U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

i 

28–994 2019

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–71] 

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 READINESS HEARING 

ON

AIR FORCE READINESS POSTURE 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 14, 2018 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida 

RO KHANNA, California 

MARGARET DEAN, Professional Staff Member 

BRIAN GARRETT, Professional Staff Member 

MEGAN HANDAL, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Nowland, Lt Gen Mark C., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force ............................................................................... 3 

Rice, Lt Gen L. Scott, USAF, Director, Air National Guard, Headquarters 

U.S. Air Force ....................................................................................................... 4 

Rydholm, Maj Gen Derek P., USAF, Deputy Chief of Air Force Reserve, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force ............................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Nowland, Lt Gen Mark C., joint with Lt Gen L. Scott Rice and Maj 

Gen Derek P. Rydholm ................................................................................. 27 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 25 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 43 

(1) 

AIR FORCE READINESS POSTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 14, 2018. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:32 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WILSON. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this 

hearing to order of the Readiness Subcommittee on the House 

Armed Services Committee. And our sound system apparently is 

not—— 

Mr. KELLY. It does not work. 

Mr. WILSON. Good afternoon. In the interest of proceeding without a sound system, we will all speak a bit louder, and for those 

of us from the Southern States, this may be a challenge. But, fortunately, Ranking Member Bordallo is from Guam, so she can be 

heard across the Pacific. 

But good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I call this hearing to 

order of the Readiness Subcommittee at the House Armed Services 

Committee. Thank you for being here today. This hearing is the 

first in a series of Readiness hearings on the services’ budget request and readiness posture. 

Today, I look forward to hearing how the Air Force’s budget request enables a readiness recovery plan where we continue to take 

risks and how this request supports our men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day. 

Over the course of the past 2 years, this subcommittee has met 

with Air Force leadership to understand the depth of the readiness 

challenges facing the Air Force. We expect that this budget attacks 

the most critical challenges; namely, those issues most essential to 

halting the readiness decline and rebuilding and restoring the Air 

Force. 

Our Air Force remains the most powerful in the world; however, 

it will take years to rebuild and restore. The purpose of this hearing is to clarify the Air Force’s choices for its budget requests, to 

address funding priorities and mitigation strategies, and to gather 

more detail on the current and future impacts of these decisions on 

operations, maintenance, training, and modernization. 

More importantly, does the Air Force have the resources it requires in order to rebuild and restore readiness? Can it support the 

largest sustainment bills looming in the future? We firmly believe 
2 

the primary responsibility of the national government is to provide 

for the national security of its citizens, and that is especially true 

of our airmen, who freely risk their lives to serve this Nation. 

Therefore, it is our responsibility, as members of this subcommittee, to understand the readiness situation and how the budget request assisting the Department of the Air Force in correcting any 

deficiencies in restoring and rebuilding the capabilities this Nation 

needs. 

I welcome all of our members and the distinguished panel of the 

senior Air Force leaders present today. This afternoon, we have 

Lieutenant General Mark Nowland, the Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Operations, U.S. Air Force; Lieutenant General Scott Rice, the Director of the Air National Guard; and Major General Derek P. 

Rydholm, the Deputy to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve. 

Thank you for testifying today, and we look forward to your 

thoughts and insights on these important issues. 

Now I am very grateful to turn to our distinguished ranking 

member, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, of Guam, for any remarks she would like to make. 

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

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

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

This committee is full of advocates for the Air Force. We look forward to the opportunity to help you. To our witnesses, our gentlemen, thank you for being here this afternoon. And with the release 

of the budget request for fiscal year 2019 earlier this week, today’s 

hearing marks the first step in this subcommittee’s work to develop 

this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

Over the past year, the subcommittee has heard details of the 

Air Force’s readiness challenges: spare parts and munition shortages, talent retention issues, and overall aircraft sustainability 

challenges. These issues culminate in fewer ready people, aircraft, 

and squadrons to meet operational requirements. 

The Secretary of the Air Force has identified restoring readiness 

as a primary objective of the fiscal year 2019 budget request. However, I have some initial concerns of how this budget request will 

support that goal. Specifically, I note that the base operations and 

maintenance request remains relatively flat between fiscal year 

2018 and 2019, despite significant increases to overall defense 

spending. 

While procurement of new hardware and advanced research 

draw significant interest, it is the operations and maintenance accounts that play a critical role in generating and restoring readiness by supporting training, maintenance, and sustainability of the 

current and future force. 

So, with that in mind, the central question I believe that members of this subcommittee must ask is, how will this budget request 

increase the Air Force’s readiness? And I hope that our witnesses 

can help provide answers to that question today. 
3 

So I want to thank you very much, and I look forward to the testimony and the discussions this afternoon. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ranking Member Bordallo. 

General Nowland, we now turn to you for your remarks and 

briefing on the incidents. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN MARK C. NOWLAND, USAF, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. 

AIR FORCE 

General NOWLAND. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today, along with my distinguished counterparts 

from the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard, on the 

state of your United States Air Force. 

On behalf of the Secretary, Chief, and 670,000 airmen protecting 

our Nation, it is an honor to be here with my Total Force partners. 

The Air Force is our Nation’s asymmetric advantage in defending 

our Nation. We defend the homeland. We dominant the air, space, 

and cyber domains. And we project decisive combat power forward 

with the joint team to defend American interests and our allies 

worldwide. 

The relentless pace of nonstop operations for nearly 30 years affected high-end readiness for the Active Duty, National Guard, and 

Reserve forces. But make no mistake: we stand ready together to 

answer our Nation’s call to provide multidomain superiority to the 

joint fight. 

The newly released defense strategy is clear: we are in a new age 

of competition. Driven by our Secretary and Chief’s priorities, the 

Air Force is on course to change the way we assess and resource 

readiness for full-spectrum operations. 

As the A–3, I have a team sequestered in the Pentagon today 

working at a 45-day deep dive in how we report readiness that we 

hope to share in the future. With your help, we can modernize our 

capabilities in a cost-effective manner to ensure your Air Force is 

ready to win any engagement in the future. 

As you know, quickened by your assistance and with additional 

funding in 2017, we have arrested the readiness decline. We have 

begun to do so with a keen focus on our most powerful resource: 

people. 

Thanks to your help, we added 4,000 airmen to begin to close our 

manpower gap. We are also funding more flying hours, munitions, 

new equipment and parts, depots, training, and training infrastructure. With stable, predictable funding, we will begin to turn the 

corner this year and accelerate into a multiyear climb towards fullspectrum readiness. 

However, as you noted, there are always challenges. We have our 

T–6 fleet grounded right now, and as I reported last week, we are 

moving forward. We have two technical change time orders that 

are being executed right now that we expect to be done on the 16th 

of February. 

Next week, we expect to start flying—24 crews will start to fly 

the airplane to test our on-board oxygen-generating system to see 
4 

if we have the appropriate repairs and we can get back to flying 

operations. 

The team is also testing an alternative method with an oxygen 

disconnect from the on-board oxygen-generating system and also 

flying in a restricted flight envelope so that we could get back to 

flying. 

In other words, we have a two-prong attack to try to get back to 

flying in our T–6, which is our primary trainer, which we have lost 

82 pilots this year already because we have canceled one class. You 

all know that we are in a pilot crisis, so the Air Force is laser focused on this effort. 

General Pawlikowski, our AFMC [Air Force Materiel Command] 

commander, has established a two-star in charge of it; and General 

Kwast, our AETC [Air Education and Training Command] commander, is making this his number one priority. 

With your help, we look forward to moving forward and continuing to increase the readiness of the United States Air Force, 

and I look forward to any questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Nowland, General Rice, 

and General Rydholm can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, General Nowland. 

And we now turn to General Rice for your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN L. SCOTT RICE, USAF, DIRECTOR, AIR 

NATIONAL GUARD, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE 

General RICE. Thank you, Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member Bordallo and the committee members all. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about our Nation’s Air National Guard. 

I am here with a small team from my staff, including Command 

Chief Master Sergeant Ron Anderson, our Command Chief of the 

Air National Guard, that serves right alongside with me, along 

with all of our airmen. 

First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all those 

airmen, the men, women, and families of the Air National Guard 

for their unwavering dedication to serving this Nation. 

Over 106,000 uniformed Guard airmen of the Total Force provide 

operational and strategic depth to our Nation’s defense strategy, 

ready to deploy in the homeland or around the world, as the threat 

dictates. The Air National Guard cost-effectively employs experienced airmen who comprise about 21 percent of the Total Force 

and contribute to every one of the Air Force core missions. 

Currently, we have about 7,700 dual-use Guard airmen deployed 

around the world in support of global and domestic operations. The 

demands are high, but the honor to selflessly serve our Nation is 

a significant motivator. 

Last year, the Air National Guard supported deployment requirements in 56 countries; filled 46 percent of the Total Force’s overseas requirement for civil engineers; safeguarded American skies 

from 15 of 16 aerospace control alert sites; dropped 7.3 million gallons of water and fire retardant on fires; and provided lifesaving 

rescue, support, and comfort for the victims of Hurricanes Harvey, 

Irma, and Maria, to include 2,300 sorties flown and 11,600 passenger movements and 15,000 tons of cargo moved. 
5 

It is my job to ensure our Guard airmen are organized and 

equipped with the right sources, tools—the right resources, tools, 

and training to do what our Nation asks. My focus is clear: support 

the National Defense Strategy through continued readiness recovery, improving our operational depth and capacity, and enhancing 

the lethality of our operationally proven Reserve force. 

To accomplish this task, we are focused on three Air National 

Guard priorities: number one, readiness for today’s fight, to ensure 

we are manned, sized, and equipped to support a more lethal total 

joint force; two, 21st century Guard airmen, to foster a more innovative, agile, and resilient warrior; and three, build for tomorrow’s 

fight, to continually evaluate mission areas, concepts, recapitalization and modernization of force structure to more efficiently accomplish our objectives. 

I also want to extend my deep appreciation and acknowledge 

your support of NGREA, the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. NGREA is essential to modernize our combat equipment to remain interoperable, reliable, relevant, safe, and available 

to respond to any crisis anywhere in the warfight or domestic environment in a timely and efficient and effective manner. 

The Air National Guard is committed to serve, excel, and accomplish Air Force missions with integrity, respect, pride, and honor. 

However, fiscal unpredictability creates significant additional 

stress and high operational tempo of our Reserve force. We need 

your continued support to restore readiness with fiscal stability 

and focused funding so that we can build for tomorrow’s fight. 

Ultimately, our task is to ensure the Guard airmen are prepared 

and ready for the task we expect them to perform in the defense 

of our Nation. Thank you for inviting me here today, and thank 

you for your continued support of the Air National Guard support 

mission and its members. 

I look forward to your questions, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General Rice. 

And we now will be proceeding to General Rydholm. 

Ms. BORDALLO. The speakers are working. 

General RICE. We are back on the air, so to speak. No pun intended. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General Rice. 

I now proceed to General Rydholm. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN DEREK P. RYDHOLM, USAF, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR 

FORCE 

General RYDHOLM. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am extremely honored to represent America’s Reserve citizen airmen on behalf of Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller, Chief of Air Force Reserve and Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Command, who is unable to be here today due to obligations at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Mr. Chairman, your Air Force Reserve is lethal, resilient, and always ready to answer our Nation’s call. Each day, we have over 
6 

6,000 Reserve citizen airmen serving on full-time orders around the 

world in all the core missions of the Air Force. 

As we sharpen our edge to compete, deter, and win in the fight 

tonight, there are two concerns that have my attention because 

they impact our ability to strengthen our competitive edge for the 

future. Our first concern is the impact of continuing resolutions on 

the training and retention of our Reserve citizen airmen. The second is the loss of our full-time pilots and maintainers to commercial industry. 

Continuing resolutions negatively impact our training, retention, 

and ultimately our readiness. Our Reserve citizen airmen rely on 

predictability to effectively balance their civilian employment with 

their critical contributions to our Nation’s defense. 

Reservist’s availability must be matched with a predictable funding stream or critical training is postponed. Delayed training is difficult to reschedule and places an increased burden on the one resource we can’t buy back, that being time. 

Our second concern as we continue to strengthen our competitive 

edge is the loss of our technician force of pilots and aircraft maintainers to the contract and commercial industry. Retention of our 

technician force is essential to maintaining our lethality and combat effectiveness. We have taken steps over the past year to increase the retention of our technician force, but work still remains. 

One area this committee can be of great assistance is to support 

legislation to authorize dual-status Air Reserve technicians medical 

coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select. Your support is vital to 

enhance continuity of care for our Air Reserve technicians and 

their families while they perform our Nation’s call. 

Supporting this initiative would do more for the retention of our 

critical technician force than any action over the past few years, 

and the time is now. TRICARE Reserve Select for Air Reserve technicians bolsters the Nation’s defense by retaining seasoned airmen 

through a continuum of care measure with enduring impact. 

On behalf of Lieutenant General Miller, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and for your unwavering support of our incredible Air Force, our Reserve citizen airmen, and 

their families. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General Rydholm. 

We appreciate your first appearance before this subcommittee, 

and best wishes for your continued success. And thank you, you returned the sound. 

Each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes of questions to our panel. It will be strictly maintained by Ms. Margaret 

Dean, and beginning with me, strictly maintained. 

General Nowland, the Air Force is approximately 2,000 pilots 

short of their requirement. This pilot shortfall continues to worsen, 

and essential training aircraft, like the T–6 and T–38, have been 

plagued by increasing maintenance challenges. 

And most recently, the entire T–6 fleet was grounded due to the 

onboard oxygen-generating system failing to provide adequate oxygen to these trainee pilots. I have serious concerns about training 

these pilots of the aircraft with an average age of 55 years old and 

over 16,000 flight hours. Congress supports a new trainer aircraft, 

the TX; yet the contract award has been delayed. 
7 

How is it possible for the Air Force to adequately address the 

pilot shortfall without an on-time delivery of the TX training aircraft? 

General NOWLAND. Congressman Wilson, thank you for that 

question. It is a fabulous question and one that I am deeply concerned about also. 

Our T–6 fleet, as I said, is critical towards our ability. It is our 

basic trainer. We are looking holistically to solve that from a material solution, from an education solution, from a training solution 

to get that fleet back up—that aircraft back up on its feet as soon 

as possible and back up into the air. 

The TX, the good news for the TX is the decision was delayed 

a little bit because of our acquisition professionals want to make 

sure we got it correct, but we have money in this budget to move 

forward on the TX. And I am with you: we need to have that airplane delivered on time. 

We, the Air Force, believe, because of the nature of the aircraft, 

we are hopeful that there will be little to no delays as we move 

through that. And part of the delay is to—the decision, I understand, was to make sure that we have the best choice, so if a protest came, we could move it forward as quickly as possible. 

And as far as our numbers, sir, and retention, you are exactly 

right. We know that retention is critical. But guess what? Production is critical. The way we really get out of this situation is we 

have to—and our Secretary said it yesterday—increase our production to 1,400 undergraduate pilot training graduates per year and 

grow out of this problem. 

Retention numbers are difficult to chase. Industry is always 

there. We have over 60 initiatives, one of which is a monetary 

bonus, and we are using the authority that you have given us to 

try to adjust that bonus to maximize the potential. 

But in the end, we believe growing pilots for America and for the 

United States Air Force is in our best interest, and that is what 

we intend to do. 

Mr. WILSON. Appreciate your commitment on that. And as we 

talk about the TX contract, what would be the timeframe which 

you anticipate that a decision will be made? 

General NOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am not in the acquisition. 

What I have seen is just what you have seen. I believe it is in the 

spring or summertime is when the selection will be made, and then 

hopefully we will move in a rapid acquisition. And as you see in 

the money—in our budget, we have a large section of money as we 

move into the future to start purchasing that airplane. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, that is very encouraging. And, again, we appreciate your efforts to expedite. 

And then, for each of you, the latest projections for rebuilding the 

readiness are based on setting conditions for readiness recovery. 

What percentage of readiness will the Air Force reasonably attain 

and by what timeframe? 

Are there particular core functions that are more at risk than 

others in terms of the readiness recovery efforts? How does the fiscal year 2019 Department of Air Force budget request impact the 

recovery plan for the operational readiness? And, actually, I will 

begin with General Rice. 
8 

General RICE. Thanks for that question, Chairman. 

In light of things the Guard is specifically doing to increase readiness, first, we are hand in hand with the Air Force in growing our 

end strength and filling in those gaps and seams. 

The second thing was, not only did General Nowland talk about 

production of brand-new pilots, but the other two pieces that we 

have a big part in is the training of advanced pilots in our formal 

training units, as well as the next step, which is absorption of 

those pilots into our force. 

To increase our ability to observe across the Total Force—Guard, 

Reserve, and Active Duty—we have increased things like secondshift maintenance to get after some of these. So we put resources 

of people and part supplies and flying hours into that to increase 

our readiness. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And my time is up. But, General Rydholm, thank you again for 

being here. And I was particularly happy to see you are a graduate 

of the Naval Academy. As a Naval Academy grad dad, I am very 

appreciative, so best wishes. 

And we now proceed to Guam with Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All the way to Guam? You said proceed to Guam. 

Mr. WILSON. It is so close. 

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

And before I begin, I have two questions for General Nowland. 

But I just want to say, General Rice, thank you for paying such 

great attention to the Guard units on Guam, particularly Air 

Guard. 

General Nowland, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I am 

concerned about what I see in the fiscal year 2019 budget request 

for operations and maintenance funding and specifically in key 

readiness-enabling accounts, such as those that support weapon 

system sustainment, and note that, in the sum, the fiscal year 2019 

request appears to be roughly the same amount as fiscal year 2018 

levels. 

However, approximately $5 billion has been shifted from the base 

request to OCO [overseas contingency operations]. Now, can you 

explain to us the reason for this shift and also quantify the level 

of risk the Air Force is taking in weapon system sustainment compared to the full requirement? 

General NOWLAND. Madame Bordallo, that is a great question, 

ma’am. 

So the exact answer of the shifting of the money I will take for 

record and will answer, because we moved some money around as 

the budget was moved around. But in end, we are upping our 

weapon system sustainment by $400 million this year. We are also 

upping our flying hour money that we are paying for. 

So the answer is, as we are moving forward, 3 years ago, we 

started to build maintainers. We anticipate, next year, we will 

grow those three levels, which are apprentice into craftsmen, into 

five levels. 

So we have put money into weapon system sustainment so that 

we can hopefully increase our aircraft utilization rate by up one per 

sortie per month across the fleet, which will help us get an additional training. 
9 

In addition, we have put money into our adversary air program 

at Nellis. So, when pilots go to Nellis, every sortie they fly will be 

a blue air sortie is the goal so that they are not taking their precious training time to act as an adversary but act as a primary. 

We think those two actions will help us increase our readiness 

level as we move forward, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

The second question also is for you, General. The quarterly readiness report to Congress identified three lines of effort to return Air 

Force pilot manning to required readiness levels. Now, one of those 

efforts included a significantly increased take rate for the pilot 

bonus, almost double that of last year. 

Now, I understand that the Air Force is pursuing a holistic approach to the retention problem and that the service has not found 

financial compensation to be a root cause of the pilot shortage. 

However, neither the quarterly report nor any Department leadership has identified what changes will be made between last year 

and this year to achieve increased take-rate percentage goals. 

So, if pilot bonus take rate is one of the service’s three main lines 

of efforts, how exactly do you expect to meet your fiscal year 2018 

goal? 

General NOWLAND. That is a fantastic question. Thank you. 

The numbers that you—may have appeared, I think, were mistaken. There was a number of 65 percent in there, which is what 

we used to measure what we thought we had to retain. Our actual 

retention, as you identified, is 43 percent last year, and it went 

down a little bit. But it only went down 1 percent, so that was— 

we thought that was a win. 

So how we are going to do, given the authorities you have given 

us, we are going to try to realign our bonus rate to try to keep our 

most important people, which are our instructors and our evaluators, across our weapon system to incentivize it as we look at the 

business case analysis. That’s the first thing we are going to do. 

The second thing we are going to do is we are going to focus on 

that production because we cannot ultimately control what the airlines are going to do and how much money they are going to, but 

we are going to work on that production to try to increase the maximum production we can get to while simultaneously improving the 

quality of life with those 60 initiatives that we have to improve the 

quality of life so that their quality of service is what they want to 

accomplish. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, General. 

And I do have just a few seconds, but I am going to yield back 

in the interest of time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your service. I am disappointed in the 

recommendation—some of the recommendations from the Air 

Force. I would just ask you, on one of our other weapons systems, 

the Air Force proposed several years ago and unfortunately Congress allowed the canceling of the F–22 contract based on the 

promise that another plane was going to be available. 
10 

Do you think it was a good decision to cancel the F–22 contract? 

General NOWLAND. Congressman Scott, I assume that’s for me, 

right? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. 

General NOWLAND. The F–22 is—I am an air superiority pilot. 

The F–22 has proved to be one of our greatest air superiority assets. 

Mr. SCOTT. So would you agree that it was a mistake to cancel 

the contract? 

General NOWLAND. I was not in the Secretary’s decision space at 

that time. I know there were a lot of different factors that worked 

into that at that time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me rephrase it. Do you wish that we had maintained the contract? Do you wish that we had more F–22s? Would 

we be a stronger Air Force today if we had more F–22s? 

General NOWLAND. The F–22 is an absolutely incredible air superiority as we look to the future and great power competition. Additional F–22s, I would estimate all combatant commanders would 

like to have more. 

Mr. SCOTT. One of the other things that our combatant commanders would like to have is more ISR [intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance] platforms. So, every year, the Armed Services 

Committee, we have heard from the combatant commanders that 

they don’t have the necessary ISR assets to support the geographic 

commands. The JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar 

System] continues to be a highly requested asset inside the Department of Defense. 

General Nowland and Rice, what is the rationale behind the Air 

Force’s decision to impose risk on combatant commanders with the 

divestment of three E–8C JSTARS aircraft in the fiscal year 2019 

proposed budget? 

General NOWLAND. Congressman Scott, the long-term—the goal 

is to increase lethality and effectiveness for the combatant commanders by trying to disaggregate the moving target indicator capacity across the force. 

So we are going to maintain the JSTARS through the midtwenties, with—that is a while away, as we look at this idea of 

disaggregation to see if we can create an advanced battle management system that gives combatant commanders greater capacity 

and dismounted moving target indicator by modifying the MQ–9. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you for that answer, General. But if I may, 

the Air Force’s decision, they have told us repeatedly, is based on 

the fact that they don’t believe that it is survivable in a contested 

airspace. So the—we have been told that the primary reason is 

that it is not survivable in a contested airspace. 

General NOWLAND. There are increased threats from our great 

power nations that do make it in a higher threat environment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, General, if I may, just continuing along that, 

would you agree that those nations like Russia and China, that 

space is a contested environment and they are working on advanced technologies that would make—may make our ability to 

communicate from space impossible? 

General NOWLAND. There is no doubt that space is becoming contested environment, and our Air Force space is looking at how we 
11 

get in warfighting constructs. And to say impossible communications, sir, it is beyond the level of my knowledge, but certainly I 

think there will be challenges in space. 

Mr. SCOTT. But you would agree that they will have the ability 

to break our lines of communications? 

General NOWLAND. I am not—— 

Mr. SCOTT. There is a risk that they will be able to break our 

lines—— 

General NOWLAND. There is a risk towards our communications, 

of course. We know that they will always try to go after our communications capability. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. I know I am getting a little short on time. 

And, General Rice, I apologize that I cut you out of that. 

But I do need to go again, General Nowland, to the weapon system sustainment accounts. What steps are you taking to expedite 

the hiring in the depot workforce, the direct hiring as well as the 

retention at our depots? 

General NOWLAND. Our Air Force Materiel Command General 

Pawlikowski, in working with our A–1, is attempting to streamline 

that and reduce that timeline. Our goal, as you know, is to reduce 

that and get the skilled workers that we need to get out on the 

flight line as much as we can. 

So the efforts and the authorities that you have given us, the Air 

Force is acting on those and trying to implement those procedures. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentlemen, thank you. 

And I would point out to the committee that it was a mistake 

to cancel the F–22 contract. It would have been a mistake to allow 

the Air Force to get rid of the A–10 as they had proposed to. And 

it will be a mistake to allow the Air Force to stop the recapitalization of the JSTARS program. 

And, with that, I yield the 6 seconds that I don’t have. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Scott. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of California. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. 

My question is regarding the sustainment of the F–35s. I don’t 

understand how we can plan to sustain over 250 F–35 aircraft 

while we try to triple the size of the fleet by 2021 when there continues to be serious ongoing challenges to the program. 

Currently, F–35 repairs at the depots are 6 years behind schedule. There is a part shortage leaving the aircraft unable to fly 

about 22 percent of the time in 2017, and the Autonomic Logistics 

Information System, ALIS, is facing development delays. We are 

essentially building new aircraft to be quickly deemed not mission 

capable. 

This is a readiness challenge as we will not have full-functioning 

F–35s for our pilots to train or operate on. It is my understanding 

that ALIS has yet to be rolled out because of key remaining deficiencies. 

What is the status of ALIS? How is all of this impacting our 

readiness and the ability of our pilots to train and deploy with 

these aircrafts? 
12 

General NOWLAND. Congressman Carbajal, thank you for that 

question. 

We have deployed a squadron, the 34th Fighter Squadron, on a 

theater security package into the Pacific AOR [area of responsibility]. So the problems that you highlight talk about the system 

in general, and as we look at the system in general, they are absolute challenges in sustainment and cost. 

And our Secretary of the Air Force is actively working with the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense to try to drive cost down and performance measures on the ALIS, Autonomic Logistics Information System. 

However, what we have seen from our deployed forces is that 

those F–15s that are forward, the Air Force, as well as the Marine 

F–15—I mean F–35s, are performing well downrange, and they are 

actually making fourth generation better. 

So it is a challenge as we grow the system with the parts because 

we are still building airplanes, and it is an international program. 

They are trying to work through it. Our logisticians are working 

with the joint program office to streamline that as best they can. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. I appreciate your answer, but I will tell you that 

it would be great if we could somehow get some kind of action plan 

that identifies all these deficiencies and some timelines by which 

we hope to be able to overcome these challenges. 

Because if not, your statement, as great as it sounds, it is pretty 

hollow. So it would be great for us to know, what is the Air Force 

action plan to address these issues and the timeframe by which to 

do it? 

General NOWLAND. We will take that and give you a written answer on that so that way we can provide that to you. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back my time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Carbajal. 

We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. 

General Rice, good to see you again. As you know, Tennessee has 

a strong Guard presence all across the State. It is something we 

are very proud of. And our Air Guard in particular carried out an 

exceptional set of important missions that contribute to our national security on a daily basis. 

General James Hecker of the U.S. Central Command recently 

stated that we have 50 percent more MQ–9 drones providing ISR 

capabilities in Afghanistan than we had a year ago. For obvious 

reasons, RPAs [remotely piloted aircraft] have become very popular 

with our combatant commands, and the Air Force budget reflects 

that demand with its request to procure 8 peacetime and 21 OCO 

Reaper drones. 

My question is, what does the combat line growth and procurement increase mean for National Guard RPA missions? 

General RICE. Thanks for that question, sir. And bottom line, 

thanks for your support too of our Guard. We can’t do it alone. We 
13 

need your help as we work hand in hand on how we present forces 

across the Total Force, Guard, Active, and Reserve. 

As far as RPA specific, it is a building-block approach. So not 

only is it just the platforms to put up, but it is also the ground control stations, and it is the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of the data. And so parts and pieces of that are growing in 

Tennessee, and we are putting in platforms, newer platforms of 

MQ–9s into Tennessee as we field those over in the next few years. 

That is our part. That is our role right now: to expand that capability within the National Guard across all of our units that we 

have fielded, which includes Tennessee. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. And followup to that, in regards to RPA 

launch and recovery elements [LREs], during the recent California 

wildfires, we saw firsthand the critical role RPAs can have in assisting first responders. How many domestic LREs do we currently 

have, and are there plans to prop up more LRE missions? 

General RICE. Our goal is to have 5 units with LREs. We have 

two at each one of our training units in New York in March, and 

then we have three other units that are receiving the launch and 

recovery elements too. 

Once we get to that level, I think we will be able to maintain the 

weapons system for a while and a good balance between homestation training and response in the homeland as well as be able 

to deploy one of the five at any time to meet Air Combat Command 

missions. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. We would be happy to host one of those at 

Nashville, by the way. 

General RICE. Noted, sir. Duly noted. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. And also because we are on that subject, we 

would love to have you back down to Tennessee soon. And I want 

to reiterate how perfectly situated the 164th is to host an AEROMED [aeromedical] squadron should there be mission growth in 

that area. 

General Nowland, yesterday, this group was at an Armed Services retreat, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan used an anecdote talking about the repair times for aircraft. 

And he gave an example of a Southwest airliner, 737, if it had a 

part problem, I think he used a flap as an example, that that could 

be procured, replaced, and the plane could be flying within 24 

hours. But put that same 737 in a military skin, it might take 6 

months just to get the part and 3 months to repair it. 

First of all, is that an accurate description? And if so, considering 

that 50 percent of our airplanes are in poor repair and not ready 

to fly, how do we solve that problem? 

General NOWLAND. Thank you very much. It is an interesting 

question for me. I am not positive, given the facts, that I can say 

if it is true or not true. Certainly, we have unique part sets where 

our logistics system doesn’t where we sit. And we measure that, 

and remember, we call it S time and then B time, which is technical term for how much we are sitting. 

Our older airplanes absolutely have part problems. Our WC– 

135s, our older boutique airplanes have logistics challenges. Some 

of our newer airplanes, as was pointed out, F–35. But for the most 

part, we have invested in weapon system sustainment. So our parts 
14 

supply and our Defense Logistics Agency and our A–4 is managing 

it, I would say, fairly well if you look at our metrics across. 

The other thing that we do in our small airplanes is we have 

what is called a CANN [cannibalization] rate, which is where we 

take a part out and we take it and we move it. And, right now, 

our cannibalization rate is very good. We are not doing that. So all 

indicators are, across the majority of the fleet, we are looking pretty well. Our older airplanes, though, challenges. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

We now proceed to Congressman Don McEachin of Virginia. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Generals and Major General, thank you all for being here. 

And if you have already covered this, I apologize for my tardiness, but as we think about readiness and as we think about readiness particularly where the Air Force is concerned, can you speak 

to me about pilots? And do you have enough pilots? Is there a pilot 

shortage? And how can we help you address that shortage if it exists? 

General NOWLAND. That is one of my favorite questions, so thank 

you very much for asking it. 

Where we can help, yes, we do have a pilot shortage. As you 

know, the numbers were about 2,000 pilots short, about 1,300 

fighter pilots short. Where it really manifests itself mostly right 

now is in our staffs, which are our organizations which oversee, because we are continuing to reduce our staffs to keep our cockpits 

manned, which has a second-order effect. 

Where we need help and I think that we are going to come to 

ask Congress for some help, is to increase our capacity. As we said, 

our Secretary said, our capacity needs to be at 1,400 per year, and 

we need to hold that steady. 

The question is: As was noted with the T–6, we are challenged 

right now because that fleet is grounded; the TX is coming onboard. 

So we have a group of ideas on how we could increase our production, and we are working through those ideas. And we would love 

to come into the future, once we get them mature, to share those 

with the committee on how we think we might need some help to 

continue to get after it. 

The other thing we are doing is we are experimenting. Our Air 

Education and Training Command, General Kwast, is running an 

experiment on how do you increase, reduce the amount of time that 

it takes to train a pilot, which therefore would increase your 

throughput. So we are looking at all avenues as we move forward. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman McEachin. 

We now proceed to Congressman General Trent Kelly of Mississippi. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, all, for being 

here. 

General Nowland, just real quickly, you talked about the number 

of pilots, increasing the throughput and the training of pilots on 

the entry level. Is that including the number included for the Na-
15 

tional Guard and Reserve to make sure that we have training 

seats? 

Because it doesn’t matter. We have got to have the capacity to 

train, but it can’t just be the Active Component. It has got to be 

also—that capacity has to include those same pilots to go into the 

Guard and Reserve. Does your number you gave me include that— 

earlier, the number you gave earlier? 

General NOWLAND. Congressman Kelly, thank you. Great question. 

Absolutely includes our Total Force—Reserve, Guard, Active 

Duty—and it also includes a small sliver because our strategy says 

‘‘in, with, and through international partners.’’ So there is some 

international development—I mean production in there also. 

General RYDHOLM. Congressman, could I pick up a piece of that 

too, if I could, sir? 

Mr. KELLY. Yes. 

General RYDHOLM. To General Nowland’s point, one of the things 

that we see across the Air Force Reserve is that we lose roughly— 

we have 3,500 pilots, and we lose roughly 10 percent per year. We 

get 100 training slots, so we need to be able to affiliate 250 Active 

Component airmen as they come off the Active Duty and come to 

us. 

One of the ways that we are looking at doing that is through a 

number of initiatives, one of them being special salary rates for our 

Air Reserve technicians, another being some other incentive bonuses and things. 

And then, in addition to that, with the pure production piece that 

was just stated, we have contributed a number of airmen to the enterprise, maintenance airmen in particular, seasoned airmen in the 

Air Force Reserve that are helping some of our large production 

formal training unit locations, such as Luke Air Force Base and the 

F–16. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. 

And, General Rice, you talked about the TRICARE Reserve Select and our Federal technicians. I understand that. I am actually 

looking at that, and that is something that is very important. 

It is important to me that when we have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, whatever, Reserve or National Guard or Active 

Component, if we are doing the same job on a daily basis, we 

shouldn’t have different benefits. They should be exactly the same. 

And we shouldn’t tell people, ‘‘Because you are a Fed tech, you 

can’t get this TRICARE, you have got to pay more and have less 

benefits than someone else,’’ when their part-time—their full-time 

job supports the part-time job, and it is the same. And so I am supportive of that. 

And, General Rice, I just want to ask you: Do you feel like you 

have the adequate number of training slots to make sure that we 

have the right number of Air Guard pilots trained and ready to go 

on a moment’s notice? 

General RICE. Absolutely, sir. We definitely have the right number of training slots. As General Nowland referenced, this is a 

Total Force effort on getting ahead on producing pilots, and we are 

right there hand in hand with them. 
16 

Mr. KELLY. And, General Rice, I guess, this is for all of you all, 

but I will start with you. We shouldn’t have the part problems that 

we have in getting parts there on time. And I understand PLL 

[production load list] from an Army issue, and I don’t know what 

you guys call it, but we call it PLL, and that is our basic load of 

parts that we know are going to break. And that is delegated way 

too far down to the level on some of those things. 

We should know what is breaking on F–35s. We should know 

what is breaking on A–10s and F–22s. And that has got to be readjusted every year at the highest level, but we should never be 

caught by surprise and have to wait 6 or 8 months for the same 

part 100 times in a year. 

That is poor management at some level. And so we really got to 

get better. With all the computer systems, we know across the 

world what the break rate on A–10s are or on F–35s or C–17s, and 

so I just want to make sure. 

And the final thing is, General Rice, allocating new planes, are 

we getting the right mix of getting the C–17s and the F–35s to the 

Guard and the Reserve to make sure that we can respond in a moment’s notice? Are we getting the right mix in the acquisition and 

fielding of all of our planes? 

General RICE. Mr. Kelly, we have five capstone principles that 

define what the Air National Guard brings to the table, things like 

we are experience based; we are dual-role mission and doing domestic ops [operations] and overseas. And one of the things that 

provides us the ability to serve as an operational part of the force 

in the Reserve Component is the fact that we get concurrent and 

balanced modernization and recapitalization. And I am here today 

to tell you, yes, we are getting concurrent and balanced modernization and recapitalization from the Air Force. Great support. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KELLY. And very briefly, General Nowland, make sure you 

are letting these guys know, all the guys who are leaving in the 

Active Component, I hate to lose that. They should go to the Reserves. There is varying levels of which people can serve at points 

in their life. I am a victim of that at some time. 

So make sure we don’t lose a pilot, that we can maintain those 

years of experience that can go to the Guard and Reserve. And I 

have to yield back, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General NOWLAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congressman Kelly. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, General Nowland, the end of the Cold War, along with other 

factors, resulted in the early termination of the B–2 program, 

which is at Whiteman Air Force Base in my district. And, ultimately, as you know, we only have 21. Originally, we were supposed to have 132. 

And that, of course, has resulted in ballooning the cost of the— 

per plane when they were being built, as well as supply chain 

issues, parts sustainment that we are still dealing with today. 

And the B–2 bomber, that was the only aircraft in the bomber 

fleet that is able to operate in a contested air space. Since we only 

have 20 B–2s, there is really less than that when you see how 
17 

many can be combat coded. So can you comment on the importance 

of keeping the B–21 program on time and on budget and at the full 

number requested? 

General NOWLAND. Congresswoman Hartzler, that is a great 

question, and it absolutely is imperative for the United States Air 

Force that we move into great power competition, that we fully recapitalize our strategic bomber fleet. 

The 100 B–21s that General Rand as a minimum would like to 

buy and our Chief and Secretary fully support is critical towards 

our future capacity as we think about time-distance problems that 

we have. 

As you know, the B–2 strike that we did last summer all the way 

in Libya is an example of the ability to reach out and touch a target anywhere in the world and accomplish America’s objectives. 

The B–2, the B–21, and the B–52 recapitalization with longrange munitions are critical towards our power as we move into 

great power competition, and keeping it on time is also really important. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. So what is your perspective on when to retire 

the B–1 and the B–2 bomber? Given that the B–2 can penetrate 

anti-access air space and the B–1 cannot, doesn’t it make sense to 

retire the B–2 last to ensure the maximum amount of stealth 

bombers are available to prevent any gaps in capacity and capability? 

General NOWLAND. Ma’am, I have talked to General Rand, and 

I have been in a room with the Chief and General Rand were talking about this, and combatant commander requirements are absolutely included in the planning as we move forward to make sure 

that we have no gaps in our penetrating capacity. 

The future of the Air Force is penetrating, nonpenetrating, 

manned and unmanned, but the strategic bomber capacity to penetrate an enemy’s airspace—and we think of the enemy’s airspace 

not as an Iron Dome but as Swiss cheese, so it is a team of team 

approaches to get in that Swiss cheese, open it, and they are committed not to retire anything and lose that capacity. So they are 

sequencing that. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. And, General Rice, I am sure you are 

aware of that as well. I am so proud of the way that Whiteman is 

certainly a joint force with both the 131st Bomb Wing, the Guard, 

with Active Duty 509th, totally, totally integrated, work in harmony every day. 

Now, airmen leaving the Active Duty Component have an opportunity to continue their service in the Guard. However, if there is 

not a control grade available, those highly qualified and trained B– 

2 airmen cannot continue their service in the 131st unit. 

So how does the current control grade cap impact the Air National Guard’s ability to recruit and retain qualified airmen for fulltime Guard positions? 

General RICE. That is a very relevant question, ma’am, because 

that is right in the heart of our personnel issues to grow readiness. 

We need congressional relief for control grade caps, no doubt. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. That is good. I am glad to hear that clear 

message from you on that because I believe so as well. 
18 

And so you would concur that there is a shortage of control 

grades, and how do you think that is impacting the Air National 

Guard? 

General RICE. I just would clarify something. I don’t think—I 

don’t look at it in terms of a shortage or overage. I look at it as 

a limit. So, right now, we are limited on the number of control 

grades we have. That limit is stifling our ability to capture—back 

to our capstone principles—the experience base that is coming off 

of the Active service. 

So we don’t hire a lot of lieutenants and E–1s and E–2s. We hire 

a percentage, but not a lot. Most of our experience base is at the 

10-year point, 15-year point, and more control grades on majors, 

lieutenant colonels, and colonels, and E–8s and E–9s is critical for 

us to maintain that experience base. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler. 

I am grateful that Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo has another question. 

Ms. BORDALLO. General Rydholm, I have a question for you. 

Thank you for taking time to meet with me on Monday, and I appreciate you making multiple trips to my office already this year 

to advocate for both the Air Force Reserve and the Total Force. 

Earlier this week, it was published that the Air Force plans to 

retire both the B–2 and the B–1 bombers as the B–21 becomes 

operational. So can you please comment on any intentions of the 

Air Force Reserve Command to absorb legacy bomber aircraft? 

And the second question is, what are the advantages or disadvantages of the Guard and the Reserve Components maintaining 

a fleet that has been divested by the Active Duty Component? 

General RYDHOLM. Okay, ma’am, well, thank you for the question. I would like to answer it kind of in reverse order. 

I would say—and General Rice mentioned this one time before— 

we feel very strongly about the concurrent investment and divestment of weapons systems. So the legacy H model of C–130 is probably a good example of that because when you compare that—and 

the Guard and Reserve had many of those airframes—when you 

compare that airframe to the Active Duty J model, the crew complement is different, the training is different, the supply chain logistics are different, everything is different about it. So it is bad, 

but the Air Force as a whole is doing a great job when we expanded in new weapons systems of going into those weapons systems holistically with the Total Force. 

From our perspective in the Reserve Command, we are currently 

participating in the B–52 at Barksdale and the B–1 at Dyess. We 

anticipate, as has been stated earlier by General Nowland, that, 

based on General Rand’s plan of keeping a lot of B–52s around for 

a long time, up to 100 years, for the lifecycle time on that airframe, 

that growth in that is actually a good thing, and we are looking at 

small growth in what we are doing at Barksdale. 

As far as the B–1 is concerned, our association there at Dyess is 

fairly small. The footprint is working well for us, and there is talk 

of expansion there. And our expectation, as has been the case in 

other weapons systems, is that if we retire a bomber, we will replace it with a new bomber. 
19 

And, therefore, our expectation would be that, if we are currently 

associating in the B–1 at Dyess and the choice is made to divest 

that aircraft in order to invest in the B–21, that we would invest 

with our Active Duty partners in that same airframe. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, General. My time is so limited here. 

As a followup, do you anticipate these changes in the bomber fleet 

that would have any impact on the continuous bomber presence on 

Guam? 

General RYDHOLM. Well, I am not sure that I can answer, but 

I think that one of the things that General Nowland mentioned 

was that we do not want to take down any weapons system until 

we know that we have at least a similar or a more capable weapon 

system to replace it. 

Therefore, my expectation would be with the investment that we 

are doing into some of our older bombers, like the B–52, et cetera, 

that the continuous bomber presence, which provides a tremendous 

deterrent for our Nation, will continue. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. You know, we really want 

to keep those bombers there because of all the unrest in the Pacific 

Asia area at this time. 

In a hearing last month with this committee, GAO [Government 

Accountability Office] identified critical F–35 sustainment challenges, including limited repair capacity and spare part shortages. 

What steps does the Department intend to take to ensure that the 

F–35 fleet meets production timelines while stabilizing operation 

readiness requirements? Would that be you or—— 

General NOWLAND. Ma’am, that would be me. 

So the joint program office, which is led by a one-star for the 

United States Air Force, is looking into this. And it gets—it has to 

do with priority. The United States Air Force right now has the 

most F–35s of anyone out there. Yet the supply system right now 

kind of distributes them across the force. 

So the Air Force is looking, how do we do it, the redistribution 

of the supply system, towards our priority missions? We have a priority mission overseas, and it demonstrates that, when the airplane 

gets the part, the airplane flies extremely well. So they are looking 

at how we hold sustainment costs down while at the same time 

providing the parts that we need to get. 

And I think that when we can provide a plan back, we will provide that to the entire committee, obviously, and hopefully that will 

help answer that question. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

And I am grateful that Congressman Austin Scott has a further 

question. 

Mr. SCOTT. General Rydholm, I think the statement that you 

made was: Don’t take down one system until you know you have 

a replacement system that works. 

General RYDHOLM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. I agree with that, just for the record. The JSTARS 

works, and there is no replacement system that works. I would ask 

one followup to you. 
20 

Would you be supportive of legislation that would ensure that 

Air Force Reserve mil techs are considered essential during—and 

hopefully we have taken government shutdowns off the table for 

the next 2 years with the bill that passed last week—so that they 

would be exempt from furloughs? 

General RYDHOLM. Well, I appreciate your efforts with the bill. 

And as you know, I was in your office the day before the government shutdown, and it was a difficult day for everyone. 

We absolutely support the exemption of mil techs. As most of you 

are aware, a number of us had—after the Friday night shutdown, 

a number of Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve organizations 

had their drill weekends, and that had an impact on folks. 

In a large degree, what we do on a drill weekend and the heart 

and soul of most of our organizations are mil techs. That 30 percent at the unit level are the people that are the bread and butter 

that run the daily operations in those organizations, and when we 

have to make decisions about which are exempt and which aren’t 

exempt based on either emerging missions or named operations, it 

becomes very complicated, and it would be much, much better from 

our perspective if we, once for all, first and foremost, we get back 

to a stable budget, and we wouldn’t have to worry about it. But if 

we can’t get to that, at a minimum then we would look for support 

to help us get the exemptions for our Air Reserve technicians. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I hope that we have an agreement so that continuing resolutions and shutdowns and potential sequester is over 

with for at least the next 2 budget years, but I do think that we 

probably should continue forward trying to find a resolution of that 

in case we end up in the unfortunate scenario that we have been 

in because of the few hard heads up here that would rather prove 

a point than make a difference. 

So I look forward to continuing to work with you and thank you. 

Thank you all for your service. 

General RYDHOLM. Thank you. 

General RICE. And, Congressman, I would like to add that it is 

not just an Air Force Reserve mil tech issue. It is a Guard and Reserve Total Force issue with dual-status guardsmen as well 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. Thank you for correcting me, General Rice. 

General RICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield the remainder of my time. 

Mr. WILSON. And, Congressman Scott, thank you very much for 

bringing up that very important issue and your insight. 

Also, General Nowland, General Rice, and General Rydholm, 

thank you for your candid remarks and helping this subcommittee 

understand how the President’s budget request plans to restore 

and rebuild the U.S. Air Force, which we are so proud of. 

This has been a special hearing in that with the sound system 

on and off, depending on the moment, and I want to thank our stenographer, Kellie Humiston, for being so understanding as she sat 

there quietly and could hear all of us and correctly record this 

hearing. 

And for this, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 14, 2018 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 14, 2018 

(25) 

Statement of the Honorable Joe Wilson 

Chairman, Readiness Subcommittee 

Hearing: "Air Force Readiness Posture" 

February 14, 2018 

Good afternoon. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I call the hearing to order. 

Thank you all for being here today. This hearing is the first in a series of 

Readiness hearings on the services' budget request and readiness posture. Today, I 

look forward to hearing how the Air Force's budget request enables a readiness 

recovery plan, where we continue to take risks, and how this request supports our 

men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day. 

Over the course of the past two years, this subcommittee has met with Air 

Force leadership to understand the depth of the readiness challenges facing the Air 

Force. We expect that this budget attacks the most critical challenges; namely 

those issues most essential to halting the readiness decline and rebuilding and 

restore the Air Force. Our Air Force remains the most powerful in the world; 

however, it will take years to rebuild and restore. The purpose of this hearing is to 

clarify the Air Force's choices for its budget requests, to address funding priorities 

and mitigation strategies and to gather more detail on the current and future 

impacts of these decisions on operations, maintenance, training, and 

modernization. Most importantly, does the Air Force have the resources it requires 

in order to rebuild and restore readiness? Can it support the large sustainment bills 

looming in the future? 

I fully believe the primary responsibility of the national government is to 

provide for the national security of its citizens - and that is especially true of our 

airmen who freely risk their lives to serve this nation; therefore, it is our 

responsibility as members of this subcommittee to understand the readiness 

situation and how the budget request assisting the Department of the Air Force in 

correcting any deficiencies and restoring and rebuilding the capabilities this nation 

needs. 

I welcome all of our members and the distinguished panel of senior Air 

Force leaders present today. 

This afternoon we have with us: 

• Lieutenant General Mark Nowland, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, 

U.S. Air Force 

• Lieutenant General Scott Rice, Director of the Air National Guard 

and 

• Major General Derek P. Rydholm, Deputy to the Chief of Air Force 

Reserve 
26 

Thank you all for testifying today and we look forward to your thoughts and 

insights on these important issues. 

I would now like to turn to our distinguished Ranking Member, 

Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, for any remarks she may have. 
27 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: TOTAL FORCE READINESS 

STATEMENT OF: 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARK C. NOWLAND 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL L. SCOTT RICE, DIRECTOR 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

AND 

MAJOR GENERAL DEREK P. RYDHOLM 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY Tl IE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Febmary 14,2018 
28 

INTRODUCTION 

Since our establishment more than 70 years ago, your United States Air Force has secured 

peace throughout the full spectrum of hostilities with a decisive wartighting advantage in, 

through, and from air, space, and cyberspace. This advantage remains foundational to joint and 

coalition success. Today's 670,000 active duty, guard, reserve, and civilian Airmen meet these 

challenges by deterring threats to the United States, assuring our allies, and defeating our 

adversaries 24/7/365. We provide unwavering homeland defense and operate a robust, reliable, 

flexible, and survivable nuclear enterprise, as the bedrock of our national security. This 

steadfast watch, however, comes at a price. Continuous, worldwide combat operations since 

1991 have taken a toll on our Airmen, equipment, and infrastructure and the overall readiness of 

our Air Force. 

Our number one priority in the Department of Defense is restoring readiness to increase the 

lethality of our total force--to win any tight, at any time. The National Defense strategy is clear: 

we are in a new era of competition. And just as there are multiple levels of competition, there are 

multiple levels of readiness. So the most important question when discussing readiness is, "Ready 

for what, ready with what, and ready when?" 

We will remain relentless in our pursuit of readiness, lethality, and efficiency. We will act 

rapidly to leverage the progress we made in FY17, and we need your continued support to move 

progress "left of the fight" in six key areas: 

- Budget stability to halt the primary cause of readiness erosion 

- The continued delegation of program authorities to enable modernization speed 

- Competitive personnel policies to attract and retain America's best talent 

- Continued support for risk-taking innovation to outpace the competition 

- National research efforts in science and technology to regain America's edge 

2 
29 

- Classified dialogue to fully enable your stewardship and frustrate pacing threats 

For our part, we are moving out at speed to an·est the readiness decline, turn the comer, and 

make the climb. 

WE ARRESTED THE DECLINE 

The Air Force leveraged the FY17 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and Request for 

Additional Appropriations (RAA) to arrest the readiness decline. Targeted efforts addressed 

shortfalls across people, equipment, and training. 

- People- People are the foundation of readiness. We increased total force end-strength to 

prioritize manpower against growing mission demands. Most importantly, we funded 4,000 

additional active-duty Airmen. It will take another 5-7 years to develop these Aim1en into 

seasoned professionals, but this begins to close the gap. We also executed our Remotely 

Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Get-Well Plan to achieve sustainable, agile capability in this critical 

mission area. 

- Equipment With your help, we funded infrastructure improvements on our highest priorities 

and increased weapon system sustainment by 7 percent from the previous year. In concert, 

we purchased vital equipment for our Airmen who contribute to joint warfighting operations. 

In concert, we secured new, integrated digital targeting systems for our Battle Field Airmen, 

reducing the risk of fratricide, increasing lethality, and lowering the weight our Airmen can-y 

in the fight against violent extremists by 30%. $177M purchased new vehicles to support 

weapons platforms, installation maintenance, emergency services, weapons loading, cargo 

movement, aircraft fueling, and deployment of operational forces. Furthermore, we used 

$60M to maximize munition production, replenishing a mix of BLU-117 and MK-84 bombs 

expended during cun·ent operations. 

Training- We made investments in pilot production and F-16 Formal Training Unit bed 

3 
30 

downs to address pilot shortfalls. Weapon systems sustainment funding accelerated repairs 

and equipment maintenance while we funded our flying hour program at executable levels. 

These improved aircraft availability and increased flying hour execution rates. Further, the 

space enterprise began executing the Space Mission Force construct, expanding space 

operator training and lethality toward an increased focus on contested space domain 

operations. 

Despite dive1ting critical resources to arrest the decline, your Air Force still maintained the 

fight against global violent extremism. Ainnen conducted more than 172,000 sorties and 98,000 

precision air strikes to support our coalition forces in 2017. These teams were ready and lethal 

against the current threat, and they would not have been successful without your support. 

However, our victories against ISIS came at a cost. Constant rotational deployments sacrifice 

readiness for future fights against pacing threats -the scenarios with the least margin for error 

and greatest risk to lives and our nation's security. 

WE CAN TURN THE CORNER 

Stable, predictable funding is paramount to regaining readiness and lethality. With a stable 

budget, we can rapidly build on recent gains and begin turning the corner with more speed. 

Unfortunately, every day that we operate under a continuing resolution (CR) erodes the gains 

made with the FY17 Defense Appropriation and the FY17 RAA. This is a self~ imposed penalty 

"left of the fight" that yields time to our competitors to close the technological gap. 

These delays constrict America's competitive space beyond the current year. For example, we 

may be forced to scale back the engineering and development phase of the B-21 bomber. In 

addition to out-year impacts to delivery, this would slow contractor staffing, engineering design, 

and supply chain development-effects where recovery is measured in years, not days or months. 

These impacts across multiple programs leave industry capacity unused, ultimately increasing 

4 
31 

costs for American taxpayers and wartighting risk to our Airmen. Further, managing contingency 

scenarios due to budget instability strains our already stretched financial, contracting, and 

acquisition expertise. This takes our attention away from the competition, while they remain laser 

focused on us. 

Should we receive a Defense Appropriation for FY18 in time to execute within this fiscal year, we 

will pursue the following readiness improvements to turn the corner: 

-People- We continue to rebuild the force by adding 2,300 active duty Airmen iu FY18 to 

reach a total of 325,100. We will add an additional 1,000 reservists, 900 guardsmen, and 

3,000 civilians. We are focused on quality oflife improvements for our Airmen and their 

families the FYI8 budget includes a 2.4% increase in military pay, a 0.7% increase in basic 

allowance for housing, and a 0.3% increase in subsistence. Growing our end strength to fill 

existing manpower billets is a critical step, but just as important is how those billets are filled. 

Our reserve components need full-time support, specifically in maintenance fields, to generate 

aircraft for training. Fixing personnel issues is to tum the corner and start the climb to 

warfighting readiness. 

-Nuclear Deterrence Our 2018 budget focus on proving the nation with safe, secure, and 

effective air and ground-based legs of the nuclear triad, along with 75 percent of the 

command, control, and communications capability, remains steadfast. We prioritize 

sustainment of the ICBM force, as well as integrated design and development of its 

replacement the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). To the maximum extent 

possible under the CR, we've continued bomber modemization efforts to include additional 

funding for the B-52 Radar Modernization Program and B-2 Defensive System 

Modemization programs. 

5 
32 

-Space Superiority- Underwriting every joint operation across the globe is our ability to 

operate within the space domain at the time and place of our choosing. But our freedom of 

action in, through and from space can no longer be taken for granted. The FYI8 budget 

represents a 27% increase in research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT &E) for 

space systems and a 12% increase in space procurement. The budget includes a fixed price 

block buy of Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) 5 and 6 satellites. We are pressing 

forward with the purchase of terminals, ground control systems, and related communications 

security for satellites, and funding for three launches as part ofthe Evolved Expendable 

Launch Vehicles (EELV) program. 

-Air Superiority- We need more maintainers and pilots. Training to confront pacing threats 

has sutTered in exchange for t1ying hours to defeat ISIS overseas. Through the FYI8 budget 

we will continue to restore readiness by using $6.2 billion to fund t1ying hours at maximum 

executable levels and $12 billion to fund weapons system sustainment (parts, maintenance 

and logistics support) to ncar the maximum executable level. 

-Cyber- We plan to tl.md 39 tully operational otTensive and defensive cyber teams and meet 

USCYBERCOM requirements in Fiscal Year 2018. This includes training and equipping 

I, 700 additional cyber operators. In parallel, we will increase reliance on contractors for basic 

information technology and cloud services so that militmy members can focus on advanced 

threats and war fighter missions as part of the joint force. 

-Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (lSR)- Combatant Commander's demand for 

continuous ISR presence is insatiable and ever growing, and our ISR enterprise is strained. 

Over the past 15 years we grew the RP A enterprise I ,200%, and today we support 60 

continual combat lines of persistent attack with RP As. Within current constraints, we are 

committed to improving quality of life and work for our Airmen. We continue to modernize 

6 
33 

the medium-altitude ISR Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) fleet and rebalance the !SR 

portfolio to meet the challenges we will face in future contested environments. Specifically, 

we remain committed to executing our RPA Get Well Plan with increased training, leadership 

opportunities, and basing options. We fund a new RPA Wing and two operational squadrons 

across the five year plan. 

-Infrastructure We project airpower from a network of globally positioned bases, and we 

must focus on maintaining these bases as part of our strategic force posture. We have $2 

billion set aside this year for military construction. The bed down of new missions, 

combatant commander needs, and strengthening the nuclear security enterprise are 

prioritized with the funding available. In addition, we are funding the construction at the 

Utah Test and Training Range and the Nevada Test and Training Range so units can use the 

full range of capabilities available with the F-35A. We also continue to modernize our 

Operational Training Infrastructure (OTT) with a blend of live, virtual, and "synthetic" 

platforms. This synthetic capability provides opportunities to test and train against the 

world's most advanced threats at a reduced cost. Additionally, $38M was dedicated towards 

a state-of-the-art Virtual Test and Training Center. 

-Munitions- Our use of munitions continues to outpace production. Working with industry, 

we've maximized factory production of the most critical munitions, including the Advanced 

Precision Kill Weapon System, Joint Direct Attack Munition, the Hellfire missile, and the 

Small Diameter Bomb. This has been no small feat, but this military and civilian partnership 

to regain munitions readiness is an example of a whole-of-America effort to regain our 

competitive edge. 

ACCELERATE THE CLIMB 

Today's modernization is tomorrow's readiness. The recently released FYI9 President's 

7 
34 

Budget Request fully supports the National Defense Strategy and focuses on our ability to 

compete, deter, and win as a nation. Specifically, we will build on the progress made to a!Test 

our readiness decline in 2017 while turning the corner to make the climb in FY19 and beyond. 

That climb begins with people. 

With your support, our FY 2018 and FY 2019 Budget requests will create the capacity 

and capability in your Air Force that our nation requires. Our requests will grow our endstrength and give our Airmen the time and resources they need to train and equip for the future 

high-end fight. We aim to focus on addressing gaps in critical career fields like aviation, 

maintenance, ISR, cyber, and RPA Airmen while expanding training capacity. But more 

important than recruiting, we need to retain our talented Ainnen that take years and millions of 

dollars to develop. 

We plan to support our Air Force families with a military pay raise, increased housing and 

subsistence allowances, and bolstered family support programs. The cu!Tent process to move 

airmen into the reserve component is so time intensive that we lose qualified, experienced 

professionals to commercial companies that can hire with velocity. We must manage our talent 

effectively in order to compete in today's economic environment. 

Increasing aviator production and seasoning through expanded flying hour and weapons 

system sustainment programs are critical measures towards our goals. By extension, operational 

training infrastructure is needed to provide relevant and realistic training for multi-domain, fullspectrum readiness. Keeping an adequate store of munitions requires Federal support to 

optimize industry capacity to support cu!Tent operations and prepare for future requirements. 

Further, we will remain committed to steward a safe, secure, and etTective nuclear 

dete!Tent. The continued development of the Ground-Based Strategic Dete!Tent and Long Range 

Stand-Off Missile, while modernizing legacy bomber fleets, are vital steps to that end. In 

8 
35 

suppott, we aim to invest in nuclear command, control, and communication system 

modernization to ensure resilient and survivable connectivity with the President and national 

command leadership. 

Additionally, our FY 19 budget continues funding priority modernization initiatives with 

the purchase of jam-resistant satellites, F-35As, KC-46As, and the development ofthe B-21. We 

begin a number of other transformative initiatives that reflect our commitment to provide 

dominant air and space power and command and control. Examples include our light attack 

aircraft experiment and emphasis on multi-domain command and control. 

These are examples of the many iterative efforts to make the climb and provide a force 

that is ready, lethal, and efficient in this era of competition. Each year, truly each month of 

progress builds on the previous. Conversely, delays compound in their lasting impacts. 

CONCLUSION 

In closing, we can build the force we need for tomorrow's fight ... but we need your help to 

sustain the long-tenn development of our Airmen, continue to modernize our weapon systems for 

the technically-advanced conflicts of the future, and sustain the decades of investments that the 

American people have made to build the world's greatest air power. Readiness is inherently in 

decline or on the rise, often proportional to the level of competition. Our force structure, based on 

a Cold War foe, was able to meet the competition of non-peer conflict for nearly three decades. 

However, pacing threats have now expanded the competitive space to new levels. They have 

closed gaps in their capability and capacity, and they've made clear their intent to seize 

advantages, at speed. 

We are eager to work together to develop solutions in areas such as budget stability, program 

speed, and talent management. We owe this to our nation, our joint teammates, and our allies. 

The nation requires full-spectrum ready air, space, and cyber power, now more than ever. 

9 
36 

America expects it; combatant commanders require it; and with your support, Airmen will deliver 

it. To that end, we are deeply appreciative of recent efforts to begin the return of fiscal order and 

look forward to classified dialogue where we can convey plans to improve readiness to offset the 

competition's increasing capabilities. On behalf of 670,000 active, guard, reserve, and civilian 

Airmen and their selfless families, thank you for allowing us to testify before you today. We look 

forward to your continued leadership and partnership in defense ofthis great nation 

10 
37 

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 formulating policy supporting air, space, cyber, and irregular warfare, counter 

proliferation, homeland security and weather operations. As the Air Force operations deputy to 

the Joint Chief of Stan: the general determines operational requirements, capabilities and 

training necessary to support national security objectives and military strategy. 

General Nowland is a 1985 graduate from 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 I larvard 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 t1ying hours, primarily in the A-10, 

F-15A/C/D, T-378, T-38A/C A/T-388 and T-6. 
38 

Lieutenant General L. Scott Rice 

Lieutenant General L. Scott Rice is the Director, Air National Guard, the Pentagon, Washington, 

D.C. He is responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, plans and 

programs affecting more than I 05,500 Guard members and civilians in more than 90 wings and 

175 geographically separated units across 213 locations throughout the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands. 

General Rice was commissioned in 1980 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps at 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York and graduated from undergraduate pilot 

training at Reese Air Force Base, Texas in 1982. He is a command pilot with more than 4,300 

hours in the F-Ill and A-1 0. Before assuming his current position, General Rice served as The 

Adjutant General and Commander, Massachusetts Air National Guard. 

He has served in various operational and staff assignments including Commander, Air Force 

Forces, Exercise Eastern Falcon in United States Central Command. He has commanded a 

squadron, operations group, and tighter wing. He also served as the Assistant Adjutant General 

for Air, and Commander, Massachusetts Air National Guard. 
39 

Major General Derek P. Rydholm 

Maj. Gen. Derek P. Rydholm is the Deputy to the Chief of Air Force Reserve, lleadquarters U.S. 

Air Force Washington, D.C. He assists the Chief of Air Force Reserve who serves as the 

principal adviser on Reserve matters to the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of 

Staff. He facilitates matters pertaining to the oversight of Air Force Reserve appropriations for 

personnel, operations and maintenance, and construction programs for a force of more than 

70,000 personnel. As deputy, he often represents the Chief with other Air Staff agencies in the 

formulation and development of plans, policies and programs affecting the Air Force Reserve. 

General Rydholm assists the chief in developing the organizational architecture of the Air Force 

Reserve in accordance with wartime requirements and budget realities. During mobilization, he 

advises Air Force officials on capabilities and issues related to plans and policies for recall and 

mobilization of the Air Force Reserve. 

General Rydholm is a 1983 graduate ofthe U.S. Naval Academy and a 1988 graduate ofthe U.S. 

Navy Fighter Weapons School. Upon graduation from the Naval Academy, he completed pilot 

training at Beeville, Texas, before being sent to fleet replacement training in the F-14 Tomcat at 

Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia. After flying F-14s operationally for three years, General 

Rydholm then flew F -16s as an exchange pilot at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida. While 

there he completed his commitment to the Navy and continued to fly the F-16 as an Air Reserve 

Technician in the 482nd Fighter Wing. Prior to his current assignment, General Rydholm was the 

Director of Plans, Programs and Requirements, Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command 

(AFRC), Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 14, 2018 

(43) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Mr. SCOTT. I’m concerned to see the Air Force still imposing risk in the Weapons 

System Sustainment (WSS) account in the delivered budget. We need to remain focused on the depot funding to ensure aircraft are available on time to meet combatant commander requirements. One of the largest stumbling blocks is the recruitment and retention of qualified individuals in our depots. What steps are you taking 

to address expedite depot workforce direct hiring as well as retention efforts? 

General NOWLAND. HIRING: The Air Force is grateful for the direct hiring authority to expedite hiring at depots that Congress provided in the FY17 NDAA, an 

authority that has been extended through 2021. While Air Force utilization of the 

direct hiring authority was delayed in 2017 due to the Presidential Hiring Freeze 

and delayed DOD implementation guidance, Air Force Materiel Command is now 

maximizing the use of the authority to expedite hiring in several occupations in its 

depots (e.g., aircraft maintenance, engineers, firefighters.) As of 28 Feb 2018, 1000+ 

hires have been on-boarded under this expedited hiring authority. 1. RETENTION: 

Retention efforts include maximizing the use of recruitment and relocation incentives and student loan repayments to hire and retain highly qualified depot personnel. These efforts include using expedited advance in hire rate packages to offer 

competitive salary increases to engineers. Additional retention efforts include the 

following: a. Two key programs have yielded great benefits in retaining scientists 

and engineers. First, Section 852 Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 

Funds have been a valuable resource supporting our efforts to recruit, hire, retain, 

train, and develop our scientist and engineer workforce. Second, in 2016, the Air 

Force Materiel Command implemented the DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo) for the acquisition workforce, including 

scientists and engineers. Although it is in the initial stages of implementation, 

AcqDemo provides vital hiring and compensation flexibilities that enable hiring 

managers to offer competitive salaries and compensate our technical workforce according to performance. b. Additionally, the Air Force authorizes civilian pay incentives to alleviate personnel recruiting and retention problems due to differences in 

Federal and non-Federal pay for comparable occupations. Retention incentives are 

paid to an employee if the agency determines that the unusually high or unique 

qualifications of the employee or a special need of the agency makes it essential to 

retain the employee and the employee would likely leave the Federal service without a retention incentive. Employees must sign a service agreement prior to receiving a retention incentive. These incentives are based on limited funding pools within 

the installations. Air Force Materiel Command currently has 35 employees assigned 

who received ∼18K in retention incentives. 

Mr. SCOTT. I continue to support the Light Attack experiment and look forward 

to the results of phase two at the end of July 2018. This program will not only provide a means to avoid the costly operations and maintenance on the 4th and 5th 

Generation fighter fleet but bolster the opportunities to partner with international 

countries who might not be able to afford a more pricey jet like the F–35 or F–15. 

What are the initial assessments on the requirements for pilots to meet the cockpit 

demand signal in the light attack while not decrementing the readiness levels in 

other platforms? 

General NOWLAND. The procurement of a light attack aircraft (LAA) will initially 

introduce a minimum demand increase among experienced fighter aircrew (∼50–100) 

over the inaugural years. This will be effectively managed through the deliberate 

and combined use of Total Force Airmen, transitions from other platforms, and contractor/civilian augmentation. Around year three, the LAA enterprise becomes selfsustaining to meet its demands with experienced LAA aircrew and begins ‘‘paying 

bills’’ for other communities (e.g., training assignments, deployed staffs, etc.), allowing experienced aircrew in fighters, mobility, special operations, and others to remain in their career fields. 

Æ