U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

64–863 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–7] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

CATHY GARMAN, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

MEGAN HOWARD, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, February 17, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force ............................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, February 17, 2011 ................................................................................. 45 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET 

REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services .................................................................. 1 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force ............................................ 4 

Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force ........................ 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Donley, Hon. Michael B., joint with Gen. Norton A. Schwartz .................... 53 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 49 

Smith, Hon. Adam ............................................................................................ 51 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Bartlett ....................................................................................................... 94 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 98 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 98 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... 99 

Mr. Larsen ........................................................................................................ 98 

Mr. McKeon ....................................................................................................... 93 

Mr. Reyes .......................................................................................................... 94 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 98 

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... 93 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 111 

Ms. Castor ......................................................................................................... 117 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 119 

Mr. Conaway ..................................................................................................... 117 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING—Continued 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 105 

Mr. Franks ........................................................................................................ 116 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 113 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... 121 

Mr. Kissell ......................................................................................................... 115 

Mr. Lamborn ..................................................................................................... 119 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 109 

Mr. LoBiondo .................................................................................................... 112 

Mr. McKeon ....................................................................................................... 103 

Mr. Palazzo ....................................................................................................... 122 

Mr. Runyan ....................................................................................................... 121 

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... 104 

Ms. Sutton ......................................................................................................... 118 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 113 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 110 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 119 
(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, February 17, 2011. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in room 2118, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank 

you for joining us today as we consider the President’s fiscal year 

2012 budget request for the Department of the Air Force. 

Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, it is good to have you back 

before the committee today. 

We appreciate all you do, and we are truly grateful for both of 

you for your many years of service to our Nation. 

Last year at this time, we talked a bit about your vision for the 

Air Force and specifically the need for a short-term, fix-it sort of 

perspective to a longer-term view that seriously addresses national 

security risks in a very challenging global environment. 

At that time, I remarked that I believe the Air Force is at a critical juncture, one that will prove to be historic, and I cautioned 

that we must be wise in the path we chose. I stand by those remarks today. 

There is no doubt that we must take our Nation’s financial position into account, and I appreciate the fact that Secretary Gates 

and the Department have identified savings from lower priority 

programs and efficiencies that can be reinvested into force structure and modernization. However, we must be cautious moving forward that we do not take short-term savings at the risk of our 

longer-term security. 

This year’s budget request for the Air Force reflects a 2-percent 

reduction in real growth from the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

The Air Force’s operation and maintenance accounts, military construction accounts, and procurement accounts are all funded below 

the levels requested last year, despite inflation and despite rising 

fuel costs. 

This committee needs to clearly understand the risks associated 

with these reductions. I understand that the Air Force identified 

over $33 billion in efficiencies to support this budget, but it is un-
2 

clear to me how much of that funding was retained and reinvested 

in the future of the Air Force. 

I am also very concerned that many of these efficiencies are costavoidance initiatives and not clear-cut savings, and as such, they 

may not actually materialize. We have seen this from the Air Force 

before. The most recent examples being a 2006 attempt, before 

your time, to cut 40,000 personnel in order to fund procurement efforts and then the end-sourcing initiatives from the last budget 

cycle; neither of those worked out so well. We cannot and must not 

allow shortsighted budgets drills to drive our national security priorities and planning. 

The Air Force can’t continue business as usual. We must find 

cost savings through innovation and competition. Just last week as 

an example, I was briefed on an innovative approach, a business 

model that could significantly reduce the cost of space launch. And 

I think you have been informed of that. We will talk about that. 

Echoing my remarks from yesterday’s hearing, this Congress 

must finish work on defense appropriations legislation that was left 

unfinished in the 111th Congress. We have been working on that 

now all night, the last few nights, and I guess we hear we are 

going to be working all night tonight now and maybe tomorrow. 

Given our promise that we were going to be done by three o’clock 

today, we had two promises that conflicted: One was openness and 

letting everybody participate; the other was a schedule. The schedule fell to the openness and letting everybody participate. So with 

all the work we have done the last few nights, I am told that there 

is more left to do than what we have already done. 

So you are going to miss that afternoon flight, as we all are. 

Echoing my remarks from yesterday’s hearing, as I just talked 

about, I am very concerned about the implications to our troops of 

funding the Department of Defense at fiscal year 2010 funding levels in a year-long continuing resolution. One thing we all agree on 

and that is we, it would be devastating to the Defense Department, 

to our military, to the troops, to have a year-long CR [Continuing 

Resolution]. We definitely need—desperately need to get this appropriations bill done for the military. Our men and women in uniform deserve more from this body. 

Gentlemen, I look forward to our discussion today and hearing 

more from you on your vision, your strategic goals and your 2012 

budget request. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I start by agreeing with 

you on two critical points: Number one, the need to get a Defense 

Appropriations bill this year and not rely on a CR. I have heard 

from all the Services as well as many contractors who are in limbo 

on a number of different very important products and a number 

of—important programs, sorry—if we don’t get that done. 
3 

So, hopefully, we will do that. Hopefully we will do it sooner 

rather than later, but one way or the other we will move through 

the process and get that done. 

And also I want to agree with the chairman that as we look at 

the budget constraints that we face with our overall budget and 

within the Department of Defense as well that we make sure not 

to jeopardize our national security needs and priorities as we do 

that. 

Now Mr. McKeon had alluded to the promise of we will get you 

out of here around three and we will have a completely open process. Occasionally those promises do conflict. And making sure that 

we meet all of our requirements within the tight budget environment that we have is not going to be easy. But I do believe, based 

on the testimony from Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen yesterday, that both of them and all of you are doing a very good job of 

doing that in an efficient, responsible way. I think the initial take, finding $178 billion in efficiencies now, 

as Secretary Gates said yesterday, the great quote, he said the outyears are when everybody’s dreams come true. To some degree, 

that applies even directly to the $178 billion figure that he gave 

us. So there is going to be more work required, but I honestly believe that all the services and the Secretary have really gone in and 

scrubbed the budget, and they are looking for places where we can 

find efficiencies, get more out of the money we are spending, 

rethink our requirements and what we truly need to get the job 

done. 

So I applaud you for that effort. 

And I know in the Air Force, it is particularly challenging because you have significant programatic upgrades that are being required. You know, the tanker contract, which we are all hopeful, 

after a long and tortured history, we will get that going and get 

it done. 

I know General Schwartz, Secretary Donley, you have worked 

very, very hard to make that happen, and we appreciate that. 

The Joint Strike Fighter, of course, is a huge program for the Air 

Force. Going forward, it needs to get straightened out. The expanding number of UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] and other ISR 

[Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] platforms, there is 

a lot that you need to get done in order to meet the requirements 

that we are asking of you. And you are working on it and doing 

a good job. 

And then also the personnel, as many may not be aware, I mean, 

starting back in 1990 with the Desert Shield program, the Air 

Force has actually been more or less at war for over 20 years now, 

and that has placed an incredible strain on the force and the equipment. And we need to make sure that we are protecting our airmen 

and their families as we go forward on that. 

With that, I look forward to your testimony. I want to thank both 

General Schwartz and Secretary Donley for their outstanding leadership in the Air Force. And I look forward to your testimony and 

your answers to our questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 
4 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We have with us today the Honorable Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force, and General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of 

Staff of the U.S. Air Force. 

Gentlemen, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

Secretary DONLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, members of the 

committee it is a pleasure to be here today representing more than 

690,000 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian airmen. I am also 

honored to be joined today by my teammate and a tireless public 

servant, our Chief of Staff, General Norty Schwartz. 

I would first like to recognize the unfortunate absence of Congresswoman Giffords today. The Air Force knows and respects Representative Giffords for her strong support of our men and women 

in uniform and especially for the airmen who serve at DavisMonthan Air Force Base and live in the Tucson community. We 

certainly wish her a speedy recovery and look forward to her return 

to this committee. 

Today, I am pleased to report that America’s Air Force continues 

to provide the Nation unmatched global vigilance, reach and power 

as part of the joint team with an uncompromising commitment to 

our core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all 

we do. 

The Air Force is requesting $150 billion in our baseline budget and $16 billion in the overseas contingency operations supplemental appropriation to support this work. 

Our budget request represents a careful balance of resources 

among the Air Force core functions necessary to implement the 

President’s National Security Strategy and between today’s operations and investment for the future. 

Before discussing our fiscal year 2012 budget request, I would 

like to address some unfinished business from fiscal year 2011 and 

also set in context the changes in your Air Force over the past several years. 

As you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, operating without a defense 

appropriations bill in fiscal year 2011 is having a significant impact 

on the Air Force. A decision to extend the continuing resolution at 

fiscal year 2010 levels through the remainder of this year would 

delay our ability to reach the Secretary of Defense’s directed goal 

of 65 MQ–1 [General Atomics Predator unmanned aerial vehicle] or 

9 combat air patrols by 2013 in support of current operations in Afghanistan. It would cause a production break and a likely increase 

in the unit cost of the wideband global communications satellite, 

the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, F–15 [McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Eagle fighter jet] radar modernization and other programs. 

Deeper reductions to our modernization programs would be required to fund over $3 billion in must-pay bills for urgent operational needs in Afghanistan and Iraq, for military health care, and 

the military pay raise of 1.4 percent which Congress authorized but 

has not funded. 
5 

Without fiscal year 2011 appropriations, we face delay or cancellation of some depot maintenance, weapons system sustainment 

and other day-to-day activities in order to prioritize our most critical needs under the lower funding levels in a full-year CR. 

Finally, fiscal year 2011 appropriations are also required for 75 

military construction projects now on hold which support ongoing 

operational needs and improve the quality of life for airmen and 

their families. Passing a fiscal year 2011 Defense Appropriation bill 

is essential to avoid these severe disruptions. And we appreciate 

the efforts that are currently under way to resolve this situation. 

Over the past decade, the Air Force has substantially reshaped 

itself to meet the immediate needs of today’s conflicts and position 

itself for the future. While we have grown in some critical areas, 

it has been at the expense of others. We have added intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance capacity with 328 remotely piloted 

aircraft and over 6,000 airmen to collect, process, exploit and disseminate intelligence. We have added over 17 aircraft and nearly 

2,400 airmen to bolster Special Operations capacity so necessary in 

counter insurgency. We have added over 160 F–22s [Lockheed Martin/Boeing Raptor fifth-generation stealth fighter jets] and 120 C– 

17s [Boeing Globemaster transport aircraft] to our inventory and 

funded over 30 satellites and added 2,200 airmen for critical nuclear and cyber operations and acquisitions support. 

In the same period, however, we retired over 1,500 legacy aircraft. We have cancelled or truncated procurement of major acquisition programs, shed manpower in career fields less critical to the 

fight, and deferred much-needed military construction in order to 

balance these capabilities within the resources available. 

In all, during the past 7 years, the size of the Active Duty Air 

Force has been reduced from 359,000 in 2004 to approximately 

333,000 today. And the Air Force’s baseline budget, when adjusted 

for inflation and setting aside the annual wartime supplemental 

appropriations, has remained flat. 

Looking ahead, we face a multiyear effort to recapitalize our 

aging tanker, fighter, bomber and missile forces to continue modernizing critical satellite constellations, meet dynamic requirements in cyber domain and replace aging air frames for pilot training and presidential support. 

We continue to recognize the requirement for fiscal restraint and 

are committed to remaining good stewards of every taxpayer dollar, 

improving management and oversight at every opportunity. The 

fiscal year 2012 budget request incorporates over $33 billion in efficiencies across the Future Year Defense Plan, which will be shifted 

to higher priority combat capability, by reducing overhead costs, 

improving business practices and eliminating excess, troubled or 

lower priority programs. By consolidating organizational structures, improving processes in acquisition and procurement, logistics 

support and streamlining operations, we have been able to increase 

investment in core functions, such as global precision attack, integrated ISR, space and air superiority, reducing risk by adding tooth 

through savings in tail. 

We are fully committed to implementing these planned efficiencies and have already assigned responsibilities to senior offi-
6 

cials and put in place the management structure to oversee this 

work and track progress on a regular basis. 

Having faced the need to reshape our force structure and capabilities within constrained manpower and resources over the past 

several years, we do not view the current need for efficiencies as 

a singular event but as an essential and continuing element of prudent management in the Air Force. 

Our investment priorities remain consistent with minimizing risk 

and maximizing effectiveness and efficiency across the full spectrum of potential conflict. Proceeding with the new KC–X [nextgeneration aerial refueling tanker aircraft] tanker aircraft, implementing the Joint Strike Fighter restructure, meeting the combatant commander’s need for more ISR, investing in the long-range 

strike family of systems, including a new penetrating bomber, and 

enhancing space control and situational awareness, all remain critical capabilities both for today’s and for tomorrow’s Air Force. 

In addition to these investments, we will continue to address 

challenges in readiness, in particular the slow but persistent decline in materiel readiness most notable in our nondeployed forces, 

and the personnel challenges across 28 stressed officer and enlisted 

career fields, both of which are the result of today’s high operational tempo. 

And of course, we will continue to support our Active Guard and 

Reserve airmen and their families with quality housing, health 

care, schools and community support. 

With respect to health care, I would like to convey the Air Force’s 

support for DOD’s [the Department of Defense’s] TRICARE reforms 

that will modestly increase premiums for working age retirees, premiums that have not changed since they were initially set in 1995. 

Going forward, we must continue to seek and develop reforms in 

the benefits that our men and women in uniform earn to make 

them economically sustainable over the long term. 

Mr. Chairman, good stewardship of the United States Air Force 

is a responsibility that General Schwartz and I take very seriously, 

and we remain grateful for the continued support and service of 

this committee, and we look forward to discussing our proposed 

budget. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and General 

Schwartz can be found in the Appendix on page 53.] 

STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF 

STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith and 

members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here today with 

Secretary Donley representing the men and women of the United 

States Air Force. 

Congresswoman Giffords’ absence saddens us today, but her spirit compels us to continue our work. 

And our airmen continue to inspire us with their dedication and 

service and impress us with their many accomplishments. Quietly 

and proudly serving alongside their Army, Navy, Marine and Coast 

Guard teammates, airmen every day act on behalf of the American 

people as stewards of the Nation’s trust and defenders of her security. 
7 

This budget request, fully appreciating the extraordinary fiscal 

condition that our Nation faces, supports our airmen and continuing efforts to structure the force for maximum versatility 

across the full spectrum of operations for today’s requirements and 

tomorrow’s challenges. 

Because of budgetary pressures, I echo Secretary Donley’s concerns about operating under a continuing resolution. And extending 

far beyond March 4 without a 2011 appropriations bill, we will 

have to reduce flying hours, delay or cancel some weapons systems 

sustainment and depot maintenance activity, and disrupt other 

day-to-day operations, all of which will adversely affect readiness 

and impact our brave men and women who are preparing to serve 

or are serving in harm’s way. 

Consistent with the 2010 National Security Strategy in the 

Quadrennial Defense Review, our national military objectives are 

to counter violent extremism; defeat and deter aggression; 

strengthen international and regional security; and shape the future force. Airmen are committed to the task of leveraging air and 

space power with all of its inherent versatility in presenting to the 

President and our national leadership a range of strategic options 

to meet those objectives, even while the Nation continues to grapple with substantial deficits and related national debt. 

To counter violent extremism, airmen continue to make vital contributions to our Nation’s strategic objective of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan and 

elsewhere, thereby inhibiting their return to former sanctuaries. 

More than 37,000 airmen, approximately 6 percent of the force, are 

forward-deployed worldwide. Of this group, nearly 30,000 are continuing on a rotating basis to contribute to operations in the United 

States Central Command area of responsibility, including 10,000 

airmen in Afghanistan providing close air support to U.S. and coalition ground forces, air lift and air refueling, personnel rescue and 

air medical evacuation from hostile battle space, and training and 

exercises to develop our partner Air Force. 

An additional 57,000 total force airmen, or about 11 percent of 

our force, are forward-stationed overseas providing capabilities in 

direct support of our combatant commander requirements. 

And from home stations here in the United States, approximately 218,000 airmen, or 43 percent of the force, provide daily 

support to worldwide operations, standing nuclear alert, commanding and controlling our satellites, analyzing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data and much, much more. 

To deter and defeat aggression, we maintain vigilance across the 

entire spectrum of conflict while we employ multirole systems with 

capabilities that can flex to different warfighting requirements. At 

the upper end of the continuum, we continue to provide two of the 

Nation’s three arms of nuclear deterrence with steadfast excellence, 

precision and reliability. And across the remainder of the operational spectrum, we will continue to leverage air and space power 

capabilities that are vital to the Nation’s ability to sustain a robust 

conventional deterrent. 

This requires the ability to rapidly project power through the 

global commons and globally interconnected domains of air, space 

and cyberspace. Therefore, in addition to leveraging air power, we 
8 

will also magnify our efforts to reinforce our cadre of space and 

cyber professionals. We will continue to ensure precision navigation 

and timing, secured satellite communications, timely missile warning and global environmental sensing for our joint teammates, 

while we enhance our space situational awareness that is vital to 

attributing space-borne threats and protecting our systems and capabilities. 

We will also continue to support the whole-of-nation efforts to 

team with international partners in reinforcing norms for space 

and cyber activities. And ultimately, developing a broader range of 

options to ensure our Nation’s access to and freedom of action in 

both domains. 

To strengthen international and regional security, the Air Force 

will translate air power’s inherent ability to traverse vast distances 

with unmatched speed, ensuring that U.S. forces are globally available yet through inherent versatility can be tailored in scale to be 

regionally focused. 

Through a whole-of-nation approach and with mutually supporting strategies toward this objective, the U.S. Air Force and the 

joint team will underwrite defense, diplomatic and developmental 

efforts to help address the root causes of radicalism and aggression 

and not just through violent manifestations. For instance, nearly 

300 airmen are deployed as members of the Iraq training and advisory mission, supporting the development of counterpart capabilities in over 400 specialties. 

Similarly, our airmen supporting the combined air power transition force not only advise Afghan airmen; they help to set the conditions for a viable and self-sustaining Afghan Army Air Force to 

meet a range of security requirements. 

Ultimately, these and other coordinated efforts to build international partner capacities can help to prevent lower intensity 

problems from escalating into full-scale crises. 

Finally, to shape the future force, we will work to ensure readiness, training and equipage while contending with serious budgetary pressures. Our systems and capabilities must be evermore 

adaptable to be employed across the full range of operations while 

agile command-and-control capabilities and shared interoperability 

with our joint and coalition partners. 

But flexible air, space and cyber capabilities require resilient airmen. They are the lifeblood of our Air Force, to whom we owe our 

fullest commitment, particularly our Wounded Warriors and their 

families. And during this time of sustained and frequent deployments, we will bolster our capacity to provide assistance to our airmen in managing both the obvious and the less obvious challenges 

of returning home from war. 

Since the first of July, 2010, we have made considerable progress 

in this regard with the establishment of the Deployment Transition 

Center at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where nearly 1,200 personnel attended programs to decompress and begin a healthy reintegration into family and unit of assignment. We intend to continue this progress. 

And as deployment tempos remain high, we will further 

strengthen our efforts to develop core components of the Air Force 

Resiliency Program in its ongoing assessment of the fitness of our 
9 

force. This will inform our efforts as we continue to improve quality 

of airmen and family services and support from child education to 

base fitness centers to transition assistance programs. 

In closing, I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to affirm my personal support for the efforts to better control DOD health care 

costs. 

I respect and I celebrate the service and sacrifice of our retirees. 

They are, and they always will be, honored members of the Air 

Force family. But I do believe that the current proposals are both 

modest and responsible. 

Mr. Chairman and committee members, the Air Force remains 

steadfastly committed to providing global vigilance, reach and 

power for America. 

Thank you for your continued support of the United States Air 

Force, for our airmen, and of course, for our families. I look forward 

to your questions, sir. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Schwartz and Secretary 

Donley can be found in the Appendix on page 53.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. 

You both talked about the importance of an appropriation bill 

that would fund the Department of Defense for the rest of this 

year. We find ourselves in an awkward situation, not having done 

the work last year and so now we are trying to finish it up and 

at the same time start our work for this year. 

We are 5 months into the year. We have on the floor right now a CR which contains a cut of $16 billion over the request for this 

year, which leaves about $2 billion more than was spent in fiscal 

year 2010. The Secretary was here yesterday and reaffirmed his 

strong position for the one engine for the F–35 [Lockheed Martin 

Lightning II fifth-generation stealth fighter jet]. And he was successful, a vote on the floor last night eliminated the second engine. 

In so doing, the amendment that was passed takes the $450 million 

and takes it out of the defense budget, puts it into payment against 

the debt, so that $2 billion is now about $1.5 billion. 

And we also have other amendments on the floor today that will 

be proposing further cuts in defense. The problem, as I see it, as 

we start our work for next year not having done the work last year 

is, where do you see yourself starting? You have presented a budget, and we don’t really have a starting number because we don’t 

know where we are going to be. It could actually even be less than 

was spent last year. 

So when you talk about the things we did in the authorization 

bill at the end of last year that gave a raise to our troops, I don’t 

know if you had that in your budget, but it would put us in a real 

quandary, I am sure, as we move forward, along with many of the 

other things that you have mentioned. 

The $33.3 billion in savings for efficiencies I have a couple of 

questions on. First of all, how do you intend to track the realization, now those were over 5 years so it is not all in this budget that 

you are proposing, but I would like to know how you intend to 

track the realization of those savings and what you expect to spend 

those savings on that gives us modernization and does a better job 

for us than the things that you have realized in the savings? If you 

could respond to those. Thank you. 
10 

Secretary DONLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To one of the initial comments you made concerning the pay 

raise, the fiscal year 2012 budget assumes a 1.6 pay raise for military personnel. There is no pay raise assumed for civilians for fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 in the President’s budget. So that 

is the status of our pay proposals. 

To the subject of efficiencies, yes, as I indicated, we did propose and get approved $33 billion in savings across the Future Years 

Defense Program. For the Air Force, those were broken up into 

about 12 different categories of activities, ranging from energy, IT 

[Information Technology] consolidation, consolidation of headquarters, infrastructure, and acquisition, changes in our acquisition 

process going forward. 

Those were not cost-avoidance kinds of assumptions. Those dollars were assumed in our out-year program and were tracked in 

particular accounts. So we can track where we are against that 

database. So for each of those 12 areas, we have identified a senior 

officer or SES [Senior Executive Service], a civilian, to be the 

champion for that work. They have all come in with initial plans 

for how they intend to achieve those savings across the future year 

plan. We had lots of discussion on these matters before settling on 

the targets in the categories. 

So I think we have had several months of work on this now 

under our belt, and we have champions for each of those 12 categories, and we have an oversight process, which will bring them 

back to our Air Force council on a regular basis to report progress. 

Just on the flip side, we have been able to fully fund and normalize funding for the EELV, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family of launchers, which had been underfunded. And we put 

over $3 billion against that in the FYDP [Future Year Defense 

Plan]. We have been able to start work on a new penetrating bomber. We have put dollars into enhanced F–15 radars, and we have 

done a number of other proposals as well. 

Chief. 

General SCHWARTZ. I would just mention one more, sir, to give 

you a sense of how we are also trying to normalize the contingency 

accounts versus the base budget in that we brought the MC–12 

[Beechcraft twin-engine turboprop aircraft] operational costs, that 

is intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance light aircraft, from 

the contingency account into the base budget. And so that was enabled through these efficiencies, and that is real capability that 

will stay with us and should stay with us, rather than perhaps retiring it at the conclusion of the current engagements. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me thank you for that. 

Let me just ask a question. If we had gotten our work done last 

year by—let’s say if we had gotten it done before the year end, September 30, you had money that would have been in there for a pay 

increase for last October 1 to the coming September 30. If, in fact, 

we end up with what is on the floor today and there are no further 

changes, and it ends up at $533.5 billion, something like that, 

which is considerably under what your request was for this year 

that would have been done for last year, what does that do to the 

raise that we had voted for the troops for the year that we are halfway through? 
11 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, sir, the current picture that I think I 

have painted but I would like to make sure that you understand 

is that we have broken acquisition programs as a result of staying 

at a fiscal year 2010 level. And I articulated the particular programs that have been affected by the extension of a CR. 

But we also have bills to pay on the operations side, health care 

bills to pay. The pay raise is being, 1.4 percent approved by Congress last year, is being paid out to our—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Starting last October. 

Secretary DONLEY. Starting last October, it simply means that 

our personnel account, the last payroll of this fiscal year is uncovered. So we cannot make payroll for the last pay period this fiscal 

year. And because we have those operational costs in front of us 

that are must-pay bills, we will dig further into our modernization 

accounts. We will break programs further to get the resources reallocated toward the must-pay operational bills. That is our site 

picture if we had to extend a full-year CR at fiscal year 2010 levels. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that extends across all the Services. So 

there is jeopardy about how they are going to be paid at the end 

of the year. 

Secretary DONLEY. That is correct. One thing I would like to offer 

for your consideration, the lower the number is for fiscal year 2010, 

the more flexibility that the Department needs to move funding 

across accounts because we have to make some massive adjustments in our budget mid-year, so we would need special consideration to do that. 

We think the better approach is to fund what is required for fiscal year 2011. But if that is not feasible for some reason, we have 

got to have flexibility to cover these costs. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if someone is assuming that these cuts that 

we are talking about won’t affect the troops, they are probably mistaken. 

Secretary DONLEY. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you would consider not getting your pay raise 

affecting the troops. 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, we would have to make significant 

changes in our budget in order to make sure that last pay period 

is covered. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. I have two sets of questions. Actually I 

am working with Congresswoman Giffords’ staff to make sure that 

her questions and concerns are addressed during the hearing, and 

I am doing that myself, so I have some for her district and then 

a couple on broader issues as well. 

As you mentioned in your opening remarks, Davis-Monthan Air 

Force Base is in her district. Her staff in her notes that they gave 

me said that she always refers to it as the best Air Force base in 

the Nation. I am in a bit of an uncomfortable spot to say that, seeing as how McChord Air Force Base is in my district. I guess technically it is a joint base now. So best joint base. Best Air Force 

base; that is Congresswoman Giffords’ opinion at any rate. And it 
12 

is a great place. I am going to have the opportunity to go down 

there and visit it at the end of March. 

And the one question she had about the base there is a consolidation of the Air and Space Operation Centers the 612th is at 

Davis-Monthan and the 601st is in Florida. I just wanted to do to 

know what the process was going to be for that consolidation and 

also what impact that might have on the Air Forces Southern Command’s capabilities in this area? 

I will take a quick comment on that and then also if you could 

submit something to her office for the record, that would be great, 

too. 

General. 

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

page 98.] 

General SCHWARTZ. Congressman, we would be happy to do that. 

Just quickly, this is one of the efficiencies that gained us the 33- 

plus billion in savings we identified earlier. The fundamental logic 

of this was that our Air Operation Center, we had one aligned for 

each of the ten combatant commands. And that is the right alignment. But it turned, the reality was that we were never able to 

man those centers to 100 percent. 

And as we looked at this, we had to ask ourselves, are there 

ways to be more efficient, to economize? And there were two locations that came to mind. One was in Europe where the 617th supports AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command], and the 603rd supports 

EUCOM [U.S. European Command], and they are essentially at 

the same location but now separate. And it made clear sense to 

consolidate there. 

Likewise, domestically, as you are well aware, during the Haiti 

operation, it was the 601st AOC [Air Operations Center] that actually did most of the work for Southern Command during the Haiti 

contingency. And that certainly raised the specter in our own 

minds, might it be possible to consolidate those two missions in a 

way that would serve both NORTHCOM [Northern Command] and 

SOUTHCOM [Southern Command]? We think that is the case. 

We have a strategic basing process, sir, that we will go through, 

establish criteria, objective criteria, and evaluate both DavisMonthan and Tyndall, the current locations of both of those Air 

Operations Centers for which is the best location to consolidate. 

And that decision will be taken later this spring or early summer. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Thank you. 

And the only other area for Congresswoman Giffords is on energy. That has been a major focus of hers. The largest consumer 

of energy in the United States is the Department of Defense, so 

anything we can save there is great. Obviously, the Air Force fuel 

is a major, major issue, and I know you have launched a number 

of efficiencies and alternative programs. Can you give us some idea 

of the savings you envision being able to do in that area. 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, we have, in part of our efficiencies and savings package, we have assumed about $700 million in savings 

across the Future Year Defense Program. 

Mr. SMITH. How is that achieved? Just quickly what are the big 

programs that drive the savings? 

Secretary DONLEY. There are a number of pieces to it. 
13 

Some of it is investing in energy projects which will make, help 

us manage our energy assets more carefully and more closely. It involves bringing into the flying units, especially the large aircraft 

operated by Air Mobility, Air Force Mobility Command, the—more 

efficiency and flight profiles by bringing in commercial best practices that are used in commercial airliners today; more, better aids 

to navigation, those sorts of issues that will improve flight profiles. 

It also involves investing in renewables. We have about 400 

projects across the Air Force that are working on energy efficiency. 

Well over 50 of those are focused on renewable sources of energy. 

And certainly, in the Southwest, solar is big. 

It also involves investing in early demolition of aging infrastructure that we don’t need so we can get it off our books and take a 

away future bills by eliminating excess buildings, for example. 

Those are the highlights. 

Mr. SMITH. I think it is also important to point out the technology on alternative fuels is getting to the point where you can 

fly, even very complicated, very sophisticated Air Force airplanes, 

with alternative fuels. Now there is a scale problem. You have to 

make sure you have enough of it to be sustainable. But there is 

great promise I think in those areas. 

Thank you. 

I just have a couple of questions of my own. 

General Schwartz, you had a fairly colorful way recently of describing the difficulties in our Air Force acquisition program. I 

won’t repeat that here in public, but I will say that I completely 

agree with the sentiment that we have had a major, major problem 

in a variety of different areas of going for too much in our acquisition programs, and that certainly hasn’t been peculiar to the Air 

Force. It has happened across the services, but it has cost us an 

enormous amount of money and left us with not as much to show 

for it as it should have. 

One particular area in space, we have had a major challenge on 

that in terms of figuring out what the right mix of satellites is and 

launch vehicles. But broadly speaking, can you elaborate a little 

bit? Because that is a critical point. If we are going to save money, 

get the best equipment to our troops, we are going to have to be 

smarter about how we do this. Could you perhaps elaborate a little 

bit on what you see there? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, there are a couple of areas where there 

is real promise. The way we buy satellites today is one at a time 

and just to meet the need, so just-in-time delivery of satellites 

means that you build one; you wait 4 or 5 years, and you build another one, and so on. And it entails not only stop-start of workforce 

but nonrecurring engineering and all expenses that are associated 

with not having a continuous workload. And so one of our efforts 

which we intend to undertake is an effort both with AEHF [Advanced Extremely High Frequency], the advanced communication 

satellite and SBIRS [Space-Based Infrared System]—that is the 

early-warning satellite—to suggest that we will build satellites in 

blocks, more than one, to get up the learning curve to earn the efficiencies that that brings along with it. 

And likewise, on the launch side, instead of buying two this year 

and eight the next year, to suggest that we will try to stabilize that 
14 

as well, and to do this across the Government, not just DOD. But 

DOD, the NRO [National Reconnaissance Organization] and NASA 

[National Aeronautics and Space Administration] together, instead 

of competing against ourselves, we will go to the providers for these 

services to together. 

These are the kinds of efforts that we think will yield efficiencies. 

It will need your support, sir, because there are, particularly on 

satellite side, there will be a need for traditional appropriations, 

some advanced appropriation, and so on. And so we will have to 

discuss that with you. 

Mr. SMITH. We will be very, very happy to support that. And I 

think it is a critical issue across the DOD. And essentially the best 

way it was ever put to me is when I was serving on the Intel Committee and we were talking about satellites, you can sort of imagine what you want. So it is like, well, we will build this one, and 

then next time we will be able to do all this other stuff, and then 

someone said a computer model will build, will beat an actual piece 

of equipment every day of the week, but it is just a computer 

model. It is a vision off in the future that may or may not come 

to pass and may or may not do what we need. So I applaud you 

on that. 

Two final things. One I will just take for the record. I am curious 

what your thoughts are on how the joint basing arrangement is 

going. I think it is working great out at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. 

You have got two colonels out there, Army, Air Force, who are 

working very closely together, doing a great job. But I am curious 

if you could submit for the record when you get a chance what we 

can do to make that work better. I think it is a very positive step 

in the right direction. 

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

page 93.] 

Just a quick comment on the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target 

Attack Radar System] upgrade, Joint STARS [Surveillance Target 

Attack Radar System] upgrade program. This is an ISR platform 

based off of a 707 air frame now, and you are looking at ways to 

upgrade that capability. Sort of two ways to go: One is just figure 

out a way to make the 707s that you have work better; two would 

be to upgrade the platform to the 737. I am curious what you think 

is the best approach and when you going the make a decision on 

that. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, there are a couple of options. We currently have direction, both from within the Department and in language to pursue a re-engining effort for the E–8 JSTARS platform, 

and subject to appropriations, we will be acquiring up to four ships 

sets to accomplish both test and validation of that modification to 

give us information on what a re-engining effort on the E–8 would 

mean for the long-term future. We have an analysis of alternatives 

underway which will conclude late this spring, which is not just 

looking at re-engining of JSTARS and perhaps improving the radar 

that is inherent in that platform. But as you suggested, the P–8 

is an option, the Navy airplane, and there are others. The Block 

40 Global Hawk is a possibility. Likewise, there are business class 

jet applications that are also a possibility. 
15 

And so this study is looking at those to discern, what is the best 

blend to deal with the Ground Moving Target Indicator mission, 

the GMTI mission. That is where we are at sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much, both of you, for your service. 

General Schwartz, as you know, in 1979, the Chief of Staff of the 

Air Force wrote Congress asking the Congress to support funding 

for the alternate engine for the F–35. 

Why did the Chief of Staff feel a need to ask for funding over 

and above the President’s budget that year for funding for an alternate engine? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I will tell you my view of the alternate 

engine. It begins by stating that this is not 1979. The reality is 

that engines have matured considerably both in terms of design, in 

terms of manufacture, in terms of material, in terms of durability 

and so on, and reliability. 

My view is simply this, that competition in the ideal is desirable. 

I agree with you, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Having said that, sir, I would like to put a little 

chart up on the screen. I believe that your staff had that yesterday. 

I hope that it has been shown to you. You can look at look on the 

screen to see it. 

Last year, the Air Force provided a graphic to the committee 

based on a committee request for information on the Air Force experience with a primary and alternate engine for the F–16 [General Dynamics Fighting Falcon fighter jet]. How would you interpret the F–16 major accident trends for both the primary and alternate engines? 

General SCHWARTZ. Again, the F–100 engine was, in the early 

days, was an immature platform. And my point here is that the engines we are using today are much more mature, much more reliable, as we have demonstrated in the F/A–18 [McDonnell Douglas/ 

Boeing Hornet fighter jet], in the F–22, and, you know, certainly 

in the big airplanes. But in terms of the high-performance engines, 

as you note on your chart, sir, that the loss rate due to engine malfunctions has declined precipitously over the last 30 years. That is 

a factor in our recommendation not to pursue an alternate engine. 

Mr. BARTLETT. But, sir, for these two engines, I note that it is 

just a positive correlation, which does not necessarily mean a 

cause-and-effect relationship, but there certainly is a positive correlation between the introduction of the alternate engine and the 

drastic reduction of the mishap rate. 

Mr. Secretary, last year the GAO [Government Accountability 

Office] provided the committee with a graphic on its analysis of the 

average procurement unit cost per engine for both engines of the 

F–16. The F–16 primary alternate engine manufacturers began 

competing in the mid 1980s. How would you describe price trends 

before and after the introduction of the alternate engine for the F– 

16? And I think that chart is up on the screen for you, too. 
16 

Secretary DONLEY. Mr. Bartlett, I would like to look at this more 

closely and give you an answer for the record. 

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

page 94.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, sir, as you look at the chart, it is pretty obvious that the price came down. As a matter of fact, the GAO indicated in its 2007 report on the alternative engine that prices for 

the F–16 engine decreased by an average of 21 percent over the 

four years they analyzed it. 

Again, sir, this is just a positive correlation. It does not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect relationship. 

But if you have enough of these circumstantial evidences, positive correlations, you begin to get a picture of that. 

I have one more brief question. 

Secretary Donley, in 2009, the Secretary of Defense cancelled the 

CSAR–X combat search and air rescue program, stating that the 

department was conducting a review of DOD-wide assets that could 

conduct this mission. At that time, the CSAR–X was the number 

two Air Force acquisition priority. What is the status of this review? And does the Air Force plan on restarting the CSAR–X program? 

Secretary DONLEY. We are currently looking at the requirements 

for a future CSAR platform in conjunction with the HH–60 [Sikorsky Pave Hawk CSAR helicopter] loss replacement program that 

has been underway during the current conflicts. And also the replacement of other UH–1 [Bell utility helicopter]—of UH–1 capabilities across the Air Force, in particular in support of the missile 

fields and the nuclear mission, and a few other UH–1 units across 

the Air Force. 

Our goal is to see if we can get those requirements aligned so 

that we can get a cost-effective solution to our vertical lift challenge in all of those areas. But I think the chief can amplify a little 

bit for you. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, our goal here is to approach this as a 

minimally developmental effort. In other words, to secure a vertical 

lift capability that is largely off the shelf that we could modify to 

do both the combat rescue mission, rescue hoist, so on and so forth, 

as well as the nuclear site support mission, which would mean 

fewer modifications. 

Fundamentally, though, the approach, as opposed to CSAR–X, 

which was a highly developmental effort, we are looking at being 

less ambitious and approaching this as a minimally developmental 

effort. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONAWAY. [Presiding.] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes, is recognized 5 minutes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for being here with us. 

Just 2 weeks ago, I was with the chairman and another member 

of the committee in Afghanistan. We actually got an opportunity to 

fly the Osprey, which is the equivalent of the CV–22 [Bell-Boeing 

tilt-rotor aircraft] for the Air Force; and I had an opportunity to 

ask some of the crew members how it was going, how it was flying, 

what their thoughts were. And they seemed to love it, they seemed 
17 

to think that it was performing well, that it gives the Marines capabilities that they don’t have, or they didn’t have, with the CH– 

46 [Boeing Vertol Sea Knight transport helicopter]. 

And since the Air Force Special Operations Command has the 

CV–22, I’m curious, in spite of the crash that occurred in Afghanistan where we, unfortunately, lost four crew members, I’m curious 

to know your assessment of the CV–22. And if you have any information as to the operations that are ongoing in Afghanistan, that 

would probably be very useful for us. 

General SCHWARTZ. Congressman, the airplane does things that 

a conventional helicopter could never imagine doing, and I have 

some experience in this area. In our case, it succeeded the MH–53J 

Pave Hawk helicopter or Pave Low helicopter, I’m sorry, a very 

good machine in its own right. But what this combines is the capacity to go vertical in tight spaces as well as have a block speed 

that’s like a turboprop; and so you can get to locations quickly and 

operate in a vertical dimension, which is unlike any other platform 

that we’ve ever operated. It is performing well; and there is great 

confidence, not just by the air crew, sir, but also by the shooters, 

by the people who get to the target via this mode of transportation. 

The only thing I would mention is that we have experienced 

greater-than-expected wear on engines. In part, this is due to the 

environment in Afghanistan; in part, it’s because we think we need 

a particle separator apparatus on the airplane. But the bottom line 

is we’re working the engine issues with both Rolls, who is the manufacturer, and Boeing, who is the prime, and we’ll fix that in time. 

Mr. REYES. Is there a process in place that gives feedback in 

terms of perhaps some of the concerns that some Members of Congress—and I ask this because we just had a vote on this a couple 

of days ago, and members are asking questions about the operation 

of the aircraft, the feasibility and that. So I’m curious to know if 

there is a way that you can provide the crews and the feedback 

from those involved in the operation of this aircraft to us. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, we would be happy to gather the sort of 

anecdotal testimony, if you will, from the operators and maintainers; and we’ll put that together for you. 

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

page 94.] 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the Osprey that we flew in in 

Afghanistan. We talked to the crews, and it seemed to be performing up to the expectations. But I think, in lieu of that vote that 

we took earlier, I think it would be beneficial to get some feedback 

for Members of Congress so that they could see. 

Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s my understanding that next week perhaps we’re going to get 

an announcement on the tanker, the long-overdue tanker. But I’ve 

also heard the rumor that the Air Force has decided to issue or the 

DOD has decided to issue a stop-work order immediately after the 

announcement because of an anticipated protest from whoever 

loses. Please tell me that’s not so. 
18 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, we have resources available to put 

against the engineering and manufacturing development contract 

that will go with the source selection on the tanker, and we will 

modulate the funding for that based on where we are in the process. 

Mr. ROGERS. There’s going to be a no stop-work order issued 

then. 

Secretary DONLEY. We’re going to modulate the funding for EMD 

[Engineering and Manufacturing Development] based on where we 

are in the process. We will be just days after this source selection 

process and just days into a signature of a contract, so there’s going 

to be no appreciable effect on the ramp, if you will, in the immediate days after the decision. 

Mr. ROGERS. I just know I’m sure you have a full appreciation 

of the fact that everybody on this committee wants to see that 

tanker start being built. Talking about the best Air Force base in 

America, Maxwell—I’m sorry. I was mistaken. It’s the best Air 

Force in the world—are you aware of the dorm problems they’re 

having for the visiting students that is grossly underavailable and 

in some of the dorms that we’ve got, they are pretty antiquated? 

I know that everybody in a blue uniform in here has been to Maxwell if they’re an officer, so you’re probably familiar what I’m talking about. 

Secretary DONLEY. I have seen the dorms at Maxwell. I’m not 

aware of the current problem. But we do have a dormitory master 

plan across the Air Force that has tiered the requirements and the 

sequence of our investments for dormitories. I’m sure it is in that 

mix. 

Mr. ROGERS. I hope you will. I know you’ve got a lot of things 

to do, but if you could visit that plan and just look and see if you 

do have something in the near future to address the shortage that 

we’ve got at Maxwell, I would appreciate it. And then just have one 

of your staffers let me know like what outyear you see that target 

being hit. 

And then, lastly, can you talk to me a little bit about your future 

planning for professional military education efforts, specifically at 

Air University in Montgomery? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, we certainly don’t anticipate any change. 

I mean, as you’re well aware, we have everything from Air and 

Space Basic, to Squadron Officer School, to Air Command and 

Staff, to Air War College, the School of Advanced Air and Space 

Studies. I mean, it is—you know, I didn’t end up going there because I didn’t qualify, but it is the intellectual capital of the Air 

Force. Those courses are essential. And we also do more near-term 

activity there, including one commander courses, group commander 

courses, preparing people to lead. So, Congressman, there will be— 

there’s no expectation of altering the footprint of education and 

training activity at Maxwell. 

Mr. ROGERS. Excellent. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, again, for being before us. 
19 

Space is increasingly congested, competitive, contested, and the 

level of funding for the space situational awareness, or SSA as we 

all know it, is 27 percent lower than the fiscal year ’11 request 

level, and it’s also lower than the fiscal year ’10 request. So my 

questions to you are, does this reflect a decrease in our focus on 

SSA, and how do the recent agreements with France and Australia 

support progress on SSA? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, Ms. Sanchez, space situational awareness is a foundation in the space domain, and it is a mission of 

growing importance not just to the Air Force but to the joint community as well as we turn our attention to this domain, as you described the words out of the national security space strategy. 

Immediate funding for space situational awareness was impacted 

by a programmatic decision that we made this year not to proceed 

with SBSS [Space Based Space Surveillance] Number Two. We had 

launch of SBSS One last year. It has been successful. But the cost 

and the capability that we intended to get from SBSS Two did not 

match, in our view. So we cancelled that SBSS Two. We are now 

in the process of evaluating what comes after and seeing if we can 

develop more cost-effective solutions going forward. 

So that was really the main driver in the change in SSA funding, 

but it reflects no diminishment of our interest in this mission 

there. It is a very important one going forward, and I think the reference you made to the international agreements recently signed 

with both Australia and France is evidence of that. 

Part of our strategy going forward is to do this work more effectively with international partners and also commercial and industry partners where we can. So part of our emphasis in the space 

community is to recognize that we cannot do all this work alone 

and to build the necessary partnerships that will support our interests and our pocketbooks going forward. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. General, are you fine with that answer? 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes. I would only add that, on the Space 

Fence side, there was no change. In 2015, the so-called Space 

Fence, the ground—the surface surveillance capability of space will 

proceed as was previously programmed. 

And, in addition, there is an aspect of this that has to do with 

the space operation center out at Vandenberg and the capacity to 

understand the potential for collisions and so on and so forth and 

be able to share that both with industry partners as well as appropriate international partners, too. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. My other question has to do with the industrial 

base, the space industrial base. Obviously, as a Californian, I’m 

very interested in that. 

We continue to tell our people don’t worry about losing jobs in 

factories, making televisions, because, you know, we’re putting 

more money into education, we’re doing the new, new thing. A part 

of that is, of course, the space industrial base. So my question is, 

can you talk a little bit about what the plan is for sustaining the 

space industrial base and making sure that we take full advantage 

of commercial space industry resources as well? Because it seems— 

I mean, these things cost quite a bit of money. How do we make 

that more cost-effective and really continue to be a leader when it 

comes to these assets of space? 
20 

Secretary DONLEY. I think, as the chief discussed a little bit earlier, we have sort of two—several lines of work under way to focus 

on this challenge. We do recognize the importance of this base. We 

do recognize the challenges that it has faced in the way that the 

military and other parts of our government have bought both 

launch services and satellites. 

So, on the launch side, we’ve added money to EELV to normalize 

that program in the out-years, focused on trying to stabilize the industrial base and also our costs going forward. So we have worked 

closely with the National Reconnaissance Office and with NASA 

based on some work done by the Defense Science Board to identify 

the minimum number of launches that need to be covered each 

year. 

That number is about nine; and between the Department of Defense, NRO, and NASA we have coordinated on a memorandum of 

understanding that will provide for our continuing coordination 

going forward to fund that minimum level. We need to go work on 

the cost and the pricing that go with that. 

But, fundamentally, on the launch side, what we have done is to 

decouple our approach to launches and to payloads. And in prior 

years we had focused on not buying—always having the launcher 

tied to the payload. And so when we had payload delays the requirements for launchers, as the chief described earlier, went up 

and down wildly. And this perturbated the industrial base and cost 

us more money. So our approach now is to buy the launchers independently, ensure we have a stable base going forward, and hold 

for later decision the timing of when the launchers and the payloads get married up together. 

That explains sort of the launch side. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. 

I know that you are both aware that the ECSS [Expeditionary 

Combat Support System] program is a major part of an important 

initiative known as the Expeditionary Logistics for the 21st Century, a strategy that is expected to result in a 10-percent cost savings of at least $12 billion when fully fielded over the Future Years’ 

Defense Programs for the Air Force. 

The program is currently undergoing a Critical Change Report, 

CCR, process that has extended beyond the original forecasted completion date and certainly is questioning the program’s funding. I 

know that both of you are aware that one of the reasons why the 

program is undergoing a CCR is because it experienced an 18- 

month delay due to contract protests and an additional 9-month replanning delay, neither of which were caused by the program itself. 

Further delay, obviously, would result in some interruptions in the 

program. 

I would like, if you would please, for both of you to comment on 

the status of the program. I think we certainly have had a significant amount of comment, positive comments that have been made 

about the program and what it will accomplish on behalf of the Air 

Force in the past; and I would like to know the status. 
21 

And then, as you gentlemen are aware, I’m the chairman of the 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee; and, in looking at the budget, I 

have several questions. I’ll give them to you all at once. 

With respect to the new bomber, obviously, from the perspective 

of my subcommittee, we’re very curious as to whether or not the 

first lot of these new bombers will be nuclear capable and nuclear 

certified. 

With respect to the issue of dual-capable aircraft, does the fiscal 

year ’12 request contain funding to make the Joint Strike Fighter 

nuclear capable? 

And with respect to ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missile], 

does the fiscal year ’12 request contain funding for an ICBM followon study? 

And then with respect to cruise missiles, does the fiscal year ’12 

request contain funding for a follow-on air launched cruise missile 

and will it be nuclear capable? 

Gentlemen. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, why don’t you let me give that a try; and 

then you can fill in the blanks. 

Sir, on the expeditionary combat support system, it is an enterprise resource planning system, it’s an ERP, and it’s an important 

one. It is something that all of you here who understand big business know that, to really be able to monitor the numbers, you’ve 

got to have a system like this. But they are hard. They are difficult 

to implement, and they’re difficult to fuel, and they are not cheap. 

And you know we have struggled a bit to try to get this up and 

running. 

We have now two modules which are running. One has to do 

with transportation and vehicle management. The second one has 

to do with inventory management at the installation level. The 

third one is a harder one that has to do with supply chain management. 

And so we have looked at this extensively; and it’s our view that 

this is something, as hard as it is, that we have got to stick with. 

And so you will be hearing that from the Department. I think that 

we request Congress’ forbearance to press on, even though our performance to date has been lackluster, to be candid. 

I would only mention, in addition, that this is part of our strategy for achieving a capability to be audit-ready. You can’t be auditready if you can’t smash the numbers, and this is one of the vehicles for doing that, sir. 

The second thing, on the bomber. It will be nuclear-capable. It 

probably won’t be nuclear-certified at the outset. F–35 DCA dollars—that’s dual-capable aircraft dollars, sir—are not in the ’12 

program. That is a decision that’s further out. It’s probably ’14, as 

opposed to ’12. 

On the ICBM, we currently have a mission analysis under way 

that will lead to a formal analysis of alternatives in ’13; and that’s 

when it will be funded. 

And, finally, on the ALCM [air launch cruise missile], there’s 

about $800 million in the ’12 proposal for a follow-on air launch 

cruise missile; and, likewise, there’s an analysis of alternatives 

under way that will conclude in ’13. 
22 

Mr. TURNER. And will that follow-on be nuclear-capable for the 

cruise missile air launch? 

General SCHWARTZ. Clearly. The purpose for the follow-on air 

launch cruise missile is the nuclear capability, yes, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Excellent. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Secretary; and, General Schwartz, thank you for appearing today and 

service to our country. 

I represent Anderson Air Force Base, one of the finest and most 

scenic Air Force bases in the country. 

Just a comment first, gentlemen. I remain extremely supportive 

of the C–27J [Alenia Spartan military transport aircraft] program, 

but I remain deeply concerned about the program cut from 78 aircraft to 38. So I hope that we will continue to examine the lack of 

rationale for these cuts and work toward ensuring that we have a 

truly functional tactical airlift capability. 

Now, my first question is for either witness. As you know, the 

Navy signed a record of decision on the Guam military buildup 

back in September of last year. As the Department continues its 

planning with regards to land acquisition, I remain skeptical that 

deals can be reached on Guam without significant changes to the 

Navy’s plans. Further, the footprint of the Marines on the east 

coast of Guam to accommodate firing ranges is inconsistent with 

local land use. A contiguous Marine base is not likely attainable, 

and the land issues involved in achieving a base are daunting. So, 

as such, to what extent is the Air Force working with the Guam 

Oversight Council and the Department of the Navy to utilize some 

of Anderson Air Force Base for Marine basing requirements? What 

type of challenges or impacts should the committee be aware of if 

some marines are in the main cantonment area and some are on 

Anderson? 

General SCHWARTZ. In fact, Congresswoman, they will be on Anderson. On the west side, Marine aviation will have its own area 

that they will use. 

At the same time, however, I think it’s important to recognize— 

and I know you appreciate this—that Anderson is a strategic location and that what we need to do is not think about trying to 

dense-pack Anderson, but, rather, we also need to consider what 

likely contingencies might unfold and what might have to fall in on 

Anderson in the event of such a contingency. So we want to make 

as much of Anderson available as is prudent but not so much that 

we constrain future contingency operations. This is the tension. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I understand. 

General SCHWARTZ. And something that we do need to keep in 

mind. 

With respect to the contiguous nature of the Marines and so on, 

again, our approach has been to be as supportive as possible. And 

what we have asked the Navy and the OSD [Office of the Secretary 

of Defense] folks that are working this problem is to consider all 

the Federal properties, not new properties but existing Federal 

properties, for potential bed-down locations for the Marine Corps 

presence. 
23 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. Thank you, General. 

My second question is for either the Secretary or the General. 

Can you update this committee on the progress of filling Air National Guard units with missions, particularly flying missions, that 

were lost to the result of BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] 

2005 decisions? What is the progress on this issue? I remain concerned that there are still Air Guard units with bridge missions 

and that we continue to hemorrhage flying capabilities out of these 

units, and I hope you can continue to work with me on a flying 

mission for Guam. We are missing a key capability out there. 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, we continue to work those issues location by location. The simple fact is that many of the units that 

have been in the fighter business over the years, the fighter force 

structure has been shrinking over time. So we are looking at alternative missions going forward. 

We’ve used the MC–12s to work through those issues. We’ve used 

the C–27s to work through those issues. The MQ–1, MQ–9 [General Atomics Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle] bed-down issues all 

have been part of our considerations as we take—where we do have 

new capability and new resources coming into our force structure. 

But the one-for-one replacement models are simply not feasible 

going forward anymore. So we’re having to—as we shed legacy aircraft or missions, we have to bring in the new capability and find 

homes for those; and we certainly want the Guard and Reserve to 

be part of that work. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I have further questions, but I would like to have 

them entered into the record. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, welcome today. Thank you for coming. Secretary 

Donley, General Schwartz, thank you for your service to our country. 

First of all, I want to comment or just thank you for the fact that 

we are moving forward now finally on the new-generation penetrating bomber. It’s good to see that finally up and going. 

But I am concerned about some long-range issues and certainly 

in terms of our nuclear strength. While our nuclear enterprise 

strength today is strong, there’s one area of concern that I have, 

and that has to do with the weapon storage area. As you know, following very serious instances in 2006 and 2007 involving nuclear 

weapons in key components, the Air Force embarked on a top-down 

review of the nuclear mission; and a number of investigations and 

reports explored the root causes that led to the atrophy and decline 

in the nuclear enterprise. 

One of the common conclusions of those reports was a negative 

impact on nuclear readiness that resulted from the closure of the 

Barksdale WSA [weapons storage area] in 2007. With respect to 

that decision, let me paraphrase from Dr. Schlesinger’s report: The 

closure of the weapon storage area at Barksdale was a significant 

mistake with a negative operational impact. It created the requirement for bombers to train and exercise from their home station— 
24 

far from their home station, resulting in operational complications. 

Nuclear munitions training and proficiency were severely impacted 

owing to the inability of training weapons to stimulate the real 

thing—to simulate the real thing. Only from a global nuclear deterrence perspective do the ramifications of this become clear. 

The task force strongly encourages the Air Force to revisit the 

Barksdale WSA closure decision. We arrived at that decision in 

2008 to recertify the Barksdale WSA. That was part of the Air 

Force’s nuclear roadmap, which included the establishment of Global Strike Command, which of course since has been stood up at 

Barksdale, and an Air Force directorate to coordinate nuclear 

issues. And the Air Force went as far as requesting $73 million in 

funding for the project in the fiscal year ’10 budget request. However, the project has not moved forward, and I do not see any funding for it in this year’s budget. 

Just to encapsulate, the nuclear weapons are at Minot, many of 

the nuclear bombers are at Barksdale, and a potential adversary 

know this. And the whole idea was not to centralize all of our 

weapons, of course, in one WSA in Minot and to at least put some 

at Barksdale. So my question is, first of all, for General Schwartz, 

does the Air Force still intend to move forward with this project? 

General SCHWARTZ. No, sir, we don’t. And it is true that the initial assessment in the 2008 timeframe was that was the right thing 

to do. But when we ultimately discovered that it was a multi-hundred-million-dollar undertaking to make that come true, given the 

other demands to deliver the precision and reliability throughout 

the enterprise, we decided that that was not sustainable. 

And I acknowledge Dr. Schlesinger’s view, and we have talked to 

him about that then and since. But the evidence that we have collected to this point in time through evaluations, inspections, and so 

on—I don’t deny that the optimal solution would be to have two 

WSAs. But the reality is that we had other more pressing matters 

to attend to—reliability on the aircraft, reliability on the missile 

systems, and so on—that required investment that out-prioritized 

the WSA. 

Dr. FLEMING. Do we, sir, have any mitigating concepts, anything 

else that might obviously solve that problem for us? 

General SCHWARTZ. We think we have. We have implemented 

that. 

As you’re aware, we move the airplanes and the crews from 

Barksdale to Minot on a regular basis. They have access to actuals. 

But, of course, at home, at Barksdale, they have access to trainers. 

And so the bottom line is that we think that—and so far the evidence we have collected in terms of observing proficiency, professionalism, and so on—is that the current solution is workable. 

Dr. FLEMING. If I could quickly ask, is that a final decision or is 

it possible this could be opened up in the future? 

General SCHWARTZ. I would say that in this business no decision 

is really ever final. But it would require Jim Kowalski and Global 

Strike Command to come to the conclusion that this was essential 

for them to maintain the level of proficiency that’s required, and 

that has not yet occurred, sir. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
25 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary and General, for joining us here today. 

First, on behalf of my constituents, I want to express my gratitude for the hard work, courage, and sacrifice of the men and 

women of the Air Force. These aren’t easy times for those who 

serve, and on behalf of Georgia’s Fourth District I thank you all for 

your service. 

I would like to focus for a moment on Air Force procurement, because dysfunction in this area is of serious concern. 

Secretary Donley, there were 12 years between the launch of 

Sputnik and the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon. It’s taken nearly 

that long to develop and procure a new tanker for the Air Force, 

and on the spectrum of programs that the Air Force is developing 

the KC–X is one of the least technically challenging. Respectfully, 

I think our collective inability to develop new military systems in 

a timely manner is a national embarrassment and a huge strategic 

weakness. We on this committee bear responsibility for that, but so 

does leadership at the Pentagon. 

Secretary Donley, why has KC–X development and selection 

taken so long and when do you foresee that we will finally be able 

to deploy? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, as you alluded to, sir, the current KC– 

X source selection is actually the third attempt of the Air Force in 

about the last 9 years or so; and the first were marred by irregularities that caused them to be thrown out, essentially. So we’re—but 

we think we’re back on track. We’ve worked very hard to focus on 

strengthening our acquisition workforce, and putting the right KC– 

X team together for us has been the acid test from the very beginning. 

In bringing back the tanker program from the last GAO protest 

which was sustained in 2008 and caused us to go back to the drawing board, we’ve worked very carefully inside the Air Force acquisition system and with our colleagues in OSD to put together the 

right team of people with the right experience and gravitas to oversee this very important program. 

It is an important program to us. The average age of the tankers, 

as you suggested, is about 48, 49 years old; and that explains why 

it is our highest acquisition priority at this point in time. 

I would say I couldn’t agree with you more on the challenge to 

our acquisition system at a strategic level of taking so long and 

having to pay so much for the new systems that we buy. There is 

no doubt that what we are procuring across the board in our Air 

Force represents significant increases in capability for our Air 

Force and will stand us in very good stead going forward. But 

sometimes the costs, the prices we pay for that are certainly more 

than we would like. And the increases in costs, combined with the 

length of time that it takes, works us into a spiral where it takes 

longer and longer to get these new systems field; and I do agree 

with you that this is a strategic problem for the United States. 

In the case of the tanker and several other of the programs that 

were referenced today, the bomber programs, for example, those 

programs like the KC–135 [Boeing Stratotanker] were built in 

numbers 30, 40 years ago when the United States spent 8 percent 
26 

of gross national product on defense. And while we do not need to 

build as many as we had in the ’50s and ’60s, we are now trying 

to recapitalize those forces on a much smaller base of the Nation’s 

economic strength. So we’re more in the neighborhood of 4 percent 

of GDP [Gross Domestic Product], instead of 8 percent of GDP. So 

these programs are getting spread out and taking much longer 

than we would like. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Point well taken. 

A question to General Schwartz. Is less than 200 F–22s enough 

to ensure U.S. air superiority for the next three decades? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, the short answer is we at the time made 

a case for somewhat more than 187 aircraft, but that decision is 

behind us. We now need to move on. We need to get the F–35 into 

the fleet. And 187 F–22s, provided we do the improvements that 

are in the program, the F–22 improvement program is probably one 

of the six or seven largest procurement efforts we have under way. 

That’s to bring it up to weaponize it the way it needs to be 

weaponized and improvements for reliability and maintainability 

and so on. 

The bottom line is it’s a smaller fleet than we would like to have 

had. That’s behind us. The object now is to make sure that the airplanes we have can kick ass and that we can keep them in the air. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Mr. Secretary and 

General Schwartz, thanks so much for your service to our country. 

First of all, General Schwartz and Mr. Secretary, I want to thank 

you so much for achieving some cost efficiencies through consolidating commands. I think it’s a great initiative on your part. And 

I want to ask you what further opportunities you see in terms of 

streamlining the top of the United States Air Force through consolidating commands or efforts to bring down cost. 

General SCHWARTZ. There are a couple. In addition to the Air 

Operation Center effort that we talked about earlier, you know, we 

asked ourselves, for example, when you have two headquarters at 

the same location you have to ask yourself if that makes sense in 

the current environment. I mean, there were reasons for it, having 

the focus and so on, you know, one headquarters does management 

stuff, the other headquarters does operational stuff. But we came 

to the conclusion that that was no longer sustainable. 

So in the case of Third Air Force, for example, at Ramstein in 

Germany, where we have a major command headquarters, U.S. Air 

Force’s in Europe, we’re going to collapse that. 

The same thing is true at Hickam, where we have 13th Air 

Force, and Pacific Air Force is at the same location, is going to do 

that. 

In San Antonio, where we have the Air Education and Training 

Command and 19th Air Force, we’re going to collapse that. 

You know, this wasn’t really a stroke of brilliance. I mean, this 

was just recognizing that what was once a good idea was probably 

no longer affordable. And, importantly, it was probably less a function of dollars than it was about how precious manpower is right 

now; and we needed to free up uniform manpower to do the missions that are most pressing, like the 4,500 folks we put in the in-
27 

telligence, surveillance, reconnaissance or 2,000 people into nuke or 

1,000 into aircraft maintenance, that sort of thing. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, General Schwartz. 

Mr. Secretary, anything additional to add to that? 

Secretary DONLEY. Just to add that sometimes the opportunities 

are available on the business side as well. So another area of significant efficiencies for us is in the IT world where there is significant coordination going on across the services to collapse the number of data centers that we have operating across the Department 

and to get more efficient in the way we share IT resources and conduct our business in that manner. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

The Unmanned Air Vehicles, we’re across the board in all of our 

branches of the military. We’re becoming more and more reliant 

upon those platforms to do everything from tactical strikes to ISR. 

But the development is fairly fragmented. And I know there’s been 

efforts in the past for the United States Air Force to take the lead 

in this issue. Can you tell me, if the United States Air Force did 

have the lead on UAVs, what kind of potential savings might there 

be in terms of the development of these platforms? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I don’t think it would necessarily be substantial. And I have to tell you that this is an emotional issue 

that—I just don’t know if it’s worth it to go down this path. 

What Gary Roughhead and I from the Navy are doing I think is 

representative of what adults working together can achieve. He has 

BAMS [Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle], which is a version of our Global Hawk. And the question we 

asked each other is why should we have two different V posts for 

these airplanes? Why should we have two different training engines for these birds? Or, for that matter, why base them at different locations? 

And we’ve come together to do that ourselves without the Air 

Force asserting its dominion over remotely piloted aircraft across 

the department. I, frankly, think that’s a better strategy to do this; 

and certainly the budget challenges we face are motivating us to 

do this. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well, I think you mentioned satellites, that you’re 

working across jurisdictional lines across branches of the Service 

and other governmental agencies in terms of the development of 

the satellites, and that’s leading to a savings. It would seem to me 

that if we could derive a savings on the development of these satellites we could also derive a savings on a better coordination with 

the development of UAVs and one Service taking the lead on it. 

General SCHWARTZ. I think better coordination is required. 

You’re absolutely right on that, sir. And we’re endeavoring, particularly between the Navy and the Air Force, to do that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Just one last question. For the record, if you could 

update us on those States that aren’t—on the F–16s for those 

States that have F–16s for their Air Guard and where the process 

is on the F–35, obviously, specifically, in my case, to Colorado. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

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

page 98.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
28 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m running around here 

today. 

And certainly, Mr. Secretary and General, good to have you here, 

and thank you so much for your service. 

I wanted to ask you about end strength and the fact that we’re 

obviously pleased that you do such a great job in recruitment and 

retention, but that creates some real management problems for 

you. Could you talk a little bit more about that? And I think there 

was a concern that while you’re looking to have both voluntary and 

nonvoluntary—what’s the word—separations, right? 

Secretary DONLEY. Incentives. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. That’s a nice way of putting it. But separations 

at the same time in the fiscal year ’12 budget you’re looking to increase by 600. Why that kind of discrepancy? 

Secretary DONLEY. Just quickly on the 600. The increase in Active Duty end strength by 600 is driven by the results of the Authorization Act last year which denied the Department’s request to 

convert officers associated with a defense health program from 

military to civilian. That was our—we requested to do that. The 

Congress denied us that. So we reverted them back to uniformed 

slots. So that’s the reason for that change. 

What you’ve alluded to more broadly is our current and most immediate personnel challenge in the Air Force, which is that, given 

the state of the economy, airmen are not leaving the Air Force at 

normal rates of attrition and so we are operating above our authorized end strength, particularly for officers. We recognized this problem last year, and we did take action, both voluntary and involuntary, to get ahead of this problem, but we did not make enough 

progress. We made only enough progress really to tread water, and 

the problem has gotten even more difficult this year. So we do have 

force management actions planned for later this year and into fiscal year ’12 that will get our end strength down to the authorized 

levels. 

General SCHWARTZ. I would just comment that this is painful. I 

mean, here we are in the middle of the war, and we’re trying to 

encourage people to move on, but we have to do it. We cannot operate above our end strength, given the other pressures that we have. 

Because, obviously, we have to take resources from elsewhere to 

make that work. 

So I think the key thing here, ma’am, is that we are asking for 

certain authorities which go back to the case of the ’90s when we 

had a similar situation and the Congress gave us temporarily certain authorities that enabled us to better manage the reductions 

that we seek to achieve. And, again, we would do this with compassion and with precision, but we need to do it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. How do you work with families through this then? 

Is it different from other transitions that families go through? 

General SCHWARTZ. I think it’s similar. You know, we have transition assistance programs. Clearly, it’s more difficult, though. If 

someone leaves voluntarily, the psychology is completely different 

than when we ask someone to leave involuntarily. 

And so the important thing we’re trying to do is indicate, as difficult as this is and it was a tough decision for the Secretary to 
29 

take, that this is for the future of our Air Force, and we need you 

to move on, and we’ll do all we can to make it as soft a landing 

as possible, but that we have to do it. 

Secretary DONLEY. Ma’am, if I may just add for a moment, with 

respect to the additional authorities that we need, we’re still working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to put together that 

package. We are hopeful that that will get over here to the Congress soon. Understanding the normal legislative cycle, we have 

flagged this as something that we would like to ask your consideration of early and to identify a legislative vehicle against which we 

can tag these authorities early in the year, hopeful that perhaps we 

could get the authorities in place before midyear as we start making—going into boards and such later this summer. If we do not 

miss—if we do not get the authorities this year, we’ll miss a cycle. 

We’ll pick it up next year, but it would be better if we had it earlier. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And you’re saying this is a majority of people or officers that are in the services and not in specialty positions then, because you’ve had special authority to recruit. 

General SCHWARTZ. We are being careful about limiting or sort 

of protecting certain categories of officers. For example, we are protecting certain nurse specialties because they’re in very short supply and they’re essential. But we’re protecting Catholic chaplains 

for the same reason, but it’s very few, because we are serious about 

trying to get this behind us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Secretary, General. 

As I’ve traveled and looked at the bases and listened, whether 

it’s the Air Force or another agency, and talk about the procurement process and running bases, EPA [Environmental Protection 

Agency], OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration], 

disgruntled voters, is there any way to calculate the cost of these 

burdens on our operational capabilities as a country in protecting 

our citizens? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, Mr. Scott, certainly we can try to put 

an estimate together of that. It is the policy of our Air Force to be 

environmentally responsible and to provide safe and healthy working conditions for our employees, so we want to understand how 

well we’re doing on that and we need to monitor that inside our 

Air Force. But I don’t think I’ve seen any estimates on the overall 

cost of that across our Air Force, but we could see if we can get 

you some more information on that front. 

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

page 98.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Don’t spend a bunch of money. The tanker is more 

important right now. 

I would like to move, gentlemen, if I could, to the airlift capabilities of the Air Force long-term with no more purchases of the C– 

17. What effect does that have on our capabilities going forward, 

as much as we’re flying the plane? 

General SCHWARTZ. I think we collectively—I certainly have this 

view—came to the conclusion that the 224 C–17 wasn’t as much— 

wasn’t as valued as the first KC–X was going to be. That is sort 
30 

of the situation we’re in, and it’s a question of marginal value to 

defense overall. And so I think where we are with a mix of C–17s, 

223, 222 of them, and the remainder C–5s [Lockheed Galaxy transport aircraft], some of which will be reengined, some of which currently are not, satisfies the peak demand that we forecast for a crisis power projection scenario. I think that is a moderate risk force 

for us, and it allows us to devote the resources to procuring the 

new tanker that we need at 15 a year. 

Mr. SCOTT. If I could, moving to the Middle East, how close is 

our relationship, Air Force to Air Force, with Israel? 

General SCHWARTZ. Very close, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there any room for improvement there or is that 

something where we work hand in hand daily? 

General SCHWARTZ. You have to ask Ido Nehoshtan what he 

thinks, but I believe that he and I, as individuals and certainly as 

two Air Forces, are very close together. We share our secrets, 

frankly, you know, our tactics and techniques, and so on and so 

forth, consistent with policy; and I think that Ido would tell you 

that we are his best partner. 

Mr. SCOTT. General and Mr. Secretary, we would like to have 

you at Warner Robins, Robins Air Force Base, as my guest and the 

people’s guest down there on short order. 

And, with that, I will yield the rest of my time, Mr. Speaker. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ll just mention the tanker and leave it at that. I’m not sure I 

need to say anything more. Where am I from? Thank you. 

Page 12 of your testimony discusses electronic warfare as well, 

but that’s something else I’m obviously very interested in. On the 

C–130 [Lockheed Martin Hercules transport aircraft] to compass 

call, or craft conversion, will that result in these new compass 

call—these converted C–130s being strictly compass call mission or 

will these be on call for a compass call? How do you envision that? 

General SCHWARTZ. The conversion of the additional compass call 

airplane will be a dedicated asset. 

Mr. LARSEN. It will be a dedicated asset. 

General SCHWARTZ. It will be a dedicated asset. 

Mr. LARSEN. And these will be active Air Force assets, not Reserve, not National Guard? 

General SCHWARTZ. That’s correct. One of the things under consideration is having an associate relationship, but that’s not yet 

final, by any means. So, initially, that converted aircraft will be Active Duty. 

Mr. LARSEN. And then MALD [Miniature Air Launched Decoy] 

and MALD–J [Miniature Air Launched Decoy–Jammer] are in production? 

General SCHWARTZ. MALD and MALD–J certainly are in the program. The MALD version is in production. J will come along here. 

It is fully funded, because it is one of those aspects of our electronic 

attack effort that goes along with the long-range strike family systems. 

Mr. LARSEN. And increment two, what’s the timeline for that? 
31 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I’ll take that for the record, with your 

permission. 

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

page 98.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. On page 20, you talk about your regional 

partnerships. I had a chance to be out in Air Force Pacific last May 

and had a chance to talk with Admiral Owens about the things we 

are doing. It’s great. Do you have a particular regional focus in 

your regional partnership? 

General SCHWARTZ. In fact, one of the things we’ve done is in our 

contingency response groups we have attempted to focus them 

along combatant command lines. And what that allows us is to specialize on the language skills on the sort of cultural awareness and 

what have you and it’s very good. 

Obviously, the one that’s in Europe focuses on that area, the one 

at Anderson and the Pacific focuses on the Asian region, and the 

CONUS [continental United States] one splits. But I think clearly 

this is an area where we are committed. 

As you know, in the budget we have a proposal for a light lift 

platform, a new start in ’12 with the Congress’ consent on a light 

strike platform. But, fundamentally, this is about enabling other 

Air Forces that are not as sophisticated as ours or our near-peers 

to build their capacity to defend their own airspace. 

Mr. LARSEN. So will the light lift and light strike be strictly for 

partners? 

General SCHWARTZ. That is our proposal sir. It would be for 

training our air advisors, and it would be for introducing a less 

complex, a more readily simulated platform into these partner Air 

Forces that can neither afford nor maybe have the technical capacity to operate F–16s, for example. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. 

With regards to DELV [delivery], I understand there’s a pretty 

significant increase in that over ’11 or ’10, or whichever budget 

you’re operating under today. We should be taking care of that tonight, I think. One step closer. 

But the effort by the Air Force to increase access to space by 

making these launch vehicles more affordable and reliable is important. But I have concerns from some folks how the Air Force 

is—how is the Air Force ensuring that companies such as Space X, 

which is going to be part of that new industrial base that’s out 

there on satellites, as well as there’s other competitors out there, 

too, that are not traditional larger contract competitors, how are 

they being given access to contract competition as a way of promoting lower cost for that program or any other satellite programs? 

Secretary DONLEY. We are working through the issues of what 

certification will be required for commercial partners to enter the 

space launch work. So there is more to follow on that. 

NASA has had more of the lead in that. They are further along. 

I met with the National Reconnaissance Office the other day on 

some of these subjects. We are also tracking NRO and with NASA 

in terms of developing criteria for certification going forward. 

Mr. LARSEN. I would just note, these folks might be new to this, 

and so I think you need to keep that in mind, as well. 
32 

Secretary DONLEY. They are, but, you know, we are very focused 

on mission assurance. And as I think the chief has mentioned previously, we don’t necessarily want to take a $2 billion satellite and 

put it on top of a launcher that is a first-time effort for someone. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Secretary DONLEY. Thanks. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks a lot. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is something I would want to talk to you 

about. You mean first time for the Air Force, not necessarily first 

time. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, great to have you back 

with us. We appreciate your service to our Nation. 

Secretary Donley, let me begin with you. I want to talk a little 

bit about our ability to project power, and specifically in light of 

China’s efforts of anti-access. As you know, their efforts there are 

continuing to emerge. And it concerns me, when you look at our alliances and our security partnerships in those regions, about our 

ability to project power into the future, especially in how it affects 

our ability in areas like the Western Pacific and where we are 

going in the future. 

Let me ask this. As we look at our ability to project power, I 

know we have the next-generation bomber coming on line some 

years into the future, you do have scheduled, though, to retire the 

B–1 [Rockwell Lancer strategic bomber], and retiring the B–1 as 

excessive of requirements. It seems like to me, though, that there 

is a gap between the retirement of the B–1 and the introduction 

in a serviceable form of the next-generation bomber. 

Can you elucidate a little bit for us about how we are not going 

to lose the ability to project force during that period of time when 

we are retiring the B–1 and as we are bringing the next-generation 

bomber on line? 

Secretary DONLEY. Our bomber forces are managed very carefully inside of our force structure. We recognize the aging challenges, the maintenance challenges that go with each of the platforms, which comes from a completely different generation of technology despite all the upgrades that they have had over the years. 

We have not made a decision on retiring the B–1. The proposal 

in fiscal year 2012 is to reduce the fleet from 66 to 60 aircraft. So 

it is to reduce the fleet by six aircraft. There are savings that are 

harvested from that. We believe that—we have, sort of, been 

through the analysis. The military judgment was that this is not 

an unreasonable burden on operational risk, this is something that 

we can do. 

And we also harvested dollars out of that, which we can put back 

into the B–1 for upgrading cockpit displays and other maintenance 

support aspects of this work that will help sustain the platform 

going forward. 

I have to say, this is not an unusual profile in managing inventories of aircraft, that over time they tend to shrink a little bit over 

time and you harvest the dollars to put them back into the longterm sustainability of the remaining fleet. 
33 

Mr. WITTMAN. So that reduction of six, then, is going to be really 

where the movement is going to be? 

General SCHWARTZ. And the remainder is 60. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sixty, right, got you. Okay. Very good. 

General Schwartz, let me ask now—and I want to go from our 

bomber aircraft to our fighter aircraft. As we know, some challenges there, as you know, with the F–22 program being terminated, also now with the F–35 lagging a little bit time-wise in 

being able to deliver those platforms to make sure that we can 

meet that requirement, also with the retirement of F–15s, F–16s, 

A–10s [Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II close air support aircraft]. You look at our fighter component, and you look at the recent developments in China with the J–20 [fifth-generation stealth 

fighter jet], and you look at our strategic capability as it relates to 

fighters. 

My question is this: Does this scenario, does this justify the 124 

F–35 reduction in the FYDP? And I just want to look at that in 

context of where we are going, especially with concerns across all 

of our groups of fighters. 

General SCHWARTZ. In a perfect world, if the program was absolutely healthy, my answer would be ‘‘certainly not.’’ 

But the reality is that the bottom-up review that Admiral Venlet 

did on the F–35, you know, yielded insights that suggest that, 

number one, the plant in Fort Worth couldn’t produce those airplanes right now even if we wanted them to—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ [continuing]. And that there are issues in 

terms of development, less on our airplane—that is, less on the 

conventional takeoff version than the STOVL [Short Take-Off/ 

Vertical Landing] version, to be sure. 

But the reality is that, you know, where we are at right now is, 

I think, as aggressive as we can pragmatically be until the program 

picks up more momentum. 

And so we have 14 airplanes in flight test. Our acquisition of assets is 203 over the program period. And that is 57 less than it 

would have been for the Air Force. As you suggested, it is 124 system-wide. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yeah. 

General SCHWARTZ. I think, regrettably, that that is the right 

place for us to be, given the level of confidence that we have at the 

moment. 

I believe that the airplane is going to be the centerpiece of our 

tactical fleet, you know, in due course. But getting it into full-rate 

production has been a greater struggle than we imagined. And I 

think this is a time to be a little bit more conservative. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Garamendi. 

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

I was trying to remember the date that we had that wonderful 

lunch in Sacramento, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you for coming out for Air Force Day and for a terrific 

show by the Air Force, General. You and your men and women did 
34 

a wonderful job displaying the Air Force there in Sacramento when 

I was Lieutenant Governor. Thank you for that. 

I now have the joy and the pleasure of representing Travis Air 

Force Base. And I want to compliment all the men and women. I 

won’t say—well, otherwise I would get a cheer out of some ex-Travis folks here. I will just let that go. But they did a terrific job in 

Haiti. And, I don’t know, maybe a flight will be 5 minutes or so 

to the theaters of war. A lot of heart but a lot of good work, and 

we compliment you on that. 

We also compliment you on the efforts you are making for the 

community. You really do reach out. And the current effort under 

way to employ more local contractors is much appreciated. 

And I also want to compliment you on the new LiMA [Light Mobility Aircraft] program and the studies that are going on and the 

process you are going through to select the appropriate base. I have 

my favorite. I will let that go for a moment. But it sounds like it 

is going to be a very useful—and it fits into, I guess, your new tactical fighter, which looks pretty much like a Korean War fighter, 

upgraded significantly. 

In any case, I really don’t have a question other than to compliment you on the work that you are doing and the service that 

you are rendering. 

And one more thing, since I have three minutes and 25 seconds. 

I was shocked, delightfully, to hear your opening statement about 

the missile acquisition programs, that you are actually going to 

work with the other services, including NASA, for some sort of 

‘‘let’s see if we can make it all work together.’’ 

I was on the Science Committee last year, and I don’t think 

NASA was quite willing to do it when they started the hearings. 

At the end of the hearings, they were more willing to work with 

you on a more common platform and the satellite business. 

It is the way to go, and I want to compliment you for heading 

that way. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Thornberry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, in a few minutes, we are going to have another vote on 

another amendment cutting V–22. I realize this question is better 

suited for the Marine Corps, but there are five CV–22s in the Air 

Force budget. Can you make a brief comment as to how that program is going and particularly how the aircraft is performing? 

General SCHWARTZ. As I indicated earlier, sir, this is a capability 

we have never had before. We need to continue that procurement 

profile to the full 50 that the Air Force Special Operations Command expects to possess. 

We have had it in Africa. We have had it in Iraq. It is going to 

be headed out to Afghanistan shortly. In fact, it has been in Afghanistan, as well. Forgive me. 

I think the bottom line is that this is a machine that both the 

operators and the passengers—very important—you know, like to 

have in order to execute their missions. I would certainly say that 

there would be other things I would give up in the Air Force budget before the CV–22. 
35 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

I want to go back to your conversation with Mr. Larsen about 

partnerships. Because, in addition to the idea that we could have 

some certain kinds of aircraft to help train other air forces, training is a part of that. In last year’s defense bill, we had a provision 

to make it possible for the aircraft to bring some pilots to be 

trained here with the ENJJPT [Euro NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training] program from Eastern European countries. But, in a larger 

sense, it just seems to me that all branches of the military are 

going to have to do more of this training with others. And that includes the education and training piece as well as the equipment 

piece. 

Are you all looking, whether it is that or other things, at creative 

ways to help these sorts of opportunities? Because some of these 

small countries don’t have big budgets to send, to participate, 

whether it is to buy aircraft or to send pilots to train here. So it 

seems to me we are going to have to be a little more creative in 

sorting through these things, because it may be just one pilot from 

a country but he may be chief of staff of the air force before long. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, that is absolutely true. Just a case in 

point, the current chief of the Indonesian Air Force was trained 

here in the United States. But he is the last of that genre, because 

there was a 12- or 14-year gap after he wrapped up his training. 

And he is now the chief. 

There is no question but that training we do, whether it be for 

piloting or infantry officers or, you know, intermediate service 

school, what have you, is playing the long ball. And we certainly 

are committed to continuing to do that. 

I can just give you, quickly—you talk about innovations. The 

Contingency Response Group that I talked about, their primary 

mission is opening expeditionary airfields. And they have cops and 

they have engineers and they have docs and air traffic controllers 

and so on. And what we decided was, when they are not opening 

airfields, they can be training and educating nascent air forces who 

need to develop these varied skill sets. 

So they now have this additional mission to grow other air forces. 

I think that is an indication of the innovation we have undertaken. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, and we want to work with you for not 

only funding but legal authorities for those sorts of creative exercises. 

Last question. You were talking about personnel with Mrs. 

Davis. For some time, we have talked about some nontraditional 

authorities for certain categories of personnel. Cyber is one that is 

fresh in my mind. Because sometimes the folks you need to run 

cyber may not fit a traditional military profile. 

Is that something you all are looking at or have suggestions for 

where we can help you? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, you are the expert on this, to be sure. 

But I think we do need to be a little bit more flexible. For example, 

thanks to the Secretary, there is an effort under way to allow people to go out of the Air Force to the Guard for a period of time and 

have the opportunity to come back into the Active Duty if that fits 

the way, you know, their lifestyle is unfolding. 
36 

I do believe that having the additional flexibility on career paths 

will serve us well in terms of, you know, retaining the kinds of people we need. Right now it is not an issue. The economy is not, you 

know—is favorable in terms of retention. But when it turns, you 

know, that is when we will be competing for the best and brightest. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I was happy to hear your comments, General, on the V–22. As 

Mr. Reyes said earlier, we flew in Afghanistan on the V–22, and 

it was a great ride. And I know there were problems early on with 

the development, but now it is a good bird. 

General SCHWARTZ. It is a proven platform, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General. 

I represent the Black Knights at Little Rock Air Force Base and 

would like to talk with you about the C–130 AMP, the Avionics 

Modernization Program. 

First, I would like to ask you—I think I know the answer to this, 

but I want to make sure—is there any risk to this program, to the 

AMP program, as a result of the efficiencies that you are implementing? 

General SCHWARTZ. No, sir. The program is designed to do 221 

H2, H2.5, and H3 category C–130Hs, and that is what we are going 

to do. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, my understanding, General, is that in fiscal 

year 2009 there was funding, in fiscal year 2010 there was not 

funding. And so, right now, currently, it is not funded. Is that correct? That is my understanding. 

And I wanted to just—if you don’t have those statistics, you may 

not be able to answer this. But what I am concerned about is, if 

the CR does not pass, I think there will be a funding gap. If I remember correctly, there was a Nunn-McCurdy breach a couple 

years ago or whatever, and the funding stopped. 

And so, if we stay where we are, there is no funding. If we get 

the CR passed, then there is funding. Is that a fair characterization 

of where we are? 

General SCHWARTZ. We need to confirm this for you, but I believe 

that to be the case. We did not defund this program—— 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ [continuing]. In the Air Force. I think this is 

a CR-related issue. But, sir, we will confirm that in writing for you. 

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

page 99.] 

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is my understanding. And my understanding 

is, if you vote for the CR, then you are voting for funding for the 

C–130 AMP. And if you vote against it, you are voting to keep 

things as they are, and there is no funding. If you could check on 

that and get back with me. 

And I will mention, incidentally, that I am starting the C–130 

Modernization Caucus. It is very important to me, in my district, 

and to our national security. 
37 

Have you done any sort of calculation to look at what the numbers would be, the dollar savings would be as a result of the efficiencies that we get from the AMP process, in terms of maintenance cost and operational cost savings? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, we will have to get back to you on the 

details of the business case. But there was a business case done. 

One thing I could comment on, though, very importantly, is that 

the AMP modifications also include subsystems that allow the airplanes to operate in increasingly demanding airspace—European 

airspace, for example—that require precision navigation and communications, which the basic airplanes do not possess. 

So we will take that one, as well, for the record, sir, and get you 

the rough numbers on the business case for AMP. 

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

page 99.] 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Okay. If you don’t know this, I would like you to 

add this to your list. I would be real interested in what your number is in terms of how many years of combat service you believe 

that we are adding to the C–130s that go through the AMP process. 

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

page 99.] 

Mr. GRIFFIN. That ultimately relates to efficiencies. And I think 

those numbers will bear out that the AMP investment is a good investment, and a good investment for our national security and a 

good investment for the taxpayer, both of which are important. I 

appreciate that. 

I was given a couple of questions to ask for a colleague of mine, 

and I just wanted to see if you could get to them quickly in my 39 

seconds that I have left. Representative Kinzinger of Illinois wanted me to ask about the flight suit development. He indicated that 

he had seen the press articles about a $100 million price tag for 

developing a flight suit. And he was just wondering if that is accurate and if you have anything to say about that. 

I think he is an Air Force pilot, himself. 

General SCHWARTZ. We are not in the business of redesigning our 

flight suit under the current circumstances. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Okay. Great. I will pass that on to him. 

And my time has now expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was unexpected. 

Just as an aside, there are at least two of us in the room who 

understand there is a second Air Force base that Mr. Rogers needs 

to visit before he makes categorical statements in reference to his. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. 

I want to talk a little bit about—and even General Schwartz 

mentioned it—in the auditability of the Air Force’s financial statements. Made the posture statement, skidded in just in ahead of 

‘‘Conclusion’’ and ‘‘Strategic Basing,’’ page 26 or 27, but at least 

made the cut. I appreciate that. 

I have had good discussions with the team that you have in place 

to do this. The Air Force has further to go than the Department 

of Army, Department of Navy, and so you have to run a little bit 
38 

faster. I have great confidence in his team and his colleagues over 

at the Army and the Navy, as well, that they get it, they understand it. 

I am wondering how much easier—or, excuse me, less difficult finding your $33 billion share of the $100 billion might have been 

had you had better systems in place. And one of my colleagues 

asked you for how much something cost, and, Secretary Donley, 

you mentioned you would try to get that number. Somebody on 

your team just threw up in their bucket, thinking they would have 

to go through whatever they had to do to get you that number, 

those kinds of things. 

So, can you talk just a little bit about your commitment to getting this done sooner, maybe, rather than later, and your opinion 

as to how important good financial systems that you use to run 

your business—I mean, we have this issue we have been hiding behind, in the sense that your getting a clean audit requires a balance sheet and everything else, and that is a way off. But you use, 

day in and day out, data systems, financial systems to make decisions. That ought to be auditable sooner rather than later. 

So can you just give me your side of what is going on? 

Secretary DONLEY. We do think this is an important priority for 

the Air Force. It has been on our plate for a long time. And, certainly, we are not where we want to be. But, as I think you have 

been briefed, we are making some progress. 

As of the end of last year, we have asserted audit readiness in 

a couple of areas that we think are important: 100 percent of appropriations received, used in our Automated Funds Management 

System. And this is the system that tracks appropriations from 

Congress to OMB [Office of Management and Budget], to the Department of Defense, to the Department of the Air Force, and from 

our Headquarters Air Force to our major commands. 

We are not all the way down to the field level yet, but we are 

working on that part of the problem. And we think we have 100- 

percent auditability through the Automated Funds Management 

System to do that. 

That is one of many aspects of auditability, but it is an important 

one. And it is one that I think Secretary Hale has put emphasis 

on. And I think you are familiar with his focus on making sure that 

we get the clean financial statements and the auditability on the 

systems we most often use and rely on. 

Another piece of this has been our preparedness to assert audit 

readiness on about 48 percent of our mission-critical equipment, 

which includes all of our military equipment, our military hardware. There is more to follow in the other 52 percent in terms of 

spares and logistics support and where a lot of numbers are. 

But—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Are those percentages based on dollar exposure? 

Fifty-two percent of what? 

Secretary DONLEY. Inventory. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Inventory based on dollars. 

Secretary DONLEY. I think it is inventory. I think it is assets. I 

am not sure that it is dollar-based. I think it is asset-based. 

But, in addition to these areas—and the chief mentioned one, in 

particular, early—the ECSS system is our enterprise resource sys-
39 

tem for a modern logistics system. We must get this done. It is very 

important to us. It has been painful, continues to be a challenge, 

but we think it is worth sticking with, going forward. 

The experience of this committee and, I think, for other committees for many years, you recognize the importance of getting software right across our weapons systems. This is a huge issue as 

more electronics have gone into our weapons systems. So, working 

through software issues is critical. In our enterprise resource systems like ECSS, software is everything. It is the whole thing. 

So it is very, very hard work, but, again, we are trying to make 

some progress here. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you. I want to be careful that we don’t, in 

our quest to cut spending and find efficiencies, that we don’t become penny-wise and pound-foolish and underresource this important effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Schwartz, Secretary Donley, thank you for being here. 

Thank you for your service. And thank you for everything you do 

for our airmen. 

I have the pleasure to represent the Third Congressional District 

of New Jersey, which, as we know, is home to Joint Base McGuireDix-Lakehurst. And Joint Base is an air mobility center of excellence in extending air mobility forces globalwide, moving troops 

and cargo. But over the past 10 years, we have lowered the number 

of aircraft, and the aircraft capability requirement worldwide has 

grown. And, you know, even the hostility around the world has 

grown. 

And, quite frankly, General Schwartz, is the requirement of the 

mobility aircraft lower—is it because we have less equipment, less 

people, less missions? Or is it just, quite frankly, because of budget? 

General SCHWARTZ. First of all, I am from Toms River, so I—— 

Mr. RUNYAN. I am sure you have family that are constituents. 

General SCHWARTZ. The bottom line is, we have better airplanes. 

You know, there was a day when we had C–47s that, you know, 

we had thousands of them. And we now have C–17s and C–5s and 

we have several hundred. I think, you know, we are making economic decisions here. I mean, you know, you have to be somewhat 

business like here. There are times when it doesn’t matter what it 

costs. But when it comes to sizing the fleet, it does matter. 

And so I think the bottom line is, we have looked at the most 

stressing possible contingency, scenario; we have modeled that. We 

have come to the conclusion that 32.7 million ton-miles a day—that 

is gross capacity—is what the country needs to project military 

power, and that that is met with a combination of C–17 and C–5 

aircraft in the low 300s. And that is, you know, the tack that we 

are on, sir. 

These are expensive airplanes to operate, but we would not have 

gotten 6,000 M–ATVs [MRAP All Terrain Vehicle] or MRAP [Mine 

Resistant Ambush Protected] vehicles to Afghanistan without 

them. So, yes, we have capacity. We can do that, and we have. We 
40 

did the surge in Afghanistan that ended up this summer. And, you 

know, we mobilized some Reserves in order to get that done. 

But the bottom line is that I think that low 300s of the big airplanes is the right number for us. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you for that. And I live close enough there, 

in Burlington County, where they are overhead all the time. We 

see them. So I know you guys are busting your tail, and thanks. 

And, with that, I yield back, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And riding along with that, I understand that we have better 

planes. I remember talking about the B–2 [Northrop Grumman 

Spirit stealth bomber], how in previous wars we talked about how 

many planes it took to take out a target, and now we have talked 

about how many targets a B–2 can take out. 

But, at some point, numbers also do matter. And hopefully we 

will be okay, but when we get down to the last one, it may not be 

enough. 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, you can’t be in two places at 

once. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the distinguished panelists being with us here 

today. And I thank you for your leadership of the Air Force. And 

also I want to express my support and admiration for all those that 

serve under your command and to the families. 

My question has to do with joint forcible entry capabilities. In 

the next 3 years or so, 3 to 4 years, we will be wrapping up—successfully wrapping up our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 

we will be refocusing the force. And I am interested to hear your 

vision and commitment to providing trained and ready forces as we 

look towards restoring a capability, joint forcible entry, for Army 

Airborne and also for Marine Expeditionary. 

General SCHWARTZ. We take tasking, sir, from our joint force 

commanders. And if that is the demand signal, that is what we will 

do. It is as simple as that. 

And, by the way, you know, the 82nd hasn’t been leg-bound, so 

to speak. You know, they are maintaining their jump credentials, 

not when they are deployed, to be sure, but certainly when they are 

back at Bragg. And, you know, we are providing the platforms for 

that training. 

I would say that there are times when joint forcible entry works, 

and there are times when, you know—it is not as simple, perhaps, 

as it once was. This is the old question about anti-access and aerial 

denial capabilities. So we just can’t run massive formations of C– 

130s or C–17s in areas that are too hostile for them to operate. But 

there is a methodology to reduce that threat, such that we can 

enter it at a time and place of our choice. 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, just to add there, there are a variety of 

Air Force capabilities that contribute to that aspect of joint operations—so, not just the lift, but the intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance that goes with that, the command and control backbone through satellite systems, and many other dimensions of joint 

operations where the Air Force is supporting with key capabilities. 
41 

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, I appreciate those comments very much. 

I probably should have said at the outset that I commanded the 

Division Ready Brigade up until last year. And I will tell you that 

your formations down there at Pope really did a fantastic job. 

Many of them grew up at a time when that was a higher priority 

and are really working exceptionally hard to restore that capability 

in an environment that really puts a lot of demand—and, as you 

point out, not only C–17s but, really, this is a fully across-the-board 

joint endeavor to actually overcome issues of anti-access. 

So, it is an area that I believe we need to work at restoring in 

the coming years, especially as we reset and conclude operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. And I thank you very much for your comments and look forward to working with you on that point. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Just as a point of interest, I met a couple of weeks ago with General Dempsey, and he was commenting that they are changing the 

training. I was just recently at National Training Center with Mr. 

Smith and the Marine Mountain Training Center and then at 

Lewis-McChord. And all of the training there was geared toward 

Afghanistan, but they are looking out over the horizon and planning in the next round of training in those centers they are going 

to start focusing on the training that the colonel was talking about. 

And so it is good to know that they are thinking our ahead on that. 

Ms. Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary and General, it is an honor to be here today and to 

have an opportunity to visit with you. I am representing the Missouri Fourth Congressional District, of course home of Whiteman 

Air Force Base. And we are very, very proud of the good work that 

is being done there and the B–2 bomber. 

And I wanted to ask a little bit of questions about the new bomber that is being developed. I see this year in the budget request we 

had $197 million for RDT&E [Research Development Test and 

Evaluation]. I was just wondering, what is the timeframe for this 

new bomber to be able to come on line? 

Secretary DONLEY. Mid-2020s. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. I was just wondering, is it projected to replace the B–2 bomber eventually? 

Secretary DONLEY. No, the B–2 will be part of our inventory for 

as far as we can see forward right now. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. That is good news. That is good news. 

Have you determined where the new bomber will be housed yet, 

or will that be down the road? 

Secretary DONLEY. No, that is a down-the-road decision, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Very good. 

I also wanted to ask some questions about the new tanker, the 

KC–X. Of course, we have 1 in 10 Americans out of work right 

now, and jobs are very important to all of us, I know to the President. He says he wants to hire—we need to hire more workers. Yet, 

from what I understand, the competition for the tanker is between 

an American company and a European company. 

And so I was just wondering why, when we need more work here 

in America, would the Administration be talking about outsourcing 
42 

some of our very important military equipment to a foreign government. 

Secretary DONLEY. The acquisition process that we are using for 

the source selection on the KC–X is one that is governed by statutes which the Congress has created and is open to qualified bidders. So, EADS [European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company 

N.V.] is a qualified bidder and has been a partner in other work 

across our national security or aerospace establishment. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. So, in the current statutes now, there is not a 

preference for American companies over other companies worldwide? 

Secretary DONLEY. Only in some very, very specialized areas— 

specialty metals and these sorts of areas. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Uh-huh. Well, that is interesting to know. And 

I appreciate your responses and all the good work that you do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, thank you very much 

for your testimony today and for the work that you are doing to 

keep our Nation safe. 

As the ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee 

and the former chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I have 

been very concerned about the potential for a cyber attack on the 

national electric grid, among many other things but that in particular, and the impact, of course, on our ability to conduct our 

strategic military missions. 

During the last Congress, I asked Major General Webber, commander of 24th Air Force, in charge of cyber operations, what 

measures were being taken to mitigate the risks to military bases, 

in particular, that rely on civilian power sources in the event of a 

cyber attack against these systems. As you know, many of our military bases are dependent on the electric grid that is primarily in 

the hands of the private sector, and the owners and operators, obviously, are in the private sector. I was pleased to hear that the general responded that the Air Force has been actively engaged in 

looking into these issues. 

So my questions are: How much progress has been made in evaluating threats to our military bases that rely on single sources of 

civilian power systems? That is number one. Next, has the Air 

Force strengthened plans for energy security by examining new 

technologies that could lead to better alternative energy sources? 

And number three and finally, are you confident the Air Force 

could carry out prolonged strategic-level missions over significant 

amounts of time in the event of a massive commercial electric grid 

failure? 

And, as you know, Idaho National Labs, a couple years back, had 

found a significant vulnerability to our electric grid whereby a 

cyber attack could potentially take down a power plant and potentially damage a sector of the electric grid for quite some time. And 

if our military bases are dependent on that grid, it would be a significant challenge for us. So I would like to ask you to address 

those questions. 
43 

Secretary DONLEY. A big set of issues, very important ones. Critical infrastructure protection across the board is a priority for the 

Department of Defense and certainly for the Air Force, as well. 

The local analysis—the analysis that is there is often localized. 

It depends on a base’s local situation, its relationships with the 

community, and the local power grid at that location. And so it varies from location to location. 

But we are very interested in identifying single points of vulnerability and taking actions to mitigate that. We store fuel. We have 

backup generators in place, for example, in many, many locations 

so that we can operate if and when power goes down. 

So this is—some of this is, sort of, standard work. But we understand the importance of getting a more strategic perspective on 

this. And it is going to be a challenge, I think. And I think we are, 

kind of, still at the front end of a lot of this work. 

I would ask if General Schwartz would want to fill in a little bit. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sure. I think that the key thing here is, as 

you know, we identify mission-essential facilities, and we posture 

those with backup power, either UPS [Uninterruptible Power Supply] or generators and so on. 

They are not foolproof. Sometimes the power goes down, they 

don’t turn on. We had a situation develop, in fact, recently, I think 

it was March, in San Bernardino, where they were controlling a 

couple of orbits of Predators and the commercial power went down 

and the backup didn’t kick in right away. 

So it is not foolproof. But we do know where our key missions 

are and what those things are that, you know, can’t afford an interruption, and we try to back that up. 

With respect to your question on innovation, you know, I think 

we are really open to about anything. I mean, Nellis Air Force Base 

you visited, I know. You know, the solar array there is in the top 

five in the world. It powers about a quarter of the base energy consumption. And we are going to expand that. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Uh-huh. 

General SCHWARTZ. Wind has a place; we are looking hard at 

that, as well. So we are looking at ways, again, to diversify our 

sources of power for exactly the risk-management reasons you indicate. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. My time has expired, but I will have 

additional questions for the record. But, in the meantime, thank 

you very much for your service, and I look forward to having you 

before us again very soon. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Probably what we should do is build one of those—you know, we 

have all those nuclear-powered carriers and submarines? Just build 

some of those plants and put them on every base. You know, we 

could really move—we could really move forward in energy independence. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, it is funny you should say that, Mr. Chairman, because the Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, of course, 

we have a presence in my district, but, obviously, we build the finest nuclear submarines in the world starting in my district. And I 

know that General Dynamics is actually looking at producing do-
44 

mestic smaller reactors for perhaps just that purpose. Maybe someday it will be viable. 

The CHAIRMAN. They have definitely proved their safety. 

Mr. Smith, do you have anything further? 

Mr. SMITH. No, nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just make one closing request. We had— 

Plant 42 in my district, we had 175 positions that were slated for 

conversion. Of that number, 61 were firefighters. I met with many 

of those gentlemen. 44 lost their jobs just because they were too 

old, and they are a lot younger than I am. 17 of the 61 were rehired. 

The Readiness Subcommittee sent you a letter; you responded. 

We asked for a cost analysis. We got it, but it was about a document that thick. Is there a way that maybe you could break out 

how that was handled at Plant 42? 

And I understand it is too late to save those jobs. That was taken 

care of in January of this year. You did not use your authority to 

waive that limit. I would like to readdress that later, which we will 

in the next bill. But thank you for that. 

With that, this hearing—thank you for being here, for your good 

response. And any of the questions that were asked for on the 

record, if you could respond on those. 

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

page 93.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And we will continue to work together now as we 

go through this process. Thank you. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

(49) 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

(93) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON 

General SCHWARTZ. In-sourcing guidance developed by the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness was issued on May 28, 2009. This 

guidance outlines a systematic, well-reasoned, and strategic approach that helps ensure in-sourcing decisions are analytically based and fiscally informed. If contract 

workload is found to be inherently governmental, experiencing contract administration problems, providing unauthorized personal services, or otherwise exempt from 

contracting under Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1100.22, Guidance for 

Determining Workforce Mix, the function must be in-sourced regardless of cost. If 

the contract does not fit one of the above-mentioned criteria, a cost analysis is required to determine the most cost-effective means of performing the function. 

Air Force Material Command’s (AFMC) initial cost analysis, completed in July 

2009, indicated that it would be more cost effective to perform the workload currently performed by the Pyramid Services, Incorporated contract at Air Force Plant 

42 in Palmdale, California, with 185 DoD civilian employees. AFMC re-validated the 

business case model in April 2010 using the costing guidance in Directive—Type 

Memorandum 09–007: Estimating and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and 

Military Manpower and Contract Support. The re-validation shows a $2,500,000 

savings across the next five years by performing the work with DoD civilian employees. Based on the re-validation of the business case analysis, AFMC proceeded with 

implementation of its transition plan for this business case, to include hiring actions. 

When filling civil service positions, federal agencies are required to adhere to Title 

5 U.S.C. 2301, which requires fair and open competition consistent with merit systems principles. As allowed in Title 5 U.S.C. 3307(d) & (e) and DoD Instruction 

1400.25-v336, the DoD established the maximum entry age of 37 for original firefighter appointment to positions with primary duties directly connected to controlling and extinguishing fires. Those eligible for veterans’ preference, who exceed the 

maximum entry age for primary firefighter positions, will receive a waiver consistent with the Merit System Protection Board decision in Isabella v. Department 

of State and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and in accordance with 

OPM and DoD implementing guidance. The Secretary of the Air Force approved 

waivers for the nine selectees who met the criteria for veterans’ preference eligibility. Waivers were not granted for five selectees as they were not veterans’ preference eligible and there was not a shortage of qualified candidates who met the 

entry maximum age. [See page 44.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH 

General SCHWARTZ. Most of the Joint Bases have been at full operational capability for less than a year. At this point, they are still working start-up issues, and 

identifying best practices among the different operating procedures used by each 

Service Component. In an effort to make Joint Basing work better, we have several 

ongoing initiatives. We are collecting lessons learned from Joint Bases and sharing 

the solutions. I have also directed that an Air Force team visit both Air Force-led 

and sister Service-led Joint Bases to help identify problems, determine trends, and 

capture best practices. We are planning a conference where we can share this information and Joint Base commanders can discuss issues and share ideas to improve 

Joint Basing. In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each Service 

Component review Joint Base performance quarterly and work solutions for issues 

beyond the Joint Base’s control. All of these efforts are focused on helping the Joint 

Bases through their start-up phase, developing organizations that effectively support installation missions, and gaining efficiencies where possible to accommodate 

fiscal constraints. [See page 14.] 
94 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTLETT 

Secretary DONLEY. In 1985 GE began production of the GE F110, an alternate engine for the F–16. GE offered and achieved unit prices for the F110 that were below 

those offered by Pratt & Whitney for the F100. For instance, during the competition 

in 1991, the F110 was priced 16.1 percent below the F100 engine. Subsequently, in 

1992, GE raised its prices to a level only 4.8 percent below Pratt & Whitney’s prices. 

In 1993, the GE price exceeded the Pratt & Whitney price. In 1994, the Air Force 

awarded GE a sole-source contract for the F110 engine. Competition resumed in 

1995 and continued through 1998. While the competition did appear to improve engine pricing, there were only minimal reductions in the acquisition unit price of the 

engines. [See page 16.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. REYES 

General SCHWARTZ. Section 1 of this document contains crewmember and maintainer testimonials and Section 2 features a variety of CV–22 vignettes provided by 

Air Force Special Operations Command. 

Section 1: Crewmember and maintainer testimonials 

1. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field Florida 

Crew position/Primary duty: Evaluator Pilot/B Flight Commander 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 51⁄2 years 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘If you were to compare the CV–22’s performance to that of any military helicopter, you would find that 

there are some with more lift capacity or larger cabin area. You would also find that 

they had half the speed and range of the CV–22. If you were to compare the CV– 

22’s performance to that of any military airplane, you would find that there are 

some faster and again, some with more lift capacity. You would also find that none 

of them could land vertically in unimproved areas. You simply cannot compare the 

CV–22 performance to conventional helicopters or airplanes because a tilt rotor is 

a different category of aircraft all together.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘I feel safer in the CV–22 than in any other aircraft I have 

flown over the last 22 years. Every type of aircraft that has been deployed to Afghanistan has experienced losses. These losses have less to do with the nature of 

any particular aircraft type and more to do with the nature of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an extremely challenging flight environment. My deployment to Afghanistan 

in the CV–22 last year was my sixth since 2001, and my fourth to Afghanistan. I 

felt safer flying the CV–22 in Afghanistan than I felt flying the MH–53M on previous deployments to the same Area of Responsibility. 

The CV–22 is as reliable as any other complex Special Operations aircraft. Special 

Operations Forces (SOF) aircraft are necessarily complicated and well equipped in 

order to be able to perform their precision tasking. These aircraft have robust communications and countermeasures equipment, precise navigation systems, and additional sensors to allow them to operate in poor weather. This additional equipment 

and the arduous duty these aircraft perform in the conduct of their assigned mission 

generally equate to a lower reliability rate than that of traditional, non-SOF aircraft.’’ 

2. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, Florida 

Crew position/Primary duty: CV–22 Evaluator Pilot/Commander 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 4 years 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘CV–22 performs unlike any other aircraft in our military inventory. The combination of speed and 

range with a vertical lift capability allows SOF to solve tactical problems in a revolutionary way. Additionally, this aircraft is the most stable platform in a hover or 

100 percent dust out than any other platform I have ever flown.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘While deployed in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, we 

were able to generate and launch three aircraft, fly more than 2,500 nautical miles 

in just over 12 hours. In less than 24 hours after landing, the unit and aircraft reset 

and assumed an alert posture. There were no safety concerns with flying the aircraft continuously for over 12 hours, nor was there any doubt the aircraft were 

ready for the mission the next day.’’ 

3. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, Florida 

Crew position/Primary duty: CV–22 Pilot/Operations Officer 
95 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 2.5 years/200 

hours 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘For an initial operational capability aircraft, the CV–22 has been very reliable and its effectiveness 

rates continuously improve. Performance as a tilt rotor is impressive; it has great 

speed with vertical landing capability. [The CV–22 provides] niche capability with 

a good safety record.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘Several missions in Afghanistan demonstrated the impressive 

speed and distance capabilities of the CV–22. The fact that the CV–22 can cross 

oceans and conduct helo insertion and extraction missions with a very reliable 

launch rate sets it apart from any other aircraft.’’ 

4. Location of assignment: 46 OG/OGV Eglin AFB—Attached to 8th Special Operations Squadron 

Crew position/Primary duty: CV–22B Flight Engineer/Evaluator 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 41⁄2 years/850 

flight hours 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘Performance of the 

aircraft is great! The speed and hover combinations bring a new capability to war 

fighter. I believe the current block of aircraft is very safe. Reliability, in my opinion, 

is on par with other aircraft of the same stage of development.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘Being able to take half the time to accomplish the same missions as helicopters, demonstrating the ability to be at 230 knots airspeed within 

seconds, converting the aircraft to Vertical Takeoff and Land mode, and performing 

two-hoist operations [are events that have shaped my opinion.]’’ 

5. Location of assignment: 8th Special Operations Squadron, Hurlburt Field, 

Florida 

Crew position/Primary duty: Pilot/Instructor Pilot 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 7 years (including 

MV–22 time) 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘I have been amazed 

in the rapid improvements to reliability over the last seven years. There are still 

a few components with questionable reliability (i.e., Engine Air Particle Separator). 

Safety and performance are both truly remarkable.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘I flew a CV–22 from Cape Verde non-stop to St. Thomas (2,500 

miles). Has any rotary-wing aircraft ever done that? This aircraft has already gone 

places and done things that no helicopter is capable of. The [aircraft’s] speed and 

range compresses time such that the teams we fly have more time available in one 

period of darkness than ever before.’’ 

6. Location of assignment: 8th Special Operations Squadron, Hurlburt Field, 

Florida 

Crew position/Primary duty: Evaluator Flight Engineer/Squadron Superintendent 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 7 years/1004 flight 

hours (including MV–22/CV–22) 2800 total hours 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘I have been a flight 

engineer for 15 years. I spent 8 years on the MH–53 Pave low performing the same 

mission the CV–22 does now. Is the aircraft perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. However, when executing Special Operations Forces (SOF) missions to 

insert, extract, and resupply SOF personnel, at night, in adverse weather, there is 

no other aircraft I would want to be on.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘There is no specific event that I can point to. It would be made 

up of my experiences over a seven year period on this aircraft. If you need to cover 

a great distance, over a short period of time there is no other aircraft in the world 

that could do it. I have seen the CV–22 do this mission over the course of seven 

years. I am convinced there is no better aircraft for the mission. When I look at 

where the aircraft was when I first flew on it in 2004, let alone when it first flew, 

I can only imagine how good it is going to get.’’ 

7. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, Florida 

Crew position/Primary duty: Evaluator Flight Engineer/HQ AFSOC Command 

Flight Engineer 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 5 years/1012 CV– 

22 hours 
96 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘In my opinion, the 

CV–22 is as safe as any other aircraft in the inventory. The performance is unlike 

any other aircraft I have flown on; if you are not watching out, it will throw you 

back in your seat on take-off. In combat, this aircraft knows when the business 

needs to be done. It will go and go until the team is safe back at the forward operating base (FOB).’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘One night in Iraq, we were gearing up to depart our main operating base (MOB) to pick up the team at their forward operating base (FOB). Helicopters departed the MOB approximately 30–45 minutes prior to us. The FOB was 

40 minutes away (at the speeds we fly), which means about 1.5 hours for the helicopters. We landed and had time to brief with the team. After we briefed, the helicopters landed, did not shutdown, picked up their team, and departed the FOB. We 

cranked up, loaded the team, and departed approximately 20 minutes after the helicopters. The CV–22 allows us to depart later and still give the team the most time 

on the objective, and still return in one period of darkness.’’ 

8. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, FL 

Crew position/Primary duty: Maintenance Officer in Charge 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 6 months 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘I won’t speak on the 

performance of the aircraft in operation, as that is outside of my specialty. However, 

from a maintenance safety standpoint, the aircraft is built around several redundant systems which all communicate with each other electronically on a timescale 

measured in fractions of a second. In the most general of terms, the aircraft will 

either default itself to the most safe condition, alert the crew to a possible area of 

concern, or both. 

From a reliability standpoint, the aircraft is still new and we are still gathering 

data. If the amount of lead time on receiving replacement components in the field 

is any indication, parts are failing before they were anticipated to fail during the 

design phase. 

It has been reported that the Air Force fleet of CV–22s is maintaining an extremely low (in the 50 percent range) Aircraft Availability rate. This is due to several factors: a relatively low experience base in the maintenance technician arena; 

a laundry list of inspections that require extensive downtime; and the low availability of spare parts. 

I believe that a number of these issues will be resolved in time; experience will 

grow as the fleet ages, the inspections will take less time as the maintainers gain 

experience, certain inspection requirements could be dropped if the data collection 

supports it, and there will be a larger pool of supplies as failure data is solidified 

and the production effort is geared towards sustainment rather than output after 

the fleet has been delivered to the service.’’ 

9. Location of assignment: Hurlburt Field, FL 

Crew position/Primary duty: Maintenance Officer in Charge 

Length of experience with CV–22 (years or flight hours): 14 months 

Opinion of CV–22 performance, reliability, and safety: ‘‘The CV–22 has the 

unique capability of speed, range, and vertical takeoff/landing that allows it to perform special operations missions unlike any other aircraft; however there are some 

maintenances issues that we encounter that puts some burden on maintainers. The 

majority of our work and issues in generating sorties is focused in several areas 

which include parts availability in supply, component reliability, engine performance, fault detection, experience, cleaning (in sandy environments), and inspections. 

While the CV–22 has several challenges to maintenance, it must be understood that 

the CV–22 is not only a new aircraft, but a new technology; being that it is the first 

mass produced production tiltrotor. With this it is difficult to accurately predict 

what components will fail and when because there isn’t that much historical data. 

In addition it is difficult to allocate spare parts if there isn’t historical data to justify 

failure rates. Our maintainers also need to gain experience on the aircraft because 

there frankly isn’t any out there to draw from, due to how new the aircraft is and 

the small Air Force fleet, which leads to a small pool of maintenance experience. 

On other aircraft like C–130s, which have been around for more than 50 years, people can spend an entire career on that airframe making them very knowledgeable 

and efficient at troubleshooting problems because they have truly seen and done it 

all. Additionally, the inspections can be laborious and are performed often; however, 

the requirements continue to decrease as more historical data is collected. 

The engine performance is mainly attributed to an inadequate intake filter system 

which is currently being improved. While deployed to Afghanistan we were changing 

engines with less than 50 flight hours on the aircraft due to the ingestion of sand. 
97 

When operating in austere sandy environments, the V–22 incurs additional maintenance related to cleaning filters, oil coolers, and engines which are generally not encountered in non-sandy environments. The dirty, sandy environment also created 

problems with detecting faults. Shorts in the wiring are produced when vibrations 

in combination with a sand paper like substance created from dirt, oil, and sand 

in hard to reach places of the nacelle result in wires chaffing. 

Overall, the reliability and performance of the CV–22 will increase over time as 

parts dependability, parts spares, historical data, and experience improves. Just in 

the short time our unit has been operating (less than four years) there has been 

great improvement overall in performance and reliability. In fact our unit produced 

a noticeably higher mission capability rate during our most recent Operation ENDURING FREEDOM tour compared to the previous Operation IRAQI FREEDOM 

tour. Despite the challenges, we as maintainers are dedicated to providing safe, 

serviceable, and properly configured aircraft every time. And we did just that during 

our Afghanistan tour, providing Special Operations a unique capability unlike any 

helicopter that brought and will continue to bring the fight to the enemy.’’ 

A specific event that shaped your opinion of the CV–22’s performance, reliability or safety: ‘‘Being deployed with the CV–22s in Afghanistan for four 

months was a strong contributing factor to my opinion on the aircraft.’’ 

Section 2: AFSOC vignettes 

VIGNETTE 1—MAJOR CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OEF/OIF) 

The CV–22 supports the QDR mandate and USAF strategic focus to ‘‘prevail in 

today’s wars’’ and ‘‘succeed in a wide range of contingencies.’’ In support of OEF and 

OIF, the CV–22 has conducted 120 assaults resulting in the capture of 363 detainees. Due to its incredible speed, the time required by a ground force to action an 

objective is practically cut in half. On many occasions, the speed of the aircraft compared to a traditional vertical-lift platform allowed ground forces to action multiple 

objectives during a single period of darkness. For instance, any objective in Iraq 

could be serviced from Balad with less than a 1.5 hour flight in a CV–22, versus 

3 hours using a legacy platform. 

The CV–22 provides unique, critical combat capability to our special operation 

forces (SOF), combining vertical take-off and landing ability with the speed of a 

fixed-wing turboprop aircraft, presenting unprecedented global mission agility and 

reach. 

VIGNETTE 2—LONG–RANGE RESCUE 

In June of 2010, a coalition helicopter conducting a Special Operation Forces 

exfiltration mission was disabled while departing a nighttime target in the Baghlan 

Valley (south of Konduz, Afghanistan). Multiple coalition attempts to retrieve the 

aircrew and ground team were unsuccessful due to limited visibility and mountainous terrain between Konduz and the target. CV–22 capabilities conquered these 

obstacles within two hours. After being notified, two CV–22s were launched from 

Kandahar and conducted a high-altitude, 450 mile flight to the target area recovering all personnel and returning them to Konduz. The CV–22s were able to perform this mission without needing to be refueled. Those recovered stated, ‘‘Thanks 

for picking us up when no one else could.’’ 

VIGNETTE 3—RAPID RESPONSE 

A recent successful national contingency mission used three CV–22s, which selfdeployed over 2,500 nautical miles. These CV–22s performed two air refuelings on 

their 13-hour non-stop flight to the objective area. During this operation, the CV– 

22 was used for combat search and rescue, personnel recovery, and quick reaction 

force support. The CV–22’s objective was 500 nautical miles from the staging base; 

this increased stand-off distance reduced the US signature in the target area helping to make the operation a success. The enemy never knew the Americans were 

on his door step. 

VIGNETTE 4—DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO MEET ‘‘FUTURE CHALLENGES’’ 

The CV–22 is optimal for use in areas without a large United States footprint and 

robust aviation support infrastructures. This was demonstrated through exercise 

and contingency operations conducted in SOUTHCOM (Honduras) and AFRICOM 

(Mali). The CV–22 has the ability to depart the Continental United States, conduct 

vertical-lift infiltration/exfiltration operations throughout Central America, and return to CONUS within a single period of darkness. Exercise FUSED RESPONSE 

demonstrated the CV–22’s capability of flying 1,100 nautical miles from Hurlburt 

Field, perform a vertical landing mission within the Dominican Republic, and re-
98 

turning within a single crew duty day. This is equal to flying missions from Dallas, 

Texas, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and back. 

‘‘The CV–22 is my weapon of choice.’’—75th Ranger Regiment Commander to 3- 

star Special Operation Forces Commander, June 2010. 

VIGNETTE 5—MAINTENANCE 

Overall, the reliability and performance of the CV–22 meets requirements and is 

expected to increase over time as parts dependability, parts spares, historical data, 

and experience improves. Just in the short time our unit has been operating (less 

than four years) there has been great overall improvement in performance and reliability. In fact, our unit produced a noticeably higher mission capability rate during 

our most recent Operation ENDURING FREEDOM tour compared to the previous 

Operation IRAQI FREEDOM tour. Despite the challenges, we as maintainers are 

dedicated to providing safe, serviceable, and properly configured aircraft every time. 

And we did just that during our Afghanistan tour, providing special operations a 

unique capability unlike any helicopter that brought, and will continue to bring, the 

fight to the enemy. [See page 17.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force uses an iterative, continually informed process 

for fielding weapon systems intended to optimize mission sets and requirements of 

the Total Force to meet Combatant Commander requirements. The Air Force is committed to fielding the F–35A Lightning II aircraft in the Reserve Component with 

the first increment of operational basing, and fully supports further Reserve Component fielding in the future. The Air Force believes the combination of a collaborative 

and fully operational Total Force Enterprise process, an open and transparent Strategic Basing process, and effective linkages with the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process will provide avenues to balance the Active Component 

and Reserve Component workload while prioritizing Combatant Commander requirements. The Air Force is dedicated to using these processes, with full Reserve 

Component participation, to refine concepts of balanced fielding and to ensure fielding of the F–35A in the most effective and efficient manner. Colorado’s bases are 

a valuable asset to the Air Force and will be considered as part of the enterprisewide look in each of these basing actions. [See page 27.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN 

General SCHWARTZ. The MALD–J Increment II is scheduled to enter technology 

development in FY12, production in FY15, and begin fielding in FY16. [See page 

31.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Secretary DONLEY. There is no way to calculate the impact of the procurement 

processes, oversight requirements associated with Environmental Protection Agency 

and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or the impact of the political process on Air Force operational capabilities. The Air Force is actively implementing efficiency initiatives to minimize the amount spent on overhead functions 

such as these, while maximizing resources available for operational requirements. 

[See page 29.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH ON BEHALF OF 

MS. GIFFORDS 

General SCHWARTZ. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 President’s Budget directs the consolidation of two Continental United States Air and Space Operations Centers 

(AOC) into one. The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) and the Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force (CSAF) directed the use of the Strategic Basing process to determine 

the consolidated location. The SecAF and CSAF determination of the preferred alternative location should be made in late spring or early summer 2011. To mitigate 

risk and ensure continuity, the consolidation will be a phased approach through the 

fourth quarter of FY12. Finally, we do not foresee any operational impact on Air 

Forces Southern Command’s capabilities based on lessons learned from recent operations. The AOC at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar has successfully coordinated air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while AOC operations in support of Haiti relief have 
99 

also demonstrated the ability to handle multiple contingencies in different areas of 

responsibility from a single facility. [See page 12.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GRIFFIN 

General SCHWARTZ. The C–130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) program 

requires either an appropriations bill to legally issue FY11 Aircraft Procurement Air 

Force (APAF) funds, or an exception clause in a Continuing Resolution authorizing 

the C–130 AMP program to expend APAF funds. [See page 36.] 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force Cost Analysis Agency (AFCAA) summarized 

the projected Operations and Support (O&S) savings in support of the C–130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) Milestone C decision in June 2010. The AFCAA 

analysis projected the total O&S cost savings for C–130 AMP, relative to the legacy 

fleet, at $163.8 million. [See page 37.] 

General SCHWARTZ. The C–130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) modernization does not directly add any years of combat service to the C–130 Fleet. C– 

130 AMP is primarily focused on capability enhancements to enable C–130 aircraft 

to operate well into the future in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and international airspace mandates. AMP will allow the modified C–130 

Combat Delivery aircraft unlimited access to United States airspace past January 

1, 2020, when the Federal Aviation Administration’s NextGen airspace access mandates take effect in United States airspace. Similar international airspace mandates 

are anticipated. [See page 37.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

(103) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON 

Mr. MCKEON. During the previous Next Generation Bomber program cancelled 

just two years ago by Secretary Gates, the program was described by Air Force acquisition officials as having the attributes of: long-range, penetrating, optionallymanned, nuclear capable and survivable. Further, the program was founded and 

grounded in the integration of existing technologies and not invention of new technologies. Ironically, Air Force officials have been using the same terms to describe 

the new Next Generation Bomber program in this year’s budget. What’s going to 

be different about this platform, compared to the last planned platform, so that it 

doesn’t meet the same cancellation fate as before? Have any requirements or capabilities changed? 

General SCHWARTZ. A thorough Department of Defense review of future options 

for Long-Range Strike provided the opportunity to refocus Air Force requirements 

and technology and better reflect the bomber’s role in a balanced portfolio of long 

range strike capabilities. The new penetrating bomber program emphasizes affordability. This program will leverage mature technologies, utilize a streamlined acquisition process, and constrain requirements by making informed capability tradeoffs. 

Additional details with regard to the new program are protected with enhanced security measures and will be addressed in the proper channels. I would be happy to 

have my staff provide a follow-up classified briefing to you. 

Mr. MCKEON. The Air Force has a request to retire 6 B–1 bomber aircraft in fiscal 

year 2012. Given that the Air Force only has 96 combat-coded aircraft, of which only 

20 are low-observable (the B–2), isn’t it premature to retire any bomber aircraft before the new Next Generation Bomber aircraft is fielded? How did you determine, 

and what analysis supports, the Air Force decision in determining that 6 B–1 aircraft are excess to warfighting requirements? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force carefully considered current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining 

the risk associated with a B–1 fleet reduction. 

The results of high-fidelity modeling and simulation analysis conducted by Air 

Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of six B–1 primary aircraft authorizations still meets currently approved Office of the Secretary of Defense Analytic 

Agenda scenarios. 

The Air Force conducted comparative analysis between the B–1, B–2, and B–52 

fleets’ current and historical mission capable rates, as well as model driven variable 

cost per flying hour data using the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency’s 2010 Air Force 

Cost and Performance tables, in order to support measured force structure adjustments. However, the B–1 in particular faces several grounding concerns due to a 

thin industrial base and avionics sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air 

Force feels a reduction of six B–1s is a prudent course of action to address these 

critical issues thereby increasing the pool of equipment spares and freeing funds to 

source critical sustainment and capability modifications. The Air Force expects to 

achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements, while bridging the gap to the future long range penetrating bomber. 

Mr. MCKEON. Do you plan to decrease the number of combat-coded B–1 aircraft, 

currently at 36 aircraft, if Congress allows you to retire the 6 B–1 aircraft in the 

Air Force request? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of current 

bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining the risk associated with a B–1 fleet reduction. The FY12 

President’s Budget requests retirement of six B–1 aircraft in order to improve the 

B–1B program inventory. All options regarding end state force structure composition 

are under consideration, but reducing Primary Aircraft Inventory assets produces 

the greatest impact on the readiness of the remaining fleet. 

Mr. MCKEON. The Air Force currently maintains 96 combat-coded aircraft, however, according to recent Air Combat Command statistics on average among the 

bomber fleet, only 44 percent of combat-coded aircraft are available at any given moment. This equates to approximately 42 aircraft available, out of 96 combat-coded. 

Is it prudent to consider any bomber aircraft retirements at this time? 
104 

General SCHWARTZ. Recent aircraft availability statistics and near-term estimates 

indicate a declining trend in aircraft availability and support the Air Force’s decision to commence a modest reduction in bomber force structure. The B–1 in particular faces several grounding concerns due to a thin industrial base and avionics 

sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air Force feels a reduction of six B– 

1s is a prudent course of action to address these critical issues thereby increasing 

the pool of equipment spares and freeing funds to source critical sustainment and 

capability modifications. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft 

availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements, while bridging the gap 

to the future long range penetrating bomber. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ‘‘A one-time cost of $14 million 

for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter (Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).’’ Has NASA selected the National Museum 

of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio as the site for one of the retiring 

space orbiters? 

Secretary DONLEY. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

did not select the National Museum of the United States Air Force (NMUSAF) as 

a site for one of the retired space orbiters. However, NASA did select NMUSAF to 

receive the crew training module and a shuttle engine as well as other smaller artifacts. The NMUSAF is pressing on to develop, design and implement an exhibit and 

Science, Technology, Education and Math (STEM)—related activities on the USAF/ 

NASA partnership. 

Mr. SMITH. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ‘‘A one-time cost of $14 million 

for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter (Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).’’ Has the Museum entered into any preliminary discussions or agreements with NASA on this subject? 

Secretary DONLEY. No, the National Museum of the United States Air Force did 

not enter into any preliminary discussions or agreements with National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration on this subject. 

Mr. SMITH. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ‘‘A one-time cost of $14 million 

for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter (Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).’’ If not, is it premature for the Air Force 

to be allocating funds for this activity? 

Secretary DONLEY. Due to the Department of Defense budget process, any substantial known requirement for FY2012 must be included in the President’s Budget 

to prevent an unplanned execution year bill. The National Aeronautics and Space 

Agency (NASA) is scheduled to retire shuttles in FY2011 and deliver them and 

other equipment to the recipients by the end of FY2012. The cost of preparing, 

transporting and accepting the crew training module, shuttle engine and other 

smaller artifacts and the subsequent development and implementation of an exhibit 

and Science, Technology, Education and Math (STEM) activities could be as much 

as $1 million. Since the announcement is recent, the Air Force is just now entering 

into discussions with NASA as to the process and projected costs of transferring the 

items. 

Mr. SMITH. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ‘‘A one-time cost of $14 million 

for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter (Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).’’ The budget states that the Air Force has 

‘requested an interagency transfer of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the National Museum of the United States Air Force.’ Was this a formal request and when was it 

placed? Can you define what is meant by an interagency transfer? What, if any, is 

the significance of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the Air Force? 

Secretary DONLEY. An ‘‘interagency transfer’’ is a common phrase used to describe 

how a United States Government agency or department may obtain excess property 

directly from other Federal agencies. The process is regulated by the Federal Management Regulation (FMR), Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 

102–36.145. The National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) has designated the 

National Museum of the United States Air Force to receive the crew training module and other items. These will be transferred through interagency agreement for 

development and implementation of an exhibit and Science, Technology, Education 

and Math (STEM) activities related to the USAF/NASA partnership. 

Mr. SMITH. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ‘‘A one-time cost of $14 million 

for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter (Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).’’ What does the $14 million cost in the 
105 

budget represent? NASA documents reveal the costs to prepare and deliver a shuttle 

to be much higher. Has NASA provided the Air Force with a separate cost estimate? 

Secretary DONLEY. Since no orbiter was designated for the National Museum of 

the United States Air Force, costs of transfer have reduced significantly. Although 

the National Aeronautics and Space Agency has not provided the Air Force a separate or detailed cost breakdown, the Air Force will require approximately $1 million 

to prepare, transfer and accept the crew training module, shuttle engine and smaller items and develop exhibits and education activities. Display of these artifacts will 

commence immediately upon receipt to further educate the American and international public of our nation’s great achievements in space. With the concurrence 

of the Congress the remaining $13 million will be reprogrammed for critical Operation and Maintenance needs. 

Mr. SMITH. Excerpt from USAF budget request: ‘‘A one-time cost of $14 million 

for National Aeronautics and Space Agency Orbiter (Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Operations, Service-wide Activities).’’ I understand that there are a number of 

non-government museums across the country that are qualified to display a NASA 

shuttle and are hoping to secure one. How does the Air Force answer the charge 

that including Federal funds in the FY 2012 budget for this purpose gives the National Air Force Museum an unfair advantage in the NASA selection process? 

Secretary DONLEY. As a Federal Entity, the National Museum of the United 

States Air Force (NMUSAF) depends on the budget process. It is precluded by law 

and regulation from soliciting private funds: therefore, it must seek the support of 

Congress. This is not an unfair advantage. Rather, the NMUSAF is following the 

normal budget processes available to it in order to meet its mission requirement for 

preserving, maintaining and making available to the widest public audience possible 

portions of our nation’s heritage. A Space Shuttle Orbiter is an important part of 

the Air Force’s history and heritage and as such, it is appropriate for the Secretary 

of the Air Force to request a Space Shuttle for display and to seek budget support. 

Since the time of this hearing, NASA announced the locations designated to receive 

an orbiter. The NMUSAF was not selected. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES 

Mr. FORBES. The Air Force has identified specialties within active component career fields that are experiencing significant stress and maintains what it calls the 

stressed career field list. For a specialty to be considered stressed, it must meet two 

of the following conditions: high personnel deployment rates, career field manning 

shortages, or low personnel inventory and retention. As of October 31, 2010, over 

63,000 individuals, or around 19 percent of Air Force active component personnel, 

were in a stressed specialty. Many specialties have remained on the list for several 

years, including Security Forces, Contracting, and multiple Civil Engineering specialties.’’ What steps is the Air Force taking to mitigate the strain on the career specialties on the stressed career field list in general and on the specialties that have 

perennially appeared on the list in particular? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. A career field is designated as stressed 

if it is critical in at least two of three measures: 1) Operational Demand which expresses the effort required of an Air Force Specialty (AFS) to meet contingency demands with both active and reserve component Airmen; 2) Work Tempo which 

measures home station and deployed requirements versus funded authorizations 

and inventory; and 3) Career Field Health which measures manning, career field 

shape, Personnel Tempo, and retention. The Air Force uses a variety of tools to address stress depending on the specific problems leading to a stress designation. As 

of 28 Feb 11, there are 16 stressed enlisted Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) and 

6 stressed officer AFSCs which totaled just under 55,000 Airmen, 17.9 percent of 

the active Air Force population. All but one of these 22 AFSCs are in high operational demand. Since authorizations are funded based on a stable peacetime mission, not the surge of two simultaneous combat operations, and the Air Force grows 

and maintains the active component inventory to meet authorizations, we do not expect these AFSCs to come off the stressed list until the contingency demand decreases. Until then, demand will exceed supply for some AFSCs, and at least one 

of the three measures will remain critical. 

When manning and retention add to stress, the Air Force works solutions across 

the career continuum to correct it. We have increased accessions to reasonable levels 

to build a healthy future force without creating a bulge in the inventory in yearsof-service groups. We have implemented opportunities for voluntary and involuntary 

retraining, which is a long-standing formalized annual process for enlisted but a 

new formal process for officers. Enlisted first termers can retrain through the CA-
106 

REERS program and mid grade Airmen through the Noncommissioned Officer Retraining Program. The Air Force recently selected 73 officers to crossflow into undermanned non-rated line officer AFSCs. The Air Force also offers bonuses to encourage longer enlistments and improve retention and manning in officer AFSCs 

through the Critical Skills for Retention Bonus (CSRB) program and for enlisted 

Airmen through the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program. When necessary, 

the Air Force will limit developmental opportunities/assignments for officers to utilize them more fully in core AFSC requirements. For enlisted AFSCs, the Chronic 

Critical Skills for Promotion program provides extra promotions for shortage skills 

and grades. 

Bottom line, the Air Force continues to closely monitor and manage all stressed 

specialties, and we will take appropriate force management actions to improve retention and manning. We will continue using SRBs and CSRBs to manage retention 

and address shortfalls in critical skills. 

Mr. FORBES. Each Air Force unit is designed to perform a specific mission requiring a particular skill set. However, Air Force personnel may be assigned to support 

current operations by deploying to perform a related mission that does not necessarily require their full skill set. When individuals are engaged in operations that 

require only a subset of their full skill set, their competence in some other skills 

may erode because the individual is unable to complete the full extent of their training requirements to remain qualified in their core mission.’’ To what extent has the 

Air Force identified unit types or career specialties, in which assigned personnel are 

not receiving comprehensive training for their core missions and what steps, if any, 

have been taken to mitigate any identified gaps in training? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has approved specialized procedures for maintaining specialty skills to include comprehensive training 

management processes. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36–2201, Air Force Training 

Program, requires supervisors to review the training records of enlisted Airmen 

prior to their deployment to ensure the training continuum is not broken. In turn, 

the supervisors document any remaining upgrade training requirements and training remarks as appropriate on the On-the-Job Record Continuation Sheet, or automated version. If airmen are out of their career specialties long enough to diminish 

the proficiency in their particular specialty skills set, Airmen will increase their proficiency in lost competencies through Air Force Force Development programs that 

include any combination of education, training, and experience (i.e., Career Development Courses (CDC), OJT, and/or specific placement in development positions). 

Additionally, the Air Force trains rated personnel in accordance with (IAW) 11- 

series Mission Design Series (MDS)-Specific Volume 1 AFIs, which identify events 

to be accomplished for aircrew personnel to maintain mission qualification and currency. Depending on real-world mission requirements, some skill sets may experience a loss in training, in order to accommodate immediate mission requirements, 

which reinforce other skill sets. When personnel return to their unit, individuals receive the necessary training to regain proficiency in unit mission tasks and accomplish training events as necessary to comply with Volume 1 requirements. This is 

a recognized issue associated with the Air Expeditionary Forces (AEF) cycle, and is 

provided for in the cycle dynamic. The Air Force is standardizing deployment 

lengths to 179 days, increasing dwell, to afford more time for reset and training opportunities. The Air Force restructured the AEF to include TEMPO banding for high 

stressed capabilities in response to the long term surge. 

Mr. FORBES. In a 2007 memorandum and subsequent implementing guidance to 

the services, the Secretary of Defense established deployment rotation goals that 

generally call for reserve component personnel to be involuntarily mobilized for no 

more than 1 year and then demobilized for 5 years, and for active component personnel to be deployed for 1 year and then at home station for 2 years.’’ What percentage of Air Force personnel are currently deploying within these rotational goals 

and what steps is the Air Force taking with the aim that all personnel meet these 

goals in the future, particularly personnel who provide critical capabilities in support of current operations and have traditionally deployed at rates that exceed the 

Secretary’s deployment goals? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. There are ∼178K personnel in the Reserve Component (RC) with 3,420 currently mobilized under Title 10, United States 

Code, section 12302, which is considered an involuntary action. Of those, 2,843 or 

83 percent are meeting or exceeding the Secretary of Defense’s established mobilization to demobilization ratio minimums of 1:5 for the RC. However, a significant portion of the remaining 17 percent volunteered to be mobilized. Therefore, in practice, 

we are actually closer to Secretary of Defense’s goal than the statistics indicate. 

There are ∼332K personnel in the Active Component (AC) with 29,325 currently 

deployed on contingency operations. Of those, 27,350 or 93 percent are meeting or 
107 

beating the Secretary of Defense’s established deploy to dwell ratio minimums of 1:2 

for the AC. 

The Air Force strives to provide all Airmen, to include those in critical capabilities 

that traditionally deploy at rates exceeding the Secretary’s deployment limits, as 

much time at home as possible after a deployment or a mobilization. In fact, the 

Air Force Generation Construct maximizes dwell and provides greater deployment 

predictability for all Airmen. The Air Force also uses the civilian workforce and Air 

Reserve Component volunteers to increase dwell for Active Component members 

and involuntarily mobilized Active Reserve Component personnel. The Air Force’s 

Force Engagement Strategy sizes and shapes the force with the appropriate balance 

of skills to meet the needs of the current and future fight. 

Mr. FORBES. The Air Force is in the process of enhancing its fighter aircraft capability by replacing fourth-generation fighters such as F–15s and F–16s with fifthgeneration fighters such as the F–22 and F–35. The Air Force has stated a strike 

fighter operational requirement of 2,000 aircraft, and, under current procurement 

and retirement plans, the Air Force does not project a strike fighter shortfall. However, delays in deliveries of the F–35A aircraft will affect the Air Force fighter aircraft inventory. To what extent do Air Force aircraft retirement plans and life extension and modernization plans for the F–15, F–16, and A–10 aircraft factor in potential delays in the deliveries of the F–22 and F–35? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. A 2010 comprehensive review of the 

current and projected force structure revealed a shortfall of approximately 3–5 percent of the total aircraft (60–100) through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). 

The last two production F–22s are on schedule for delivery in March 2012. F–35 

program status remains the key variable in the fighter force structure forecast as 

the Air Force transitions to a 5th generation force. F–35 delays are manageable 

across the FYDP, but have long term impacts that require mitigation. These impacts will be mitigated through aggressive management of F–35 production, legacy 

fleet review and sustainment, along with selected service life extension program 

(SLEP) and modernization program. In the FY2012 (FY12) President’s Budget (PB), 

Air Force continues to sustain Block 25—32 F–16s via structural sustainment funded through the fleet management program utilizing existing Operation & Maintenance funding. The FY12 PB also adds $15M to begin Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation for structural modification and avionics modernization as part 

of selected Block 40/50 F–16 SLEPs. 

Mr. FORBES. According to the FY12 budget submission, the Air Force has identified 33.3 billion dollars in savings from efficiencies that will be reinvested into its 

budget, including improving depot and supply chain business processes (3 billion) 

and reorganizations (4.2 billion) such as consolidating staff (4 operations and 3 numbered) and streamlining installation support. What are the specific actions that will 

be taken to realize the savings from improving processes and reorganizations. How 

does the Air Force intend to track the realization of these savings? How will realizing the total amount of $33.3 billion improve Air Force readiness, i.e. what tangible evidence will the Air Force be able to show that gaining greater efficiencies 

has benefited its readiness posture? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. We have developed a series of Priority 

areas with supporting Objectives which include specific tasks and actions to realize 

our efficiencies. The following are some of the major objectives for improving organizational and business process: 

• Consolidating three Numbered Air Forces with co-located Major Command staff 

and consolidating the activities of four Air and Space Operations Centers into 

two, thereby achieving a redistribution of 347 military authorizations (228 in 

FY12 and 119 in FY13) across the Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) and eliminating 212 civilian authorizations beginning in FY13 which will save $100.1 

million across the FYDP 

• Consolidating installation support management to improve Air Force-wide 

standardization and prioritization 

• Reallocating 5,600 active duty billets over the FYDP from lower priority support 

functions to higher priority, growth areas 

• Saving more than $3 billion from anticipated growth in Weapon System 

Sustainment (WSS) portfolio efficiencies across the FYDP by reviewing operational requirements, depot processes and the sustainment of the supply chain 

without degrading operational capabilities or support to the warfighter 

• Reducing fuel consumption within the Mobility Air Forces by leveraging proven 

commercial aviation practices for flight planning and weight reduction, and implementing other initiatives to save $715 million (net) across the FYDP 
108 

• Reducing acquisition costs by consolidating services, scrutinizing contracts, reducing contract support, and more efficiently using resources to deliver capabilities and support to the warfighter 

• Reducing information technology costs by more than $1.2 billion over the FYDP 

by adopting Department of Defense (DoD)-level Enterprise Information Services 

including enterprise core services, consolidating and standardizing the network 

information technology infrastructure from nine Air Force and Air National 

Guard Regional Processing Centers to five centrally controlled centers, and migrating current and developmental applications, services and data to DoD-provided enterprise computing centers 

• Improving our procurement of satellites with a new acquisition strategy which, 

subject to Congressional approval, will lower procurement costs and stabilize 

the defense industrial base. 

Across our Efficiency efforts we assigned Senior Leaders (by name) as the respon- sible owners and champions to achieve their assigned portion of $33.3 billion in Efficiency savings. They work across our major commands and functional organizations 

to develop and manage Efficiency Plans. Their plans address the Efficiency objective, specific steps to achieve that objective with associated completion dates, and 

forecasted results. The plans include financial performance, manpower savings, and 

mission area performance projections. 

Corporately, we are reviewing progress on a Monthly basis in the Air Force Board 

(attended by Flag Officer/Senior Executives from across Headquarters Air Force and 

the major commands) which then informs a Quarterly Air Force Performance Review in the Air Force Council (chaired by the Under Secretary and Vice Chief of 

Staff). These reviews will monitor plans and progress and ensure that Efficiency 

outcomes are in fact delivered and do not inadvertently impact readiness, mission 

performance, or quality of Life for Airmen. As fact of life issues surface during the 

year of execution, deviations from approved plans will be thoroughly assessed by 

senior leadership. To alleviate fact of life impacts and to continue to foster a culture 

of stewardship, we know we will need to fill gaps and shortfalls in existing plans 

with modified or new Efficiency initiatives. Our process for management of Efficiencies and corporate oversight has considered that some initiatives will be more 

successful than others and that we must have the ability to fill gaps when they 

arise. This is to ensure we do not create future bills and preserve investments in 

mission and readiness. 

Within the dynamics of today’s resource constrained environment, the chance to 

redirect Efficiencies to other higher priority Air Force operations and investments 

is a strategic opportunity that can enhance readiness and warfighting capability. 

The Secretary of Defense’s Efficiency challenge has allowed us to re-invest our efficiencies. The following mission funding enhancements are included in our budget 

submission: 

• Investing in the Long-Range Strike Family of Systems, including a new penetrating bomber as a key component of the Joint portfolio 

• Investing an additional $3.5 billion to fund the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) program to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Independent Cost Assessment, with the Department of Defense (DoD) committed to 

buying five boosters per year to meet national space launch requirements and 

stabilize the industrial base 

• Repurposing 5,600 active duty billets over the FYDP to support Intelligence, 

Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability, U.S. Pacific Command force structure requirements, Total Force Integration, the U–2 continuation, building partnership capacity, increasing support to the Air Force District of Washington 

UH–1N mission, among other increases 

• Procuring an additional 16 simulators for F–35 aircrew training bringing the 

total procurement to 30 simulators to ensure an effective training pipeline 

throughput and operational unit pilot proficiency and cost control 

• Recapitalizing the aging special operations forces MC–130H/W aircraft 

• Improving the aircraft computer infrastructure of the B–52 to enable more 

rapid machine-to-machine retargeting 

• Enhancing combat capability of the F–15C and F–15E with additional Active 

Electronic Scanned Array radars and electronic protection software upgrades 

• Continuing to fund the development of next-generation Global Positioning System (GPS) III Operational Control Segment 

• Researching and developing electronic protection and suppression of enemy air 

defense (SEAD) capabilities for the F–22 
109 

• Transitioning MC–12W Liberty Project from Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) funding into the Air Force baseline budget beginning in FY13 

• Continuing maximized production of the MQ–9 Reaper to ensure delivery of 65 

Combat Air Patrols by the end of FY13 

• Extending U–2 operations through FY15 to ensure a smooth high-altitude transition 

• Baselining the Air Sovereignty Alert program across the FYDP to solidify support to homeland security operations. 

Mission support enhancements that were enabled include $7.0B into Weapon System Sustainment to support readiness and $327.0M in military construction 

(MILCON) enhancements to meet critical Combatant Commander requirements, 

bed-down new mission weapons systems and improve the quality of life for our Airmen through the construction of six additional Airmen dorm projects. 

Other tangible evidence that Efficiencies have benefited readiness will be accomplished through our continual review of readiness indicators throughout the year as 

well as our annual reassessment of capability gaps and annual future year programming reviews. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. The Air Force has been a leader in developing their Computer Network Operations capabilities. However, I have some serious questions about how 

progress has been made in developing the personnel and acquisitions side of your 

cyber policy. The fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization required the development of a new acquisition process for IT systems that focused on the rapid deployment of emerging technologies. The same bill also required of the entire Department a study on the recruitment, retention, and career progression of uniformed 

and civilian military cyber operations personnel. What is the Air Force specifically 

doing to make its IT acquisitions more nimble and encourage airmen with critical 

cyber skill to stay in uniform? 

Secretary DONLEY. There are several actions the Air Force is taking to accelerate 

Information Technology (IT) acquisition. In concert with Section 804 of Department 

of Defense (DoD) Acquisition Reform efforts, the Air Force is developing processes 

and models to streamline and speed IT acquisition through a ‘‘services’’ development 

and delivery process. This ‘‘Services-based’’ model will allow the Air Force, and ultimately the entire DoD, to quickly develop services and applications. To attain this 

vision, we will first build a common platform or infrastructure as part of Secretary 

of Defense’s efficiency initiatives. From this common platform we will be able to 

quickly develop, test, and field new IT services and applications. The first step to 

achieve this objective occurred when the Air Force Chief Information Officer (CIO), 

in consultation with the Air Force Chief Management Officer (CMO) and Service Acquisition Executive (SAE), released a directive which will ensure all future IT developments are done in accordance with web-based standards and protocols. The Air 

Force is also restructuring IT programs, when feasible, to deliver rapidly executed 

increments/releases of capability. The goal is to release capability improvements 

every 18 months. The Air Force program, Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System, is a pilot program for developing this new model. Taken together, 

these are some of the prerequisite steps which will enable the Air Force to make 

IT acquisitions more cost effective and schedule efficient. 

The Air Force manning for Cyberspace Operations and Support personnel in the 

17D, 3D, and 1B4 Air Force Specialty Codes are currently within sustainment levels. Overall retention is good for the Air Force, and this holds true for the majority 

of our Cyberspace career fields. We do provide reenlistment bonuses to four Cyber 

Support specialties (1B4X1, Cyberspace Defense Operations; 3D0X2, Cyber Systems 

Operations; 3D0X3, Cyber Surety, and 3D1X5, Radar) whose historical reenlistment 

rates are below desired levels. All others (military and civilian) do not require any 

retention incentives. Additionally, the Air Education and Training Command and 

24th Air Force continue to train and produce critical cyberspace operators to meet 

operational needs. However, as operational requirements emerge (United States 

Cyberspace Command, etc), the Air Force will continue to evaluate the need for special incentive programs to ensure the Cyberspace force continues to meet 

sustainment levels and operational needs. 
110 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. The Air Force has exceeded its authorized end strength for the past 

several years. We are told the Air Force will meet its authorization by the end of 

FY12. What makes this year different than the past and how will you be successful 

in achieving your desired end strength? What assistance from the Congress will you 

need to facilitate your efforts to stay within the end strength limits? 

General SCHWARTZ. We are committed to reaching our authorized end-strength by 

the end of FY12 and we are implementing several force management actions to 

meet end strength requirements. Force management is a multi-year effort and we 

are taking aggressive measures for both officers and enlisted to meet requirements. 

We are using existing authorities to the maximum extent; however, renewed and 

expanded measures would enable us to be even more effective in shaping our force. 

Thank you for the FY11 National Defense Authorization Act renewed authority to 

allow officers with 20 or more years of total service to retire with eight versus ten 

years of commissioned service. We implemented this authority in our current Force 

Management strategy to help manage our end strength for FY11 and may continue 

it, if our request for another extension is granted beyond September 2013. In addition we are utilizing several voluntary and involuntary measures. 

In coordination with our sister Services, we are working with the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) to request additional legislative authorities. As you may 

be aware, our authorities to shape our mid-grade officers by offering voluntary separation pay and conducting an involuntary reduction in force board expires in December 2012. We have successfully implemented this legislation in the past, and request 

an extension of these authorities. To manage officers with more than 15, but less 

than 20 years of service, we are requesting a Temporary Early Retirement Authority. Additionally, to incentivize officers to retire in skills excess to Air Force requirements, we are requesting authority for a voluntary retirement incentive pay. We 

currently have the authority to selectively retire lieutenant colonels and colonels 

early; however the existing authority is limited. Renewing the enhanced selective 

early retirement authority will allow the Air Force to more precisely manage our 

lieutenant colonels and colonels. We also request flexibility to adjust the maximum 

years of active commissioned service for lieutenant colonels and colonels. Lastly, we 

are requesting an extension to the Career Flexibility to Enhance Retention program 

beyond December 2012, to authorize service members to assume inactive status 

from active duty in order to meet personal or professional needs, and then return 

to active duty at the end of such period of inactivation. 

We are working all of these items through OSD. Each of these legislative authorities will provide all of the Services with additional tools to size and shape the armed 

forces, to best meet current and future mission requirements. 

Mr. WILSON. I appreciate that the Air Force retention-oriented culture will have 

great difficulty with the involuntary officer separation/retirement actions being introduced. How will the Air Force prepare the officer corps for these actions and 

avoid the morale problem that might cause retention problems when the job market 

improves? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force must balance the desire of Airmen wanting to 

serve with the need to operate within our Congressionally authorized end strength 

ceiling. In doing so, the Air Force is concerned about doing the right thing for our 

Air Force, our Airmen and their families. Air Force leaders at all levels are communicating with Airmen in clear candid terms to minimize uncertainty and maximize 

employment options. Airmen eligible for involuntary separation, discharge or retirement programs have opportunities to separate from the active duty force voluntarily 

in lieu of the involuntary force management actions. The Air Force has many programs to help Airmen transition from active duty and those who leave the active 

duty force are encouraged to consider opportunities along the continuum of service 

in the Air Force Reserves and Air National Guard. The Air Force Reserves and Air 

National Guard are working closely with the active duty force to fill shortage skill 

areas with Airmen transitioning from active duty. Transition programs are also in 

place to facilitate opportunities available to Airmen in our Sister Services. Many 

Airmen are also uniquely qualified for federal service. Airman and Family Readiness Centers offer transition assistance planning and veterans benefit seminars. 

Transitioning Airmen are encouraged to capitalize on opportunities available with 

the Post 9/11 GI Bill to further their educational goals. 

Mr. WILSON. Given that in FY11 the Air Force will use both voluntary and involuntary measures to reduce end-strength, why does it make sense for the Air Force 

in FY12 to add 600 people to its active duty end-strength? 

General SCHWARTZ. In the FY10 President’s Budget (PB), the Air Force programmed active duty end strength at 331.7K in FY10, increasing to 332.2K by FY11 
111 

and 332.8K in FY12–15. The growth of 600 between the FY11 and FY12 PBs are 

in support of the Defense Health Program (DHP), specifically due to FY08 National 

Defense Authorization Act reversal of planned military to civilian conversions for 

DHP. The growth has been in the Air Force’s program since the FY10 PB. 

Mr. WILSON. The Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a letter conveying their 

‘‘strong support for the military health care program changes that are included in 

the President’s proposed fiscal year 2012 budget.’’ Please explain in your own words 

why you support the proposed changes. These changes will go beyond the beneficiaries and will impact the people who support the Department of Defense health 

system. Are you concerned about the implications these changes will have on hospital employees, pharmacists, vendors, just to name a few? In your opinion, will 

these effects harm the quality and access to care for our servicemembers, military 

retirees, and their families. For example, there are hospitals located very close to 

Holloman Air Force Base, Malmstrom Air Force Base, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, 

and Grand Forks Air Force Base that will be significantly affected by the plan to 

reduce the rate that TRIACRE pays them to care for our beneficiaries. Does that 

concern you? 

General SCHWARTZ. We will continue to provide the finest health care benefit in 

the country to our active and retired military service members and their families. 

In an effort to slow the growth in health care costs, the Department of Defense 

(DoD) is proposing TRICARE adopt Medicare rates at 420 Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs). In the early 2000’s, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services 

changed medical inpatient reimbursement rates for 420 SCHs throughout the 

United States; DoD did not implement this change for TRICARE network hospitals. 

As such, TRICARE currently pays 29 percent above the Medicare rates. The proposal will match Medicare reimbursement. 

The SCH reimbursement change will not affect active duty (AD) military members and their families’ access to health care. While SCH will receive lower rates, 

there will be no additional out of pocket costs for the AD families. This change also 

does not impact professional fee reimbursement only hospital charges. 

As for the impact of health care providers, we have a long history of partnership 

with the SCHs and have helped them expand services that are now available without a TRICARE payment above Medicare rates. 

However, per the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and 

TRICARE Management Authority, about 5 percent (20) of the 420 SCHs could be 

significantly affected by the proposed change. This is because these SCHs receive 

more than 5 percent of their revenue from TRICARE. Eight of these 20 are near 

and support Air Force Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs). To reduce the affects 

of this proposed change on these 20 SCHs, a phased approach to the reimbursement 

rates over a four year period will be used and we will closely monitor the impact 

on availability of network care. Further, the Department is working a payment adjustment above the Medicare rate for SCHs with greater than five percent of overall 

income from TRICARE, where network care may be adversely affected. To this end, 

we are watching Whiteman, Holloman, Minot, and Altus communities very closely. 

The Air Force values our partnership with the community medical facilities that 

care for our Air Force beneficiaries and supports the efforts to minimize the impact 

of this proposal. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. Secretary Donley, to what extent is the Air Force working with 

the Guam Oversight Council and the Department of the Navy to utilize some of Andersen Air Force Base for Marine basing requirements? What type of challenges or 

impacts should the Committee be aware of if some Marines are in the main cantonment area and some are on Andersen? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is working closely with the Guam Oversight 

Council, chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Department of the 

Navy to best utilize the existing Department of Defense lands on Guam. In February 2011, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) sent a memo to the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) restating our strong 

support of efforts to consider all options for Marine housing on Guam. The CSAF 

identified prioritized areas of emphasis during analysis of housing options and the 

buildup in general. These are: 

a. Protect and preserve the Air Force’s mission readiness and Operation Plan execution. 

b. Ensure any alternatives factor in operational suitability and compatibility to 

existing Air Force training. 
112 

c. Analyze and provide Joint Service Mission Support Requirements (JSMSR) in 

a fair and equitable fashion with respect to quality of life standards, avoiding the 

‘‘haves’’ and ‘‘have nots’’, and sustaining the quality of life for Air Force members 

and families currently assigned to Andersen Air Force Base. 

d. Continue our track record of protection of some of Guam’s most sensitive environmental areas. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Secretary Donley, please update this committee on the progress 

of filling Air National Guard units with missions, particularly flying missions that 

were lost as a result of the BRAC 2005 decisions. What’s the progress on this issue? 

I remain concerned that there are still Air Guard units with bridge missions and 

that we continue to hemorrhage flying capabilities out of these units. 

Secretary DONLEY. All Air National Guard (ANG) units impacted by Base Realignment and Closure 2005 have had permanent follow-on missions assigned. Of 

the twenty-one ANG flying units which divested aircraft, sixteen have received new 

flying missions to include Remotely Piloted Aircraft. Three of the sixteen units are 

operating bridge missions (C–21) to maintain flying skills as they await delivery of 

their permanent aircraft, the C–27J, with the last delivery scheduled for 2015. Five 

ANG units have received new non-flying permanent missions. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Secretary Donley, will the general concept for the new bomber be 

an improvement over the previous program? How so? Will requested funding be adequate to support the bomber industrial base over the next three years and how do 

you intend to manage the cost growth of a new bomber program? And lastly, Mr. 

Secretary, can you please explain the rationale behind your decision to build a long 

range manned bomber with the ability to penetrate defended air space. Why is 

standoff insufficient to meet future Combatant Command requirements? What are 

the inherent limitations within our existing legacy bomber fleet? 

Secretary DONLEY. The new penetrating bomber program puts more emphasis on 

affordability. This program will leverage mature technologies, utilize a streamlined 

acquisition process, and constrain requirements by making informed capability and 

cost tradeoffs. Specific capabilities are classified, but I would be glad to have my 

staff brief you on the details. 

The Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) includes $3.7B for the new penetrating 

bomber program. The Air Force believes that this funding is sufficient to maintain 

the bomber industrial base. 

The Air Force remains committed to providing standoff strike capabilities as well. 

Over the FYDP we continue our investment in the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff 

Missile-Extended Range. Additionally, we will initiate the Long Range Standoff program which will replace the Air Launched Cruise Missile. These existing and emerging stand-off weapons, coupled with a penetrating bomber, provide the President 

with the option to hold virtually any target at risk at any point on the globe. The 

penetrating bomber’s long range and significant payload will provide operational 

flexibility for Joint commanders. The penetrating bomber also offers broad geographic coverage, a wide mix of stand-off and direct attack munitions, and is usable 

across the spectrum of conflict. 

The greatest inherent limitation of our existing bomber fleet is age. The mainstay 

of our legacy force, the B–52H was initially fielded in 1962. Our most advanced platforms, the B–1B and the B–2A were fielded in 1985 and 1993, respectively. The effectiveness of the legacy bomber fleet is dependent upon the threat environment 

which will continue to increase over time as advanced integrated air defenses continue to proliferate. Throughout several conflicts our adversaries have had the opportunity to observe how we employ these systems and subsequently have adapted 

their technology and tactics to attempt to challenge our ability to hold the global 

target set at risk. 

Development of a new penetrating bomber will allow future leaders to leverage 

the capabilities of the existing fleet while also providing an asymmetric advantage 

over adversary advances. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO 

Mr. LOBIONDO. How does the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request from the 

Department of the Air Force address not only the current needs of the Air National 

Guard’s Fighter Wings, but also the need for service life extension programs and 

modernizing its aging fleet of F–16s? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The FY12 Budget Request adequately 

meets the needs of the Air National Guard’s Fighter Wings. The Air Force, with inputs from the Air National Guard, programs and schedules the modernization of the 

entire F–16 fleet. The management of service life extension programs and mod-
113 

ernization is an utmost priority. In addition, the Air National Guard utilizes critical 

National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account funding to increase the capabilities 

of legacy F–16 aircraft no longer in the active duty fleet (Block 30 and below). 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH ON BEHALF OF MS. GIFFORDS 

Mr. SMITH [for Ms. GIFFORDS]. My question is in regard to the Air Sovereignty 

Alert (ASA) system. ASA is charged with providing aerospace control to ensure air 

sovereignty and air defense of the air space of both Canada and the United States. 

This is an issue that has been discussed in the Committee before; an issue my good 

friend Congresswoman Giffords has worked on throughout her years on this committee. I understand this is mission is under NORAD command, but Air Sovereignty 

Alert (ASA) units include both Air National Guard (ANG) and active duty Air Force 

personnel. We have seen a reduction of ASA sites and we are hearing additional 

funding and resources could be in danger, leaving in danger our air space. 

General SCHWARTZ. The security of the United States and its citizens is at the 

top of the Nation’s enduring national interests, as codified in the President’s 2010 

National Security Strategy. Operation NOBLE EAGLE is just one of many contributions the Air Force makes every day in defense of the homeland. The Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) posture of Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE) is the Air Force’s 

first layer of deterrence and defense of North American air sovereignty. 

The Air Force/Air National Guard (AF/ANG) team is committed to ASA and fully 

funded the requirement across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). The Air 

Force made this commitment to the aerospace control and warning mission in the 

2012 President’s Budget submission to Congress ensuring resources and manpower 

are strategically programmed and available. 

Currently, the Air National Guard is filling most of North American Aerospace 

Defense Command’s (NORAD) requirements for ground alert forces by establishing 

ASA locations at strategic points in the continental United States and Hawaii. 

Those units can change due to conversions, deploying in overseas contingency operations (OCO) or vital combat training missions. However, these changes or adjustments are carefully reviewed and mitigated by the Air Force in coordination with 

joint force providers and our NORAD customer. 

The Air Force maintains a trained, equipped, and ready force to meet Commander, NORAD’s operational mission requirements for a 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, response. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. The burgeoning use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles poses an increasingly realistic threat to national security. This threat could be reduced through detect and destroy technology which the Air Force is developing. The Air Force has 

the scientists who are specialists in sensor technology who are working the problem, 

and also has the research radars for testing. But the problem is that we don’t have 

special use airspace to fly UAVs to take advantage of the people and equipment. 

What is the Air Force doing to secure the necessary special use airspace so that we 

can develop the critically needed UAS countermeasures utilizing our research equipment and scientific personnel? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Air Force supports establishment of 

Special Use Airspace (SUA) to allow for the development of counter-Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) technology test and evaluation. Current airspace constraints do 

not enable AF Research Lab to meet increasing demands for new Unmanned Aerial 

Systems (UAS)-related Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) 

and operations. The Air Force has been working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine the safety challenges inherent in use of UAVs. We are 

in the process of completing a proposal to the FAA that we believe will allow the 

Air Force to move forward. 

Mr. TURNER. The Air Force is currently the federal government’s top energy consumer, requiring 2.5 billion gallons of fuel each year to power its operations. This 

heavy dependence on fossil fuels poses a significant risk to our national security. 

The Air Force’s Energy Plan states that ‘‘Energy security is at the nexus of national, 

environmental, and economic security.’’ One of your ‘‘End State’’ goals is to have aircraft ‘‘flying on alternative fuel blends if cost competitive, domestically produced, 

and have a lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint equal to or less than petroleum.’’ 

a. What investment in alternative fuels has the Air Force made to achieve these 

goals? 

b. What progress has been made? 
114 

c. Does the Air Force still expect to meet half of the its aircraft jet fuel needs with 

alternative fuels by 2016? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. a. Since 2007, the Air Force has invested over $120M to certify aircraft and systems for unrestricted operational use 

of a 50/50 blend of synthetic fuel and traditional JP–8, where the synthetic component is produced via the Fischer-Tropsch process, and a 50/50 blend of 

hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel (HRJ) and traditional JP–8. At this point, sufficient funding is in place for the Air Force Certification Office to complete certification of both alternative fuel blends. 

b. To date, the Air Force has certified over 99 percent of its fleet for unrestricted 

operations using the synthetic fuel blend. Final certification efforts are underway 

for the RQ–4, or Global Hawk, which is the only remaining Air Force-owned platform to be certified. The Air Force is working with the U.S. Navy to achieve certification for both the CV–22 and F–35, which are Joint programs. 

The next step in diversifying aviation fuels was to begin certifying aircraft for 

operational use of a 50/50 HRJ blend. The Air Force, using lessons learned from the 

synthetic fuel certification initiative, is certifying the fleet using a pathfinder approach instead of testing each individual air frame. On 4 February 2011, the Air 

Force certified the C–17 for unrestricted operations using the 50/50 HRJ blend—the 

first Air Force platform certified on this blend. The entire HRJ fuel blend certification is expected to be completed by the end of 2012. 

c. The Air Force’s 2016 goal is to be prepared to purchase 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel as alternative fuel blends; however, the Air Force will not be a producer of fuel, but will use what the market cost competitively provides. Once the 

commercial market is ready, having the ability to use non-traditional aviation fuels 

will provide the Air Force with an improved energy security posture and increased 

protection from price fluctuations resulting from foreign oil sources. The Air Force 

is looking to private industry to develop alternative aviation fuels in commercialscale quantities, and in a cost competitive and environmentally-friendly manner, so 

we can provide the best value for the taxpayer and our environment. If industry 

achieves these criteria, the Air Force is confident it can meet its goal. 

Mr. TURNER. The Air Force has proposed to defer investments again in facilities 

restoration and modernization. At Wright Patterson Air Force base we have important research being conducted in the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) laboratories that were built during the cold war and were only meant to be temporary. 

These dilapidated buildings support important graduate research in the areas of 

electromagnetic field theory and low observables, communications, radar and electromagnetic warfare programs. 

a. Given the strategic value of the training conducted in AFIT’s buildings, when 

does the Air Force plan to modernize the facilities? 

b. With respect to the Air Force budget in general, why did the Air Force elect 

to take risk in the facility accounts and delay critical sustainment, restoration and 

modernization activities? 

c. What is the long-term effect of a delay in funding this facility maintenance account? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. a. The Air Force recognizes the importance of the training provided by the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)—we 

have a military construction (MILCON) project entitled ‘‘AFIT Research Lab’’ programmed at $18.3M to address the needs of that mission. With that said, as we 

worked within the current fiscal environment to build our budget requests, the Air 

Force made tough choices between many valid requirements. In our final FY2012 

President’s Budget (PB) submission, we were unable to include this project when 

balanced against the many other competing requirements. However, given its importance, we have maintained the project within our FY12–16 Future Years Defense 

Plan (FYDP) for future consideration. 

b. The Facility Sustainment efficiency saves $1.7B across the FYDP. The efficiency allows the Air Force to fund Facility Sustainment at 80 percent of the requirements identified by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Facility Sustainment 

Model without mission degradation. In fact, the Air Force MILCON and Operation 

& Maintenance (O&M) programs are funded at increased levels from the FY11 PB. 

The MILCON program is $3.0B greater across the FYDP and $1.8B higher in the 

near years (12, 13 & 14) over the FY11 PB position. The FY12 MILCON program 

hits the highest priorities—as analyzed through the lens of efficiencies and ‘‘tail to 

tooth’’—only the most critical aspects of our program are funded. Similarly, the Air 

Force had a net increased investment of $160M in FY12 from FY11 in active infrastructure O&M accounts to ensure our most critical requirements are met. We continued our focused investments in dorms and energy reduction initiatives and initiated focused investments in airfield pavement repair. Additionally, the Air Force in-
115 

creased investment in demolition and consolidation initiatives to ‘‘shrink from within’’ and reduce future O&M requirements. 

c. The Air Force will implement the Facility Sustainment efficiency by leveraging 

sustainable facility design, demolishing excess infrastructure, sourcing strategically, 

enforcing common standards, and employing smarter support practices. The Air 

Force facilities and infrastructure programs include Facility Operations, 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization and MILCON. These programs have 

interdependent relationships where a funding reduction in one account typically has 

ramifications across the others. In this case however, because the reductions are 

driven by efficiencies, with defined implementation plans, we believe the reductions 

to the Facility Sustainment account will have minimal impact on other programs 

over the long term. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KISSELL 

Mr. KISSELL. How well is the Air Force balancing shifting mission expectations, 

training facility and installation capabilities against reductions in budget? 

Secretary DONLEY. Over the past decade the Air Force has substantially reshaped 

itself to meet the immediate needs of today’s conflicts and position itself for the future. While we have grown in some critical areas it has been at the expense of others. We’ve added intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacity with 328 remotely piloted aircraft and over 6,000 airmen to collect, process, exploit and disseminate intelligence. We’ve added over 17 aircraft and nearly 2,400 airmen to bolster 

Special Operations capacity so necessary in counter insurgency. 

We’ve added over 160 F–22s and 120 C–17s to our inventory and funded over 30 

satellites and added 2,200 airmen for critical nuclear and cyber operations and acquisition support. In the same period, however, we retired over 1,500 legacy aircraft. 

We’ve cancelled or truncated procurement of major acquisition programs, shed manpower in career fields less critical to the fight and deferred much-needed military 

construction in order to balance these capabilities within the resources available. 

In all, during the past seven years the size of the active duty Air Force has been 

reduced from 359,000 in 2004 to approximately 333,000 today and the Air Force’s 

baseline budget, when adjusted for inflation and setting aside the annual wartime 

supplemental appropriations, has remained flat. Looking ahead, we face a multiyear 

effort to recapitalize our aging tanker, fighter, bomber and missile forces, to continue modernizing critical satellite constellations, meet dynamic requirements in the 

cyber domain and replace aging airframes for pilot training and presidential support. We continue to recognize the requirement for fiscal restraint and are committed to remaining good stewards of every taxpayer dollar, improving management 

and oversight at every opportunity. 

The FY12 budget request incorporates over $33 billion in efficiencies across the 

Future Years Defense Plan which will be shifted to higher priority combat capability 

by reducing overhead costs, improving business practices and eliminating excess, 

troubled or lower priority programs. 

By consolidating organizational structures, improving processes in acquisition and 

procurement, logistics support and streamlining operations, we have been able to increase investment in core functions such as global precision attack, integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, space and air superiority. We are reducing 

risk by adding ‘‘tooth’’ through savings in ‘‘tail.’’ We are fully committed to implementing these planned efficiencies and have already assigned responsibilities to senior officials and put in place the management structure to oversee this work and 

track progress on a regular basis. 

Mr. KISSELL. What lower priority initiatives (for example) Silver Flag Site, are 

being impacted by shifting budget thresholds? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is committed to reducing excess overhead and 

support activities, to ensure sufficient funding for force structure and modernization. We are taking on the President’s challenge to reduce the deficit by eliminating 

waste, improving efficiencies and effectiveness through a comprehensive review of 

our mission capabilities and roles in a changing world environment. Some of these 

lower priority initiatives include programmatic adjustments to reduce Air Force 

management infrastructure, and reducing some low priority installation services 

and headquarters programs. Many other initiatives are identified in the budget documents provided to the Committee. The Air Force, through its normal budgeting 

process, will continue to identify cost savings and additional efficiencies in future 

budgets in order to meet mission needs. In reference to the Silver Flag Site, the decision to not beddown a fourth site was not based on shifting budget thresholds. It 
116 

was based on being able to fulfill the training requirements at the already existing 

Silver Flag sites so that the fourth site was no longer required. 

Mr. KISSELL. What readiness areas are being impacted that simply did not make 

the report language; has a low visibility but high Airmen impact? 

Secretary DONLEY. Lower visibility issues with high impacts to readiness include 

stressed career fields and reduced dwell times for high demand skills. 

The Air Force has identified six officer specialties and sixteen enlisted specialties 

as ‘‘stressed’’, in terms of deploy-to-dwell time. Stressed officer specialties include 

Control and Recovery (13D), Airfield Operations (13M), Intelligence (14N), Public 

Affairs (35P), Contracting (64P), and Civil Engineer (32E). Stressed enlisted specialties include Airborne Cryptologic Language Analysts/Airborne ISR Operators (1A8), 

Tactical Air Control Party (1C4), Structural (3E3), Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(3E8), Contracting (6C0), Command Post (1C3), Geospatial Intel 1N1), Network 

Intel (1N4), Combat Control (1C2), Pararescue (1T2), Pavement/Construction Equipment (3E2), Operations Intel (1N0), Special Ops Weather (1W0), Utilities Systems 

(3E4), Engineering (3E5), and Security Forces (3P0). The high OPSTEMPO in these 

career fields has resulted in reduced dwell times that have diminished readiness for 

full spectrum operations due to missed training opportunities. 

Finally, the Air Force may have to reduce the Combat Air Force sponsored 

GREEN FLAG/RED FLAG exercises as we balance meeting the warfighter’s needs 

in a fiscally constrained environment. 

Mr. KISSELL. With the availability of numerous advanced engines and the JSF 

now 4 years behind in engine development, when will the engine be ready for full 

deployment? 

Secretary DONLEY. The F135 is in full deployment. Both Pratt & Whitney engine 

variants have achieved Initial Service Release (ISR) (Conventional Take-Off and 

Landing/Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV) in Feb 2010 and Short Take Off and Vertical 

Landing (STOVL) in Dec 2010) and production representative engines have been delivered to the government, installed in production aircraft, and flown in the case of 

the CTOL (AF–6 in Feb 2011). 

Mr. KISSELL. With the increased use of older air platforms, are we allocating 

enough funding for training and is the Air Force providing enough training opportunities to maintain a robust personnel capability in support of these platforms? Additionally, how does the continued use of older platforms impact the readiness of the 

Air National Guard and Reserve forces? 

Secretary DONLEY. Until the Air Force modernizes aging air and space inventories, legacy platforms will continue to provide significant contributions in our Active Duty, Reserve and Air National Guard forces. The current fiscal environment, 

ongoing combat operations, and delays in standing up new weapon systems have 

stressed our ability to maintain our aircraft and train our aircrew. Despite these 

challenges, the Air Force continues to meet standard training requirements for our 

legacy platform operators and maintenance personnel. 

The Air Force is currently able to sustain our legacy aircraft and manage associated risk to balance total force needs in today’s high-tempo operational environment. 

Although the Reserve and Air National Guard components have legacy platforms, 

the Air Force budgets to meet warfighters’ requirements by investing in improvements, such as service life extension programs and capability upgrades, to ensure 

the Air National Guard and Reserve have a viable combat force. While reductions 

in worldwide deployments are expected to improve recent declining readiness levels, 

the increased resources that are needed to maintain legacy platforms will continue 

to challenge Air Force efforts. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Secretary, on the same date which the Air Force announced its 

F–35 Basing Plan Preferred Alternatives—which included Luke AFB as the Active 

Duty Training site, the Department proposed other force structure adjustments. One 

of these was moving two Luke F–16 training squadrons to Holloman AFB because 

of F–22 consolidation. What is the basis to move two (of four) critically needed F– 

16’s squadrons from Luke given its Active Duty F–16 training mission, while it 

awaits confirmation of a future F–35 Active Duty Training mission starting in 2015; 

and what are the associated additional costs? What would be the annual net 

through-put of F–16 pilots trained be if the F–16’s remained at Luke vs. splitting 

these assets between Luke AFB and Holloman? Won’t there be an actual reduction 

in the number of pilots we can train given this division of the F–16’s between the 

two locations—a clearly inefficient configuration? Luke currently operates two models of F–16’s for training. What is the concurrent impact on training tempo and cur-
117 

riculum at Luke given the movement of either model aircraft to Holloman? Which 

model F–16 is under consideration for transfer? What is the net personnel impact 

to Luke if the Air Force proceeds with the transfer of half of its F–16 training assets 

as announced and what is the net impact to Holloman’s total manning if the F–16’s 

remain at Luke, given the recent addition of the RPA mission the status of F–22 

manning at Holloman prior to the July announcement? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force long-term vision is to make Holloman Air Force 

Base our primary F–16 formal training unit, and the decision was made to move 

two squadrons of our more advanced Block 42 aircraft to Holloman. At the time the 

decision was made, F–35 deliveries to Luke were expected to start in 2013 and 

training was to start within the year. As F–35 programmatic changes occur, the Air 

Force will continue to evaluate the best timing for the transfer. The current cost 

estimate for the move is $100M. During the move itself, the Air Force loses the ability to produce 32 new F–16 pilots (16 pilots in FY12 and 16 pilots in FY13). Once 

the move is complete in FY14, the net loss of training will be marginal. After the 

move, the F–16 squadrons will be able to train the same number of initial F–16 pilots, however there will be a marginal reduction in capacity for transition and/or instructor upgrade courses. Luke will retain one Block 42 squadron and one Block 25 

squadron for the foreseeable future. The net effect is approximately 52 percent of 

Luke’s current F–16 training will be transferred to Holloman by the end of FY13. 

Finally, regarding manning impacts at Luke and Holloman, Luke would transfer to 

Holloman 432 billets in FY12 and 556 billets in FY13. If the F–16s were to remain 

at Luke, Holloman would gain 153 billets in FY12 from Remotely Piloted Aircraft 

growth with a manpower total of 4,694 positions, and they would lose 463 positions 

in FY13 due to the drawdown of the 7th Fighter Squadron (F–22s). 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Secretary, the Air Force Fiscal Year 2012 RDT&E Budget Re- quest includes $15.9M for the completion of concept development activities and initiation of the Technology Development phase for the T–X Advanced Trainer Replacement Program, a family of fully integrated systems that will modernize how effectively and efficiently we train Air Force pilots. Given the significance of this major 

acquisition effort in the coming years, how does the Air Force plan to meet a 2017 

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the T–X, and given budget constraints, how 

do you intend to prioritize and demonstrate life cycle costs within this program? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force plans to meet a 2017 initial operational capability date for the T–X by pursuing an acquisition strategy that minimizes schedule 

risk. Specifically, the Air Force is giving primary consideration to existing, non-developmental advanced trainer aircraft. The Air Force is developing a 30-year life 

cycle cost estimate in accordance with Department of Defense and Service guidelines. This estimate will project life cycle costs for a variety of alternative courses 

of action, including service life extension of the current aircraft as well as non-developmental and developmental solutions. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. CASTOR 

Mrs. CASTOR. I represent MacDill AFB, home of the 6th Air Mobility Wing 

(6AMW). There we also operate the KC–135. As you know it has been serving with 

the USAF since 1957, it is one of just six military fixed wing aircraft with over 50 

years of continuous service with its original operator. I don’t have to tell you Mr. 

Secretary and General Schwartz, that we need new ones. I’m hearing we are scheduled to hear an award announcement soon. My question is what are we going to 

do if we have another protest of the award? How long can we expect the process 

to continue? 

General SCHWARTZ. The KC–X contract was awarded to Boeing on February 24, 

2011. The tanker is designated the KC–46A. On March 4, 2011, EADS–NA announced at the National Press Club that they would not protest the award. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY 

Mr. CONAWAY. In January, the Secretary of Defense announced a reduction of 124 

F–35s over the FYDP. He further stated that the savings from this reduction would 

be used to fund $4.6 billion to extend the development period and add additional 

flight tests; as well as using $4 billion for additional purposes, such as purchasing 

more F/A–18s for the Navy. How does this decision impact you? Would any of the 

$4 billion being used for additional purposes be used to support Air Force requirements? 

General SCHWARTZ. The impact on the program is positive in nature. The resources applied to the development program add realism and prudent reserve, to ab-
118 

sorb expected further learning and discovery. The difference between the decrease 

in the procurement account and the increase in the Research Development Test & 

Evaluation account cannot be traced precisely by the Air Force to any particular 

Service or program. The Department used these funds in the areas of greatest need 

across all Services and programs. 

While resources cannot be directly attributed to any program, the Air Force places 

a high priority on the F–16 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) program. The 

program will ensure sufficient fighter strength in the years to come in lieu of the 

previously expected F–35 fleet. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SUTTON 

Ms. SUTTON. One issue I believe has significant relevance to discussions of cost 

reduction and readiness is the concept of corrosion prevention and mitigation. A key 

component of modernizing our infrastructure, preserving our military assets, and 

saving money in the process is adopting a robust corrosion prevention and mitigation strategy. As you know, the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight plays 

an important role in this process, and each of the services faces a unique set of 

issues with respect to the maintenance of their assets. For the FY2011 Defense Authorization bill, this committee’s report discussed the issue of corrosion and how it 

impacts the Air Force. The report cited the grounding of the F–22 Raptor fleet due 

to corrosion on ejection seat rods due to poorly designed drainage in the cockpit.With respect to the Air Force, what potential issues do you face with corrosion? 

Are there any specific Air Force programs or assets currently experiencing these 

issues? How can this committee best support DoD efforts to tackle these problem 

and do you believe sufficient funding and resources have been devoted to address 

these issues? 

Secretary DONLEY. In order to perform its mission, the Air Force must train and 

fight in all environments including many of the most austere and corrosively aggressive on the planet and in space. In the broadest sense, designing, employing and 

sustaining weapons systems, equipment and infrastructure able to not only perform 

our unique mission but also endure these harsh conditions at an economical cost remains our most significant challenge related to corrosion. Operating in these conditions makes our weapons systems and equipment susceptible to corrosion. All aircraft experience some form of corrosion during their life cycle. The Air Force attempts to mitigate the effects of corrosion by inspecting and repairing corrosion during Program Depot Maintenance, phase, and isochronal inspections. 

Additionally, the Air Force mitigates corrosion by periodically rotating aircraft out 

of highly corrosive environments and by performing clear water rinses at various 

intervals depending on the aircraft’s proximity to salt water as directed by Air Force 

Technical Orders. The Air Force closely monitors aircraft specific corrosion issues 

from initial discovery until a repair is designed and completed. For example, there 

are currently fifteen F–16s that are restricted from carrying wing tanks due to wing 

pylon rib corrosion; inspection procedures are in place to closely monitor the remainder of the fleet. Furthermore, we worked closely with industry to develop an F–16 

wing pylon repair, saving millions of dollars. On the F–22, we continue to mitigate 

corrosion concerns by working with industry partners to develop new materials not 

as susceptible to corrosion. We also research, develop, and field aircraft modifications to restore known problem areas to serviceable conditions and apply treatments 

to reduce risk in the future. Our C–130 fleet is replacing the Center Wing Box due 

to corrosion and there are several components on the C–5, C–130, and KC–135 that 

are being replaced during Program Depot Maintenance. To repair, control and mitigate the effects of corrosion on our critical assets is both a sustainment and a design 

issue. The Air Force sustainment effort centers around the rigorous process of inspection, prevention, treatment, repair and modification identified above. Additionally, with respect to design, we have initiated a comprehensive revitalization of our 

systems engineering processes to instill discipline and improve processes to help our 

design engineers take a total life cycle, total systems approach to planning, development and implementation of systems to meet warfighting capability requirements. 

Congress can best support the Air Force’s efforts by continuing to support the Department’s strategic planning efforts to influence acquisition design and development to incorporate corrosion resistant technology and materials as a key consideration during acquisition of all new aircraft, weapons systems and equipment as well 

modification of existing Air Force assets. We do have sufficient funding and resources to devote toward addressing these issues. Our ongoing DoD-wide efficiency 

initiatives are reducing costs and enabling us to invest in newer technologies to 

combat the effects of corrosion and improve our readiness. 
119 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN 

Mr. LAMBORN. Why is the Air Force continuing with its insourcing policies while 

the Army stopped? What direction did DoD give to the Air Force concerning this 

issue? 

Secretary DONLEY. It is our understanding that the Army did not stop in-sourcing 

but raised the approval level to the Secretary of the Army. In-sourcing can be an 

effective tool in re-balancing the workforce, and the Air Force continues to comply 

with applicable statutory and policy guidance in using this tool. 

Title 10 United States Code, Section 2463 requires Department of Defense (DoD) 

to ensure consideration is given to DoD civilians to perform duties currently performed by contractors. 

The Air Force is committed to complying with the statutory requirement of 10 

USC 2463. Given the Secretary’s direction to hold to FY10 civilian funding levels, 

any future civilian increases as a result of in-sourcing in most instances will have 

to be offset through realignment of existing civilian end strength, although the exceptions may be made for critical functions and needs such as the acquisition or 

cyber workforce. 

Mr. LAMBORN. With all the near-term position and personnel cuts and freezes 

(both contractors and defense), are they all synchronized so that we don’t have a 

gap in covering the mission and services? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is conducting a senior-level strategic review to 

effectively position our civilian workforce to accomplish essential joint/Air Force mission areas. This group is also assessing trade-offs to balance risk to include reevaluating our in-sourcing plans as we rebalance the workforce within authorized end 

strength levels. We will work with Congress in FY2012 to inform more refined decisions in the Air Force’s FY2013 President’s Budget submission. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Mr. WITTMAN. Admiral Mullen spoke of the extensive high operational tempo of 

both the Navy and Air Force over the past ten years of sustained combat in Iraq 

& Afghanistan; do you feel that the Air Force has an adequate budget to carry on 

enduring missions while balancing critical life cycle maintenance programs? How 

has the past ten years affected the service life of your force? Do you have a budget 

that allows for sustained life cycle management and operation and maintenance cost 

for new acquisition? 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, with requested Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) 

funding, the Air Force sustainment budget is adequate. Currently, the Air Force is 

developing a plan to realign OCO to baseline funding and ensure maintenance programs are sufficient for enduring missions. Despite an aging fleet and extensive use 

in contingency operations, less than 0.5 percent (1 percent last year) of aircraft are 

grounded and fewer than 1.7 percent (5 percent last year) are flying with operational restrictions. Over the past ten years, service life has been preserved by funding structural improvements and Service Life Extension Programs. The FY12 budget submission adequately funds sustainment of newly fielded weapon systems. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

Mr. COFFMAN. I understand that personnel retention has not been problematic for 

the US Air Force. In fact, personnel retention in the Air Force is actually higher 

than projected, therefore complicating achieving ultimate end strength goals. Given 

the retention rate in the Air Force, how would you characterize the performance and 

practicality of the all-volunteer force? 

Secretary DONLEY. By all accounts, the all-volunteer force continues to provide 

world-class Airmen while meeting our Combatant Commanders’ needs. In an all-volunteer environment, recruiting has continued to be successful with all quality indicators either remaining the same or improving over the last five years. The Air 

Force has continued to meet its quality objectives and recruiting goals since 2002. 

To our advantage is a professional and dedicated staff of recruiters along with a motivated, bright, and eligible youth population. In addition, military pay remains high 

as compared to private sector earnings for high school graduates. An Oct 06 Congressional Budget Office study on recruiting and retention states the combination 

of better educated Airmen and Airmen who score high on aptitude tests make them 

more likely to complete their initial training and remain in the service beyond their 

first term of enlistment. Generally, the all-volunteer force is less expensive to train 

since they stay longer and become more effective and experienced performers. 
120 

However, there are still challenges to our Air Force to maintain our recruiting 

and retention success. We anticipate that the current environment will become more 

challenging as the economy improves. We also believe that maintaining steady recruiting resource levels will be critical to our future efforts if we are to be successful 

in achieving our longer term goals. Although the Air Force is currently experiencing 

high retention, there are some significant shortages in some skill sets which highlight the need for continued enlistment and retention bonuses in these critical occupations. 

The Air Force has been engaged in a multi-year effort to reduce excess military 

end strength and associated costs through voluntary and involuntary measures. 

Without action, the Air Force projects we would have exceeded FY12 end strength 

of 332.8K by approximately 7K Airmen. This is especially burdensome considering 

the real cost of an Airman increased 26 percent from $76K in FY01 to $96K in FY12 

(normalized to FY12 dollars). This equates to an approximately $5B increase in the 

Military Personnel Account from FY01 to FY12 (normalized to FY12 dollars and not 

including health care costs). Therefore, it is absolutely essential for the Air Force 

to continue its efforts to maintain the force at its funded end strength. 

Mr. COFFMAN. For the F–35 basing issue, what data was used to determine the 

airspace and other factors that made up the ‘‘objective criteria’’ by which prospective 

basing locations were evaluated? Who provided the data for the criteria? Were units 

evaluated for possible F–35 basing briefed on their score and given an opportunity 

to respond? Was the airspace attributed to Buckley Air Force Base limited to the 

state, or was the airspace of nearby states considered as well? What weight did unit 

quality have on the grading? Why were bases without runways (such as Cheyenne 

Mountain Air Force Station) scored and how did they score better on airspace than 

bases currently conducting the air sovereignty mission? Finally, how much infrastructure will need to be constructed at the selected bases and has this factor been 

weighed against existing operational facilities? 

Secretary DONLEY. The criteria applied to the enterprise of Air Force installations 

for basing F–35A operational and training missions were designed to evaluate an 

installation’s ability to support specific mission requirements. Data such as pilot 

qualification syllabus training events, recurring readiness requirements for combat 

coded units, logistics support infrastructure, existing operational facilities, base operating support, and environmental considerations were all dimensions of criteria 

development. Unit quality was not a specific criterion. 

Applying the criteria in an enterprise-wide look was accomplished through mining 

authoritative data sources coupled with Major Command and installation data calls. 

Real property and civil engineering databases were the sources for a majority of the 

physical infrastructure data. Mission-specific data (airspace, weather) was sourced 

from the Federal Aviation Administration, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 

Department of Homeland Security, United States Census data, and the Air Force 

Weather Agency. Data layers were imported into a geographic information system 

(GIS) for analysis as required. The airspace for all installations, including Buckley 

Air Force Base, was evaluated through GIS geospatial referencing. No state boundaries were considered in this analysis and all airspace within 120 nautical miles for 

training locations and 200 nautical miles for operational locations was scored. The 

score for an airspace complex can be expressed through the following formula: 

airspace attributes X airspace capacity X distance to the installation = total score 

Scores for individual installations in their Congressional district are available to 

the delegation upon request. 

Installations without runways were also scored in the interest of a thorough, 

transparent analysis. If an installation scored well in the enterprise-wide look based 

on distance to appropriately configured and sized airspace, subsequent analysis and 

military judgment would be required to determine whether there could be future 

military and fiscal value in constructing a runway at that location. For the recent 

round of F–35A basing, none of these installations were considered as candidates 

or preferred or reasonable alternatives for the required basing actions. 

Infrastructure requirements vary by base. During the Strategic Basing process, 

site surveys are conducted to determine facility and other infrastructure requirements. Use of existing facilities is the preferred option. In the event existing facilities are unavailable, new construction would be required. 

Mr. COFFMAN. There are thousands of Air Force personnel stationed on the Korean Peninsula, including units of the 7th Air Force. Recently there have been initiatives to increase the number of families allowed to accompany their deployed 

service members in South Korea. Accordingly, new infrastructure, housing, and support facilities must be built to accommodate these families. What is the cost incurred by the increase of accompanied tours to the Korean peninsula by Air Force 
121 

personnel and how much—if any—of this cost is being borne by the Republic of 

Korea? 

General SCHWARTZ. In accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) policy, Air 

Force has recently increased the opportunity for service members to bring their families to the Republic of Korea. By the end of 2010, Osan Air Base had increased the 

number of families to 632, including more than 100 Army families. This was done 

by using existing capacity on base for support and off-base rentals for housing. In 

their report released on 15 Apr 2011, DoD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation identified the marginal cost of families in Korea. Extrapolated for current Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) rates, a family in Korea costs $83k/yr and the cost 

for an unaccompanied soldier in Korea with his family collecting housing allowance 

in the continental United States (CONUS) as $55k/yr. If we apply these generalizations across the 700 accompanied USAF service members in Korea (including Seoul 

and other locations), the marginal cost is ∼$2M/yr. This includes PCS costs (transportation), moving costs, training, tuition and the difference between OHA and 

CONUS housing allowance. No additional funds were expended for facilities. There 

are 695 Air Force families in Korea, including those supported in and around Seoul. 

We are currently developing plans to further increase the opportunity for accompanied tours, but no funds have yet been programmed for this. There are currently 

no plans for Republic of Korea to contribute to the cost of accompanied tours. The 

cost to the U.S. Government will depend on several policy decisions and financial 

arrangements with local developers, but will be a combination of construction costs 

for new schools, housing and other support facilities, maintenance of those facilities, 

and the cost of moving families to and from Korea and supporting them there. The 

Office of the Secretary of Defense is currently gathering data from the Services and 

will prepare a report and recommendation to the Secretary of Defense not later than 

31 March. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. RUNYAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. I am very proud to represent New Jersey’s Third District, home to 

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. As you are aware, the Joint Base is an Air Mobility Center of Excellence extending total force global air mobility through the 

movement of troops and cargo. Over the past 10 years, air mobility studies have 

lowered the number of aircraft for the airlift capacity requirement even as world 

situations are becoming more complex and we go into more hostile environments. 

General Schwarz: Has the requirement for the number of mobility aircraft been lowered because we have less equipment, people, and missions or because this number 

is all that the Air Force can ‘‘afford’’ to provide? 

General SCHWARTZ. The current Million Ton Miles Per Day (MTM/D) requirement 

is based on the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS–16), 

conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation, and United States Transportation Command, and utilizes current OSD 

approved wartime planning scenarios for 2016. The previous Mobility Capabilities 

Study 2005 requirement was based on OSD wartime scenarios considered valid in 

the 2005 timeframe. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GRIFFIN 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Can you provide us with the details on the business case for the C– 

130 Avionics Modification Program (AMP)? 

General SCHWARTZ. An official Business Case Analysis was not performed. However, the Nunn-McCurdy certification process was performed in two phases. The 

first phase assessed five alternatives for the Air Force C–130 fleet and determined 

the Air Force Avionics Modernization Program (AMP program) provides the most 

military capability at the lowest cost. The second phase identified an affordable, 

low-risk acquisition program for certification. 

The first phase assessment identified five alternatives based on an extensive review of on-going and potential C–130 upgrades, as well as procurement of new C– 

130J aircraft: 1) Global access and navigation safety upgrade; 2) Global access, navigation safety, and survivability upgrade; 3) Navy/Marine Corps AMP program; 4) 

Air Force AMP program; and 5) Replacement with C–130J aircraft. 

Additionally the alternatives were evaluated against four criteria: 1) Performance 

measured against Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated capability gaps; 2) Number of aircraft modified during the Future Years Defense Program; 3) Cost (acquisition and life cycle cost); and 4) Program risk. 
122 

Only alternatives 2 and 4 met the criteria for further evaluation. While the acquisition cost for alternatives 2 and 4 were nearly identical, alternative 4 provided 

greater military capability at a lower life cycle cost. Based on these results, the Air 

Force C–130 AMP provides military capability equal or greater than alternative programs and at less cost than those programs. 

The second phase identified the subset of C–130 Mission Design Series (MDS) 

that best met Department of Defense affordability and acquisition risk goals. All C– 

130 MDS were evaluated using this assessment to identify the lowest risk alternative within the total acquisition cost. This alternative provides for upgrade of 222 

aircraft, consisting of C–130H2, C–130H2.5 and C–130H3, and is the basis of the 

certified program. The Department recognizes this program covers only a portion of 

the JROC-validated capabilities deemed essential to National Security and has directed the Air Force to develop an investment strategy for the remaining 166 C– 

130 aircraft not included in the certified program. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Is it necessary that Congress pass an appropriations bill to ensure 

the funding for the C–130 AMP? 

General SCHWARTZ. The C–130 Avionics Modification Program (AMP) program 

would have required either an appropriations bill to legally issue FY11 Aircraft Procurement Air Force (APAF) funds, or an exception clause in a Continuing Resolution 

authorizing the C–130 AMP program to expend APAF funds. The Air Force is grateful that the Congress passed H.R. 1473 to provide appropriations for the remainder 

of Fiscal Year 2011. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. How many years of combat service will modernization add to the C– 

130 fleet? 

General SCHWARTZ. The C–130 Avionics Modification Program (AMP) modernization does not directly add any years of combat service to the C–130 Fleet. C–130 

AMP is primarily focused on capability enhancements to enable C–130 aircraft to 

operate well into the future in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and international airspace mandates. AMP will allow the modified C–130 aircraft unlimited access to United States airspace past 1 January 2020 when the 

FAA’s NextGen airspace access mandates take effect in United States airspace. 

Similar international airspace mandates are anticipated. Although C–130 AMP does 

not extend the service life of the aircraft, select C–130s are receiving center wing 

box replacement modifications, extending expected flight hours from 38,000 hours 

to 67,500 hours. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO 

Mr. PALAZZO. Remotely Piloted Aircraft have played a large role in our ongoing 

military operations in the Middle East and are now being used in a homeland security role. I believe it is extremely important that we continue to develop this technology and train new operators. What kind of partnership has the Air Force had 

with the FAA to facilitate continuing training and testing here in the U.S.? Do you 

see any specific problems with domestic access that you believe we must change to 

ensure we are able to fully utilize these tools? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force is working closely with 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Homeland Security, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Commerce, 

state aviation authorities and academia to facilitate training and testing. The Air 

Force fully supports the language in the FAA Reauthorization Bill that calls for establishment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) training sites and Centers of Excellence to move forward integration of UAS into the National Airspace System 

(NAS). 

During the last 18 months, Air Force, FAA, US Army, Customs and Border Patrol 

and NASA worked together to develop an airspace access plan supporting beddown 

of MQ–1 Predators at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota. The Air Force 

also participated in two Certificate of Authorization (COA) Working Groups that 

identified 24 specific improvement areas. Those improvements will streamline the 

COA process and result in more timely access to the NAS. Finally, the Air Force, 

as a member of the interagency UAS Executive Committee, developed a Congressionally directed joint FAA and Department of Defense UAS NAS Access Plan. The 

plan established the roadmap for improving remote piloted aircraft (RPA) access to 

the NAS. The Air Force is in the initial planning stages to validate two of the access 

profiles, vertical and horizontal. 

While much work is being done to improve RPA/UAS airspace access, the development of standards and procedures is hindered by the limited number of areas to test 
123 

and develop technical solutions. The Air Force will continue to work with the FAA 

to increase RPA test sites. 

Mr. PALAZZO. On February 9th you offered some strong words to a group of defense contractors regarding industry making promises that they are not always able 

to keep. You were quoted as saying, ‘‘If industry makes a commitment you will have 

to deliver.’’ We can all agree that the system is being abused and some contractors 

are no longer held to the same requirements that most businesses are. Do you have 

any specific plans about increasing the accountability of contractors? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force Acquisition Community strives to deliver 

warfighter requirements on cost and on schedule. For example, we are complying 

with the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s guidance in being more deliberate with 

choosing contact type, like fixed-price and incentive structures, which better share 

the risk with our contactors and increase their accountability to the Air Force and 

our tax payers. Additionally, we continue to incorporate our Services Acquisition 

Post Award reviews (which assess contractor proposal promises to actual performance) to a broader population of service contracts. 

Furthermore, part of holding our contractors accountable is increasing our understanding of our contractor performance across the enterprise. In October of 2010, 

by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Air Force stood-up SAF/AQXL, 

the Air Force Industrial Liaison Office. Central to the mission of SAF/AQXL is improving the knowledge and insight of the Air Force as a consumer, and to provide 

Air Force senior leadership, program managers, contracting and other acquisition 

organizations with actionable business intelligence to improve the Air Force position 

as a consumer in the marketplace, increasing Air Force buying power. Increasing 

our understanding of our industrial counterparts enables our ability to incentivize 

corporate behavior in the manner most advantageous to the Air Force. 

Æ