U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

22–456 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–138] 

NEXT GENERATION AIRSPACE CONTROL— 

ENSURING AIR FORCE COMPLIANCE 

BY JANUARY 1, 2020 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND 

PROJECTION FORCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Vice Chair 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

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

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

BRUCE JOHNSON, Professional Staff Member 

PHIL MACNAUGHTON, Professional Staff Member 

JODI BRIGNOLA, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

WITNESSES 

Fay, Maj Gen Timothy, USAF, Director, Strategic Plans, Office of the Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. 

Air Force ............................................................................................................... 2 

Fortney, Maj Gen Michael E., USAF, Vice Commander, Air Force Global 

Strike Command .................................................................................................. 4 

Nahom, Brig Gen David, USAF, Deputy Director, Plans and Programs, Headquarters Air Combat Command .......................................................................... 5 

Thomas, Brig Gen Jon, USAF, Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements 

and Programs, Headquarters Air Mobility Command ...................................... 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces ............................ 31 

Fay, Maj Gen Timothy, joint with Brig Gen Jon Thomas, Maj Gen Michael E. Fortney, and Brig Gen David Nahom ........................................... 33 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy ...................................................................................... 29 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Bridenstine ................................................................................................. 51 

Mr. Conaway ..................................................................................................... 51 

Mrs. Hartzler .................................................................................................... 52 

Mr. Hunter ........................................................................................................ 51 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Larsen ........................................................................................................ 55 

Mr. Zinke ........................................................................................................... 55 

(1) 

NEXT GENERATION AIRSPACE CONTROL—ENSURING 

AIR FORCE COMPLIANCE BY JANUARY 1, 2020 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 14, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Randy Forbes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 

Mr. FORBES. We are going to go ahead and get started. I am always a little concerned when the witnesses outnumber our panel. 

But you guys be easy on me. And today, the subcommittee convenes to receive testimony on the Next Generation Airspace Control—Ensuring Air Force Compliance by January 1, 2020. The distinguished panel of Air Force leaders testifying before us are Major 

General Timothy Fay, Director, Strategic Plans and Requirements, 

Headquarters Air Force Pentagon; Major General Michael E. 

Fortney, Vice Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command; Brigadier General David Nahom, Deputy Director, Plans and Programs, 

Headquarters Air Combat Command; and Brigadier General Jon 

Thomas, Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements, and Programs, 

Headquarters Air Mobility Command. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. And as we mentioned, the most important thing we do today is compile a record 

so that we can utilize it for both our markups, drafting our bill, 

and also for explanation and discussions with other policymakers 

here in Congress. 

This past weekend, on the 15th anniversary of 9/11, we were reminded of how difficult it is to manage our Nation’s airspace, and 

how critically important it is for us to maintain situational awareness of what is airborne, where it is, and where it is going. To address those challenges, the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

is carrying out the most ambitious reform of our air traffic control 

system since the 1960s. The Next Generation Air Transportation 

Management System, often referred to as ‘‘NextGen,’’ represents a 

shift from decades-old systems to new digital and satellite-based 

technologies, as well as new procedures. It should make air travel 

safer and more efficient, and give our air traffic controllers, including military air defense operators, greater situational awareness. 

In order to ensure that aircraft comply with this new system, the 

FAA has issued a wide-ranging airspace control mandate that will 
2 

take effect on January 1, 2020. This mandate requires most civilian 

and military aircraft that operate over the United States to upgrade their avionics with the Automatic Dependent Surveillance– 

Broadcast (ADS–B) Out system. In essence, ADS–B Out is a transponder that will automatically broadcast an aircraft’s location and 

flight information to controllers on the ground, and also to pilots 

in the air. It is a critical component of the U.S. NextGen system 

and the larger global air traffic management system. 

In a 2015 DOD [Department of Defense] report to Congress, the 

Secretary of Defense indicated that according to current plans and 

timelines, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps should have ADS– 

B Out systems and be fully compliant with the FAA mandate by 

2020. The report highlighted significant shortfalls in Air Force 

compliance, however. Indeed, we have heard that up to 30 percent 

of the Air Force’s aircraft, to include KC–10s, B–1s, B–2s, F–16s, 

F–15s, and F–22s, will not be fully compliant in a little over 3 

years. 

According to an FAA Advisory Circular dated 21 September 

2012, non-compliant aircraft will be heavily restricted as to where 

they can fly. I am therefore concerned that the inability of the Air 

Force to meet FAA requirements will have a significant adverse 

impact on the Air Force’s training and readiness, and ultimately 

undermine the ability of a large portion of the Air Force’s combat 

aircraft to execute their wartime missions. 

I would, first of all, like to understand whether the Air Force intends to comply with the FAA airspace limitations and what risk 

Air Force intends to take in 2020. I would also like to understand 

the challenges the Air Force faces in ensuring that all of its aircraft 

are compliant, whether it is a shortage of resources, aircraft depot 

throughput limitations, engineering integration issues, or the availability of commercial off-the-shelf solutions. 

Finally, I am interested in your thoughts as to what can this 

committee do to help ensure that our entire Air Force can fly, fight, 

and win after January 2020. 

Mr. Courtney has just joined us. And, Mr. Courtney, do you have 

any opening—okay. 

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

Mr. FORBES. With that, General Fay, I believe you are going to 

start us off. Gentlemen, we look forward to your comments. As I 

have mentioned to you before we got here, if you have any written 

comments you would like to put, we will put those in the record, 

and look forward to any opening remarks that you might have. 

General Fay. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN TIMOTHY FAY, USAF, DIRECTOR, 

STRATEGIC PLANS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF 

STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE 

General FAY. And Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we would like to 

request that the written statement be—— 

Mr. FORBES. Without objection, all written statements will be 

made part of the record. 
3 

[The joint prepared statement of General Fay, General Fortney, 

General Nahom, and General Thomas can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

General FAY. On behalf of Lieutenant General Holmes, Deputy 

Chief of Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters United 

States Air Force, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before the subcommittee. I am joined today on my left Major 

Michael Fortney, Vice Commander of Global Strike Command; to 

his left, Brigadier General David Nahom, Deputy Director, Plans 

and Programs at Headquarters Air Combat Command; and at the 

far end of the table, Brigadier General Jon ‘‘Ty’’ Thomas, Director 

of Strategic Plans, Requirements, and Programs, Headquarters Air 

Mobility Command. 

As you know, a top priority of our Air Force is to balance readiness with future modernization. And in a time of fiscal austerity, 

we are committed to making every dollar count while conducting 

combat and combat support operations around the globe. As such, 

our Nation’s Air Force must focus on safety, compliance, and aircraft modernization in order to maintain our national security now 

and into the future. The United States Air Force, like other aircraft 

operators, faces the Federal Aviation Administration’s January 1, 

2020, mandate to use Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast, ADS–B Out, in the significant portion of the National Airspace System. Similar standards will be instituted in Europe, creating significant pressure for installation by June 7, 2020. As an 

Air Force, our ability to project combat power and maintain global 

reach around the world depends on access to this airspace. While 

deviations or unconditional clearances might be granted on a caseby-case basis, these airspace restrictions may prevent the United 

States Air Force from enjoying the same ready access to airspace. 

Not meeting these airspace requirements will not diminish our 

combat capability, but could diminish our ability to operate globally 

with efficiency and freedom. With your help and support, we have 

made significant progress and have added as much money as we 

believe is possible to accelerate ADS–B Out compliance without 

taking away from combat capability, or driving other bills to the 

taxpayer. We have been working closely with the FAA on mitigation options, and will continue to work to minimize any adverse impact. In order to avoid the loss of airspace access, the Air Force is 

taking all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the ADS–B 

Out mandate. While the Air Force plans to have a fully compliant 

fleet, some aircraft will remain without ADS–B Out, and will not 

be modified by the 2020 mandate. This is a result of taking calculated risk to maintain fiscal responsibility. 

Due to the differences among existing platforms, avionics architectures, and new equipment, a systems engineering approach 

must be employed to determine the most cost-effective solution to 

meet the ADS–B Out requirements. The Air Force recognizes the 

potential operational impact and risk to our overall readiness by 

not equipping our aircraft, and is addressing solutions to mitigate 

this risk to the maximum extent possible. 

As an enterprise, the Air Force takes airspace compliance very 

seriously. To this point, the entire Air Force corporate structure 

takes responsibility for managing taxpayer dollars to effectively 
4 

balance compliance requirements with the much-needed modernization of our aircraft. As such, compliance efforts have been a significant priority in our programming guidance, and this is reflected 

in the fact that compliance efforts are underway across the vast 

majority of our fleet. As you are aware, there is no one-size-fits-all 

technical solution to ADS–B Out. Applying more money or attempting to further accelerate our compliance efforts may only induce 

further risk across the fleet. The development of emerging technologies needed to support both compliance and modernization efforts in a fiscal responsibly way is the driver for the Air Force to 

maintain its current prioritization efforts. 

Where we can use this committee’s help is by supporting our current and future exemption needs with the FAA. The Air Force has 

been working with the FAA on exemptions from the mandate, or 

procedural accommodations from air traffic control for those aircraft that will not be equipped by the current deadline. This will 

allow us to efficiently accommodate several other mandates by 

synergizing modernization efforts. We are encouraged that provisions in the rule exist for accommodating non-ADS–B-equipped aircraft, and also encouraged to see the FAA’s exemption to the Airlines for America through the use of secondary surveillance radars 

in the post-ADS–B Out environment. 

In sum, the Air Force remains committed to safety, compliance, 

and modernization, and continues to evaluate all methods to ensure compliance in its fleet in order to meet current and future 

Next Generation Air Transportation System requirements. While 

aircraft compliance and modernization efforts remain ongoing, our 

goal is to minimize cost and maximize operational capabilities. As 

we look towards the future, the Air Force continues to work with 

our partners in the FAA, Eurocontrol [The European Organisation 

for the Safety of Air Navigation], NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], and other nations around the globe to ensure we are 

able to accomplish our mission. 

To provide a broader picture of where we stand across the fleet, 

I will turn it over to Major General Mike Fortney to discuss the 

way ahead for Global Strike Command. 

Mr. FORBES. General Fortney. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN MICHAEL E. FORTNEY, USAF, VICE 

COMMANDER, AIR FORCE GLOBAL STRIKE COMMAND 

General FORTNEY. Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney, 

distinguished members, I would also like to add my thanks for inviting us here today. I am proud to represent the 31,000 members 

of Air Force Global Strike Command here. And as you know, as 

General Fay has already discussed, and you did as well, Mr. Chairman, ADS–B Out is the core of the FAA’s NextGen air transportation system, and a major safety upgrade to the National Airspace 

System. All flying aircraft, specified airspace, and mandated to 

comply by 1 January of 2020. ADS–B is essential to our aircrafts’ 

ability to operate freely, and to comply with international civil 

aviation organization obligations under the communication, navigation, and surveillance and air traffic management plan. And we 

take that seriously. Unfortunately, due to higher priorities required 

to revitalize the nuclear enterprise, Air Force Global Strike Com-
5 

mand has been unable to fund this program in the past. With funding expected in fiscal year 2018, however, Global Strike Command 

platforms will begin testing ADS–B upgrades in fiscal year 2019 

and 2020, but no operational bombers will be compliant by that 

time. 

With this anticipated funding, only two B–1 aircraft and two B– 

2 test—and one B–2 test aircraft will be ADS–B-modified prior to 

1 January 2020. The remainder of the B–1 and B–2 fleets will be 

fully compliant by fiscal years 2023 and 2024, respectively. Similarly, the plan for the B–52 incudes combining ADS–B and military-required GPS [Global Positioning System] code upgrades into 

a single modification. This combination is required because the B– 

52 needs a new GPS receiver in order to achieve ADS–B-mandated 

accuracies. With fiscal year 2018 funding, only two B–2—or B–52 

test aircraft will be modified prior to the mandate. The remainder 

of the fleet will be compliant by fiscal year 2024. 

Finally, all 38 of the non-Global Strike assigned UH–1 Huey helicopters will have ADS–B installed by the required January 2020 

mandate. ADS–B will not be installed in the 24 Global Strike assigned UH–1–N Huey helicopters, because these platforms will not 

be operating in the airspace required by ADS–B. 

So in summary, higher nuclear enterprise priorities over the last 

several years, coupled with previous year funding constraints, have 

placed us in a situation where bombers will have restricted access 

to airspace starting in 2020. Without FAA accommodations to provide exemptions or waivers, our aircraft may be prohibited from 

flying in Class A, B, and C airspace and flights above 10,000 feet 

until compliance. The operational impacts of this would include restricted airspace access, suboptimal routings, delayed missions, 

and, of course, increased fuel consumption. 

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I want to thank you, 

again, for your dedication and support for the United States Air 

Force and our Nation, and for the opportunity to appear here 

today. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. General Nahom. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN DAVID NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PLANS AND PROGRAMS, HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND 

General NAHOM. Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a distinct pleasure to be here this afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Air Combat Command’s [ACC] effort to comply with the Federal Aviation Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast Out 

mandate. As Assistant Director for Headquarters Air Combat Command’s Plans, Programs, and Requirement Directorate, I am responsible for the efficient aligning of fleet modernization with 

prioritized Combat Air Force requirements in a fiscally constrained 

environment. 

This requires us to make tough priority choices and efficiently 

plan modernization several years in advance of actually delivering 

capability. Midstream adjustments to these commitments are often 

costly and put program warfighting capabilities at risk. ACC considers integrating ADS–B Out capability an important part of our 
6 

modernization efforts. The majority of our platforms are scheduled 

to meet the mandate. Recently, we accomplished a deep dive on opportunities to accelerate ADS–B and determine if we could do so 

on a few of the platforms—if we could do so. We noted on a few 

of the platforms, most noticeably the AWACS [Boeing E–3 Sentry], 

there could be room for acceleration. 

We also determined that even with additional funding, the F–15, 

F–16 Block 30, those are the earlier F–16s, a majority of them in 

the Reserve Component, F–22, F–35, MQ–9 cannot meet the mandate timeline without severely impacting our ability to field vital 

warfighting capability and field some critical flight safety items 

and modifications. However, we are postured to begin ADS–B integration on most of these platforms before or shortly after the mandated date. Breaking current modernization pursuits midstream to 

accelerate ADS–B would severely disrupt critical efforts, such as 

Link 16 receive, combat ID, helmet-mounted queuing systems, sensor enhancements on the F–22, anti-icing, automated takeoff and 

landing on the MQ–9, and a critical common operational flight program for the F–15 C and E programs. 

Additionally, such action could cause inefficient execution of already committed programs translating to poor use of limited funds, 

generating potential risk to programs given the maturity of several 

enabling technologies. Unequipped platforms will begin fielding 

with ADS–B as soon as fiscal year 2021. However, full compliance 

of all CAF [Combat Air Forces] platforms, primarily the F–22 and 

MQ–9, will go out beyond 2025. ACC looks forward to continuing 

to work with the FAA and our lead service organization to provide 

greater air traffic management efficiency and to ensure that Combat Air Forces maintain the ability to defend our Nation. I welcome 

any questions from the chairman or the members. 

Mr. FORBES. General, thank you. General Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN JON THOMAS, USAF, DIRECTOR OF 

STRATEGIC PLANS, REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAMS, HEADQUARTERS AIR MOBILITY COMMAND 

General THOMAS. Chairman Forbes, Ranking Member Courtney, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, I also thank you for 

the opportunity on behalf of General Everhart, the Commander of 

Air Mobility Command, to testify before this subcommittee. 

Modernization of our Air Force, and, specifically, our mobility 

fleet, is key to our national security. As we look towards 2020 and 

the ADS–B Out mandate, it is a challenge our mobility fleets are 

ready to meet to ensure that we continue to provide unrivaled global reach for America. Our ability to project combat power anywhere 

on the globe depends on airspace access. And not meeting the 

ADS–B Out mandate threatens that access. We plan to have a fully 

compliant mobility fleet, and the vast majority of our mobility aircraft will be modified by the 2020 mandate. To put more meat on 

the bone for our discussion, I will take a moment and briefly discuss the status of compliance by mission type. Due to our mission 

requirements and the need to frequently transit saturated international airspace, modernizing our airlift aircraft is our highest 

priority. Currently, our airlift fleet is projected to be 49 percent 
7 

compliant with ADS–B Out mandates per the fiscal year 2017 PB 

[President’s budget] submission. 

However, our intent is to raise compliance to above 90 percent 

by partnering with the acquisition community to separate ADS–B 

Out from other modifications. Through this focused effort we have 

a road map to ensure our 223 C–17s and 300 C–130s are fully compliant by the mandate. Modification of our 52 C–5s will require 

more time as we sequence ADS–B Out components into other 

planned modernization programs upon which the ADS–B Out capability will rely. For any aircraft that will not meet the mandate, we 

will request an exemption. We estimate our entire airlift fleet will 

be compliant by the end of 2020. For our tanker fleet, as this committee is aware, we are at the beginning of a recapitalization effort 

that starts with the acquisition of the KC–46. All 179 aircraft will 

be compliant when delivered. The entire KC–135 fleet is also projected to be compliant by the mandate. 

For the KC–10, as we look forward, the eventual divestment of 

this airframe, we must balance completing necessary modifications 

and upgrades such as ADS–B Out and safeguarding taxpayer dollars. Our plan ensures a portion of KC–10s’ complete modification 

prior to January 2020, and we will request exemptions for the remaining non-compliant aircraft which remain in service for shorter 

time periods after the 2020 mandate. 

Finally, our operational support and executive airlift fleet composed of C–21s, C–32s, C–37s, C–40s, and VC–25As, better known 

as Air Force One, are all commercial derivative aircraft, and we 

will capitalize on ADS–B Out modernization efforts within industry 

to expedite compliance of these aircraft. We plan to have all of 

these aircraft compliant by the mandate. I am happy to address 

any questions you have on any of these platforms. And as my counterparts here, truly appreciate the support you and this subcommittee have given to our Air Force and to the Air Mobility 

Command. Thank you for allowing me to discuss Air Mobility with 

you today. And I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, General Thomas. 

General Fay, you used a phrase when you looked at what we 

were trying to do to be in compliance. It said calculated risk. And 

one of the phrases that bother this committee as much as anything 

is we hear over and over again people coming from the Pentagon 

and saying: Well, this is acceptable risk, or this is calculated risk. 

And we normally kind of sweep that under the rug. But what we 

always want to find out is what is that risk? So can you tell us and 

tell the committee what is the risk if we are not compliant by 

2020? 

General FAY. Well, Chairman Forbes, the way I would characterize how the Air Force is managing the risk as we approach 2020 

is, first and foremost, we are working very hard. And I think you 

have heard that from all of the generals here today, that we are 

working hard to achieve compliance to the maximum extent possible. That is step one in managing the risk. And we very accelerated, if you will, our progress to meet—to make the maximum 

amount of the fleet compliant by the deadline. 

Now, while we are doing that, we are working very carefully to 

balance in that risk calculus a number of factors. First and fore-
8 

most is the operational availability of aircraft to meet the needs of 

the current security environment. For instance, the Air Force looks 

across its entire fleet, and we don’t have the ability to sit a large 

portion of our fleet down and take the aircraft apart and do a large 

portion of our fleet at the same time because of the current demands on the Air Force, and potential demands on the Air Force 

required by warfighting commanders and operational plans or unforeseen contingents. 

Second, I would say we are managing our risk by taking a broad 

holistic look at all of our warfighting and safety-of-flight compliance items. And we are looking also economically at that equation, 

if you will, of all the modifications and upgrades required. And we 

are trying to combine as many of those as possible to make that 

a very efficient process. So, for instance, we don’t have to take the 

same airplane, sit it down, take it apart, put it together, and then 

6 months later, have to it sit down and take it apart again for another modification. We are trying to do it just once to be as efficient 

as possible. The third thing I would say that we are working to balance as we approach 2020, along with the others, is maximizing 

the capability of our suppliers without overwhelming them. And 

also, if you will, our industrial base, our ability to do actually the 

physical maintenance and the requirements, the changes to the aircraft. We just have so many places and folks that are able to do 

that. So those are the three things I say that we are working to— 

when we talk about risk manage, that we are talking about balancing. 

Now, sir, to the second part of your question, what is the potential impact, just to clarify, the potential impact is not on the warfighting capability of the United States Air Force. If we have to go 

to war, this is—ADS–B is a civil aviation peacetime-of-flight, if you 

will, requirement to help air traffic control manage for safety in 

flight and efficiency in a civil-aviation-type environment. 

So this isn’t a warfighting issue we are talking about risk managing. What we are talking about risk managing is, if you will, the 

day-to-day operations in the civil-aviation-type environment. It is 

possible if some of the exemptions and mitigations we are working 

with the FAA are not—if we are not able to get to them, that we 

will be required to fly longer routes, lower altitudes. And so that 

impacts our ability, if you will, to do some training and to do some 

peacetime-type missions. And that will result certainly in higher 

fuel consumption when we have to fly longer, further, and lower. 

Mr. FORBES. So it won’t impact us in our combat operations, but 

it could impact us on our training and readiness? 

General FAY. Yes, sir. It certainly could impact us on our training and readiness. 

Mr. FORBES. And, General Fortney, you mentioned something 

that I would just like for you to explain a little bit. You said that 

the reason we were—part of the reason we were here is because 

we had other priorities, nuclear priorities, and we had other funding shortfalls. This rule came out on September 21, 2012. If we had 

other priorities and we needed more money, did the Air Force ever 

request that from this subcommittee or from Congress? Because I 

don’t recall anything from September 21, 2012, when the Air Force 

ever came in and said we need these dollars. And I didn’t see any-
9 

thing since the Air Force hasn’t sent us unfunded mandate list 

where it was listed there. 

General FORTNEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is, of course, a good 

question. And I can’t honestly answer whether we have requested 

anything since 2012 on. What I can speak to are the priorities over 

the last 2 or 3 years that we have been forced to prioritize above 

this. 

Mr. FORBES. But have there been any requests from the Air 

Force for additional dollars that they would need? 

General FORTNEY. For this specific program—— 

Mr. FORBES. And the only reason I say that is you guys are doing 

a wonderful job. We want to pat you on the back. But it really frustrates us when we kind of reach in like the usual—at the end of 

a Casablanca movie where they say round up the usual suspects. 

And when we fail on something, we have pleaded with the Air 

Force, we pleaded with the services over the last several years, tell 

us what you need. And the Air Force consistently has come in, they 

don’t even give us an unfunded mandates list, and then they come 

in now and say: Well, we couldn’t do this because we had funding 

shortfalls, or because we had other priorities. And we all scratch 

our heads and say: Why didn’t you tell us that 2 years ago, 4 years 

ago, 6 years ago? Because it has been a long time since September 

21 [2012]. So I am not pointing a finger at you. I am just saying 

we probably shouldn’t use that phraseology if the Air Force didn’t 

come in and ask for something. If they came in and asked for more 

dollars, fine. But if they didn’t ask for dollars, I don’t think it is 

fair to come in and say: We’re here because we had other priorities 

and we put our money somewhere else. The Air Force could have 

come in and asked us, and I think all of us would have reached 

in and tried to get those dollars to do it. 

My last question is this: This is also, General Fay, for you. You 

know, given that both the civilian and military aviation sectors are 

impacted by FAA mandate, there are commercial off-the-shelf solutions available to the Air Force to enable compliance. The committee has heard concerns of a number of these small business regarding requirements, General Thomas just talked about using 

some of those, and industry opportunities. The industry has been 

concerned that they aren’t doing it. I am not saying they are. I just 

ask you a question: What is the Air Force doing to leverage small 

business commercial off-the-shelf solutions to meet the mandate, 

and can any of you give us any specific examples of that? 

General FAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to defer to 

General Thomas here because he can give one specific example. 

But what I will say is clearly Air Force works on all of its programs 

to fully comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and all 

laws and policies applicable there. And I think we have actually got 

a pretty good news story and a good example that General Thomas 

will share. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. General. 

General THOMAS. Thank you, sir. Still in source selection, but C– 

130 Avionics Modernization Program Increment 1, which is the increment that ensures compliance with the ADS–B Out mandate, is 

a small business set-aside. So once that source selection is com-
10 

plete, you should see it go to a small business that has an opportunity to compete in this environment. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for being a little bit late. And thank you to all of you for your 

testimony. Again, just quickly, General Thomas, it was good to 

hear your update regarding the airlift. Again, in Connecticut, we 

are sort of following this like a box score with the C–130s up there. 

And it seems like things are really on track. And I guess I am— 

excuse me, General Fay, you know, for some of us who are maybe 

not as well-versed in this, I mean, it does seem like there is sort 

of an uneven sort of story here in terms of, you know, where—the 

percentage of compliance in terms of one sector versus another. 

And, you know, I guess it is—so it is 2016; 2020 is way off. I mean, 

we clearly know we have got a problem here, an issue. I mean, isn’t 

there some way to emulate, you know, we are sort of ahead of the 

curve as opposed to behind the curve to get things sort of moving 

more smartly together? 

General FAY. Ranking Member Courtney, appreciate the question. I think the way I would respond is to say that I think that 

we, as an Air Force, are—we believe we are moving on it as fast 

as we can. And that, frankly, we couldn’t put a lot more money at 

this problem and be able to go any faster just based on those things 

I talked about, operational availability, the industrial base being 

able to respond. Another very big part of this is the Air Force fleet 

is composed of a wide range of aircraft with very different technical, if you will, backbones and engineering, if you will, requirements. 

So very big difference between what I can do with a C–5 aircraft, 

which is very large, has great cooling and a lot of power available 

to do things, and doesn’t have to penetrate enemy airspace, so it 

doesn’t have any special requirements in that area versus a tactical 

aircraft, an F–22 or an F–35 or an F–15, for instance, as an example, that is much smaller, has a lot less, if you will, ability to have 

things placed in the aircraft just because it is small. A lot more 

technical, if you will, integration on those aircraft with a crew of 

one, and the way we have those systems built. 

So I would say yes, we know that it is uneven across the Air 

Force fleet. If you take a look at our Air Mobility Command fleet, 

nature of the aircraft, nature of their mission, we have been able 

to rapidly respond, and the technical nature of those airplanes get 

to over 90 percent compliance anticipated by 2020. Some of our 

more highly specialized aircraft that require that integration, that 

require, you know, software and hardware solutions that can’t be 

necessarily off-the-shelf, because some of our security requirements 

and some of our technical requirements in those very tactical aircraft, that is a much different challenge for us. So it will be a little 

bit uneven, Ranking Member Courtney, as we proceed forward. But 

again, we think that we are moving about as fast as we can in all 

of our fleets. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Okay. And so, I mean, given sort of the logic of 

your answer, you know, which is very logical, I mean, is the time 

now to start engaging with FAA to sort of explain to them what 

the sort of special challenges, you know, different pieces of the fleet 
11 

have so that you don’t have any big surprises and don’t run into 

the issues that the chairman, you know, asked you about? 

General FAY. Sir, the time is now, and we are engaged, is the 

good news story on that. And one of the things that I would just 

like to highlight is our appreciation of the great work with our FAA 

teammates as we work on this. So specifically, what we are doing 

with our FAA teammates to potentially mitigate some of the impact on the aircraft that are not equipped when we reach 2020, is 

we are working on—with them based on a rule that they put actually into this regulation after discussions with the Department of 

Defense, we are working with them on a memorandum of agreement for an exemption for the national defense mission requirements. 

We have got great open progress that is moving forward. As I 

was sharing earlier with the chairman before we came in, I think 

we are on version nine of that memorandum of agreement. And so 

that has been good collaboration moving back and forth. We are 

very hopeful that we will have something in place before the deadline. And we anticipate that at this time. 

Mr. COURTNEY. So I am sure this subcommittee would want to 

help with that process if there is a way that you feel we could. And 

I guess the last question I would have is just to bring up the dreaded two-letter word, CR [continuing resolution]. I mean, obviously 

we are on the cusp of some probable CR of some length. I just sort 

of wonder if you could kind of tease out, you know, how that impacts, you know, the timeline and implementation that we are talking about here this afternoon. 

General FAY. And, sir, what I would say is for the Air Force in 

general, kind of the general theme for us is stability in long-term 

budgeting is absolutely welcome. And I think it is something our 

chief has probably echoed in testimony previously. So when we talk 

about any of our long-term planning and new starts and those sorts 

of challenges we have, anything that disrupts that long-term stability is something that is detrimental. We anticipate, and I think 

we could probably give you some specific examples, that a longterm CR could have potential negative impact on our ability to execute this plan as we currently envision it. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Well, hopefully we won’t have to ask you 

for that, but we may. So, anyway, thank you to all of you for your 

testimony, and I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. And before we go to the gentleman from California, 

General, would you mind just clarifying for Mr. Courtney the difference between the waiver we are seeking for the FAA in the 

United States versus your international concerns, which we probably aren’t as favorable in getting those waivers. 

General FAY. And, Mr. Chairman, certainly. The FAA is a current ongoing effort. In the rules that the FAA wrote, actually specifically considered that there would be discussion with the Department of Defense and other departments like the Department of 

Homeland Security on exemptions for national security requirements. Now, we are also working with some of our international 

partners that also have—that we have challenges with in this area, 

because they are doing the same thing. Specifically in Europe, their 

mandate occurs slightly after ours does. It occurs in June of 2020. 
12 

So about 6 months later than the U.S. mandate goes into effect. We 

are currently working with the Eurocontrol, which is the agency 

like our FAA that we are going to have to work this with. We are 

also working with our NATO allies on this issue. I can’t, at this 

point in time, say how that will turn out, because obviously that 

is going to be an international negotiation that we are going to 

have to work through those processes. But we hope to have a similar outcome, that we are able to work some sort of an exemption 

or, and a mitigation so that we can work on that. And so we are 

working that actively. But again, we can’t be, as the chairman 

mentioned, we can’t be as specific, because that is, obviously, a little bit more difficult. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir, just a couple basic questions. The other services, are they similar situation with their aircraft? 

General FAY. Congressman, actually the other services, I can’t 

speak for them. But I think that you have seen the 2015 report we 

sent over to Congress on some of this from the Department of Defense. They have done well and applaud them on that. What I can 

do is kind of, you know, explain to you a little bit some of the difference between the Air Force and some of the considerations 

that—as we have that discussion between, you know, why things 

are a little bit different. Things that, you know, we kind of look at 

in the Air Force as kind of our fleet size and age, our mix of aircraft types, our operational tempo and some of our immediate 

warfighting requirements that drive us to some of our maintenance 

scheduling. Certainly, some of our system design and complexity, 

our industrial base, our supplier base, and our maintenance operations, all those things vary by service to one degree or another. 

So those are factors I would say that probably impact some of the 

differences between the services. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly. And I would expect the Air Force has 

way more aircraft, and it is a daunting goal here. My second question is about new aircraft. So when we are purchasing new F–35s, 

or if we are purchasing other new fighters, might be F–18s or other 

new aircraft, are they ready to go, or do we have to update them 

when they come back here? 

General FAY. Sir, I defer to General Nahom. 

General NAHOM. Sir, General Nahom from the Air Combat Command. The new aircraft—many are coming off the line compliant. 

An example would be the combat rescue helicopter replacement, 

the HH–60 Whiskey, as well as the EC–130 cross-deck will come 

off the line compliant. F–35 is a little different case. It is part of 

a block upgrade, the Block 4 upgrade. So that will be—it will miss 

the mandate, but it is scheduled in and it is part of the planned 

program and upgrade of the F–35s. They are all a little bit different for the new airplanes. But for the most part, it will come off 

the assembly line compliant. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. So if the F–35 is in a new block upgrade, is 

part of the upgrade this to make sure it is compliant? Is this part 

of the block upgrade? 
13 

General NAHOM. Yes, sir, it is part of Block 4 upgrade to the F– 

35. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. FORBES. The distinguished lady from Florida, Ms. Graham, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Majors, if you will 

just humor me for 1 second, I want to take this opportunity, because I don’t know if I will have another one, Mr. Chairman, to 

personally thank you for your service to this committee and to the 

Armed Services Committee. I serve on five subcommittees. And I 

don’t want to disparage any of the other chairs because they are 

all wonderful. But I want to personally thank you, as a new Member of Congress, someone that desired to learn a lot and be a part 

of the process, you have allowed me that opportunity. And it has 

been an honor to serve on a committee that you chair. And, both 

personally as well as professionally I want to thank you. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, a question about—and this is only because in the 

segue that I want to learn every day. Curious, How does the interaction between defense aircraft and civilian aircraft, how does that 

work in terms of the air traffic control and having different planes 

with different objectives in the air? How does that work with the 

FAA? I am curious. 

General FAY. Well, ma’am, I think in a very general sense, I 

would say that more or less the same rules apply. Safety of flight 

rules apply. We are held to the same standards, if you will, and 

requirements in regulations. Now that said, there is clearly exemptions for military-type operations. For instance, when we are operating in the military operating area, we separate ourselves from 

the vast majority of civilian traffic because we are doing tactical 

maneuvers, or high-speed maneuvers, or specialized maneuvers. 

So we have worked with the FAA over the years, and I would 

say we have got a well-understood process to separate military activity that is, if you will, high performance from civil aviation, you 

know. And that is either physically or procedurally. And a lot of 

that is physically. We just go places like over the ocean, and some 

of the experts here from the commands can talk to you about how 

we do restricted airspace and closed airspace in military operating 

areas. And some of it is just flat-out procedural. But when we are 

interacting in, I would say, the national airspace in general, and 

if there is anybody else who has a better perspective than I do on 

this, we essentially comply with the very same mandates and the 

very same requirements for safety of flight. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Does anyone else have anything to add? 

General NAHOM. Ma’am, speaking from the Air Combat Command, essentially the fighter side, just like General Fay said, if we 

are going to be something different than operating like a civilian 

aircraft, then we are in restricted airspace, sterile airspace, and 

then we can do such things like turn off our squawks or even turn 

off our lights at night for NVG [night vision goggle] training, those 

things. But when we are operating in the air route structure, we 

use—we follow exactly the same rules and we follow exact same 

procedures and the air traffic controllers can see us just like they 
14 

can see an airliner, and they can have safe separation to make sure 

safety is complied with. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Is there anything different—I had the honor—I 

represent Tyndall [Air Force Base] at Panama City, Florida. I had 

the honor of going up in a T–38 on a training mission with F–22s. 

Okay. I have now tapped out my acronyms for—and at one point, 

we were—the training mission was actually taking off—landing 

and taking off quickly, so if there was a mission that needed to go 

out quickly. I am assuming that there are special rules the FAA 

follows when they are going through training missions such as that 

that are unique to a defense operation? 

General NAHOM. Ma’am, it would work, again, essentially the 

same way. Now, when you are actually in the airfield like Tyndall 

operating at that airfield, you are in the Class Delta [D] airspace 

which the air traffic controller controls in, and in a military airfield 

like that, we may control it a little differently, because there is no 

civilian air traffic within that. But for the most part, once you get 

outside that 5-mile ring of the air traffic controller’s purview, then 

you work the same way as a civilian aircraft until you got into the 

sterile airspace of a military operating area, or a restricted airspace 

over the water. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Okay. I think since I am almost out of time, I appreciate you all being here very much, and I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FORBES. The young lady yields back the balance of her time. 

And we now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just asked a pilot over 

here a question, it was probably a really simple question, really 

simple answer. ADS–B Out is just a transmitter, right, that shoots 

to the—you have ground systems and you have a Global Positioning System, global navigation satellites. So it shoots out like 

every second your direction, your speed, that is—and your identification, right? 

And so you are telling me—so for a Cessna, and I only know this 

because I am on the Transportation Committee, for—because the 

general aviation committee, or community got up in arms because 

it is going to cost like $5,000 per $40,000-aircraft or something if 

you have a little Cessna or Piper or something. I don’t know airplanes at all. Why is it so expensive? I mean, that is my question. 

If you are just transmitting, can you explain why it is—because are 

you setting it up for ADS–B In as well so you are setting up everything for later when you have to have that and including ADS–B 

Out in that, or what makes it so much more expensive? 

General FORTNEY. Yes, sir. As General Fay spoke about in his 

opening remarks, it is really—to me it is the integration of several 

things at the same time. Some of them are a little easier because 

the aircraft is a little more advanced. It might be something as 

simple as a circuit card replacement in an aircraft to make it ADS– 

B compliant. I mean, other cases like in the bomber fleet, we are 

combining this upgrade with another upgrade or another upgrade 

that has to take place at the same time to facilitate ADS–B. 
15 

Mr. HUNTER. Now, explain that, though. Because, I mean, what 

I picture is, I picture some kind of a transmitter and you plug it 

in. 

General FORTNEY. Yes, sir, I can give you an example with a B– 

52, for instance. The B–52 is not what we call M-code [next generation military code] compliant right now. It is a higher speed, more 

accurate, more jam-resistant form of GPS. And all military aircraft 

are being converted over to M-code. To be ADS–B compliant, you 

have to have M-code as well. And so taking those two capabilities, 

merging them together into the same program is what we are 

doing trying to get synergy, so when you take the aircraft off the 

line to do an upgrade, you only have to do it once. I don’t know 

if that answers your question, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Sure. It does. But you are still saying your average 

cost is $2.5 million per aircraft? 

General FORTNEY. I am not—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Even when you piggyback on other upgrades and 

other systems where you are taking apart the stuff anyway? 

General FAY. So, sir, we can take that one for the record. 

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

page 51.] 

General FAY. But what I can tell you is the cost per aircraft varies widely by fleet. And as I was discussing a little bit earlier, for 

some of our larger aircraft, some of those, if you will, commerciallike solutions are great solutions, and it is very cheap to do. Some 

of the jets just require software. So virtually free. Now, some of the 

aircraft, for instance, I will take some of our higher technology aircraft, essentially they are electronic aircraft, unlike a Cessna or, if 

you will, a small commercial aircraft. So these electronic aircraft 

essentially have—they are a computer with data moving on, if you 

will, wires or fiber. And so now when you start talking about I 

have to take position information from this electronic, if you will, 

infrastructure within the aircraft, integrating anything on that now 

is touching the entire aircraft, if you will. 

And so it has to be, if you will, integrated into that entire aircraft so that position, that information that is coming from the 

GPS and the navigation system and being broadcast is able to safely be integrated into that aircraft, and that is where you start getting into some fairly significant expenses when you are having to, 

if you will, take apart complex electronic systems and put it into 

the middle of a complex electronic system. And General Nahom 

probably can give some good examples of that from fighter perspective. 

Mr. HUNTER. That is all right. I understand. I mean, in this one 

case, it sounds like we should go for the lowest cost technically acceptable thing that there is, because it is just transmitting. But 

thank you. That is a great translation of this. I appreciate it. And 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, thank you. And I guess, I am not sure, I 

guess because you have so many different airplanes and aircraft, 

every one of them has got an exquisite solution to it, but you fly 
16 

11 737s or C–40s. The cost for that, is that the same cost as Southwest would pay to fix all of theirs? It would be the same fix, right? 

General THOMAS. Sir, for that fleet we are leveraging the commercial solutions that are being put out there. So, for example, our 

aircraft will be modified at some of the same depots that commercial aircraft get their modifications at. So for that fleet, yes. I 

mean, there are simpler ones. The KC–135, for example, it is going 

to be a software modification. So it just depends the type of aircraft. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. So we got—I have got a list here, and I 

think you guys probably gave it to us, of Air Force compliance status by aircraft series. And it lists 223 F–35As. I am assuming that 

since you have known about this since 2012, the planning to fix the 

F–35 went into effect almost immediately, so the 223 is the only 

group that will be retrofitted, that delivery 224, General Nahom, 

will have whatever is needed, right? 

General NAHOM. Yes, sir. When the Block 4 aircraft start—begin 

coming off the assembly line at Fort Worth, they will be compliant, 

and at that point, we will go back and retroactively fix the Block 

3. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And given that aircraft, that is a software as well, 

or are you going to have to add gear to that? 

General NAHOM. There actually is some hardware modification, 

because there is basically a new central processor in the newer airplanes. So that will be part of the upgrade. 

Mr. CONAWAY. I guess the frustration, I just don’t understand, 

you know, why this is so complicated because you put new stuff on 

aircraft every, you know, so often anyway, but it is frustrating, as 

the chairman said, that we are here with what is going on. 

Any of our Air Force bases locked out of being able to be used 

as a result of this FAA rule if you don’t get any kind of waiver? 

Can we still fly all the Air Force bases that we have in the United 

States under non-combat operations? 

General FAY. Well, sir, I tell you, as we anticipate right now, and 

I think we provided this in previous reports and also in some of the 

written testimony, we are working very hard with the FAA. There 

is mitigation, if you will, already written into the rules. And one 

of the mitigations is that you file a flight plan 1 hour before you 

fly. And as long as civil aviation activity in that area and the air 

traffic controller permit, we are going to be able to operate. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. So given our high-volume training bases, 

Lackland—or not Lackland, but the one in Del Rio, is that—would 

that be a training impact for flights that—for aircraft that aren’t 

compliant? Will you be able to train as often as—I mean, I am just 

trying to get the impact on U.S. bases. Are there ones where you 

would no longer be using those for training because of this rule and 

the noncompliance? 

General FAY. Sir, we don’t anticipate that that is going to be the 

case. But should the air traffic controller tell us for whatever reason that there is an impact or they disallow us to use that airspace, 

then we could be restricted in altitude. They could give us, you 

know, routing that is a little different. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Is that something you are having your team look 

at now in a hard analysis? Or is it just—or are we waiting until 
17 

2017 or 2020, whenever it is, and they are going to say: Oh, by the 

way, you can’t use that? Surely you are looking at that? 

General FAY. No, Congressman, we are working very hard to 

first accelerate everything as rapidly as we can. Second, mitigate 

so—because we are pretty confident that we are not going to be 

able to get the entire fleet accomplished based on some of the factors we discussed earlier. And then third, we are going to have to 

work with the local, if you will, air traffic control as we approach 

2020 to assess the impacts. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. I know you can’t do it today, General 

Thomas, but at some point in time, I hope you are able to tell us 

whatever you did to the C–40s was reasonably close, or if not, why 

it wasn’t the same as what Southwest can do with their fleet. You 

can’t do it today. I got that. But at some point in time, that is a 

question somebody ought to ask is, were you able to be as, you 

know, cost effective as the Southwest guys. And if not, why not? 

So I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. If the gentleman would yield before he yields back. 

Maybe, General, we would ask that you maybe submit that for the 

record if you could to answer Mr. Conaway’s question and so that 

we can get that information if that is possible. 

General THOMAS. Of course, Mr. Chairman. 

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

page 51.] 

Mr. CONAWAY. And let the record reflect that that is only 11 airplanes out of 1,600. So—but it is important. You know, if you are 

watching the nickels and dimes, sometimes the dollars get taken 

care of too. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen, is 

recognized for 5 minutes, if he is prepared and ready to go. Then 

I will come back to you. In that case, we go to the gentleman from 

Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Fortney, in 

looking at where compliance issues are going to be with the FAA 

as of January 2020, limitations of no flight above 10,000 feet, all 

Class B and C airspace restricted for non-compliant aircraft, Gulf 

of Mexico area, anything above 3,000 feet out to 12 miles, all restricted with non-compliant aircraft; tell me in that scenario, and 

I understand where you are looking at trying to upgrade aircraft 

to provide these transmission capabilities, what happens in the scenario of having our aircraft across the spectrum of the Air Force 

as far as overall readiness? So give me a perspective on what you 

can accomplish by 2020? The what-ifs if you can’t accomplish? Are 

there certain priorities you place on aircraft? What happens with 

overall Air Force readiness based on the scenario that the FAA has 

put before you? 

General FORTNEY. Yes, sir. Congressman, by 2020 we are only 

going to have test aircraft properly configured, which means our 

operational fleet, our day-to-day fleet that we use for training, our 

bombers’ assure and deter missions, our COCOM [combatant command] support missions, all the training that we do are going to 

be non-compliant. And you hit the nail on the head. I mean, we fly 

in high altitudes. That is what we do. We fly around the world. We 

have long-duration sorties. I mean, even our CONUS, our conti-
18 

nental United States sorties are long-duration sorties. And so unlike the fighter counterpart where they may only have to talk to 

one air traffic control center, if we are forced to plot a course where 

we are going to be on a 10.5-hour mission over the United States, 

eventually dropping munitions over the Utah test range, we are 

going to have to be in constant communication or requesting waivers and exemptions. 

And so we are going to have to work closely with the FAA as we 

approach this on the ROE [rules of engagement], the rules that we 

are going to use to do this. And frankly, sir, we haven’t done that 

yet. But yes, we know we have to do that. And so I would just conclude with saying without accommodation from the FAA, the 1- 

hour constraint will be a challenge. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I think, too, it will be helpful for members to have 

your scenario if you cannot get the FAA to consider your situation 

and make any kind of accommodations as to where you will be with 

training opportunities, with generating readiness here, across the 

spectrum within the Air Force. It would be good for us to know, 

because I do think that we have to look at the worst-case scenario 

there so that if push comes to shove, and Congress needs to get involved about the crossover in the regulatory realm and how it affects military readiness, we have to know, you know, what that 

worst-case scenario is. So I think that would be very helpful to us 

is for you to lay that out so that we could be mindful of it. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[No answer was available at the time of printing.] 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Washington, do you need a little more time? 

The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LARSEN. I won’t need 5 minutes. I don’t have a lot of questions, because as I am the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee, so I am up to my alligators usually in NextGen. And it is not—although not unusual for 

folks flying airplanes to not be meeting mandates and such, we are 

getting people to—getting the system, which includes airlines and 

includes air traffic controllers, and includes the folks at TRACON 

[Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities] and so on, we are 

getting everybody up to speed, settled on key recommendations to 

implement or funding those recommendations, and those are done 

over the next set, been able to do that, certainly on the civilian 

side. So I am not really—there may be a lot of excuses for not getting there by 2020 for the Air Force, but I am not listening to excuses on the civilian side anymore, so I am not going to listen to 

excuses on the military side anymore. 

And this is just one element. ADS–B is just one element of it. 

And so, I think that the message I just would like to provide is that 

if you need help to get it done by the date, just like we did with 

FAA, on the Aviation Subcommittee, we went to FAA, said, we will 

help you. We will block and tackle and keep people away so you 

can get it implemented, so the system can get implemented, so the 

folks who use it can implement the various elements of NextGen. 

And if you need that, then we ought to make that same commitment to you. If you don’t need it, then there should be no argu-
19 

ments about whether or not you are getting to the mandate by the 

timeline. 

That is basically what I would offer. It can be done. It is being 

done, and I believe you can do it, too. 

Thanks. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman would yield. 

Mr. LARSEN. I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. I know you have great expertise in this area. I am 

certainly not offering a defense for these gentlemen. They have expertise. But in conversations, I think their response back would be, 

perhaps the Air Force could have done more. Perhaps they could 

have set additional priorities and asked for additional funding, but 

there are three major things that make them a little more unique. 

One is the demand they have for their planes, and part of that 

is because we have let them have the shortfall—I mean, in the 

planes that they have, that demand number is impacting this. 

Secondly, I think as General Nahom would say, that we have an 

industrial base concerning that the Air Force can’t overcome right 

now, and we can’t overcome. 

And the third thing is we have some engineering concerns on 

some of our planes. 

Is that a fair representation of some of the roadblocks, General 

Fay? 

General FAY. Chairman, I think that is a fair representation of 

the key—of the key challenges that the Air Force is working to. 

But what I would say, and, sir, we fully understand the importance 

of compliance. We are working very hard getting into compliance, 

and I would say that an example of that, I think, if you look at our 

budget submission, you can see that the Air Force has committed 

significant resources to get after that to the tune of a large amount 

of dollars. 

Mr. LARSEN. If I may? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, please. 

Mr. LARSEN. If I may? You know, it is not just compliance for the 

sake of it, right? This is a set of systems that are supposed to help 

us. So I just don’t want to talk about merely compliance, but compliance for a reason. And I—and we—again, we took a model that 

was broken on the civilian side, at least we have been able to clear 

some of the brush out so folks can get some things done. I am just 

saying, if we need to clear some brush out, we will do that, or we 

should commit to doing that with the goal of gaining compliance by 

the timeline because of the value of getting compliance. 

General FAY. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. Your points are very valid with that point. 

And with that, we recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the first 

question is, so in the Navy, we would file DD–175s, or flight plans. 

I am sure it is in the same in the Air Force. And we would put 

on the form, you know, where you put your aircraft type, we put 

an ‘‘I’’ after E–2 or whatever it is we were flying, I was flying at 

the time. And the ‘‘I’’ would indicate to the air traffic controllers 

that we were a TACAN-only [tactical air navigation system-only] 

aircraft. Is there a mitigation technique where we could actually 
20 

just put that on the flight plan and then not have to worry about 

calling 1 hour in advance to all these different air traffic control 

agencies and letting them know? Is that one technique we could 

employ? 

General FAY. So, Congressman, I think that is part of ongoing 

negotiations we have in the memorandum of agreement with the 

FAA. But as you experienced in your flying, I think a similar thing 

we would anticipate, right now we have a restriction on some of 

our aircraft from flying in certain altitude airspaces, the RVSM [reduced vertical separation minimum], if you will, restriction. And 

that is exactly how we deal with it today. 

On our 175 flight plan, we make a little notation in the remarks 

section. And our bombers that General Fortney talked about is a 

great example of that. That remark carries across all air traffic 

control as they are flying across the country. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So I have flown RVSM—an aircraft that was 

not RVSM compliant, and I am trying to get from Fallon, Nevada, 

to Denver, and I got capped in my altitude, which in an F–18, you 

burn gas fast down low and not up high. So it does create a problem that we have to deal with as operators, as you guys are very 

well aware. 

When you think about, like, the range training complex, maybe 

the Nevada Test and Training complex, or the Fallon Range Training Complex, in these complexes, is there any requirement at all 

to have ADS–B, anything, or we just—we own the airspace, and we 

operate the way we want? 

General NAHOM. Sir, General Nahom from ACC, I will take that. 

Within the airspaces, we will operate similar to how we are right 

now. Just, like when we go into the airspaces now, we regularly 

turn off our squawks. We gave the example, we turn off our lights 

at night for NVG training. We do things within that sterile airspace. Once we leave that airspace, we are back in the air, we 

structurally comply with the FARs [Federal Aviation Regulations], 

just like the civilian aircraft do. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So how about, like, an Active Duty MOA [military operating area]? Like if you activate an MOA, can you operate 

in there without an ADS–B? 

General NAHOM. Right now, each—all MOAs are different, just 

depending on what the rules are. We will have to look at that on 

a case-by-case basis. We will take that for the record. 

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

page 51.] 

General NAHOM. But right now, depending on the MOA’s rules, 

many allow us to turn our squawks off, some don’t. Some allow us 

to do NVG training, some don’t. It just will depend on the MOA 

and where it is. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Then a big concern would be our military 

bases that are dual uses for commercial, where you are under a 

Class Charlie [C] airspace. That is going to have to be mitigated, 

because you are going to have a lot of traffic in a small area, and 

they are all going to be ADS–B compliant except for the military 

aircraft. There’s got to be some mitigation for that, correct? 

General NAHOM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Is there a plan for that? 
21 

General FAY. Sir, that is exactly what we are going to have to 

work through with the FAA. Now, what I would point out, when 

we first took a look at this, that was one of the significant questions we had is to scope, the size of, you know, the potential issue. 

And I believe in the 2015 report that the Department provided to 

Congress, I think some of the numbers we saw was, at the 20th 

busiest, you know, report’s terminals, only 1 percent of the traffic 

was Department of Defense. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Right. 

General FAY. Now, that doesn’t relieve us from working through 

some of the difficult, and you can imagine and you are familiar 

with those bases that are, you know, metropolitan areas, some of 

those. That is what we are going to have to work very carefully 

with the FAA to work through those. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when I was capped for RVSM challenges, 

if I remember right, it was 280 [flight level 280] is what I was 

capped at. 

General NAHOM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Now, with ADS–B, we are talking about even 

in Class Echo [E] airspace 10,000 feet and above, are we going to 

have fighters that are going to be transiting at 10,000 feet and 

below? And if so, then you are really burning gas fast. That can’t 

be the—that can’t be a mitigating solution. 

General FAY. Yeah. Well, worst-case scenario, that is possible. 

And the worst-case scenario is that the aircraft is unequipped. It 

is not one of the aircrafts we have been able to equip by 2020, that 

we haven’t been able to work the memorandum of agreement with 

the FAA, so I am going down three or four what-ifs here to get 

there. 

If we are not—if we don’t have an MOA, and we are not able to 

work within what is currently in the rule, which is the 1-hour file 

a flight plan and ATC [air traffic control] workload permitting, 

sometimes they will allow us to do that. So there is—we walk down 

a far road, but the worst-case scenario, to be clear, is we will not 

be able to operate those airspace with aircraft that are not 

equipped. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Last question, and I am out of time, so 

I will have to take it for the record, General Thomas. If you can 

give me an update, and you can do it in writing, where we are with 

Amp 1 and Amp 2 for the C–130 program, I would appreciate it 

very much. Thank you, guys. 

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

page 51.] 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

And the gentlelady from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. So I have 

Whiteman Air Force Base, home of the B–2 bomber, in my district, 

very proud of that. But concerned that, the report I have here, that 

only one test aircraft will be compliant by there, the remainder by 

fiscal year 2024 and the cost estimate is $84 million. So there is 

only 20 aircraft. Where are you at on addressing this concern? It 

seems like this would be a good place to start in getting these 20 

done, because I can’t even anticipate a B–2 flying below 10,000 

feet. 
22 

General FORTNEY. Yes, ma’am. That is a great question. 

As you probably know, the B–2 was our threshold aircraft for the 

M-code upgrade, which is a facilitator to be able to convert to ADS– 

B. I mean, it was a threshold aircraft. We are—the reason it is taking a little longer, as we discussed earlier, we are bundling certain 

capability upgrades at the same time so that we don’t have to 

break those jets open again. 

As you know, you are way familiar with, ma’am, the low fleet dynamics, number of fleet means taking one B–2 offline is a significant bill for the country to pay. And so we are bundling the IFF 

[identification, friend or foe] upgrade, a Mode 5 upgrade, at the 

same time we are doing this. It takes the aircraft down once, allows depot to go in and break it open just once and make both 

modifications. So having already done the M-code mod [modification] to facilitate that upgrade, this will allow us to gain the synergy of the programs. Yes, it is expensive. You are correct in your numbers. It is an $84 

million project. But, again, that includes both efforts at the same 

time. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Do you have funding in the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] this year for this? 

General FORTNEY. No, ma’am. This is fiscal year 2018. It is in 

our 2018 POM [program objective memorandum] submission. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. When you open it up, how long does it take to 

do this? 

General FORTNEY. I do not know the answer to that. I can take 

that for the record, ma’am. 

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

page 52.] 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Well, this is really concerning, obviously. 

And so I wanted to talk about the foreign allies, because, globally, 

a growing number of countries also are requiring this system to operate in a controlled airspace. So can you give me a succinct summary of where other parts of the world are on this and other militaries? 

Are they fully upgraded and we are not? Or how would that look 

like as we fly around the world? 

General FAY. Ma’am, I can’t speak for the other militaries, and 

so we can probably take that for the record as well to assess where 

they are on it. 

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

page 52.] 

General FAY. But as far as global operations are concerned, the 

primary driver for us would be in the European theater, specifically 

Eurocontrol. Their ADS–B Out mandate is shortly after ours in 

June of 2020. So we are working much like we are working with 

the FAA, we are working with the Eurocontrol and with our NATO 

allies to see what we can do to see through these. Two other places 

in the Pacific that I am aware of right now that are ADS–B Out 

required are Australia, and, I believe, Singapore. We have—in 

every nation is a little different, so we are having to deal with 

these kind of as we work through with those different nations. But 

so far, we have been able to do that, and we are continuing to work 

with them to sort that out. 
23 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Just another question that comes to mind, 

and it is referenced here in the report, is just the basic security of 

the system. When you are increasing the amount of satellite base, 

modern digital technologies, all of that is great. My husband is a 

small plane pilot, and you know, avionics, that is great, all this 

stuff. But with concerns with cyber, with hacking, with what China 

is doing, do you have any concerns with retrofitting all of our fleet 

to this new system? Do you feel confident that they will be able to 

have the safeguards in there that somebody can’t shoot down a satellite, and we are in big trouble? 

General FAY. So, ma’am, we do have concerns. Among them are 

operational security is—I am sure this committee can imagine, 

sometimes we have, as we are doing operations, concerns about 

how much information we share with certain entities. And, also, we 

certainly share other concerns, but I think we have to go to a higher security level to have that discussion. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Yeah. Okay. Very good. 

Well, thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. 

At the beginning I told you we were going to give you an opportunity for any closing statements. Here is our dilemma. They have 

just called votes. We have 12 votes, which means you would have 

to wait here an hour or so to do that. You are welcome to do it. 

Number two, you could submit any clarifications for the record; 

or, number three, you could say, we don’t have anything else we 

want to do. 

General, I am going to let you speak for everybody on what you 

would like to do. We are here at your disposal now. 

General FAY. Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect a vote on number three would highly successful—— 

Mr. FORBES. I thought that might be what you wanted. 

So with that, let me just thank you for your service to our country. Thank you for taking the time to be here with us. 

And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 

(51) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER 

General FORTNEY. The cost per aircraft to upgrade to ADS–B out/Mode 5 varies widely by fleet. For example, in AFGSC, the B–52 costs $1.25M each, the B–1 costs 

$1M each, the B–2 costs $4M each, and the UH–1N costs $.2M each. Those costs 

include research, development, testing, engineering, procurement of parts and installations. Military aircraft require rigorous integration and testing of installed 

equipment to ensure security of classified components and safety of weapons systems, increasing the total costs. Also, the cost typically is lower in civil aircraft since 

they have commercial off the shelf equipment available. This allows for economies 

of scale in the thousands versus a bomber aircraft in the low hundreds. [See page 

15.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY 

General THOMAS. The C–40B/C fleet is leveraging the commercial airline solution 

to the maximum extent possible, considering the military unique equipment required to support the mission of the aircraft. We are utilizing the existing commercial aircraft antennas and interfaces for the installation of Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) Out capability. For example, we are installing new 

commercial multimode receivers in order to leverage the airline parts pool support 

for this component. However, due to the requirement to install military Identification Friend or Foe (FF) Mode 5 concurrently with ADS–B Out, we must also utilize 

the APX–119 transponder with offers both military and civilian capabilities. This 

difference in equipment causes the C–40B/C ADS–B Out modification to be unique 

compared to the commercial airline B–737 fleet, and as a result, a direct cost comparison with commercial B–737 variants is not possible. [See page 17.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE 

General NAHOM. The FAA, as the owner of the NAS, will determine where and 

when DOD aircraft will be authorized to operate without ADS–B. While we believe 

the FAA will authorize non-ADS–B operations in Restricted Areas because non-participating aircraft are not authorized to enter, we must also ensure non-ADS–B operations in MOAs and Warning Areas, when activated, are authorized in order to 

allow continued readiness training to protect the nation and meet our obligations 

to combatant commanders. 

While MOAs and Warning Areas do not prohibit non-participating aircraft to 

enter, they do restrict IFR operations while active. These are the current operating 

procedures for Special Use Airspace (SUA) and would allow continued readiness 

training without negative impacts. 

Lastly, we would advocate an agreement with the FAA to develop stereo routes 

(including altitudes) between military bases and SUA for non-ADS–B DOD aircraft 

in order to avoid the increased risk to flight safety by requiring the high performance military aircraft to operate below 10,000 feet. 

We believe this is a prudent operational approach until all DOD aircraft become 

ADS–B compliant in accordance with the current equipage schedule. [See page 20.] 

General THOMAS. AMC and the C–130H Program Office are already in the process 

of completing portions of C–130H AMP Increment 1. Of the components of Increment 1, the Cockpit Voice Recorder and 8.33 kHz radios will be installed via unitlevel Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) upgrades that should complete in 

FY17 and FY18, respectively. The Enhanced Mode S (EHS) upgrade is combined 

with ADS–B Out and is on track to complete by 1 January, 2020. The last element 

of AMP Increment 1 is currently in source selection. The Request for Proposal was 

issued in Mar 2016 and proposals were received in Apr 2016. This source selection 

is a designated small business set-aside program. The evaluation is proceeding on 

schedule and we anticipate contract award by Apr 2017. 

The C–130H AMP Increment 2 program is conducting Market Research to determine what solutions are available from industry and are assessing those against the 
52 

specified operational requirements defined by Air Mobility Command for the C– 

130H fleet. In addition, the program office is developing the acquisition documents 

necessary for release of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The program remains on 

track to deliver a full Increment 2 modification to the C–130H fleet by 2028, and 

we will seek opportunities to accelerate that schedule where possible based on market research and responses to the RFP. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER 

General FAY. As the Air Force reach is global, we fly to more international locations more frequently than other military. As such we monitor and assess operational impacts from ADS–B requirements implemented around the globe and work 

to ensure interoperability with our allied partners and global air navigation service 

providers through participation in NATO groups, as well as representation in U.S. 

positions and delegations to ICAO. In Europe there is no requirement for certain 

types of aircraft to equip with ADS–B Out so our fighter-type aircraft will not need 

to install ADS–B out to fly in Europe. In addition to Australia and Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Taiwan also have ADS–B requirements in effect, currently at 

enroute altitudes 29,000 ft. and above. As we move forward with our aircraft fleet 

equipage, our planning for transit requirements through foreign territorial airspace 

includes development of databases to identify the specific aircraft in the inventory 

equipped to fly in locations where ADS–B is needed to ensure we meet our operational requirements. 

I understand there is a perception that ADS–B Out will be or has been mandated 

by ICAO. It is important to mention that ICAO develops civil standards for commercial aviation. Note that the Convention on International Civil Aviation (The Chicago 

Convention), which is the international treaty regime on which ICAO is based, explicitly deals with civil aviation, and does not apply to state aircraft (per Article 3). 

Also, ICAO does not mandate the use of ADS–B Out, however, the ADS–B Out avionics is a part of ICAO’s global initiative to harmonize air traffic services into a single set of avionics for seamlessness across States and regions. To this end, we do 

expect to see more nations moving towards reliance on ADS–B Out and similar systems. [See page 22.] 

General FORTNEY. Approximately 30 calendar days (20 man-days) for the combined Mode5/S/ADS–B Out install for the B–2. Like all B–2 modifications, the installation for a particular aircraft will balance aircraft availability, other modifications, and operational requirements. [See page 22.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 

(55) 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN 

Mr. LARSEN. What specific measures can the Air Force take with regard to the 

30 percent of the fleet that will not be equipped with ADS–B Out avionics by 2020 

to ensure those aircraft can still be safely separated from civil aircraft in the National Airspace System? 

General FAY. The ADS–B Out Final Rule, effective 11 Aug 2010, contained the 

following provisions intended to address procedures for (DOD) aircraft that will not 

be equipped with ADS–B Out avionics by 2020: 

1) The FAA will collaborate with DOD to develop Memorandums of Agreement 

(MOA) to accommodate national defense mission requirements. DOD is currently 

collaborating with the FAA on a draft MOA to ensure the DOD’s mission is not adversely impacted. Those non-equipped aircraft will have sufficient navigation equipment on board to safely operate in the airspace required for the intended operation. 

The task of ensuring safe operations of aircraft remains in the hands of air traffic 

controllers domestically and internationally. They will coordinate the movements of 

all aircraft to keep them at safe distances from each other and direct them appropriately to ensure that traffic flows smoothly and safely. 

2) There is a process for air traffic control (ATC) authorized deviations from the 

ADS–B Out requirements described in 14 CFR § 91.225 to accommodate non 

equipped aircraft after Jan 2020. Requests are to be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace at least one hour before the proposed 

operation. The ATC facility with jurisdiction over the applicable airspace has discretionary authority to determine whether accommodations for non-ADS–B equipped 

aircraft can be made. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ZINKE 

Mr. ZINKE. If USAF determines that commercial NDI solutions exist that meet 

the minimum requirements for the C–130H AMP Increment 2 upgrade, will USAF 

shorten the EMD (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) schedule so that 

the Guard and Reserves can acquire this much-needed capability faster than would 

be expected in a classic MILSPEC development program? If not, why not? 

General THOMAS. The USAF is evaluating contract types as part of the acquisition 

strategy to determine the most appropriate type for the EMD and production efforts. 

While there may be commercial NDI solutions available, it will still require a certain degree of engineering design effort to integrate these NDI solutions to function 

with existing C–130H electrical and electronic systems. The level of engineering design may require a hybrid mix of contract types by the Air Force. The contract 

mechanism used will seek to ensure best value for the government while meeting 

operational requirements. 

Mr. ZINKE. Assuming that commercial NDI solutions are available that meet the 

minimum requirements for C–130 AMP Increment 2, and that such available solutions would already have an established cost to manufacture and install, will USAF 

require a firm fixed price acquisition strategy for the C–130H AMP2 program? If 

not, why not? 

General THOMAS. The USAF is evaluating contract types as part of the acquisition 

strategy to determine the most appropriate type for the EMD and production efforts. 

While there may be commercial NDI solutions available, it will still require a certain degree of engineering design effort to integrate these NDI solutions to function 

with existing C–130H electrical and electronic systems. The level of engineering design may require a hybrid mix of contract types by the Air Force. The contract 

mechanism used will seek to ensure best value for the government while meeting 

operational requirements. 

Æ