 million in our 

fiscal year 2019 budget. Again, I will get you the firm date for the 

record, but I believe it is a 2- or 3-year program. But expect a firm 

date from me on that. It is an important part of the modernization 

effort to make sure the B–2 maintains its penetration capabilities, 

communication capabilities, and sensing capabilities into the future. 

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

page 53.] 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Yes, very, very important aircraft. I very much 

appreciate your acknowledgment of that and the steps that you are 

taking to keep it viable as long as possible, because our Nation 

may need it at any point. 

General Nowland, when you testified before the Readiness Subcommittee I asked a question about the bomber vector, and you assured me that the Air Force is working to avoid a bomber dip, or 

a capability gap with the fleet. Can you discuss more about the Air 

Force’s decision to re-engine the B–52, and what would happen to 

the overall bomber fleet if we do not move forward with the plans 

to re-engine the aircraft? 

General NOWLAND. Ma’am, a fantastic question. The bombers are 

so important towards our overall concept of operations of how we 

support the joint fight. The B–52 re-engine is really good news for 

the Air Force, in my opinion. 
19 

It is going to save us fuel, it is going to give us increased capability with the sense of that extended range that you are going to 

get by the fuel savings. And it is going to give us more reliability, 

because the engines, as we move—the old engines, obviously, are 

hard to maintain, so hopefully it will reduce our amount of maintenance, will increase our mission capable rate, which will get us 

more sorties as we move forward. 

So it is a really positive story, and I think Dr. Roper has got a 

great strategy on how we will prototype, and I will pass it over to 

Dr. Roper. 

Dr. ROPER. So, Congresswoman, it is—the B–52 is a great example of being able to leverage work in commercial industry to help 

us in the military. The airline industry is booming right now. Engines are a big focus. Fuel efficiency is a big focus in the commercial world. And, of course, we want to put back in all of the capability that the current B–52 has. 

But as the general has clearly articulated, there is a chance to 

do something big on fuel savings, which aren’t just saving money 

for the Air Force, it is operational flexibility, it is extended range. 

And I would also like to mention, given that we are talking tankers, it is a lot less time on tanking emissions. So benefits across 

the board. 

The authorities that Congress has given us gives us a lot more 

opportunities to prototype things before we commit to the full program of record. I think B–52 re-engining is a great example of an 

opportunity to get out, to try something, and to fly before we buy 

it. And if we are buying it having demonstrated those fuel efficiencies, then we know we are making a smart decision for the future. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Sounds great. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler. 

Mr. Garamendi, additional questions? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. To follow up on the B–52, are we developing a 

new engine or an engine that exists somewhere out there? 

Dr. ROPER. So, sir, we have all options on the table. But my preferred option, moving into our acquisition strategy, is to leverage 

commercial. That was a big thrust for me in my previous job. If it 

is available in commercial industry, it has got their research and 

development in it, then we should begin by trying to leverage what 

they have done, as opposed to rebuild something ourselves. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And where are you in achieving your goal? 

Dr. ROPER. So, sir, this will be an important year. We are still 

pre-milestone B in the re-engining, so this is the year that we 

should move into a formal acquisition strategy. I am working with 

the B–52 re-engining team, and I expect to have them on their acquisition path within the next quarter of this year. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I certainly agree with your goal of using a commercially available engine, if it is at all possible. 

Dr. ROPER. Yes, sir. I just consider that just ground-rule acquisition practice, that if you can buy it from industry and there is not 

a national security reason why you can’t, then you should. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And when will you know? 

Dr. ROPER. So, sir, the team is going through different engine options as we look through, you know, options for potential source se-
20 

lection. And so there will be more to follow on that. But there is 

a little more work to do to make sure that we do the right decision 

and right choice. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I asked you a four-letter question. When? 

Dr. ROPER. So, sir, I will come back, I will take that for the 

record. But I did my first review with them a few weeks ago. And 

so I am expecting them to come back with a recommended acquisition plan within the next few months. But I will get you a specific 

date. 

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

page 53.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And the approximate cost of re-engining? 

Dr. ROPER. So, sir, in the fiscal year 2019 budget I believe we have $1.56 billion laid in to begin this program. That is to get it 

started. I believe, over the whole life of the program, it is in the 

$7 or $8 billion ballpark. 

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

page 53.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Gentlemen, I would 

like to explore a couple of other areas. 

First is the FAA’s NextGen air traffic management systems and 

the requirements that it places upon the Air Force. The concern 

that comes up in my mind is that it is a locational device, so that 

air traffic controllers can determine the place of the aircraft, aside 

from what they get as far as a radar signal. So it divulges our location. 

So if we are looking at tactical aircraft, whether they are fighter 

aircraft or even strategic aircraft like bombers, and having to divulge that location, to me, that creates a situation that is, I think, 

a potential problem for the Air Force. 

So let me ask. Is it the Air Force’s intention to comply with the 

NextGen requirements by 2020? And if so, how do you mitigate for 

what I believe is an increased vulnerability that is placed on you 

by now-locational information that is now transmitted from the aircraft out? 

General NOWLAND. Sir, that is a question right up the A3’s [Air 

Staff, Operations, Plans and Requirements] alley, so I would love 

to—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

General NOWLAND. I have my vice, my Senior Executive Service, 

is Mr. Wayne Schatz. And he is meeting with the FAA continually 

about that. And he sits with the FAA on two different boards to 

talk about this issue. We, like you, have similar concerns. So the 

answer is we are working a memorandum of agreement. 

By the way, thank you for the question and pointing out the 

GAO [Government Accountability Office] report, because I had not 

seen it. So the report said it would be due in February. It is already March. So I have queried. We are close to getting that, which 

will work an accommodation between us and the FAA for our tactical airplanes. 

Our large airplanes, where we can comply, we will absolutely 

comply to the max [maximum] extent practical. But we share the 

same concerns that you have. 
21 

Think about an Operation Noble Eagle mission where you have 

F–16s that are capping over a city to help protect the President or 

protect somebody. If somebody could just go on a—and find out 

where they were, if you know where they are then you know how 

to avoid them, right? So we share your concerns, and we are working with the FAA from a national defense and security strategy— 

North American Air Command is also involved about this, Department of Homeland Security, so we are all working together towards 

that accommodation. 

The other part that we think is super important is there is cyber 

vulnerabilities, and we are working with the FAA to talk about 

how we mitigate those and how we ensure that we put a cyber— 

what I would like to call a defensive counter-air bubble of protection around our system, so that we don’t introduce vulnerabilities 

into our systems. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I would agree. I think there is—well, I think it is 

both a tactical and strategic question the Air Force has to deal 

with. I understand the air safety elements of that, but there is a 

national defense dimension to our fighter aircraft that we have to 

keep in mind. 

It seems like to me the FAA would be willing to provide some 

type of exception or exemption for those aircraft to make sure that 

you can maintain that tactical superiority. And, you know, why 

would you want to provide somebody with a very simple device to 

pick up a signal that is fairly easy to pick up, that is going to be 

picked up by an air traffic control center, to give away aircraft location? I couldn’t agree with you more. 

To me—listen, I understand the air safety element of it. But I 

also understand too there is a much larger mission objective for 

those fighter aircraft. And hopefully the FAA will be mindful of 

your greater mission. 

And listen, I understand their mission of air safety, but your 

mission is national security, which, to me, provides, hopefully then, 

food for thought on what they can do to work with you. 

General NOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a great relationship with the FAA and the whole interagency—I think this is 

a really good-news story for our government, because we are working together, and they do recognize we have symbiotic needs here, 

to be perfectly honest. 

Because what we have also discovered, your air data system 

broadcast is subject to GPS [Global Positioning System], and GPS 

can be jammed. So you can create problems within that system 

that they are recognizing also. 

And then, finally, the system is based upon everybody who wants 

to be part of the system. There is a recognition that you have noncooperative people out there who want to do something for a myriad of different reasons. And from national defense, from homeland 

security, from just law enforcement, we need that capability. So we 

are working together as a team to come up with a solution set 

which meets the timelines. 

Mr. WITTMAN. That is great. I think that is important for everybody to understand, you know, how to prioritize those elements of 

what your mission is and the FAA’s mission. So I appreciate that. 
22 

I wanted to ask a question about—go back to airlift capacity. As 

I talked about earlier, we understand from TRANSCOM the demand signal that they see, not only now, but in the future, the demand from the combatant commanders. We know the C–17 line is 

done, so we are not going to build any more of those aircraft unless 

we retool and ramp back up, which is not likely. 

But we do have 25 C–5s, as I said, in the boneyard. Would it 

make sense to bring those aircraft back? To me, having those 25 

aircraft back into operation provides a tremendous amount of lift 

capability in our air platforms. And, of course, we are talking about 

the sealift side, too. But specifically to you all we are looking at the 

full suite of lift. And it seems like those C–5s, those 25 sitting in 

the boneyard, is maybe an opportunity. So—— 

General HARRIS. So, Chairman, that is a great question. And continuing on that line of thought, on our past studies, when we 

looked at this based—before we had our National Defense Strategy 

that aligned to us—to a new effort and structure, we did not need 

those. We were comfortable with holding those where they were at 

so that we need—if we needed them, we would have access to 

them. 

As the ongoing mobility capabilities and requirements study completes, we will use that to inform, with the National Defense Strategy and the plans that we have sat in front of us with, the strategic 

alignment of our high-end capacity against our peer adversaries 

first. If that drives us to say we need to have additional airlift, that 

is one of those places we can go. Or do we need to then work with 

our team and actually open up a new strategic lift line? That will 

be part of that study. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I think it is critical. As you look at the needs identified in our OPLANs [operation plans], and in talking with General Dunford about executing those OPLANs, wherever they may 

be, but especially in areas that are a distance, to be able to sustain 

those operations, the key is lift. And as you know, the—you know, 

the first 2 to 3 weeks, you know, we surge a lot there. We can do 

that. But the key is sustaining those operations. 

And the limiting factor that elongates the timeframe for us to 

fully execute those OPLANs, the single logistical roadblock to that, 

is lift, being able to get supplies and folks to the fight. And especially at distance, that becomes a bigger and bigger issue. 

So I think, you know, as we look at the NDS—and I do agree 

that we are in the age of great power competition—you know, having that capability is going to be key. So I appreciate you all looking at that and really seriously studying, you know, what we can 

do with those particular aircraft. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Very useful line of questioning. Those 25 C–5s 

that are in the boneyard, what does it take and how long does it 

take to bring them back up? 

General HARRIS. That is a great question. It is different for each 

aircraft. And we have different types of storage. So type 1000 is our 

most restrictive storage, fastest to return to fly. And aircraft in 

there, we can generally turn them in a couple of months. But it is 

one or two at a time. Our team that does that is not sufficient in 
23 

size to have that effort, based on what we are doing in day-to-day 

operations, their caretaker status. 

If we run into an attrition event, we would be able to put more 

manpower after that to turn those quicker. But some of these larger airplanes, depending on if they are in type 2000 or type—different types of storage, whether we have been able to pull parts off 

them or not, they take up to 3 years to get them out of that storage 

and build, which is why the study is looking at that to say is it 

better to pull them out, based on the storage level that they are 

at, or is it better to go after new equipment. 

And we also haven’t talked about our Civil Reserve Air Fleet 

[CRAF]. That is another option for us, that if we have a peer type 

of a competition, there is probably not a whole lot of civil aviation 

going on at the time in that area. And that may free up big portions of our fleet to activate them. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Harris, another thing to consider, too, you 

know, we all look at CRAF as that flex, or that surge capability. 

But, as I said, the thing that concerns me in looking at that—and, 

listen, those carriers are key, I think they can perform a lot of duties, but there is a particular mission set that strategic lift aircraft 

can perform that those commercial carriers cannot. And that is operating that contested airspace and being able to do that and having systems on board to sense, to at least counter what may be a 

threat to that particular aircraft. 

So I would think, within that realm, too—and hopefully the 

study will reflect upon that and understand, you know, if we are 

going to be executing an OPLAN in a contested area of the world, 

especially against one of our adversaries today that is—may be one 

that wants to be near peer, that acts badly, you know, we are going 

to be in a pretty challenging situation. 

So I hope that you all reflect upon that. And like I said, aircraft 

carriers do a great job, and there is a role for them, but also for 

our strategic lift and—there is a time element in that, too. 

So, anyway, we look forward to working with you. And just as 

Ranking Member Courtney said, if there are things that we can do 

in this year’s NDAA as far as authorization, as far as direction that 

you feel that you need with this, please let us know, because we 

think this is one of those critical tipping point times where we are 

now devoting the resources to recapitalizing our Air Force, our 

Navy, our Marine Corps, and our Army. Getting this right is the 

key. 

And I want to emphasize again that it is an extraordinarily competitive environment to compete for resources up here to put into 

the defense budget. So by every measure we have to make sure 

that these programs, which are complex programs—KC–46A, B–21, 

F–35—these have to be delivered on budget and on time. Because 

if we hiccup with these things, folks up here are going to say, ‘‘See, 

I told you,’’ you know, ‘‘we put money there, they couldn’t properly 

put it in place, they couldn’t manage the dollars.’’ 

And then we are back in this scenario where the Congress’ response is what? To either reduce funding—so, say, build fewer, and 

we all know what happens when you build fewer. What happens 

to unit costs? They go up. We saw that with F–22. Or what happens, too, is we say, well, we have a limited number of resources, 
24 

so build them slower. What happens to the economies of scale when 

you build them slower? Unit costs go up. 

So we have got a delta that we have to meet. And I know that 

you all are focused to do this. So delta we have to meet on capacity, 

as well as capability. The capability is within the aircraft, the capacity is the number that we build. The only way that we get there 

is to make sure that these programs are successful on budget, on 

time. And if there are things that we need to do to enable, or 

things that we need to do to make sure that we are helping, let 

us know. 

Another thing that we are responsible for is making sure that we 

are watching the watchers, so that is to make sure that we are 

laser-focused on things that are happening with this program, both 

within the Air Force—and I want to give you all credit. The management part of that has gone, I think, very well on some pretty 

complex systems. But also making sure we place the attention on 

the primes and the subs in all these programs, because everybody 

has to perform. 

And I will go back to this. There are three elements of a successful program. Getting the requirements right and making sure the 

requirements are stable. I think, with all of these platforms they 

are. And stability and certainty in funding, that is our job. No more 

CRs [continuing resolutions], let us get the job done here so you 

will have certainty. And then industry has to execute. Any weakness in those three create the hiccups in programs, and then we 

don’t have what we need. 

So this is a team effort, and we look forward to working with 

you. And thank you for taking the time to come in today. 

Mr. Garamendi, any other questions? 

Very good. Gentlemen, thanks again. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 14, 2018 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 14, 2018 

(29) 

Opening Remarks of the Honorable Rob Wittman, 

Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, 

for the hearing on 

Department of the Air Force Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request for Seapower 

and Projection Forces 

March 14,2018 

Today the subcommittee convenes to receive testimony on the fiscal year 

2019 Air Force budget request regarding bomber, tanker, and airlift acquisition 

programs. 

The distinguished panel of Air Force leaders testifYing before us are: 

• The Honorable Mr. William Roper, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

for Acquisition; 

• Lieutenant General Jerry D. Harris, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Strategic Plans and Programs; and 

• Lieutenant General Mark C. Nowland, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Operations, Plans and Requirements 

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. 

The fiscal year 2019 budget request tor projection forces continues to 

modernize and recapitalize critical Air Force weapon systems. I am pleased to see 

increasing investment in the B-21 Raider bomber and the high-visibility VC-258 

Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization effort. Also, this budget proposes funding to 

continue modernizing the legacy Guard and Reserve C-130H tactical airlift t1eet. 

Throughout the past year in testimony to Congress, Air Force senior 

leadership indicated that "the Air Force is one of the busiest, smallest, oldest and 

least ready fleets in our history." It is my firm conviction, in light of the threats 

posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, that we must provide the Air Force 

the resources it needs to fully support critical recapitalization programs. 

With regard to bombers, the Air Force outlined its plans for its bomber fleet 

in the FY19 budget submission. Under this plan, the B-52, oldest bomber in the 

fleet, will remain on duty for the next few decades while the newest B-2 and B-1 

bombers will be retired. I am interested to hear from our witnesses today about 

factors used to make these determinations. 

As for the B-21 bomber, I fully support this critical program and am pleased 

to see that we are moving forward. The B-21 will be needed for projecting power 

over long distances and into denied environments in the future of warfare. Timely 

delivery of B-21 is necessary to ensure our national security. While 1 believe that 

Northrup Grumman is doing a good job at managing the risk across the entire 

portfolio, I look forward to assessing in better detail the B-21 program to ensure 

sufficient progress on design and construction. 
30 

With regard to tankers, I am concerned that continued forecast delays for 

KC-46A deliveries, coupled with the Air Force's plan to begin retiring 47 KC-lOA 

aircraft across the FYDP beginning in FY19, may add unacceptable risk to 

Combatant Commanders' ability to execute war plans. In General McDew's 

testimony to my subcommittee last week, he indicated "we already know the 

convergence of an aging air refueling fleet with protracted KC-46 production puts 

the Joint Force's ability to effectively execute war plans at risk." He went on to 

say that "it is clear, the tanker fleet's end strength will require careful 

synchronization between KC-1 0 and KC-135 retirements and KC-46 production 

and delivery to sustain current force projection capabilities." 

!look forward to hearing your thoughts on this program and how the Air 

Force intends to manage the transition ofKC-1 OA and KC-135 aircraft with the 

KC-46A. Furthermore, I also look forward to hearing why Air Force believes 

robust investment into KC-46A is warranted considering continued delays in this 

program. 

I am encouraged with the Air Force's sustained effort to ensure that its 

mobility aircraft will comply with the FAA mandated NEXT GEN air traffic 

management standards by January 1, 2020-with the exception of a few aircraft 

that will be undergoing depot modification. But I am becoming increasingly 

concerned about other military equities that may be impacted as we move to 

support the FAA mandate. While I support the migration of our tankers and airlift 

assets to NEXT GEN, I do worry about the lack of security protections associated 

with the bomber and fighter force structures. We need to carefully monitor this 

transition. 

While I believe that the Air Force's fiscal year 2019 budget request 

continues to make up lost ground, I remain concerned about the Air Force's ability 

to fulfill Commandant Commander requirements given the shortfalls in strategic 

airlift, aerial refueling, and the increased risk posed by the complexities of 

managing the tanker and bomber transitions. 

In the words of the immortal air power theorist General Giulio Douhet, "In 

order to assure an adequate national defense, it is necessary- and sufficient to 

be in a position in case of war to conquer the command of the air." Like Douhet, it 

is my firm conviction that we need a strong Air Force equipped with the most 

capable aircraft that enable our highly skilled and motivated Airman to defend our 

great nation. 

Once again I want to thank our witnesses for participating in our hearing this 

afternoon and I look forward to discussing these important topics. With that, I turn 

to my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Joe 

Courtney. 
31 

Ranking Member Joe Courtney Opening Remarks for 

Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Hearing on 

Department of the Air Force Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request for Sea power 

and Projection Forces 

March 14, 2018 

Thank you Mr. Chairn1an, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. 

Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the bomber, tanker, and airlift 

platforms that ensure that we can respond anywhere, at any time, around the world. 

The 2019 budget request for these programs reflects the challenging 

balancing act facing the Air Force and the Congress. For instance, the budget 

continues significant investment in major replacement programs like the B-21 

bomber and the KC-46 tanker. At the same time, a large portion of the request also 

covers a range of modernization efforts aimed at keeping older legacy bombers and 

tankers operational and relevant for years to come. 

This is not an easy balance to maintain, and your input today will help our 

subcommittee evaluate whether we have the right in this year's defense bill. With 

that in mind, I wanted to quickly highlight a few areas offocus. 

As I noted earlier, the 2019 budget continues significant and needed 

investment in the KC-46 tanker replacement. However, I remain concerned about 

additional delays in this high-priority program. Just last week, the Air Force 

announced that the delivery of the first operational tankers may not occur until next 

year. I hope our witnesses today will explain how the Air Force is working to 

address the program's schedule and the impact of delays on the rest of the tanker 

fleet. 

Another ongoing area of ongoing and bipartisan interest on our 

subcommittee is the modernization of our C-130H fleet. This subcommittee has led 

the way in moving upgrades like the Avionics Modernization Program, or AMP, 

forward after years of delay and I appreciate the Air Force's continued support for 

AMP in the 2019 budget. However, I am disappointed that budget does not fund 

other needed upgrades like new high-efficiency propellers and engines for this 

fleet. I look forward to exploring this issue more in our session today. 

I also hope that our witnesses will provide additional clarity into recent 

developments on the Air Force One replacement program. There have been very 

public and high level pronouncements about a deal to save $1 billion on the new 

aircraft. Unfortunately, to date very little detail has been provided to our 

subcommittee, or the American public, about this arrangement. At the same time, 

the Air Force is moving forward on costly sole source contracts to sustain and 

upgrade the current Presidential aircraft. I believe that our subcommittee deserves 

greater insight into what is happening with this program as well begin our work on 

this year's defense bill. 
32 

Finally, I wanted to take a moment to highlight the "Flying Yankees" of 

Connecticut's 1 03rd Airlift Wing. In 2017, the wing demonstrated the versatility 

and relevance of the C-130H mission by deploying both overseas to support 

ongoing missions abroad and domestically in support of hurricane relief. Whether 

it was flying over 1 ,300 combat sorties or delivering over 200 tons of food, water 

and supplies to hurricane victims, the men and women ofthe 103rd showed just 

out valuable they, and their aircraft, are to our nation. 

Thank you again to our witnesses. I look forward to today's discussion. 
33 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEA POWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: AIR FORCE BOMBER/TANKER/AIRLIFT ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 

STATEMENT OF: The Honorable William B. Roper, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) 

Lt Gen Jerry D. Harris, USAF 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

(Strategic Plans and Programs) 

Lt Gen Mark C. Nowland, USAF 

Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations) 

March 14,2018 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
34 

Introduction 

Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Courtney, distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an update on U.S. Air Force 

acquisition programs. Additionally, thank you for your leadership to bring fiscal stability back 

to our government departments and agencies. Stable, predictable funding levels are critical to 

arrest the readiness decline in the Air Force's Global Mobility and Bomber forces as we look 

forward to our future national security interests. 

2 

The new National Defense strategy is clear: inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, 

is now the primary concern in U.S. national security. The Air Force is committed to regaining 

readiness soonest. We are examining a myriad of initiatives to mitigate the toll27 years of global 

operations has taken on our Airmen, equipment, and infrastructure. Meanwhile, our adversaries 

leveraged this opportunity to advance their own capabilities and close the technological gap. We 

must modernize in the core missions of global strike and rapid global mobility in order to 

maintain our asymmetric military advantage. 

Last year, our bombers flew 580 missions in the Indo-Pacific, strengthening security and 

stability in the region and reassuring our partners. Reinforcing NATO's eastern flank, American 

bombers flew 70 assurance and deterrence missions. Together, our nuclear and conventional 

bombers, in concert with our tanker aircraft, provide global power and global reach to ensure an 

effective deterrence. But both of these important fleets are aging. The average ages of the B-52 

strategic bomber and the KC-135 tanker both exceed 50 years, and we will continue to use them 

for decades. The B-1 and B-2 bombers must continue to be modernized to ensure they remain 

viable and capable until we transition to the B-21. Our budget proposal supports the Defense 
35 

3 

Department's principal priority to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent that 

safeguards the homeland, assures allies, and deters adversaries. The budget improves our nuclear 

command, control, and communication systems, as directed in the Nuclear Posture Review, 

initiates development ofB-52 replacement engines, and continues development of the B-21 

bomber. 

Rapid Global Mobility not only enables the bomber force to hold any target around the 

world at risk at any time, but also supplies the largest military logistic network in history. In 

2017, Airmen transported nearly I million personnel and delivered over 738 million pounds of 

warfighting equipment and humanitarian supplies. At home, Airmen delivered 13,600 short tons 

of relief supplies following the string of record-setting hurricanes and helped com hat multiple 

wild fires in the western United States. The tanker force extended joint power projection at 

intercontinental distances by passing more than 1 billion pounds of fuel in-flight. Tanker 

recapitalization remains a top acquisition priority. The multi-role KC-46 will be capable of 

refueling joint and coalition aircraft-with both boom and drogue in the same sortie-and 

augments the airlift fleet with improved cargo, passenger, and aeromedical evacuation 

capabilities. This budget proposes to buy 15 more KC-46 tankers in FY19 to recapitalize our 

aging !1eet and extend the tight to our enemies. 

The Air Force must build a more lethal and ready force, strengthen alliances and 

partnerships, and cost-effectively modernize to compete, deter, and win in any environment. 

Modernization is a multi-year effort, and the Air Force needs your continued support in the form 

of stable, predictable, and timely funding levels to prevent our adversaries from closing the 

technology gap. We remain committed to providing the most effective bomber and robust tanker 

forces possible to the nation. 
36 

4 

Over the past two decades our total bomber inventory has been significantly reduced. To 

provide perspective, in 1991 we had 290 aircraft available within the bomber t1eet versus 158 

B-1, B-52s, and B-2s today. Current operations, training, and readiness needs-and our deterrent 

posture-will be difficult to sustain with the current t1eet. 

The B-21 program remains one of the Air Force's top programs with regards to 

investment in research, development, test and evaluation with $2.7 billion for Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development in the Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget. The B-21 continues to 

make measured, positive progress and remains on track to deliver its initial capability in the 

mid- 2020s. 

The program successfully completed a Preliminary Design Review in 2017 

demonstrating that the Air Force, along with its industry partners, are continuing to develop 

the design maturity of this platform. The development phase of the program is well on the 

path to detailed design. 

The Air Force remains committed to a lleet size of a minimum of 100 B-2ls. This lleet 

will provide capabilities necessary to meet future Combatant Commander requirements. The B-21 

remains an absolute national defense priority, and we are grateful for your continued support of 

this critical program. Until the B-21 is fielded, it is equally important that we continue the 

commitment to modernize our legacy bomber t1eet to maintain the ability of our Air Force to 

provide Nuclear Deterrence Operations, Nuclear Response, Global Strike, and Global Precision 

Attack. 
37 

5 

The B-1 B is a long-range, air-refuelable multirole bomber capable of !lying 

intercontinental missions with the largest payload of guided and unguided weapons in the Air 

Force inventory. The Integrated Battle Station upgrade, $100 million across the FYDP, will 

provide enhanced situational awareness and precision engagement capabilities and is the B-1 B's 

largest modernization effort since its production. The first aircraft with this upgrade was 

delivered in January 2014, and a total of37 B-1 s are currently modified with this capability. The 

B-1 B will complete this modemization effort in 2020. 

Other efforts to update the B-1 B's navigation and radar systems were completed in early 

2016. These e!Torts improve reliability and maintainability of these critical systems. 

Additionally, the Air Force has fully funded the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for B-1 

engines. This funding will replace parts that have been degraded by nearly 15 years of combat 

and restore all 289 B-1 engines to their original specifications. Finally, ongoing testing is 

validating the B-IB's structural integrity to ensure that it remains viable through 2040. 

The B-IB is the Air Force threshold platfonn for early operational capability of the Long 

Range Anti-Ship Missile, which is transitioning from a Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) demonstration to the Navy-led Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Program. 

Integration of this weapon, coupled with the B-1 B's long range, high speed and large payload 

capacity, will posture the B-1 B for an important role in any conllict in the Indo-Pacific region. 

The B-2 is the only long-range strike aircraft capable of penetrating and surviving 

advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems to deliver weapons against heavily defended targets. 
38 

6 

Its unique attributes of intercontinental range, precision strike, large conventional or nuclear 

payloads, ability to penetrate defenses, and low observable profile allow it to execute Nuclear 

Deterrence Operations, Nuclear Response, Global Strike, and Global Precision Attack missions. 

The Air Force will continue to modernize the B-2 to ensure it remains effective as enemy 

defensive systems advance. Current efforts to modernize the Defensive Management System, 

$1.3 billion within the FYDP, will ensure the B-2 can continue to counter sophisticated air 

defense networks and operate in highly contested environments. 

The Air Force will continue development efforts tore-host the Stores Management 

Operational Flight Program software in the Flexible Strike program, enabling the B-2 to take 

advantage of advanced digital weapon interfaces such as those used by the 861-12 nuclear 

weapon. The Air Force has completed development efforts and started procuring hardware for 

the Common Very-Low-Frequency I Low Frequency (VLF/LF) Receiver program and will 

begin fielding the system in FY20 19. This program provides the B-2 with a VLF/LF receiver 

for secure, survivable strategic communications capability. Except for delivering spares 

hardware, the Air Force has completed fielding the Extremely High Frequency Satellite 

Communications and Computer Increment l program: a mid-life avionics upgrade to the flight 

management computers and digital storage and data buses. Other on-going B-2 programs 

address a two-part modernization effort. The first part entails needed avionics upgrades to meet 

global and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-mandated air traffic management standards, 

(i.e., Mode and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Airspace Compliance). The 

second piece of the modernization effort supports operational capabilities by enhancing the 

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, Crash Survivable Memory Unit replacement, and 

hardware upgrades for the employment of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator as well as 

the 861-12 nuclear weapon. 
39 

A new effort beginning in Fiscal Year 2019 is the Radar Aided Targeting System 

software upgrade to enhance the accuracy of navigation data passed to the B61-12 nuclear 

weapon ($42. 7 million total). Finally, the Air Force will continue to pursue a number of B-2 

sustainment initiatives to improve aircraft supportability and increase aircraft availability. 

7 

The last B-52H Stratofortress entered service in the United States Air Force in 1962, and 

it remains our nation's oldest and most versatile frontline long-range strategic bomber. We 

expect to continue operating the B-52 through 2050 and will continue to invest in modernization 

programs to keep the platform operationally relevant with state-of~ the-art updated capabilities. 

Major modernization et1orts include the Radar Modernization Program (RMP), ($766 million 

across the FYDP), Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT), ($163 million 

through the FYDP), and 1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade programs, ($25 million within the 

FYDP). RMP will modernize the current Strategic Radar (AN/ APQ- 166). The current radar is 

based on 1960s technology and was last modified in the 1980s. The radar upgrade will support 

platform viability through 2050. The FY 19 PB also includes $1.56 billion for re-engining the 

B-52 with currently-available commercial engines: a great example of the Air Force looking to 

commercial technology to address sustainment challenges with the legacy TF33 engines before 

they become unsustainable in 2030. 

CONECT provides an integrated communication and mission management system as 

well as a machine-to-machine interface tor weapons retargeting for the entire t1eet of 76 B52Hs. The digital infrastructure and architecture provided by CONECT is the backbone for the 

1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade (IWBU) and future modification efforts. The 1760 IWBU 

provides internal J-series weapons capability through modification of Common Strategic Rotary 
40 

8 

Launchers (CSRLs). Both increments of this program arc fully funded and will significantly 

increase the B-52's capability to store and deliver the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), 

Laser-JDAM, Joint Air-to-Surface StandofTMissile (JASSM) and its extended range variant, 

and the Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) along with its jamming variant. The Air Force 

is committed to modernization of the B-52 using modern technology to ensure the aircraft 

remains relevant through 2050+ as an important element of our nation's defense. 

The C-17 is the only aircraft that combines tactical capability with strategic range to operate 

from austere airfields. The fleet of 222 aircraft completed fielding in September 2013 and 

provides our nation unmatched flexibility to conduct theater and inter- theater direct delivery, 

airdrop, aeromedical, and special operations airlift missions. In order to increase predictability of 

budget and schedule, our plan is to bundle modernization and sustainment activities. Agile and 

efficient software and hardware updates will ensure timely readiness, safety, and capability 

improvements, as this premier airlift platform contributes to our national security objectives. 

The Air Force intends to use $125.1 million in FY19 procurement funds to continue 

critical sustainment, modifications, and upgrades to the C-17 fleet. This includes Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out to satisfy FAA and civil airspace compliance 

mandates as well as IFF for the identification and control of military aircraft: essential for 

Command and Control. Additionally, $49.3 million of FY19 RDT &E funding will address 

obsolescence and flight safety issues. The development of a replacement heads-up display will 

address obsolescence of the current C-17 heads-up display and improve the system's availability, 

reliability, and maintainability. The beyond line-of-sight communication system effort 

modernizes multi-channel voice and data communication subsystems to ensure the C-17 keeps 
41 

9 

pace with changes in DoD communication infrastructures. 

The Air Force continues to modernize and enhance 52 legacy C-5 aircraft to a common 

configuration to ensure fleet viability and reliability to 2040. The C-5 reliability enhancement 

and re-engining program is a comprehensive effort to improve aircraft performance, reliability, 

maintainability, availability, and payload capability/cargo throughput. All 52 aircraft have been 

inducted as of January 2017, and the final aircraft is projected to complete modification in 

April2018. 

The increased reliability and performance ofthe C-5 Super Galaxy exemplifies our 

Global Reach. During the first week of March 2017, an upgraded C-5 Super Galaxy flew a 

cargo mission rrom Travis Air Force Base, California to Yokota Air Base, Japan without 

stopping or refueling, skipping a layover at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, or Joint 

Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. This range and payload capability saves time, fuel, and 

money. 

The FYI9 PB requests $80.6 million in procurement funds, predominately for C-5 core 

mission computer/weather radar system equipment. Additionally, the FY19 PB requests $25.1 

million in RDT&E funding to support communications, navigation, surveillance/air trallic 

management upgrades, including ADS-BOut modifications required for global airspace 

compliance. The C-5 core mission computer/weather radar system replaces an antiquated radar 

system with diminishing manufacturing sources and upgrades the core mission computer 

processor to meet the demands of future software modifications. Finally, the FY19 PB continues 

the buy back ofC-5Ms from Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAT) to Primary Aircraft Inventory 
42 

10 

(PAl) as determined during FYI8 PB development. The Air Force buys back 2 C-5Ms from BAI 

to PAl in FYI9. 

Comprised of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers and 59 KC-1 0 Extenders, our tanker fleet 

provides the backbone of rapid U.S. global operations. Delivery of 179 KC-46 Pegasus aircraft 

by 2028 will replace less than half of the current tanker fleet and leave the Air Force with 300 

aging KC-135s awaiting recapitalization. Tankers are the lifeblood of our joint force's ability to 

respond to crises and contingencies quickly and are essential to keeping our Air Force fueled as 

a global force. 

KC-135 and KC-1 0 

The average KC-135 is 55 years old. Both the KC-135R and KC-1 0 fleets are 

frequently challenged by aircraft parts obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source 

issues. However, with the help of both organic Air Force depots and industry, we are able to 

maintain these platforms as effective and safe weapon systems for the warfighter. We are 

executing several key modernization, safety and compliance initiatives to ensure our legacy 

tanker fleet remains viable through 2057. 

The FY19 PB requests $69.4 million to continue KC-135 modernization efforts. The 

primary modernization effort for KC-135 is the Block 45 program, which addresses 

supportability, reliability, and maintainability issues with legacy flight and engine instruments 

by integrating a digital flight director, autopilot, radio altimeter, and electronic engine 

instrument display for our operators. 

Furthermore, the FY19 PB also requests $60 million through the FYDP to continue 
43 

II 

upgrading and sustaining our KC-1 0 fleet through its planned sunset, which includes funding for 

service bulletins, low cost modifications, and IFF Mode 5 and ADS-B Out upgrades. Mode 5 is 

a development el1ort to complete a DoD-mandated upgrade to the IFF systems on aircraft 

planned for implementation in FY20. The FYI9 PB also funds ADS-BOut avionics 

modifications on 45 KC-10 aircraft to comply with the FAA airspace mandate. The Air Force 

intends to recapitalize the KC-1 0 fleet as part of its legacy tanker recapitalization strategy with 

KC-1 0 retirements beginning no earlier than FY19 depending on KC-46A delivery schedules. 

While we continue to sustain our current tanker capability, building our tuture tanker 

fleet remains one of our top acquisition priorities. After a successful Milestone C decision in 

August 2016, the Air Force exercised contract options for aircraft Lots land 2: 19 aircraft, 4 

spare engines, and 10 wing aerial refueling pod shipsets. The Air Force awarded Lot 3 (15 

aircraft) on January 27, 2017 under the authorization of an anomaly in the FY17 Continuing 

Resolution and plans to award Lot 4 (15 aircraft and associated spares and support equipment) in 

third quarter of FY 18. 

We are conducting a schedule risk assessment in partnership with Boeing. The Air Force 

continues to support Boeing's efforts towards delivery. Boeing is a valued partner and remains 

fully committed to the program. The Air Force will continue to work closely with Congress 

and continue to provide updates as appropriate on program status. 

In the FY 19 PB, the Air Force requests $88.2 million in RDT&E funding for the ongoing 

KC-46 engineering and manufacturing development and post production modification efforts. 

The FY19 PB also requests $2.9 billion in procurement funding to award low rate initial 
44 

12 

production Lot 5 (15 aircraft) in January 2019. The procurement of these aircraft continues the 

Air Force's plan to acquire 179 KC-46s by FY28. Stability of requirements and funding are the 

keys to KC-46 program success and will enable the Air Force to deliver this new tanker ready 

for employment on day one. 

The C-130 fleet is diverse and consists oflcgacy C-130H and C-130J aircraft, as well as 

special mission aircraft (AC/LC/EC/MC/HC/WC-130s ). The C-130Hs and C-130Js are 

medium-size transport aircraft capable of completing a variety of tactical airlift operations 

across a broad range of missions. The fleet delivers air logistics support for all theater forces, 

including those involved in combat operations. 

The Air Force is modernizing the C-130H fleet through a four-pronged approach 

emphasizing aircraft safety, compliance, modernization, and partial recapitalization. Firstly, we 

are ensuring the C-130H is safe to operate by keeping the aircraft structurally sound through 

programs such as center wing box replacement. This program is a critical safety effort as it will 

replace center wing boxes whose service life will soon expire. Secondly, we are focused on 

meeting U.S. and foreign airspace compliance mandates through the C-130H avionics 

modemization program (AMP) increment I. Thirdly, C-130H avionics modernization program 

increment 2 will improve the f1eet's maintainability and reliability by providing a new digital 

avionics suite that mitigates pending obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing source 

issues. 

The FY19 PB requests $106.0 million in RDT&E and $22.7 million in Aircraft 

Procnrement, Air Force (APAF) to support the legacy C-130H fleet. The Air Force intends to 
45 

partially recapitalize or modernize each of the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve 

Command C-130H units. The Air Force also intends to continue recapitalizing Air Force 

Special Operations Command's special operations C-130Hs with C-130Js (AC/MC-130Js). 

13 

The C-1301 aircraft provides extra cargo carrying capability, longer range, and better fuel 

efficiency for our combat delivery mission when compared to legacy C-130s. Special mission 

variants of the C-130J conduct airborne psychological operations and offensive electronic 

warfare (EC-1301), weather reconnaissance (WC-1301), search and rescue (HC-130J), and 

special operations (MC-130J and AC-130J). Current modification efforts include center wing 

box replacement, large aircraft infrared countermeasures, and avionics upgrades to become 

compliant with ADS-B Out capabilities in order to meet emerging global airspace requirements 

as part of the C-IJOJ Block 8.1 upgrade. The FY14 National Defense Authorization Act 

authorized multi-year procurement for the C-130J. As part of the multi-year contract, the Air 

Force is procuring 72 C-130Js (all variants) through FY18. The FY19 PB requests $15 million 

for C-130J RDT &E and $177 million for C-l30J modification elTorts. The FY19 PB also 

requests $33 million for HC/MC-130J RDT &E and $! ,344 million for HC/MC-!30J 

procurement and modification efforts. 

The VC-25B program, formerly known as the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization 

program, will replace VC-25A in 2024 via a highly-tailored acquisition program. The Air Force 

Presidential VC-25A l1eet faces capability gaps, rising maintenance costs, and parts obsolescence 

as it reaches the end of its planned 30-year life cycle. The Air Force will deliver a new l1eet of 

aircraft to enable the President of the United States to execute the duties oft-lead of State, Chief 

Executive, and Commander in Chief The Boeing 747-8 commercial aircraft will be uniquely 
46 

14 

modified to provide the President of the United States, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air 

transportation with the equivalent level of communications capability and security available in the 

White House. Modifications to the aircraft will include electrical power upgrades, a mission 

communication system, a medical facility, executive interior, a self-defense system, and 

autonomous ground operations capabilities. The FY19 PB requests $673 million to complete the 

preliminary design and begin engineering and manufacturing development for two Boeing 747-8 

commercial aircraft. 

Conclusion 

The USAF remains committed to providing the most el1ective bomber and robust tanker 

forces possible to the nation. In the midst of the challenges ahead, we will aim to keep these 

programs on track and deliver these systems-not only as a vital capability to our forces-but also 

as a best value to our taxpayer. These systems will provide the future capabilities necessary to 

operate effectively in the warfighting environment of tomorrow. 
47 

William B. Roper Jr. 

Education: 

Georgia Tech 

Dates: 09/1998-08/2001 

Degree: Bachelor of Science (Physics), Minor (Mathematics) 

Georgia Tech 

Dates: 09/2002-08/2002 

Degree: Master of Science (Physics) 

Oxford University 

Dates: I 0/2002-04/20 I 0 

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (Mathematics) 

Employment Record: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Position: Director, Strategic Capabilities Office 

Locations: Pentagon; Arlington, VA 

Dates: 08/20 12-present 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, & Logistics 

Position: Member, Missile Defense Advisory Committee 

Locations: Pentagon, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Headquarters 

Dates: 08/20 I 0-08/20 II 

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 

Position 1: Ballistic Missile Defense System Architect (Acting) 

Location: MDA Headquarters 

Dates: 06/2010-08/08/2012 

Position 2: Technical Staff Member (Systems and Architectures Group) 

Locations: Bedford, MA; MDA Headquarters 

Dates: 01/2006-06/2010 

Honors and Awards: 

Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service 

Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Award for Innovation 

Missile Defense Agency Contractor of the Year 

Missile Defense Agency Award for Innovation 

Missile Defense Agency Award for Technology 

Rhodes Scholar 

Truman Scholar 
48 

Lieutenant General Jerry D. Harris Jr. 

Deputy Chief of Staff Strategic Plans & Programs 

Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris is Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. In support of the Chief of Staff and Secretary of 

the Air Force, General Harris leads the development and integration of the Air Force strategy, 

long-range plans and operational capabilities-based requirements. He directs and coordinates 

activities ensuring the Air Force builds and employs effective air, space and cyber forces to 

achieve national defense objectives. 

General Harris entered the Air Force in 1985 as a graduate of the ROTC program at Washington 

State University. He has served as a flight commander, operations officer, weapons officer and 

inspector general. The general served on the staffs of two numbered Air Forces and one major 

command, all in operations. He has also served as the Combined Air and Space Operations 

Center Battle Director for operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. General Harris has 

commanded at squadron, group and wing levels. Prior to his current assignment, General Harris 

was the Vice Commander, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, responsible 

for organizing, training, equipping and maintaining combat-ready forces for rapid deployment 

and employment while ensuring strategic air defense forces are ready to meet the challenges of 

peace time air sovereignty and wartime defense. 

General Harris is a command pilot with more than 3,100 flying hours in the F-16. 
49 

Lieutenant General Mark C. Nowland 

Lt. Gen. Mark C. Nowland is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air 

Force, Washington, D.C. He is responsible to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of 

Staff for fonnulating pol icy supporting air, space, cyber, and irre~:,'Uiar warfare, counter 

proliferation, homeland security and weather operations. As the Air Force operations deputy to 

the Joint Chief of Staff, the general detennines operational requirements, capabilities and 

training necessary to support national security objectives and military strategy. 

General Nowland is a 1985 graduate Jrom the U.S. Air Force Academy. He previously 

commanded at the squadron, wing, and numbered Air Force levels. He also served on the Joint 

Staff, US SOUTH COM and two Air Force major command staffs. The general has flown combat 

operations in support of operations Southern Watch and Iraqi Freedom. He is also a graduate of 

the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and was a National Security Fellow at the Olin 

Institute at Harvard University. Prior to his current assignment, General Nowland was the 

Commander, 12th Air Force, Air Combat Command, and Commander, Air Forces Southern, 

U.S. Southern Command, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. 

General Nowland is a command pilot with more than 3,600 flying hours, primarily in the A-10, 

F-lSA/C/0, T-378, T-38A/C A/T-388 and T-6. 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 14, 2018 

(53) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS 

Dr. ROPER. The original Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) 

contract for the KC–46 was signed in February 2011. It established the requirement 

for the delivery of 18 aircraft required assets available (RAA) in August 2017 (78 

months after contract award). This requirement drove the expectation (not contractual agreement) that the first aircraft would be delivered in calendar year 2016 in 

order to have the 18 aircraft RAA met by August 2017. [See page 10.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER 

Dr. ROPER. Development of the B–2 VLF/LF capability, known as the Common 

Very Low Frequency/Low Frequency (VLF/LF) Receiver Increment 1 (Common Very 

Low Frequency Receiver Increment 1), began in fiscal year 2013 to provide secure, 

survivable nuclear command, control and communication (NC3) capability to the B– 

2. The production installation contract was signed January 16, 2017 and the first 

production installations completed March 14 2018. The final B–2 VLF/LF installation is planned for the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. [See page 18.] 

Dr. ROPER. The software-only B–2 Radar Aided Targeting System (RATS) program is a fiscal year 2019 new start effort. The RATS program provides improved 

B–2 navigational handoff accuracy in a GPS-denied environment to digital nuclear 

weapons such as the B61–12. Final fielding of the software in the B–2 is expected 

by the end of fiscal year 2021. [See page 18.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI 

Dr. ROPER. The Air Force is exploring a range of options to include extending the 

life of the current engines or purchasing commercial engines. We are planning for 

an approval of the acquisition strategy in September 2018 and it will serve as the 

decision point for engine type that will be pursued. [See page 20.] 

Dr. ROPER. The FY19 PB has requested $64.5M for FY19 and $1.56B through the 

FYDP (FY19–23) for RDT&E and Aircraft Procurement Air Force (APAF). The cost 

estimate will be completed after the Acquisition Strategy is finalized. [See page 

20.] 

Æ