U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

1 

38–264 2009

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–21] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas 

PATRICK MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member 

LYNN WILLIAMS, Professional Staff Member 

BENJAMIN KOHR, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2007 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, February 28 2007, Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force ................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 .............................................................................. 55 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT— 

BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative from New Jersey, Committee on Armed 

Services ................................................................................................................. 2 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Moseley, Gen. T. Michael, USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force ......................... 6 

Wynne, Hon. Michael W., Secretary of the Air Force ........................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Wynne, Hon. Michael W., joint with Gen. T. Michael Moseley .................... 59 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Mr. Abercrombie ............................................................................................... 131 

Ms. Castor ......................................................................................................... 134 

Mr. Everett ........................................................................................................ 136 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 134 

Dr. Gingrey ....................................................................................................... 142 

Mr. Hayes .......................................................................................................... 138 

Mr. Kline ........................................................................................................... 131 

Mr. Marshall ..................................................................................................... 133 

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... 135 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 140 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 131 

Mr. Saxton ......................................................................................................... 131 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 131 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 28, 2007. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The gavel, now, will officially come down. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the committee will come to order. 

Today, the full committee continues its review of several military 

services for the 2008 budget request. Today, the United States Air 

Force is with us. And I am pleased to welcome back the Secretary 

of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, and Chief of Staff Michael 

Moseley to testify on their fiscal 2008 request. 

We thank you and all the Air Force for the wonderful job that 

you do—active duty, Air Guard, Reservists and your civilian counterparts. 

There are more than 690,000 military and civilian personnel. The 

Air Force has over 61,000 personnel forward based in the Pacific 

and in Europe. An additional 25,000, and more than 250 aircraft, 

are forward deployed in the Central Command area. 

In addition to the traditional combat role of providing air support, 7,700 Air Force personnel have supplemented functions on the 

ground with duties usually performed by the Army and by the Marines. And we thank you for that. 

We know the Air Force is very much a service at war and in combat. It has flown over 430,000 sorties in support of the two efforts 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. And since 9/11, that number represents 

82 percent of all the operation of Iraq Freedom sorties and 70 percent of the OEF sorties. 

The pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere 

have stretched the ability of the Air Force to man, to operate, to 

maintain and, particularly, to modernize its ten expeditionary 

forces. And the Air Force fiscal year 2008 annual budget request 

is $110.7 billion, an increase of $6.2 billion from last year. It is a 

significant budget, but this is still a force with challenges and an 

increased risk. 

The budget request for 1.5 million in flying hours is a ten percent 

reduction in hours to train our pilots since last year. Depot-pur-
2 

chased equipment maintenance, which accomplishes depot-level repairs on aircraft and engines, is funded at only 74 percent of the 

amount needed. 

Recently, the Air Force informed this committee of its unfunded 

requirements, which total $16.9 billion, a record amount. 

The committee notes that the Air Force has accepted risk in 

readiness to provide for its top modernization priorities, which include the KC–X tanker, the Combat Search and Rescue CSAR–X 

combat search-and-rescue helicopter, the aging HH–60G fleet and 

the F–35A Joint Strike Fighter. 

The Next Generation Long Range Strike aircraft, a new bomber, 

clearly remains a top priority, and we need to eventually get there. 

On the personnel side, while this budget makes improvements to 

compensation with a 3 percent pay raise, it also includes personnel 

reductions of 5,600 in the active duty, 7,400 in the Air Force Reserve and 300 in the Air National Guard. 

I am pleased to note that the Air Force’s posture statement includes a short discussion of professional military education, or, as 

we call it, PME, for both officers and enlisted personnel. That is 

terribly important. 

And in some years, professional military education has been 

overlooked, when in truth, in fact, it is the best way to prepare for 

and to win in combat. And I compliment you on your comments regarding professional military education. 

And let me recognize, finally, September 18, 2007, will mark the 

60th anniversary of the creation of our independent United States 

Air Force. Our very own Harry Truman, of course, was president 

at that time. And this committee congratulates the Air Force, its 

military and civilian members, past and present, on their achievements and their progress. 

I was asked by Mr. Hunter, who had an emergency—does the 

gentleman from New Jersey have a comment at this time? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

NEW JERSEY, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start out by saying thank you to our witnesses 

for being here with us today and thank you so much for your service to the nation. We appreciate it very much and I know the 

American people do as well. 

Every year, we get together at this time to talk about the budget 

requests and each of the service priorities and constraints. We talk 

about goals, plans and programs. We talk about budget shortfalls 

and acquisition strategies that aren’t working out so well. 

Yet, it strikes me that we never seem to really change much because, as we have heard before, we come here to talk about more 

troubled programs, more fiscal challenges and an ever-increasing 

need to field equipment to our men and women serving the country. 

These brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines continue to 

perform their duties with extraordinary professionalism and courage, despite all those over-cost acquisition programs, in addition to 

budget shortfalls and anticipated mission requirements. There are 
3 

the folks that we should never fail to praise and thank for their 

unwavering commitment to this nation. 

I would like to read you a piece of former Chairman Hunter’s 

opening statement from the last Air Force posture hearing. He 

said, ‘‘The DOD budget legacy is one of missed procurement opportunities. This, as you point out in your statement,’’ he said, ‘‘gives 

us the oldest fleet of aircraft in the history of the Air Force, with 

the fleet having been engaged in or supporting some level of combat for the last 15 years. The aircraft fleet has been operating at 

utilization rates far beyond those planned. The consequences of age 

and high operational tempo is reflected in reduced readiness rates. 

It is to the Air Force’s credit that the professional fleet management has achieved the safety record it has at this time.’’ 

So, gentlemen, I ask you, as we sit here today, what is different? 

What lessons learned have been applied to make this nation’s Air 

Force better? 

I ask this because I look at the budget request and I see operations and maintenance shortfalls. I see excessive cost growth in 

acquisition programs like the C–130 and, especially—one of my pet 

peeves—the C–5 modernization program and many of your space 

acquisition programs. 

Why is it that we cannot identify a requirement, develop a solution and get it to the war-fighter in a reasonable period of time? 

We have all heard the problems, everything from requirement 

changes due to operational needs, to the contractor who failed to 

perform. 

The bottom line, gentlemen, is that we are a nation at war. Our 

airmen have been flying combat missions over Iraq airspace for at 

least 16 years. The need to recapitalize and modernize our legacy 

system is clear. What is not clear, however, is how we go about 

doing that successfully and responsibly. 

You notified us last year that you were planning on reducing 

your end strength by 40,000 in order to self-finance many of the 

modernization efforts. Despite these planned personnel reductions, 

you also tell us that we have nearly 10,000 airmen deployed to fill 

shortfalls in the Army and the Marine Corps. 

How do you plan to successfully accomplish your primary mission, which now includes support for the airlift requirements of a 

growing ground component, absorb a personnel reduction of 40,000 

airmen and continue to help the Army and Marine Corps fill some 

of the ground-combat-support gaps? That is quite an order. 

While the conflicts of today deserve our utmost attention and 

ample resources, we should not lose site of the strategic challenges 

of tomorrow. The recent Chinese anti-satellite test (ASAT) was a 

clear display of China’s capability to hold our satellites at risk. 

American military forces and the American economy are dependent 

on space in everything from the battlefield communications to intelligence to automatic teller machine (ATM) transactions. 

I hope that we can take some time today to talk about the Air 

Force investments aimed at strengthening the protection, redundancy and reconstitution of U.S. space assets. 

I am glad you are here with us and I look forward to hearing 

your thoughts on the state of our Air Force and the fiscal year 2008 

budget request. I also look forward to hearing your thoughts on the 
4 

difficulties we are having in developing and acquiring the new systems Congress has authorized. 

On a final note, I wonder if you would be facing a reduction of 

40,000 airmen if you weren’t seeing so many procurement programs over-cost and behind schedule. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the gentlemen’s 

testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

Without objection, my statement and the statement from my 

friend from New Jersey, as well as the statements from the secretary and the general, will be placed in the record in their entirety. 

And we will now recognize Secretary Wynne. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE, SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

Secretary WYNNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for having General 

Moseley and I here today to testify on behalf of America’s Air 

Force. We are extraordinarily grateful for your steadfast support 

and the support of this committee of our nation’s airmen. 

Leading the men and women of our United States Air Force is 

a high honor. They are responsive, whether answering the call for 

humanitarian relief or providing close air support to troops in 

harm’s way. They are agile, keeping America’s strategic shield in 

place. With the air bridge to southwest Asia now in its 17th year, 

we are keeping steadfast watch in space and in the skies and 

through cyberspace. 

Given the age of our air and space equipment, there is no doubt 

our freedoms are balanced carefully on the courage, skills and ingenuity of our total-force airmen. They superbly perform our assigned 

ground force missions, although all realize that the adage, ‘‘Every 

airmen or rifleman sacrifices the very leverage the Nation wants 

from its airmen in strategic and tactical firepower.’’ 

We look for the ground-force reset to begin to remedy this 

tasking. Our battlefield airmen levy global power through technology like the remotely operated video enhanced receiver 

(ROVER), which gives a new level of communication (comm) activity and situation awareness to ground troops and our pilots, as well 

as first responders. And we are the only service with the dedicated 

combat search-and-rescue forces for all services to employ in the 

deep battle. 

It truly is an interdependent fight, and we owe our ground partners the very best we can muster in leveraging airspace and cyberspace assets. 

Your Air Force is in the fight in the global war on terror (GWOT) 

by providing global vigilance through theater-based aircraft, space 

systems and unmanned vehicles. Air Force assets are surveying, 

tracking and identifying enemy positions, as well as performing 

critical counter-Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) missions. 

Our C–130’s and C–17s execute precision air drop and cargo missions, which are saving countless lives by taking dangerous convoys 

off the road. I believe 9,000 soldiers did not have to drive convoys 

in the previous month. 
5 

Our aerial medical evaluation personnel are giving us our highest survival rate in the history of warfare. We are fully engaged in 

meeting our wartime requirements, but wear and tear, combined 

with loss of buying power, translates into risk to future readiness 

capacity and capability. 

Last year, I laid out a very difficult strategy to address our most 

pressing need: recapitalizing our aging fleet. The Air Force is staying inbounds by trying to self-fund to the maximum extent possible 

through force-shaping on a mission-first basis, buying fewer but 

more capable platforms and implementing new initiatives to try to 

become more efficient throughout our Air Force. 

When I was a young officer leaving the Air Force in 1973, the 

average age of our equipment, including space assets, was between 

eight and nine years old. Our fleet age now is triple that, averaging 

24 to 25 years of age. With this in mind, I have advised our airmen 

that it is their duty to ensure that the airmen of tomorrow are as 

confident and as capable against tomorrow’s threat as we are 

today. 

We can only ensure this by intensely husbanding every resource, 

people, flying hours and expenses and dedicating freed resources to 

recapitalization. I ask your continued help to allow the Air Force 

to manage our fleet without legislative restrictions and assist us in 

this duty to our future. 

From a space perspective, we are making the necessary steps in 

the fiscal year 2008 budget to ensure uninterrupted, continuous 

service in communications, early warning, position, navigation and 

timing and environmental-sensing satellites. 

We appreciate your support in the development, procurement 

and fielding of these critical-space capabilities because our military 

and the citizens of our great nation depend upon their continuous 

service. 

As in other domains, your Air Force is now engaged daily in 

cyberspace. We have established within the Air Force a new cybercommand to address how we can better train and present our 

forces to U.S. strategic command, the combatant commanders and 

other government agencies to prosecute engagements in this domain. 

These are a few of the daily realities confronting your Air Force. 

Now, the strategic concerns us with the proliferation of advanced 

technologies such as double-digit surface-to-air missiles, the nuclear test in North Korea and the recent Chinese ASAT test, proving that space is not a sanctuary. 

We are responding with our prospective fielding of the Next Generation Long Range Strike Bomber by 2018, as well as the supporting satellite and tanker infrastructure. To keep our total force 

ready, we must care for our airmen and their families. 

In the Air Force, our tenant has long been, ‘‘We recruit airmen, 

but we retain families,’’ making the quality of life and the standards we apply to that a key component. We are providing our airmen access to safe, quality, affordable, well-maintained housing in 

a community where they choose to live through housing privatization. We appreciate your continued support of this effort. 

In summary, your Air Force is in the fight, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but globally. Your airmen are the nation’s strategic 
6 

edge. They are expeditionary, highly trained warriors. And with 

your help, we will provide them with the necessary training, equipment and quality of life to keep the nation’s asymmetric advantage 

of global vigilance, global reach and global power. Recapitalizing 

our aging equipment inventories is the absolute key to this. 

Finally, I want to salute our airmen. They are amazing, eager to 

serve and mindful of their mission all around the world. I am 

proud to be their secretary, and look forward to your questions. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Wynne and General 

Moseley can be found in the Appendix on page 57.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Chief, whenever you are ready, sir. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, USAF, CHIEF OF 

STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General MOSELEY. Congressman Ortiz, if you would humor me, 

instead of an oral statement, I would like to introduce a set of 

great Americans here that I know the committee would like to 

know better. 

Let me start off by echoing what the secretary said. We are a nation at war. We are an Air Force at war. And these airmen are involved in combat operations (ops) on a daily basis, fighting this 

long war on terrorism, defending the homeland, participating in activities that provide strategic deterrence and dissuasion, participating in activities that provide global vigilance, reach and power. 

These airmen are examples of that. And if you would humor me, 

I would like to introduce them to you. As introduce you, you all 

please stand up. 

First one is Lieutenant Colonel Marty McBride. He is the commander of the 81st Fighter Squadron at Spangdahlem Air Base, 

Germany. It is an A–10 squadron. He has recently returned from 

Afghanistan, where he led a total force of active guard and reserve 

airmen through continuous, 24-hour-a-day operations solid from 

May to September. 

His squadron flew 2,000 combat missions, 7,000 combat hours, 

delivered 102,000 rounds of 30 millimeter and over 300 bombs in 

support of special ops and land-component activities in Afghanistan. 

[Applause.] 

Next, is Major Toby Duran. He is the chief of tactics at Air Force 

Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. He has 

served as a space-weapons officer with the First Marine Expeditionary Force forward from February to July 2006 in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF). His job was to ensure seamless integration of 

Air Force systems, space systems and comm systems with Marineground elements in Iraq’s Al Anbar province. 

He, alone, ensured that the Marines had accurate systems 

connectivity to provide accurate artillery and rocket fire for combat 

operations, as well as providing all of the key attributes of space 

to include weather, to include navigation, to include comm. So this 

is one of our space experts that most people don’t know what they 

do because they do this so well people think it is easy. They do it 

24 hours a day, seven days a week. He is a face on what we provide 

from space. 
7 

Toby, thanks. 

[Applause.] 

Next is Captain Andie McIlveen. She and I have a relationship 

that goes back to when she was in pilot training. We have known 

each other for a while. She is a combat pilot from Minot Air Force 

Base, North Dakota. She is also a weapons-school graduate and a 

weapons officer and Instructor Pilot (IP), with 2,000 total flight 

hours, 360 combat hours and 25 missions. That averages out to 

14.5 hours per mission, if you think about it. 

She has deployed to the Arabian Gulf for Operation Southern 

Watch, two times for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), two 

times to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, as part of U.S. Pacific 

Command’s continuous bomber presence. She is pretty young to 

have done that. The airplane she flies is 45 years old. 

So here is a face on our bomber crews and our bomber pilots that 

are out there doing this—providing that global power and that 

global reach and that deterrence and dissuasion. Andie does this 

very, very well. 

[Applause.] 

Next is Tech Sergeant Ken Marshall. He is a PJ, pararescue 

jumper. All of us that wear wings and all of us that fly know that 

wherever we go, anywhere on the surface of the earth, if we have 

to dismount from an airplane, the PJ will come get us. And that 

is what Ken Marshall does. 

He was deployed multiple times for a wide range of contingency 

and combat ops: Southern Watch, Allied Force, non-combatant 

evacuation operations in Liberia, Operation Iraqi Freedom, major 

combat ops, and most recently, to Balad Air Base in Iraq, where 

he conducted multiple recovery missions in real combat settings. 

Besides these contingency and combat ops, he has twice provided 

medical evacuations to support the western White House in 

Crawford, Texas and has been the PJ team leader for back-to-back 

space-shuttle launches at NASA and at the alternate landing sites 

at Zaragoza. 

He is the face on our combat search and rescue and he is a face 

on the moral and ethical imperative that we have to go pick people 

up in this world. Anywhere on the surface of the earth, under any 

contingency, the PJ will come get you. And here is one of those PJs. 

[Applause.] 

Last is Staff Sergeant Christine Chavez. She is a boomer. For all 

of us that wear wings, there is nothing like a tanker and there is 

nothing like a boomer. She is an aerial-refueling instructor boom 

operator at McConnell in Kansas. 

She has numerous deployments also: Operation Southern Watch, 

Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, major 

combat ops during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She has flown out of 

expeditionary bases at Diego Garcia, Shaikh Isa and Bahrain, at Al 

Udeid in Qatar, at Al Dhafra in United Arab Emirates. She has 

163 combat missions totaled and over 1,000 combat hours. 

She is the face on what provides global reach, global vigilance 

and global power for this country. And that is the tanker and the 

boomer in the back of that tanker that transfers that fuel that provides all of this capability. She does this and makes it look so easy. 

And the airplane she flies is also 45 years old. 
8 

Sergeant Chavez, thanks. 

[Applause.] 

Congressman Ortiz, thank you for the opportunity to introduce 

these great Americans and these great airmen. Alongside the Secretary, I look forward to your questions and comments and discussions about this great Air Force and the future. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Moseley and Secretary 

Wynne can be found in the Appendix on page 57.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. We are so proud of the work that 

you all do in keeping America safe and strong and a leader in this 

world. So we are very proud of what you do. 

I have a question. As I was looking at the testimony, the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request shows a 10 percent reduction in flying 

hours, which I understand is budget-driven, as opposed to a decrease in operations requirements. I am told the Air Force will increase its use of simulators for training and other efficiencies to reduce the impact of fewer flying hours. 

How confident are you that similar training will be enough to 

keep pilots proficient? I am not a pilot, so you might be able to give 

us some input—how confident you feel that this will do the job for 

those that fly. 

Secretary WYNNE. Let me try to start that, and I will turn it over 

to my pilot chief as quickly as I can. 

You are correct in assessing that we are searching for recapitalization resources. You are correct in asserting that we did not believe that we would be getting top-line increases, especially as you 

see ground forces, with their requirements. Therefore, we took a 

hard set of decisions. 

One of the things we determined is we could find deficiencies 

across our Air Force. And we challenged the flying-hour program, 

just as you have suspected, to try to find efficiencies in achieving 

the same level of quality with less resources, just like we are doing 

across our Air Force. 

We also determined that we were reducing people. And in the reduction of people, we should, theoretically, be able to reduce flying 

hours to some degree, just in that alone. With that having been 

said, the chief has got his finger on the pulse of the system. And 

while simulators are an interesting substitute for some of the flying 

hours, I don’t believe that they do the complete job. 

But now I will ask the chief because he is the pilot amongst us. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, sir. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman Ortiz, we have had to make 

some hard decisions on depot maintenance and on flying hours and 

the reductions in that to be able to protect the investment accounts. That is the same thing that the secretary is talking about, 

as we force-shape the end-strength to protect the investment accounts. We have taken a 10 percent reduction in the flying hours. 

And I am at the verge of not being comfortable with this. And 

I have asked our folks to look at, is there not some way to begin 

to migrate money back, because the simulator business is interesting. But at the end of the day, it is a simulator. You have to 

actually be able to fly the airplane and you actually have to be able 

to train the airplane in a combat setting. 
9 

We have a variety of simulators, some of them really, really magnificent and some of them are just procedural trainers. But the notion that you can substitute simulator time for actual flying time— 

in my view, we have reached the limit. 

We need to be looking at how to get the investment accounts so 

we can get the newer equipment and be able to get into the flyinghour programs because this Air Force is at war. And we are having 

to prepare to go into a variety of different locations and conduct 

combat operations that I—my desire is for everyone that mounts 

up in an airplane—they have the best training and they have the 

best capability possible. 

So the 10 percent reduction in the flying-hour program—I am on 

the verge of being uncomfortable with that. And we are looking to 

get the money back. 

Mr. ORTIZ. For those of us who are not pilots, now—what is a 

10 percent reduction? What does it mean as far as hours? I mean, 

how many hours do they—were training before? And the 10 percent 

means how many hours of reduction? And what are the risks, if 

there is any risk involved when you do that? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, that will take a long answer to a question. Please let me get the numbers for you for the record. But let 

me also say that because and airplanes are so old, we are having 

problems generating the sorties and the squadrons, which we call 

U-rates or utilization rates. 

And so when a squadron ops officer defines how many hours he 

or she needs for the squadron to be combat-ready, it is very difficult now for the maintainers to generate those numbers of sorties. 

So we have continued to dumb down the standard until we have 

reached a point where we are not producing the sorties, nor are we 

producing the total combat preparation that I am comfortable with. 

So the 10 percent is just another additive piece of the notion of 

combat readiness in our operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts. 

Secretary WYNNE. And so, sir, you have explored a scene between 

the chief and I because I think the only answer to this is to recapitalize and become a modern Air Force. And I agree totally with him 

that we are at war and we cannot stop funding the operations and 

maintenance. 

And so he and I agreed that I would take the challenge and he 

would keep his pulse on it. And, as he said, he is becoming uncomfortable. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Saxton? 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And once again, thanks for being with us this morning, gentlemen. We appreciate it very much. 

I have two questions and the first one is actually a two-part 

question. It has to do with acquisition programs. 

As I look down this list of acquisition programs to replace the old 

aircraft that you have both mentioned at least once already this 

morning—I look at the issues that Chairman Neil Abercrombie and 

his subcommittee are going to have to deal with, which include F– 

22 and expenditures for F–35, KC–X, C–17, Joint Cargo Aircraft 

(JCA), the HH–47 program that made headlines this week, C–130 
10 

modernization program, the C–5 modernization program; and then, 

in space, Tranformational Satellite (TSAT), space radar, Global Positioning System (GPS), Space Based Infrared Satellite System 

(SIBRS), and the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite 

System—that is a tall order, finding the appropriate amount of 

funds for all of those—for all of programs. 

And at the same time, as I noted in my opening statement, in 

order to self-finance these programs, the Air Force has made a decision—apparently made a decision—at least, that was it last 

year—to reduce the number of Air Force personnel by 40,000. 

I guess the first part of my question is how is that working, and 

will we be able to, as Chairman Abercrombie and I begin our deliberations in subcommittee—will it become clear to us that we are 

going to have resources to fund these programs? 

And the second part of my question is, sometimes Congress does 

things that, I guess to be kind, in retrospect don’t seem to be well 

thought out. And one of those things is that we have prohibited the 

Air Force from retiring old airplanes that can’t be used. I am thinking of, of course, C–5s, C–130’s and KC–135s and, maybe, some 

others. 

Can you tell us, as a second part of this question, what kind of 

an expenditure you are having to make on an annual basis to keep 

those old airplanes around waiting to go to the graveyard. 

So, Mr. Secretary, that is my first two-part question. 

Secretary WYNNE. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate the thrust of 

it. I know that we have provided you and Congressman Abercrombie with a very difficult problem in your subcommittee. 

I would say it this way: We are to the point where the question 

is, ‘‘Do we hold on to our airmen and provide them with not as capable equipment as they deserve going into combat or do we, essentially, ask our airmen to take on the duty to be sure that the next 

generation is fully capable of fighting the next-generation threat. 

I offer you the following: In Baghdad, when we went to downtown Baghdad, we only sent in two caliber of airplane—the B–2 

and the F–117. Between 2003 and now, Tehran has bought the 

next generation of Russian equipment. Caracas is buying the kind 

of equipment that Baghdad had. And I would say to you that when 

reason fails, I think you need to rely on your Air Force and we 

need to rely on the courage of our airmen and be sure to give them 

the most capable equipment to fight that fight. 

That having been said, we are taking a very strong back-to-basics approach. Both in space and in air, we are fighting off the requirements. It is one of the reasons we declared the F–22A and we 

asked our contractors and our program managers to put iron on the 

ramp. We want satellites in space and Dr. Sega is working very 

hard and diligently to make sure the requirements for the TSAT, 

for the AEHF, for the GPS–3 are baseline and high technical maturity. 

We believe through this, we can restrain the growth in our acquisition programs, properly fund them using the technique we have 

described and, perhaps, have a little bit of margin left to fill in 

stressed areas such as the flying-hour program when the day is 

done. 
11 

That having been said, this is a very difficult—and it is very difficult to explain, by the way, to our airmen in the field at the same 

time, who are, right now, as was pointed out, performing groundbased taskings. And they are seeking a question of, ‘‘How far can 

you go?’’ 

I have declared that 40,000 full-time equivalents is as far as I 

am willing to go and risk. With the growth in land components, it 

concerns me because I know that I have dedicated airmen that go 

with every brigade combat team. I know that I have dedicated airmen that go with every support function. I know that if you increase the ground forces, you all of a sudden increase the intra-theater lift, which is already stressing my C–130Hs. So these things 

I know. 

So what the chief and I have agreed to do is, over the course of 

this summer, we will try to discern what exactly is the groundforce plan, how does it impact our Air Force and what does that 

mean? And did the increase in the ground forces mean we have a 

relaxation in the ground-force tasking? These are things that, right 

now, are a little bit unknown for us. 

Chief. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman Saxon, I think it is useful to 

talk about the submission of the budget. 

The Air Force spent 2.2 million man-hours putting this program 

objective memorandum (POM) together to square these programs, 

given our physical guidance. And that is to keep the major programs alive—the C–130J, the Joint Cargo Aircraft and the F22— 

but also, the priorities that we have established in procurement, 

which is the tanker first, the combat-rescue helicopter, our space 

systems, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new bomber. 

All of those are in this budget, and the budget is squared. After 

2.2 million man-hours of working this and submitting that which 

became the Air Force piece of the president’s budget—everything 

that you have described is in that budget and funded. 

Now, is it funded at the economic order, quantities and delivery 

rates that makes each of them most efficient and reduces the cost 

on each of the items? No, it is not. But to do the things that you 

have asked, we spent 2.2 million man-hours working this to make 

sure those programs are alive. And again, that is the tanker, the 

combat-rescue helicopter, the space systems, the Joint Strike Fighter and the new bomber. 

Mr. SAXTON. And the retirement program? 

General MOSELEY. Great question, sir. But before I get to that, 

the programs that we are talking about here, as the secretary 

said—our stress is or our focus is on building an A model of those 

new aircraft so that we don’t to spiral the system in the early 

phases of it like some of us have done in the past. 

So if we can fill the KC-blank-A model and get it in production 

and get it in squadron service, the boomers of the Air Force will 

have something younger than 45 years that they go to combat in— 

same with the F–22A, same with the F–35A, same with the combat 

rescue helicopter, et cetera. So our focus is building the A-model 

first and then, when it is time for a B-model or a C–model, we will 

work that. 
12 

And sir, the restrictions on being able to manage our inventory 

keeps us in the business of keeping the C–130E around, the KC– 

135E around, versions of the C–5, the B–52, the F–117 and the U– 

2. It is about 15 percent of our inventory, as the secretary said. 

Our desire would be to be able to manage our inventory and be 

able to flow the new systems in relative to the divestiture of the 

old systems; the congressional restrictions, our staff tells us, that 

is costing us—beginning in 2008, that restrictive language will cost 

us a little over $1.7 billion a year to maintain those old airplanes. 

If you do that math, that is about $4.5 million a day to maintain 

those old airplanes. 

So our desire is to be able to work our way through divestiture 

of the old iron, bring the new systems on board, roll that money 

into acquisition and procurement to ensure that the 21st century 

Air Force is what you want it to be. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to pass on 

my second question. But I just want to emphasize this point—that 

we, because of restrictive language in last year’s authorization bill 

and years before that—on retiring old airplanes, airplanes that 

have to be maintained to a certain state, have to be manned to a 

certain state, sitting on the ground, unable to be used for their old 

mission because the airplanes are worn-out, unsafe and too expensive to maintain in flying condition—we are spending $1.7 billion 

a year to keep them sitting on the ground for no reason. 

We passed a bill out of this committee last year with language 

lifting that restrictive language and our bill language fell out in 

conference. And I hope that we can push that issue this year because we are wasting $1.7 billion of taxpayers’ money, monies that 

could be used for these modernization programs. This is a big deal. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I think the gentleman brings up a very, very good 

point. 

Now, I yield to my good friend from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, aloha to you. 

General, aloha. 

Following up on the line of questioning so far—Mr. Secretary, 

you and I have had an opportunity to discuss questions concerning 

recapitalization in the context of capital budgeting. And other 

members of the Air Force hierarchy both in uniform and civilian— 

we have had these discussions as well. 

If you will look back on page 41 of your testimony, under ‘‘Recapitalization and Modernizing the Air Force’’—4.0 is the reference 

point—before the ‘‘Comprehensive Plan.’’ Really, the ‘‘Recapitalizing and Modernizing the Air Force,’’ the whole paragraph there 

is a masterpiece of what my old journalism professor would call 

glittering generalities. 

I can’t figure out what recapitalization means from what you say: 

‘‘Aggressively recapitalizing and modernizing our inventories of aircraft, space systems, equipment, operational infrastructure.’’ So I 

read with great interest through the rest of it to try and figure out 

how we were going to do that. And I can’t figure it out. 

As far as I can tell, ‘‘reinvesting’’ means, simply, buying. When 

the word ‘‘reinvest’’ is used in here, it just means purchase. With 
13 

reference to what Mr. Saxton said about the aging infrastructure, 

the aging inventory and legislative restrictions, that is all outlined 

very clearly here. The $1.74 billion figure is on page 43 of the testimony. 

And you cite as reasons for the difficulty—when I say ‘‘you,’’ I 

mean both of you, because your testimony is joint—‘‘the detrimental effects of high-tempo operations and age’’—again, very 

clearly enunciated in here. And then you go to your top acquisition 

priorities, General, and you mention what they were. 

Now, if I understood you correctly—I made note quickly—you 

make clear what your top priorities are. But then, in answer to Mr. 

Saxton’s question, did I hear you correctly that, with regard to 

funding and expected delivery rates, the budget is not adequate? 

I believe you made the statement in the form of a question and 

then you answered your own question with, ‘‘No, it is not,’’ in other 

words, ‘‘No, it is not funded in terms of expected delivery rates.’’ 

Did I understand you correctly? 

General MOSELEY. Correct, sir. As we submitted our budget and 

we squared our budget and we signed up to this—for instance, in 

the case of the tanker, instead of taking the deliveries of the new 

tanker like the Air Force did when the jet tanker was new, when 

you bought 100 of them a year, we are not going to be able to buy 

100 of those new airplanes a year. We are going to be down in the 

notion of 12 or 13 or 14 a year. That is going to take 35 to 40 years 

to buy that program out. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Right. 

Now, you were very kind, Mr. Secretary, to mention the privatization of housing. And that is probably incorrect—to have a partnership between the services and the private sector in building 

housing, taking it out of the MILCON project kind of thing—in 

other words, cash financing of housing—and we have moved to actually bringing in private capital to help build, maintain and sustain and manage the housing, right? And that has worked very 

well. 

Is it correct—I am just drawing a parallel, not an analogy, General—is it correct, then, to say that if we had gone through cash 

financing of housing, it would have been a similar kind of thing? 

We never would have had housing for the Air Force sufficient. It 

would have taken us 10, 20, 30, 40 years to keep up. But we just 

did it project by project, right? 

Secretary WYNNE. That is, in a sense, what we believe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. 

Okay. Now, are you facing the same kind of problem now? If you 

say 13 a year, is that because that is the only manufacturing capability, 13 a year, or is it the financing part of it or both? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I think it is part of both—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. 

General MOSELEY [continuing]. Because we have not been able to 

incentivize industries to be able to get those production levels. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The reason you can’t incentivize industry to 

do it is they are not sure that they are going to have the money 

the next year or the year after to be able to do the building, right? 

It is difficult for a corporation to make a—you know, and I am not 

going to cry tears now for these defense corporations that are out 
14 

there, but their sheer size also carries specific difficulties that they 

have in terms of their capitalization, right, what they commit 

themselves to in terms of production lines. 

They need certainty. They need certainty over a period of time. 

And wouldn’t delivery rates—if a corporation knew that it was 

going to build the tankers—oh, just give me two seconds here because I have got to get through this to get it done right. 

You have got to get financing. You have got to have a financing 

system that meets this recapitalization structure. And this testimony doesn’t get to it, Mr. Secretary. That is my point. 

I will have to yield now, but you see where I am going on this? 

We have to find a way to get beyond cash financing the defense in 

the United States. And I tell you right now, the Air Force will not 

be able to do what you say you want it to do in 2008 if we continue 

to cash-finance defense. 

Secretary WYNNE. I could say one thing, sir. 

And, Congressman Ortiz, I will be brief. 

It is a partnership between the requirements people, i.e., the 

buyers, the industry and the financial. If we were to go to an aspect of capital budgeting like you are thinking about—and I think 

it would be marvelous—that partnership would have to hold together. 

You witnessed last year, in the F–22—with the sudden rush to 

a multi-year—that we were actually doing the multi-year to save 

a rate reduction from 28 airplanes a year to 20 airplanes a year, 

and trying very hard to make that all square. We did not save ‘‘any 

money,’’ because we spent the money reducing the rate of production. And, in fact, I think at the end of the time, we probably cost 

ourselves some money, as we always do when we stretch a program 

out. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Bottom line of the point is, Mr. Secretary, we 

have got to start getting creative about financing. 

Secretary WYNNE. Right. Capital budgeting might have helped 

that. 

Mr. ORTIZ. We want to be sure—we have a lot of members here— 

to give them a chance to ask a question. And then, if necessary, 

we can have a second round. 

Mr. Jeff Miller, from Florida. 

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General Moseley, for both coming. 

General, thank you for bringing those outstanding individuals 

with you. I am still in awe of the information that you provided. 

A couple of things—and I will submit the bulk of my questions 

for the record. But you know I have a continued interest at Eglin 

in regards to the RAND study that is supposed to be coming out 

the end of March. And I still have a concern that it is not going 

to address the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) findings whereby Eglin is identified as a research, development, test, 

evaluation center of excellence. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit 

the DOD and BRAC commission comments on Eglin Air Force 

Base’s military value into the record. I will not read it, but I will 

enter—— 

Mr. ORTIZ. Without objection, so ordered. 
15 

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

printing.] 

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. The other thing is I would just like you 

to touch on, if you would, the center wing-box issue on the C–130’s 

and find out if you think that the budget request this year was 

enough to handle the current situation, because every one of us 

that goes and visits anywhere that there is a C–130 continues to 

hear about that issue. 

Could you answer that question, sir? 

Secretary WYNNE. Yes, sir. I believe we have done a kind of a 

risk-based funding there because there are some C–130Es that we 

feel like, if it has cracked in such a significant place, if you fix that 

place, it is very likely to crack somewhere else that you haven’t figured out. I mean, this is really geriatric airplane management. 

And to some extent—I mean, at some point in time, you actually 

have to replace the aircraft and not just continue to patch it. So 

what we have done is tried to take the most likely that will have 

a service-life extension, and that is what we have funded here. And 

I think it is reasonably prudent. 

Chief? 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, the other side of that is the Hmodels, which are newer. We are now burning them up at a higher 

rate because we are lifting so much work off of the roads the avoid 

the IEDs. This is the right way to do business and use intra-theater lifts. 

The secretary mentioned that we take at least 8,500 to 9,000 people off the roads every month. So that is 8,000 or 9,000 less people 

to be impacted by an IED attack. We also, since September, every 

month—September, October, November, December, January and 

now, up to February—we have moved 100 percent of the Marine 

Corps’ road convoy items by air. So this comes down on the C–130 

fleet. 

The E-models, we try not to deploy into combat because the center wing boxes are cracked, the wings are cracked and you can’t lift 

the weight nor put the fuel on the airplane. So that takes you to 

the H-models. And we are burning the H-models up now at the 

rate that we did the E-models. So the center wing-box issue that 

you are talking about is not just about E-models. It is an emerging 

issue with the Hs. 

And sir, that takes us to the procurement of the C–130J and it 

takes us to be able to retire the C–130Es, which were prohibited 

by language and be able to get on with the new intra-theater lift 

fleet that is much more reliable. 

Sir, I was out at Ramstein about a week or so ago, talking to the 

wing commander. He has five airplanes there, five C–130’s. One of 

them is so hard broke that he can’t do anything with it. Four others are so restricted because of the center wing-box cracks in the 

wings that he can only lift the crew. So it kind of violates the notion of having a cargo-carrying airplane if you can only lift the 

crew. 

So sir, we are seeing this the same way and we are working this 

very hard to be able to divest ourselves of the old aircraft, fix the 

ones that we can keep and get on with the C–130J. 
16 

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. And the budget constraints—now, do 

you think we have the dollars necessary to fix those that we can? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I think it is a start. 

We are having to make tough decisions and balance this budget. Like I said, we spent over $2 million man-hours trying to balance 

this budget and get at all of the things that matter to us as a global Air Force. And so there have had to be compromises made, but 

it is a start. And if we can retire the E-models, that will accelerate 

us into being able to spend that money on those H-models and 

make sure those are okay. 

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Thank you, General. I will submit the 

rest of my questions for the record. 

But I do want to also add, I get to do something exciting this 

weekend—we all do. On Saturday, I will be attending a ceremony 

at Duke Field—speaking of lifting with C–130’s—the 919th Operations group, a Reserve unit, will receive the Gallant Unit Citation—the first reserve unit ever to receive that. And I know that 

both the Secretary and the Chief send their regards, and this committee will as well, to these outstanding airmen and women. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

General Moseley, I want to continue this C–130 discussion. When 

that very dramatic and tragic footage of the service plane from several years ago, where the wings came off—it was an A-model, I believe—was that a wing-box problem? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I am not sure. I think it was an A-model, 

and I don’t know if it was a center wing-box problem or just metal 

fatigue that the owners of it hadn’t been watching. 

Dr. SNYDER. That is the kind of thing that you—the most apprehensive about when you are dealing with old metal fatigue? 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Recently, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) suggested the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which we all believe in—thought 

that it ought to be changed or reformed to put the service chiefs— 

you, General Moseley—more directly into the acquisition process so 

that there would be more direct responsibility that you all would 

have. What do you think of that? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I agree with that. 

I think Goldwater-Nichols has done some great things. I think 

there is some opportunity to have a Goldwater-Nichols for the 

inter-agency that does the same thing for the inter-agency that is 

done for the Department of Defense and the services. But I also 

think it might be time to ask that question about, ‘‘Where do the 

uninformed leadership live inside the acquisition system?’’ 

Dr. SNYDER. I don’t think there is anyone in the military, out of 

the military or in the Congress or out of Congress that is satisfied 

with the acquisition process. And Goldwater-Nichols took years to 

come about. And I am not sure we are going to take the years to 

make those kinds of changes. So we may need to pick at some of 

those things. And that may be one we can look at. 

I guess about four weeks ago, you all did the formal notification 

that the C–130 avionics modernization program (AMP) had run 
17 

into some cost problems—a cost breach. General Moseley, would 

you describe that for us and where that is going to lead us and how 

that is going to get us to where we need to go in terms of the 

amount of lift capacity you need for intra-theater lift. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, we did have some challenges with that 

program. And remember, the original program was for an avionics 

modernization program for every single C–130, and we have close 

to 600 of them. As we have looked at this over time, we believe it 

is probably better to do the H-models and then configure the airplanes so that they are compatible with the J and, perhaps, not 

spend that money on the C–130E because those are the ones the 

congressman referenced that have the center wing-box cracks, the 

wing cracks, et cetera. 

So we are in a little bit of flux over that AMP program right now, 

looking at the best way to proceed. But I think you would be—— 

Dr. SNYDER. What was the specific cost-breach notification that 

you gave us? That was not just a reevaluation of the program, 

there was problems—— 

General MOSELEY. No, sir, there were—that is right, sir. If you 

will allow me to take that for the record, I will get the exact details 

for you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. 

You and Mr. Saxton, with his good discussion that you all had 

about the legislative restrictive language that we had tried to remove in the House bill—as I looked over you all’s formal presentation to us, I didn’t see a whole lot in there of specific legislative 

suggestions that you are making to us beyond—you know, we have 

had that that we will pursue in terms of removing that restrictive 

language. 

But for both of you, what other legislative, specific things do we 

need to look at in this year’s defense bill? 

Secretary WYNNE. I think, sir, we have asked for a little bit of 

relief on the use of the National Guard and the chain of command, 

because one of the things the Air Force is doing with its total 

force—and I am very proud of those folks in Florida—but we are 

actually now moving our National Guard to where they are training our people. And they train our people, if you will, because they 

are more mature, they have more time on that device and we don’t 

have that many of some things. 

Dr. SNYDER. We have that same going on at the Little Rock Air 

Force Base. 

Secretary WYNNE. Yes, sir. And we are right now working our 

way through this in as best a way we can, trying to comply with 

the law. But it would be much easier for us if there was some legislation in that area. 

Dr. SNYDER. Have you all provided us with some—— 

Secretary WYNNE. I believe we have provided some thoughts on 

that to you. 

By the way, we are on our own here. I think the DOD is not 

quite aligned in this regard. They do not reach back as much as 

we do and they are not as reliant, if you will, on the National 

Guard, as we find ourselves reliant. So we are, in fact, working our 

way through as best we can on a one-off basis. 
18 

We also are talking to you about some energy concerns that we 

have, trying to figure out a way to spark America in their energy 

programs in a different way to allow us to, essentially, be a longterm buyer of alternative fuels. So those are two things we are 

working on. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Moseley? 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, there is another piece of this 

that we have got some proposed language for you all to consider 

on our Air University and our ability to continue the accreditation 

there so we can help our enlisted folks get bachelor’s degrees 

quicker. We can do distributed learning quicker. I mean, there are 

some wonderful opportunities here in this deployed Air Force that 

we can do much better at Air University. 

Sir, back to the Guard and Reserve—we are a big believer in 

total force. You have known us all very well, and when you walk 

around Little Rock, you can’t tell the difference between a guardsman, a reservist or an active-duty airman. Right now, commanding 

the unit up at Kirkuk in northern Iraq is a Guardsmen and his 

senior enlisted command chief is also a guardsman. And they are 

from St. Louis. He is the wing commander of the Guard unit at St. 

Louis. 

We have no issues, and encourage the ability to have a guardsman or reservist out commanding those units. And so this total 

force, this seamless approach for us is a big deal. And the ability 

for us to operate seamlessly in the future for homeland security, 

homeland defense or outside the United States, that is a big deal 

for us. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for everything that 

you do. Those terrific airmen behind you, officer and enlisted, make 

us proud every day. So thanks for your leadership and your presence. 

A couple of comments—I am very, very concerned, and I have expressed these concerns with the other service chiefs and secretaries, that we are trying to modernize a force and reset it or reconstitute it and fight it all at the same time. And on the one hand, 

we are doing a fabulous job at that. On the other, I am worried 

that we are getting increasingly behind. 

General, I am looking at you because you talked about the C– 

130H. You have got Es that have cracked boxes, so you can’t fly 

anything but the crew or you can’t fly them at all, you are putting 

more and more work on the 130Hs. You are now flying them. I 

would like to have the answer for the record, what percent of utilization you are flying those 130Hs at. 

But the point is you are flying, I hope no literally, the wings off 

of them. And we see the same thing in the Navy; for example, the 

P–3s. Those P–3s, they are getting tremendous use and they are 

really pouring utilization on them. 

So I am very concerned that we are not keeping track with that. 

And the budget is not accounting for that extraordinary overuse, if 

you will, of the assets. And I am using the C–130 because we have 
19 

already talked about it. But across the board, this is just more a 

plea to you to please make sure that we are looking at this equipment and we are not slipping further and further behind in resetting that force. 

And I don’t know what I can say, but, please—we can’t always 

see that. We need you to tell us what you really, really need to 

make sure that we are resetting the force properly because of this 

extraordinary and unprogrammed for utilization of our assets. 

And then, I was surprised and shouldn’t have been when you 

said 2.2 million man-hours in POM-slant-budget preparation. I 

know it takes an enormous amount of work. And yet, at the end 

of that, in your testimony and in responses to Mr. Abercrombie, 

there are some shortfalls. You squared the budget, but at some considerable cost. 

The 10 percent reduction in flight hours, I find that frightening 

because, to me, it is a harbinger of things to come. And I can flash 

back—sort of a nauseating look back—to the past in the bad, old 

1970’s, when we were all out of flight-hour program in all of the 

services and we were parking aircraft and waiting until the end of 

the fiscal year before we could fly again simply because we couldn’t 

do it. 

So please look at that 10 percent reduction. Don’t let it be the 

start of a 15 percent reduction, of a getting to the second of September and have to park them and not fly them. 

And then just finally, I am very concerned that the budget, 

frankly, doesn’t tell us everything that you need. I know you are 

fiscally constrained. ‘‘You have a top line,’’ DOD is telling you. But 

clearly, if you are looking at things like a 10 percent reduction, if 

you are flying the wings off the 130–Hs and we are not replacing 

them fast enough, the budget ought to have a—there ought to be— 

their unfunded-requirements list ought to be pretty big. And I 

haven’t seen that. 

And I would like to see the unfunded-requirements list, Secretary. 

Secretary WYNNE. Mr. Kline, interestingly enough, I heard a stat 

this morning that sort of stood me up. And it was that the United 

States Air Force is buying fewer airplanes than any other service— 

and we are the United States Air Force—and most of those are unmanned predators. 

Mr. KLINE. Well, we have a pretty—I am very proud of the Air 

Guard in the Minnesota, where we have got F–16s we are operating, C–130’s. And I look at those C–130’s—Air Reserve as well— 

C–130’s. And I am just very, very concerned. I know this sort of 

repeats itself as we come through budget cycles. What are we doing 

with these 130’s? 

Well, we know what we are doing with them. We are flying 

them. Your terrific men and women are flying those 130’s and they 

are flying them an awful lot. And I am just not real comfortable 

that we have accounted for this domino effect with the 130Es. We 

can’t fly them because of problems, so we are overflying the 130Hs. 

I am not sure we have got the Js coming in. 

I guess I don’t have a question here except whatever I spoke for 

the record. 
20 

But thanks for the great work that you are doing and be as forthcoming as you can with what you really need. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, the other challenge, which I 

know you will appreciate, is while we are an Air Force at war and 

we are a nation at war, we are flying those 130’s to take people 

off the road so we don’t have to deal with IED attacks. So if we 

can take 8,500 or 9,000 Americans off the road—or coalition people 

off the road—— 

Mr. KLINE. Right. 

General MOSELEY [continuing]. That you don’t have to face a loss 

of limb in blast and frag and burns, that is a good thing. 

Mr. KLINE. Yes, it is. 

General MOSELEY. The challenge that we have got is while we 

are fighting this global war on terrorism, we are at the bottom of 

a procurement holiday that has lasted decades. And so the Air 

Force’s mission is a global mission. We live in the world of strategic 

deterrents and dissuasion. We live in the world of space. We live 

in the world, now, of cyberspace. We live in the world of having to 

have a jet tanker to be able to enable everything that we do in this 

country. 

So while we are fighting in Al Anbar province, we are also dealing in a very uncertain world with a very uncertain strategic setting. So the 2.2 million man-hours is an attempt to square every 

single program that we have got to keep the major programs alive, 

live within the physical guidance, live within the law that Congressman Abercrombie is talking about, and still progress on those 

procurement programs to be able to field these new systems—— 

Mr. KLINE. No, I understand that. And, clearly, there is not 

enough money in this budget to do what the Air Force needs to do. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

General MOSELEY. And, Congressman, no one has come to either 

one of us lately and said, ‘‘You can stop doing something’’: ‘‘You can 

stop doing something on a global scale. You can stop doing something in space. You can stop doing something with bombers or 

tankers. You can stop doing something with C–17s or C–130’s.’’ I 

haven’t seen it. 

Mr. KLINE. And not likely to today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Tauscher. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary and General Moseley, thank you both for being 

here. I am very proud to meet the airmen behind you. 

I am also proud that at Travis Air Force Base in my district, 

Senior Airman Eric Pena was selected to be one of the 12 outstanding airmen of 2006. Not surprising—I think they are all outstanding. 

I am trying to get to the bottom—and you and I, both of us, had 

a conversation in the anteroom a few minutes ago before the hearing started. I take some responsibility for advocating for more C– 

17s in the last cycle. I am proud to say that I am very interested 

in keeping that production line warm or, at least, if not hot, warm. 

My problem is that I don’t understand why we are trying to 

make the C–17 and the C–5 fungible. They are not the same air-
21 

craft. They are not the same airframe. They don’t have the same 

mission and they don’t have the same capabilities. And I find myself frustrated. I think a lot of members find themselves frustrated 

in that, apparently, we have got to pick one. And I feel a little like 

‘‘Sophie’s Choice.’’ I don’t want to have to pick one. 

And I think that what is confusing to me, General Moseley, is 

in your testimony on page 57, you basically go on to talk about how 

the AMP program and that—and for the C–5. You know, we are 

going to keep doing that. But I know that you are basically telling 

everybody you want to ditch the C–5As. 

Now, the C–5A, as far as I understand, has a lower rating when 

it comes to its operational capabilities and its readiness. But it is 

really the guard and reserve plane and I am not sure that it gets 

online as quickly as others to get the best equipment, the best 

O&M and all the other things. 

So help me deal with the fact that they are not fungible planes, 

they don’t have the same airframe, they don’t have the same mission, they don’t have the same capabilities. We still need C–5s because we are leasing Russian planes because we don’t have enough 

C–5s. 

So I don’t know why I should have to be Meryl Streep in the 

movie, where I have to pick one kid or the other. I know we need 

both. I think you know we need both. I know that we have budget 

constraints that are forcing us to pick one or the other. That is not 

good policy for the American people. It is not good for our Air 

Force. 

Help me understand why we cannot have a blended portfolio that 

includes C–5s that are being retrofitted and maintained properly 

and are extending their life and still have new C–17s. 

General MOSELEY. Ma’am, they do have the same mission. They 

are strat airlifters. They have different cube sizes. You can get different things inside each of them. But they do have the same mission, and that is to be able to move strategic materials anywhere 

on the surface of the earth. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, they may have the same mission, but they 

don’t have the same capabilities. 

General MOSELEY. The C–5 is a little bit bigger. There are things 

that will fit in a C–5 currently that won’t fit in the C–17. But 

again, the C–17, you can land it on a riverbed. You cannot land the 

C–5 on dirt. So the balance of these two airplanes is the critical 

piece. You are asking the right question. 

In a perfect world, we would like to be able to manage that inventory and divest ourselves of the bad-acting tail numbers, and 

some of them are bad actors. They are broke. A lot of the C–5As 

have low flight hours on them because they are broke and you can’t 

fly them. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. With all due respect, are they broke because they 

haven’t been maintained because they were, basically, detailed to 

the guard and reserve and didn’t have the right maintenance? 

General MOSELEY. Well, ma’am, remember, the guard and reserve has probably the best maintenance in the world, but they 

work one shift. And so the ability to keep the airplanes flying—an 

F–16 or a reliable C–5 or the C–17s at Jackson or the C–130’s that 
22 

are in the Guard or the Reserve are the best-maintained airplanes 

in the world, even with one shift. 

But the C–5 is a complicated airplane to operate. So in the perfect world, I would like to have the authority to be able to retire 

the ones out that we want to retire. That is not all of them. If you 

lined up the 59 A-models, the two C-models and the 49 B-models— 

if you lined them up from best airplane to worst and began to work 

your way from the worst airplanes forward, retire those old airplanes out and back-fill that with something else, I would be 

happy. 

And I would still like to progress with the AMP program on them 

and I would like to progress beyond the work program to see where 

we really go with this. And that is where we are right now. 

But right now, we are restricted from any divestiture of those 

airplanes. And so, when you conduct any study at any strategic 

level, and when one of your premises is that you don’t impact the 

CRAF, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, then there is a number of strat 

airlifters that is a sweet spot. And we are about there with 300 or 

so. 

So if you can get rid of the oldest, worst actors, and replace those 

with something newer and still maintain about 300 airplanes and 

hold on to whatever A-models that are good, I think that is the perfect world, regardless of whether it is Guard, Reserve or active. But 

right now, we can’t do that. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Well, General, I am more persuaded than I have 

been and I am willing to talk to you some more about this. But I 

just worry that some of these decisions that we are making are 

purely financial decisions and that the strategic decisions that we 

need to be making are—I believe you are advocating them, but I 

think that we are being forced, because we have the war in Iraq 

sucking all the money away—that we are making decisions that, 

perhaps, are not going to be in our long-term strategic interest. 

General MOSELEY. Well, ma’am, you know your Air Force works 

every day to try to maintain that strategic setting and to not make 

decisions in a preemptive measure that then closes doors. 

For instance, the Fleet Viability Board Study on the C–5 says 

even after you AMP and rep the A-model, you have only got a 25- 

year airplane left. We are lead time away from what happens to 

those squadrons and those units when that airplane goes away. 

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, General Moseley. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, is 

next. 

Dr. GINGREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wasn’t quite 

ready, but I guess it is time. And I will proceed. I missed—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I will bring that clock back 10 seconds, then. 

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This issue about the C–5 and what we do with it—I think, General Moseley, I wanted to address that. And it is probably—maybe 

to what Ms. Tauscher was—her line of questioning. I wish my good 

friend—and, maybe, Representative Marshall will be here before 

the hearing—my colleague from Georgia. I know he is very, very 

knowledgeable about this subject. He has looked in it very closely 

with the work that is being done with the C–5 modernization pro-
23 

gram, both at Warner Robins in Macon, Georgia, just below Macon, 

and also in my district in Marietta. 

So, you know, the test results have been gathered and assessed. 

Can I assume, then, that you support that requirement to test and 

assess before making any decisions to retire any aircraft? 

You know, I guess it all gets down to the question of lifespan. 

I mean, if you increase it 25 years, it seems to me 25 years is, you 

know, a pretty good amount of life that you would not want to just 

turn to the scrapyard. So, I mean, I have some concerns about this. 

And I realize that there are some competing resources and opinions 

in regard to airlift and what the balance needs to be. 

But I wouldn’t be too quick to get rid of A, B, C-models. I mean, 

you know, depending on what the life expectancy is, what we can 

do with the modernization of the avionics program and the engine 

itself. So, you know, maybe there is a little parochialism here in 

regard to my concern, but please take this discussion a little bit 

further for my benefit. I appreciate it. 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, sir, we intend to comply with the law. 

And the law currently is that we conduct that test and that we do 

not retire any airplanes until we have that done. And the law further goes that we cannot retire any airplanes no matter what the 

outcome of the test is. We intend to comply with the law. 

That having been said, the cost of compliance is rising rapidly. 

And it is basically eating our ability to recapitalize other air fleets. 

And right now, we are, in fact, evaluating a Nunn-McCurdy breach 

on the C–130—on the C–5A re-engining program—because we just 

can’t get the engines anymore. I mean, some of our suppliers are 

not available. The airplane is getting to that point where we actually have obsolescence costs that are fairly high. 

So one of the things that you are asking us to do—and I think, 

fairly so—is try to figure out—and we will do this over the course 

of the summer—what is the right thing to do here. And we will be 

back to you. And right now—just an assessment—it looks to us like 

doing the B-models and the C-models is the right thing to do. In 

fact, keeping some of the A-models appears to be the right thing 

to do. 

I think Congressman Tauscher hit it about right. There are some 

that are really bad actors. And I think if you gave us the right to 

manage the fleet, you would find that we would manage it in a way 

that would actually retain the best mission profiles across the 

thing. I think having these restrictions and causing it was an 

outcropping, frankly, of a BRAC process that is behind us. 

Dr. GINGREY. Right. Mr. Secretary, thank you. And I think exactly what you said is what we want to do. I mean, that is our goal 

in regard to this particular platform. 

General Moseley. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, just like I told Congresswoman Tauscher, 

if I could line up the best B-model or the best A-model at the head 

of the line of 59, two and 49, and go to the back end of the line 

and begin to kill off the bad actors and replace them with something new, I would be very happy. That doesn’t mean all of them. 

It doesn’t mean that we class or block, retire airplanes. It just 

means, ‘‘Let us get at the tail numbers that are bad actors. Let us 
24 

go through the AMP program and the rep program because we will 

comply with the law.’’ 

But sir, I will tell you, the A-model is 35 years old—35 years old. 

And we buy 25 more years on it, we are lead-time away from what 

comes after that. Hanging on to old airplanes for 35 or 40 or 45 

or 50 years gets to be problematic. In January 1937, the Army Air 

Force took the delivery of the first B–17. That was 70 years ago. 

We will fly the KC–135 probably that long. I don’t know what I 

would do in combat with a B–17 right now. 

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Chief Moseley—— 

General MOSELEY. Sure. 

Dr. GINGREY [continuing]. And Mr. Secretary. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Next would be Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Secretary, Chief, thanks for being here. 

I have three broad issues. I am not looking for an answer on 

that, but I do want to—or, actually, four—and I just want to quickly highlight them for you so you know they are not being ignored, 

basically. 

One is on the China ASAT test. I have already submitted questions for the record when the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) and 

Chairman Pace were here. I assume those questions will get to 

your folks working in the Air Force, along with some other folks, 

to get answers back. 

I just do want to emphasize that I would ask for answers to 

those before we move to markup. So there is some time, but I do 

want to emphasize that we do want to get some answers because 

it may have some impacts on where we move in the future. 

Second issue is satellites. I am meeting with Dr. Sega this afternoon, so I won’t ask any questions about satellites, but I do imagine that I will be discussing past challenges and changes to meet 

those challenges to some of the satellite programs. I am absolutely 

sure Dr. Sega anticipates those comments from you as well. But we 

have a good working relationship with him, and so—just to headline that. 

The third issue is, in your testimony, the energy-conservation— 

some of the efforts the Air Force is doing in that. Again, I just want 

to underline that for you. So, just to kind of highlight that, that 

is a good thing to keep in mind, keep moving towards. In case you 

don’t hear from anyone else, I think it is good that you highlighted 

it in your testimony and I think you will find support from the 

committee to move forward on it. 

Fourth—of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the word 

tanker. But by the same token, I am glad to see you are moving 

forward on that. We will see how the process works out over the 

next several months about the choice the Air Force makes. 

But then, the fifth thing—and this is more directly for Chief 

Moseley—the Washington State Delegation did send a letter to 

you—this is with regards to the Fairchild Air Force Base KC–135 

tanker contingent, 141st, sent a letter February 16, 2007, to you 

regarding the movement of the 148 of the 135s assigned to 141st 

to another Air Force base, and then, proposing a solution to that 

as well, to get eight back to Fairchild. 
25 

And first question I just want to ask is—I am sure you have seen 

the letter because you get so many important letters. And this one 

is the most important, I am sure, on top of your list. And second, 

do you have any comments? You have had it for 12 days, presumably. Have you taken a look at it yet? When do you plan to take 

a look at this letter and, perhaps, move forward on it? 

My understanding is that it is tied to what some governors are 

doing with litigation. So I want to appreciate that caveat. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, we have seen it and there is an answer 

headed back to you. The challenge we have got still revolves 

around the divestiture of the KC–135Es. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. 

General MOSELEY. We would like to be able to retire the KC– 

135Es and be able to move the crews into the KC–135Rs so we can 

generate more sorties with the R, which is a much more reliable 

airplane. The base at Fairchild, the base at Grand Forks, the base 

at McConnell, the base at MacDill and a variety of guard and reserve Bases have those Rs. 

So our challenge is to be able to get the R-model into the sortiegeneration place that we need to protect the airspace over the 

country, as well as our air bridge that is 24 hours a day, seven 

days a week across the Pacific and the Atlantic and our combat operations that our boomer has been involved in all so often in deployed locations. 

So sir, we have got the answer headed back to you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Do you have a timeline on that? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I will ask the guys here. I mean, I don’t 

know that. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay, all right. Well, I would appreciate that if you 

could get back to my office on this timeline. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. I appreciate that. 

Thank you. And that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Next, our good friend from Arizona, Mr. Franks, will be heard. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, General Moseley. Thank you, Secretary Wynne— 

all of the people with you. We are always grateful for your courage 

and for your commitment to what you do and how you help all of 

us. 

General Moseley, if it is all right, I would like to start with you. 

I am sure you are familiar with Luke Air Force Base, where the 

largest fighter wing in the world, about 185 F–16 aircraft—trains 

more F–16 fighters than anyone else in the world and has a special 

relationship with the Goldwater Range, which is one of the premier 

ranges of the world. 

With that said, I just have to suggest to you that this just happens to be in my district. But I wondered if—related to the JSF— 

the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter—if you have been able to compose 

any criteria or timelines related to what facility might be the best 

training and operational base for that aircraft, and if Luke has a 

possibility of fitting into that scenario. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, Luke is critical for us on so many levels. 

That is why you see us get fairly agitated about issues of encroach-
26 

ment around Luke, because the Goldwater Range is a national 

treasure like the Nevada Test and Training Range and the Utah 

Test and Training Range. Anything that limits our access to those 

ranges then begins to limit the effectiveness of the base. 

So that is why we wave our arms and get fairly agitated if we 

think we are being encroached. Sir, Luke is important, as is Tucson 

International for F–16 training on the international side, as well 

as on the domestic side. We will have F–16s for a long time, so the 

ability for training command to operate at Luke is critical for us. 

For the F–35, the first training base will be at Eglin. After that, 

we have released some environmental-assessment notifications on 

follow-on bases, and we are just working our way through that. We 

will need to get the coalition partners and the international partners, as well as the department of the Navy with the Marines and 

the Navy on board with us at Eglin and get that started up. Out 

of that, then, we will begin to go into unique Air Force Bases. But 

you know we will have to have a base close to a range. 

Mr. FRANKS. So, there is a possibility, General, that Luke might 

be a candidate for sort of a post-graduate follow-on for some of 

these pilots from Eglin at some point? 

General MOSELEY. Well, sir, I think, perhaps, a different way to 

say that—well, the F–16s will eventually go away. And the ability 

to be able to continue to train on the Goldwater Range makes Luke 

so critical for us. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to submit just a few questions for the record that we could follow up on later. And maybe I could shift gears here just for a moment. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary Wynne, you know, there is a little debate going around 

here related to the reinforcements going into Iraq and a lot of different perspectives on how to ‘‘manage’’ that. And I think, personally, one of the worst things that we could do as a Congress is to 

try to micromanage something that the president has the constitutional power and the best opportunity to manage in the best way 

related to the reinforcements in Iraq. 

But a part of that debate has centered around maybe turning 

some of the armed forces guidelines for equipment training, for 

some—taking some of your guidelines and turning them into regulation. And some of the military experts have said that forcing us 

to—whether it is bringing people in or out of the theater on certain 

timelines or making them train with certain equipment—some of 

those guidelines, at this point, might not be realistic. 

And I guess I would like to—you know, it harkens back to what 

was said earlier about the C–17 and the C–5. When you can manage things on the ground without being micromanaged from people 

who really don’t know what is happening, I think there is a tremendous advantage there. 

Can you speak to that related to some of the training and equipment guidelines related to the surge or the reinforcements going 

into Iraq? 

General MOSELEY. I am going to reach way back into my West 

Point and say that if we codify the infantry tactics, we would be 

fighting that style of war right now because we would be trying 
27 

very hard to get laws passed, if you will, to uncodify some of the 

badder infantry tactics that we lost people with before. 

If we codify infantry tactics now, we would lose the perspective 

of the ROVER, which is the Remotely Operated Visual Enhancement Receiver, which is the little laptop computer that people are 

using. So I would say that our training is morphing every day. And 

to take away the ability of our soldiers to be ingenious in their approach to warfare would be extraordinarily detrimental to essentially the American way of war. 

We always think that when we turn an F–22, for example, over 

to the pilots to fly up in Alaska and over to Hawaii—we would lose 

their ingenuity in using that if we ended up having to come to you 

with a flight manual and codifying it that this is the way we do 

it because we don’t know what they know. And we, as a nation, I 

think, have benefited extraordinarily by letting the people on the 

ground, if you will, manage the ground. 

And a long time ago, I realized that you cannot manage with a 

long screwdriver on operation. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Marshall. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Can you all hear me okay? 

Thank you both for your service. You are doing a great job leading our Air Force. I appreciate it very much. I am pleased to cochair the Air Force Caucus this go around and anything I can do 

to help, just let me know. 

General issues, then a few parochial issues. 

Where the tanker is concerned, one of the things that you have 

heard me say time and again is that this is an opportunity for us 

to develop a model that we might be able to use DOD-wide with 

regard to sustainment, modernization, maintenance over the lifetime of the platform. 

And it is because Airbus is bidding and Airbus is going to come 

in and say, ‘‘Look, we want to assure you that you are going to be 

in complete control of this. We are not going to hold you hostage. 

France isn’t going to hold you hostage,’’ et cetera. 

And since Airbus is going to have to do that, it seems to me that 

that is an opportunity to get Boeing to do the same kind of thing— 

you know, apples to apples in comparison—and then to use that as 

a model to avoid the C–17 fiasco that we basically have right now 

with trying to figure out how we are going to be cost-effective in 

our long-term maintenance. 

And could somebody—I know you all have been working on this. 

Could I get a briefing, maybe in my office, on this subject? We don’t 

need to go into it right now, but where are we exactly? And can 

we apply that same model to the JCA—similar kind of concept to 

JCA? I think the Army is willing to do it. I know we have gone 

back and forth on CLS where Army is concerned. That is their 

business model—suggest that is the appropriate thing. We know it 

is not. And so I am willing to help with that as well—and if I could 

get a briefing on both those things. 
28 

Mobility-capability study—are we going to revisit that? I mean, 

I think the general consensus here is that we think that is a pretty 

fundamental law because assumptions were imposed upon those 

doing the study, and those assumptions that had to be taken into 

account were assumptions that you can look at and conclude aren’t 

all going to come true. And then, there was the tail end, in which 

those doing the study said, ‘‘Oh, by the way, we have got some 

other things we need to look at before we finally make up our mind 

about this.’’ 

Are we revisiting the mobility-capability study? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, a different way to answer that is, now 

with the growth in land-component activities and with the surge on 

the horizon, there is an opportunity to go back and see what that 

really means. And that work is ongoing. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, I think that is real important to us. You 

know, I think that what we did was we pegged our future fleet at 

the bottom end of the range set by this mobility-capability study. 

And if that mobility-capability study is off, we have left ourselves— 

I mean, if it is too low, we have left ourselves no margin at all for 

error. 

General MOSELEY. But Congressman, we have had this discussion before, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your help 

in all this. But the balancing of the portfolios is also very important to us—about our new bomber, about our space systems, about 

the tactical systems, about our UAVs and our new sensors, the 

JSTARS, the AWACS, the rivet joint—all also ride on a 707 airframe. 

And so this tanker decision is a huge decision for us because it 

takes us down the path of an airplane that we can probably use, 

then, to recap somewhere later those aging ISR systems. So sir, the 

mobility portfolio is a big deal, but so is the global strike and so 

is the global ISR portfolio. That is our challenge. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, but we have got to have a handle on this 

mobility-capability study. That is a key part of the deal. All these 

others are as well. 

General MOSELEY. Sure. 

Mr. MARSHALL. But we don’t need to be fooling ourselves about 

what our real needs are. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARSHALL. And then, if we have got to come up with resources, we have to come up with resources. That is our job. But 

we need to understand what those needs are. 

Chief, is there any chance that, on the record here, you can comment on things we have talked about with regard to the software 

support facility and personnel system? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, we are working that within our personnel 

world to make sure we do not disadvantage anybody in those big 

civilian centers of excellence. The notion of centralizing the personnel world is a good notion because you save lots of time, lots of 

money. You save lots of manpower that you can apply to this PBD– 

720 loss of 40,000 people. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Right. 

General MOSELEY. And I don’t believe there is going to be a 

whole lot of money that shows up on trees somewhere. So we have 
29 

to look at a better way to spend the money and a more efficient 

way. 

Having said that, though, if we have taken a step that disadvantages the management of that great workforce and that intellectual 

capital, then we need to make sure we don’t do that. And the notion of having the ability at those locations to manage that civilian 

workforce makes perfect sense. 

Secretary WYNNE. Mr. Marshall, if I could comment once on the 

loss of industrial base in the aerospace industry—you commented 

on it a little bit differently by—we worry about the closing of the 

C–17 line because it is the only line that we have. We worry about 

the closing of an F–22 line because it is the only line we have 

there. And, you know, we are starting to get down to where we are 

signaling up on so many things in America—— 

Mr. MARSHALL. Right. 

Secretary WYNNE [continuing]. That it worries me. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Right. And I am totally with you. 

Secretary WYNNE. Sir, the other part of that—let me parallel 

with my boss. When you look at the lines on the West Coast—that 

is Long Beach and Everett—when you look at the lines in the central part of the country—that is Wichita, St. Louis and Fort 

Worth—and when you look at the lines on the East Coast—that is 

Marietta—and so, depending on what systems go away, you could 

end up with only Marietta and Fort Worth. 

So you have no depth. You have no capacity. In the strategic 

airlifter world, that is Long Beach. And in the fighter world, that 

is Marietta and Fort Worth. 

So we are very, very sensitive to the aerospace industry. We 

spend a lot of time watching people worry about shipbuilding, but 

I see less people worried about the American aerospace industry, 

which is equally fragile. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I see my time has expired. I guess I will wait 

until the next round, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, General, I appreciate the comment about 

shipbuilding. 

Speaking for one of those champions of shipbuilding, the young 

lady from Tidewater, Virginia, Ms. Drake? 

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here. 

And, General, I would like to thank you for introducing the Air 

Force personnel seated behind you and telling us a little bit of their 

stories. 

And I know that this committee joins me in thanking you for 

your service. It truly does put a face on the war. And I know a lot 

of us would like to hear more of what you have done. And we know 

that is just a little bit that he said about you. So thank you for 

being here today and letting us thank you in person. 

My question deals with China’s recent Anti-Satellite Missile 

Test. And my question is, how is the United States postured to reconstitute those vital space-based capabilities in the event either of 

on-orbit failures or attack by another country? And my concern is, 

do we really possess the necessary ground infrastructure to accommodate that reconstitution? 
30 

Secretary WYNNE. I think I can say to your question, ma’am, that 

the industrial base in space is fragile, as well as it is in aerospace. 

When I say ‘‘aero’’ and ‘‘space,’’ I really meant the fragility of both 

of those entities. 

That having been said, we are—and are putting into the budget—you will see it in the budget and you will see a little bit more 

on the unfunded requirement—that we are trying to figure out 

operational response of space. We are using four operationally responsive space—all the available launch facilities, if you will, that 

we have. And all of the manufacturers are trying to get involved. 

And we are starting that process by asking the question, not 

should we reconstitute that specific entity, but, in a wartime scenario, what do you need, specifically, to essentially restore peace 

and then to reconstitute whatever was destroyed during warfare, 

and no different than you might do in a civil society? 

So it is a little bit different approach to it. And what we find is 

that we—our approach toward reconstitution of the necessary 

forces drives us to an interesting set of studies. And we are conducting those studies over the course of this year. 

We have asked people—because, as you might imagine, we were 

shocked but not surprised at the Chinese development. The Chinese have been launching satellites into space. They didn’t hit anything with the satellites that they were launching into space. This 

is because they have guidance systems. So it is not surprising. But 

it did, for us, remove that peculiar veil of sanctuary that we had 

given space just as if nothing would ever happen up there. 

And so we are working very hard. And in another forum, we 

could probably tell you a lot more. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

And I want to thank all of our servicemen and women who maintain air superiority for this country. And it is something that we 

definitely have to maintain and enhance. 

And so with respect to the last question that was asked, I have 

a question. The space situational awareness, or SSA, is a top priority. Yet, for two key SSA programs—the space-based space surveillance and the space fence—the Air Force has requested $46 million less than expected in fiscal year 2008. Furthermore, funding 

of space-control technology, counter-space systems and SSA systems and operations comprise roughly $300 million in fiscal year 

2008. 

Is this funding adequate, given the overall investment in space 

and the growing threats to space? 

Secretary WYNNE. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much for that 

question. The fact is that along with balancing all of the accounts, 

I think what you are going to find is we are borning in our studies 

right now and we are trying to figure out what constitutes the 

right kind of requirements that we need there. 

We also believe if you are going to have operationally responsive 

space and space-situation awareness, you are going to have to 
31 

make sure that the technical maturity of the things that you have 

available is good. This is where Dr. Sega is taking us back to basics 

and trying to make sure that we spend the money on the right 

things at the right time. 

And I think, in that regard, we feel like we have adequately 

funded the 2008. That having been said, upon the launch of the 

Chinese Anti-Satellite, we have actually added some in the unfunded area to try to boost it up. But you have to watch out and 

you can’t just throw money at engineers who don’t have an answer 

for you. And so we are trying to balance the growth in that area. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I think one takeaway is that space is not 

a sanctuary anymore. The launch of Sputnik in October 1957 was 

a bit of a wakeup call for capabilities in space. This ASAT shot is 

an equal wakeup call relative to, ‘‘This is not a sanctuary.’’ 

And it goes back to the congresswoman’s question also. Space-situation awareness is critical to be able to see what is out there. Defensive counter-space is critical to be able to protect the assets on 

orbit. And that is the direction the secretary and Dr. Sega are taking to be able to maintain space surveillance and to be able to look 

at operationally responsive space to replace satellites, but also to 

look at defensive counter-space. 

But sir, somewhere in here will need to be a policy discussion on 

what is next because it won’t be the United States Air Force that 

goes beyond the policy limits now on space-situation awareness and 

defensive counter-space. If there is a decision to move into offensive 

counter-space, that is a different issue. And that is not what you 

are asking, but that is the second and third-order question to space 

not being a sanctuary anymore. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly. I believe it would be prudent for us to 

anticipate a changing environment in space. And we certainly need 

to have a superiority in space, as we do in aerospace. So that is 

a conversation that I am sure is—— 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Definitely coming. 

As threat to space and operations in space increase, so too will 

the need for a robust space-intelligence capability. How does the 

Air Force plan to address this requirement? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, we have done this in two ways. In fact, 

you are looking at one of the experts right here behind me, who 

is one of the space experts who has deployed into the theater. If 

you think back a few years ago, most of our space experts never 

let them out of those vaults and caves and they never saw the sunlight. 

We now have them deployed into the operations centers and we 

have had them deployed into operating alongside sailors and Marines and soldiers, with him being deployed in the Al Anbar province with the Marine Corps. So part of this is having the space experts out to bring that core competency out to others conducting 

operations. 

The other part of that is we have completely revamped Air Force 

intelligence with a complete refocus on operational issues within 

Air Force intelligence. So we have elevated the position—the top 

Intel officer to be a lieutenant general or a three-star. We are mov-
32 

ing more intelligence officers into more senior positions now and 

being able to do the same thing with space. 

When I was fortunate enough to command out in the Arabian 

Gulf, I had two sets of space experts working for me. And those fellows now have been promoted into being general officers. And they 

are bringing theater expertise back to Colorado, as well as exporting Colorado expertise out to the theater. So we are pretty excited 

about this. 

I am personally excited because this has been one of my imperatives with these folks—to be able to get this expertise out of a vault 

somewhere and getting out where people are actually working. This 

is a good-news story. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Moseley, Secretary Wynne, welcome. Thank you for putting the ‘‘air’’ in airborne and all the other good lifting things you 

do every day. 

We have got a $15 billion question mark with the combat searchand-rescue helicopter issue. We have got a PJ back there. I think 

that is really appropriate. And the A–10 drivers kind of put those 

two together. 

In light of what GAO has said, what is the plan? I mean, this 

is just one of many examples of equipment that we don’t have that 

we need for our folks. 

And the third part of the question is, how many folks that are 

pilots were involved in that selection process. It has seemed time 

and time again to me there are far too many bureaucrats between 

the pilot and the acquisition folks. 

So if you could kind of give me a rundown on the three: where 

are we, when are we going to fix it, and how are we going to fix 

it? 

Secretary WYNNE. I think you really have asked a great question 

because there are so few programs now that the industry—it is a 

vital concern to them to win everything that they can to stay alive. 

And it is no surprise to me that they protested. I will tell you that 

the number of protests are rising as the number of programs are 

diminishing. It is a true dogfight out there to make sure that you 

can be alive for, if you will, the next competition. 

We just don’t do as many procurements as we used to do. Now, 

that having been said, the particular instance here—the GAO, I 

think, has found a technical application here. I think we can solve 

this pretty narrowly and I am hoping that we can see our way 

through this and avoid a lengthy delay in the procurement cycle so 

we can actually expend all of the resources that we have asked for 

in the 2008 timeframe. 

Mr. HAYES. General Moseley—— 

Secretary WYNNE. As to your question of whether or not we had 

requirements and actual operators in the offering, I am going to let 

Chief Moseley answer that question because I think he is more capable. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you. 
33 

And, Chief, as you answer that, talk to me about survivability of 

the Chinook in an extraction situation. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, the folks that developed the key performance parameters for the competition were combat-rescue guys. And 

so the KPPs that were developed that were then competed were actually combat-rescue guys living in that system. 

Remember, we have had a mix of combat-rescue guys. I have 

been of the opinion that combat search-and-rescue is a combatant 

Air Force issue, not a special-operations issue. So I moved combat 

rescue back into air-combat command. In this transition, we had 

some people that looked at the new helicopter as both an in-fill and 

ex-fill capability, as well as a combat-rescue capability. But there 

were pilots involved and there were combat-rescue folks involved. 

Sir, I will tell you, the H–60 that we have now is a limited airplane. It is limited because it can’t hover very high. It is not very 

fast. But it can’t carry very much either. And so when we have to 

go to the ranges that this PJ goes in Afghanistan and Iraq, we 

have got to download a PJ and put a fuel bladder in the back, 

which means you cannot carry a litter. And you are limited by the 

number of people. 

If this bomber pilot takes her crew out of that airplane and we 

send an airplane to go pick them up, that is not just a single C 

fighter pilot. That is a crew. We have got to be able to have an airplane that is big enough to pick up a variety of players because in 

this world that we are living in, combat search and rescue is a joint 

mission that the United States Air Force performs for the entire 

joint team. You have to be able to go distance and you have to be 

able to hover at high altitude and you have to have a survivable 

platform. 

So, sir, I am looking forward to getting on with the mission. I am 

looking forward to getting on with the decision so we can field a 

system that we can go out and pick people up, because I believe 

we are going to be in this business for a long time. 

And, sir, I will tell you, from my life out in Afghanistan and Iraq, 

one of my biggest worries sending people out to fight was that I 

couldn’t go pick them up, because in this fight we are in, at the 

end of this, there will not be a POW return. 

There will not be a group of people repatriated. If they catch you, 

they will kill you. And so the ability to get the PJ to you and pick 

you up and get you home is a big deal. It is a very big deal, whether it is a Navy pilot or a crew or a Marine pilot or a crew or an 

Army or a special ops team—anybody out there, if they catch you, 

they will kill you. 

So combat search and rescue is a core competency for us. It is 

a mission area that we hold dear. The ‘‘jolly green giants’’ are very, 

very special people inside our combatant Air Force. 

So, sir, then, the question about the Chinook—the Chinook is a 

fine airplane. Our Army brothers and our special ops people are 

flying that airplane into some very, very dangerous places right 

now. I will not critique the airplane because it is a fine airplane. 

What my concern is now we have got yet another delay. I want to 

field this mission. 

Remember, we have accelerated this program five years and we 

have accelerated Block 10 two years inside that to be able to get 
34 

this PJ something that we can go a distance and pick people up. 

So, sir, that is where I am. 

Mr. HAYES. Well, fix it right. Fix it quick. Make sure we do whatever we need to do to get the folks out there and get some new airplanes so we don’t have to pick them up—anyway—— 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HAYES. Take care of it, will you? 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HAYES. And Pope Air Force Base, while you are at it. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the general from Pennsylvania, Admiral Sestak. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you. 

I will follow up on that last question, Mr. Secretary. And thank 

you for your time. 

Just, actually, a yes-or-no answer, if you don’t mind. Is the CH– 

47 the correct aircraft, then, for the CSAR mission? 

Secretary WYNNE. I would have to answer it this way: It is the 

one that we selected. It is a subject of the GAO review. I think it 

has every chance of continuing to be selected. However, I would 

have to take all the details and talk to the GAO to make sure that 

we do not short shrift because your Air Force is into open and 

transparent competition. And we want to make sure that everybody 

considers that what we do is a level playing field. So we maximize 

the number of people to come forward to compete. 

And so I need to go and make sure I give the GAO complaint a 

full look. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. 

General, in the transformation for the Air Force—and you know 

so much better than I do—but it is comprised of those key concepts 

from technology, concepts of ops and organization. Your AEF is 

your organizational way that you meant to address this new future 

that we are actually in in the global war on terror, in the 

insurgencies we do from Iraq to Abu Sayyaf and Djibouti—in the 

Philippines and then Djibouti. The AEF has been quite stretched. 

You have had to—had to, a couple of times, kind of reconfigure it 

or go on. 

Is it the right transformational, organizational concept for the future in view that you have had to go back and re-look at it. When, 

in a sense, this deliberativeness of it was, to some intention, expected to address these types of predations that have come up? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, it is good to see you again, from the time 

we spent together out in the Arabian Gulf. 

Let me answer yes. I believe the Air Expeditionary Force rotation scheme is the right way to do this because it provides some 

measure of predictability and some measure of being able to schedule a person’s life. 

Mr. SESTAK. Right. 

General MOSELEY. That is very, very key to us. We want to be 

able to publish a schedule that, depending on where the member 

is inside the wing that they are assigned to and inside that AEF 

schedule, that we can somehow try to stick to that. Nothing is perfect and we will never make it 100 percent. But we are very, very 
35 

good. We are up over 90, 95 percent right now with providing that 

scheduling predictability so people can plan their lives. 

But, of course, in this war-fighting business, your opponent gets 

to pick. And sometimes they choose wisely and sometimes they 

make your life a little more difficult. And so right now, we have 

in excess of two AEFs deployed. And in some of our stressed areas, 

our combat-rescue helicopters, some of our ISR assets—in fact, the 

rivet joint has been out in excess of 6,000 straight days. 

And so when a combatant commander requests a rivet joint, 

there is only one wing of those—or like the AWACS or like the 

JSTARS that are down in Georgia. You only have one set of those 

machines. And so you are always out with those airplanes. 

Mr. SESTAK. General, if that is the right organizational concept, 

and then you go down and you have the technology—obviously, one 

thing you do very well is work with foreign nations, particularly 

this new global war of terror. 

When you look at programs like AFID, the Aviation Foreign Intelligence Defense, it is the only squadron you have in order to, so 

to speak, on the aircraft-to-aircraft level, to intermingle with those 

nations out there that might want to be able to know, ‘‘How do we 

have an aircraft that can work well in a jungle? How do you do 

close air support? Are we doing a disservice by not placing more 

resources in this critical area?’’ 

General MOSELEY. Sir, great question. And, yes, we are planning 

to do that. As we look at the opportunity for the new Joint Cargo 

Aircraft—if you look back on the successes that we have had with 

the international program with the F–16 and the strategic 

partnering that we have developed and the partnerships over time, 

with pilots growing up and flying from Sheppard Air Force Base 

back to Norway, back to Red Flag, back to Norway, and then, the 

NATO construct—it is all about the same machine. It is those classic Air Force to Air Force relationships. 

So when we look at the Joint Strike Fighter, we see a new future 

with that. When we look at the Joint Cargo Aircraft, we see a new 

future with that. The C–130 gives us a future with that. We have 

some now operating C–17s, but that is not a big number. 

Mr. SESTAK. But should more be placed into the kind of aircraft 

SOS has? 

General MOSELEY. Well, sir, we have also looked at the notion 

of a counter-insurgency airplane. We have looked into the notion of 

moving something that would be useful now for the new Iraqi air 

force, which we have offered up—they operate C–130’s now, three 

of our excess airplanes. So is there not some way to provide new 

capabilities to do exactly what you are saying? 

The commander of Air Force special ops command and the commander of special ops command and I are looking at, perhaps, moving out on a counter-insurgency airplane and then partnering much 

tighter with Joint Cargo Aircraft. So you have a COIN airplane, as 

well as a lifting airplane, that we can partner out there with a bigger number of countries. 

Mr. SESTAK. Yes, sir. I might come back to that. But I probably 

have time for one last question. 

And Mr. Secretary—if I come back to it—but the question I really had is, should there be more of these squadrons that have the 
36 

old cubs or whatever it is that actually work with you and turning 

these different aircraft? Mr. Secretary, my question is overarching. 

And one organization, Congressional Budget—was that the gavel? 

Got it. 

The CHAIRMAN. General, he can come back a moment later. 

Did I understand you said a moment ago that you have excess 

C–130’s? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, these were the C–130Es that, as we 

moved them from active units and replaced them with Js, that we 

had three airplanes that had life on them that aren’t too broke that 

we provided to the Iraqi air force to provide their airlift. We provided the pilots and we trained them at Little Rock. And so we 

funded that under our excess-aircraft model, which is not an FMS 

case. So that is where the three C–130Es came from for the Iraqi 

air force. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Moseley, thanks for being here. 

Secretary Wynne, I appreciate it. 

Also, I want to add my thanks to the warriors behind you who 

you brought in this morning—nice touch to do that. 

Also, Secretary Wynne, I want to add my concern that all procurement be done openly and fairly and transparently, and, particularly, this combat-search-and-rescue aircraft that you have 

talked about—looking forward to an aggressive review by you in response to the GAO. 

But it is one thing for Sikorsky and Lockheed to protest as—you 

would expect that. But to have what would appear to be a disinterested party agree with them and say there are some things 

wrong with the process itself—and I understand your concern that 

it slows things down and all those kinds of things—but having the 

system work helps us back up the decisions made by the system, 

if that makes any sense. 

General, back on the overall management of the 300-plane fleet, 

are you aware of any kind of a commercial circumstance where 

fleet managers said, ‘‘You have got to manage the fleet. You have 

got to do these kinds of missions and that management has to involve you not doing away with any of the aircraft’’? Does that happen anywhere else besides in the Air Force where your hands are 

tied that way? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I am not aware of anything. 

Mr. CONAWAY. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that you 

would be required—and I know we are part of the way that works, 

and I understand the reasons why that gets in there, but it seems 

to me that that is a flawed tactic if we are in an arena of limited 

resources. 

Can you provide for us what that costs in doing that? In other 

words, you have run a model that said, ‘‘If I had free will choice 

to do the job you tell me to do, I want to have these planes and 

have these missions available and to line them up the way you said 

and to cut the ones’’—can you provide for us—— 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 
37 

Mr. CONAWAY [continuing]. What the costs to the system is if we 

would otherwise put those dollars somewhere else. Would you do 

that for us? 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Sir, I would ask you in the hearings with General Schoomaker 

and Admiral Mullen ask them, because if they have equal restrictions on managing their inventories, I don’t know of it. 

Mr. CONAWAY. It is not likely they have that same kind of a circumstance, and I understand that C–5s are built in certain places 

and we have got all this infrastructure out there that we need to 

do, but at the end of the day, we are all tasked with protecting this 

country with limited resources to get that done. 

So I appreciate your service to our country. A constituent friend 

of mine, I think a college chum of yours, David Mims, harasses me 

every day that I see him about making sure you are doing a good 

job, and so I told him I would grill you pretty good this morning. 

General MOSELEY. Thank you, sir. That is helpful. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Which I don’t think I have done. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. But thank you for your service, and I do look forward to the response to the GAO report on that procurement issue, 

because given the four years, five years we have dealt with the 

tanker thing, and I am not trying to say they are the same, but 

it is of great importance to us that we get the system work, whatever the answer it is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks very much. 

Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Good morning, Mr. Secretary and General, and a 

special thank you to the brave and talented men and women that 

you have brought from the Air Force here today. 

I am privileged to represent the Tampa Bay area, which is home 

of MacDill Air Force Base. In addition to Central Command and 

Special Operations Command, we also have the air refueling wing. 

So all of the questions that have been asked on the tanker program and KC–X, I would appreciate, as Mr. Marshal has requested, a briefing in my office on the—I am new. I would like a 

briefing on the history of the procurement and development process, a specific timeline moving forward, especially to ensure that 

we are promoting fair and open competition and expending the taxpayer dollar in the most efficient way. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. CASTOR. Next, I would like to go to your testimony adapting 

to non-traditional roles. I am very concerned with a portion of your 

testimony and the fact that airmen and women have stepped into 

fill joint war-fighter tasking and stressed skill areas in which other 

services are shorthanded. 

It said the Air Force currently provides over 7,700 airmen and 

women to fulfill these in lieu of ground force tasking. Airmen and 

women fulfill in lieu of requirements in such areas as detainee operations, convoy operations and protection, explosive ordnance disposal, et cetera, et cetera, you have a long list here. And you say 

that the Air Force also fills another 1,200 join individual 

augmentee positions. 
38 

What is the most consequential impact to the Air Force because 

of this? And tie it to your budget request to where are we going 

to see that impact? 

Secretary WYNNE. I can give you a specific instance of two missile technicians coming out of the northern tier states that are interrogators because they speak Arabic. They are not now missile 

technicians, they are interrogators, because they were asked for 

and assigned. 

When they joined the Air Force, we appreciated their intelligence 

and made them missile technicians. They are not that anymore. If 

we were wrong and had excess, to the chairman’s point, excess missile technicians, it would surprise me. We have a specific request 

for TO&E and we ask for them. 

When we get them back, which they will come back to us, we will 

have to retrain them into the missile technician field, because they 

will not be as prepared. 

So even though you say we have 7,700, roughly, people, that actually means we have at least double, because you have to have 

some downtime to prepare and some downtime following. 

So we look at between 17,000 and 21,000 as the number of people we have involved in this exercise. 

Now, that having been said, as I come down 40,000 in order to 

make sure in order to make sure I can recapitalize my force structure, this concerns me. It concerns me because it is growing, it is 

not shrinking. It was forecast to be shrinking about this time, yet 

it is actually growing. 

To your point, we don’t guard prisoners. The Air Force doesn’t 

guard prisoners; we don’t have prisoners. The Army guards prisoners. For us to have prison guards at Camp Bucca is an anomaly 

for us. We are very proud of the people who are doing it, by the 

way. I mean, they are doing magnificently. They bring different 

things. 

It has caused us to change our training regimen. We now have 

emergency medical training, we have rifle training, we have things 

that we did not have. We have convoy training. We are the only 

service that has convoy training, because we felt like if we were 

going to make our people convoy drivers who used to be snowplow 

operators, they are going to get trained. So this is where we are 

coming from. 

Chief, do you have a comment? 

General MOSELEY. As we have looked at the total number of 

folks that have done this, we have asked for a scrub to see what 

we have been asked to do with our people and are the people doing 

something that is relative to their original training. About a little 

over 80 percent of the folks that we have done this with have done 

something relative to their training or within their competency. 

We have had to refine that a bit or we have had to help them 

a bit, but for the most part, they are in something that looks like 

what they have been trained to do in the Air Force. We have just 

taken that to a different level. 

But, ma’am, the part that concerns me alongside the secretary is 

that 25 percent or so that is not within their core training. We 

have done this for the right reasons. We have done this because we 

are a military at war, and the land component is stressed, and the 
39 

land component has asked for assistance from the Navy and the 

Air Force in doing this, so it is the right thing to do. 

But as the mobilization policies now allow the chief and the secretary of the Army to be able to get at its guard and reserve in a 

bit different way, I anticipate this non-core competency number 

coming down for us. 

Ms. CASTOR. And the Army chief of staff has—may I continue for 

a moment? 

The CHAIRMAN. You can come back. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the benefits of being the last person is I have got to hear 

everything that has been discussed in the previous questions. 

And, gentlemen, and thanking you for your service, and I must 

say that so far the only good news that I have heard is the introduction of the incredible Air Force personnel that you have behind 

you and their individual accomplishments and contributions. 

You have painted a picture that is very dire. The space no longer 

a sanctuary, loss of the aerospace industrial base, the recapitalization being a significant gash into the overall personnel that you 

have, which, of course, with your concerns of the loss of intellectual 

capital, and of course I see that as a potential loss for ingenuity, 

the concern that you have in your overall competitiveness and the 

equipment that you are seeking and that you see as next generation. 

It is interesting, as you two gentlemen paint this picture, I do 

think that there is not a sense, specifically in Congress, of the Air 

Force waving the flag of concerns of its situation. 

General Moseley, I told you before that I think that the Air Force 

budget hearing is one of the least attended hearings that we have 

in HASC. The number of people that believe that there is an emergency or of a grave concern for the Air Force on this committee or 

in Congress is probably fairly low. And I would think that the Air 

Force could do a better job in waving its flag of, ‘‘We have serious 

concerns that need to be addressed.’’ 

Secretary Gates, when he was here, I had asked him about the 

recapitalization plan and my concern, which you guys have shared, 

of the 40,000 personnel that are to be cut and whether or not that 

that needed to be reviewed. And he indicated that as a result of 

the additions to the Army and Marine Corps, that it may cause the 

reconsideration for the Air Force. 

General Moseley, you have indicated, of course, that with the 

flight time dropping that you believe that that may be too far. 

Secretary Wynne, I don’t want to diminish the concern that this 

is a self-inflicted wound in looking at your concern of whether or 

not you would receive your top line increases that you had wanted 

in equipment, but I must ask, I am very concerned that the recapitalization is going to occur at the ability of the Air Force to advance 

or function. 

And you began your presentation by indicating that you are an 

Air Force at war. You stated some concerns, but I am very concerned that if the recapitalization with the force shaping plan goes 

forward, that what we might have is an Air Force that is unable 
40 

to go to be our advantage on the battlefields of tomorrow. And I 

would like your further comments. 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, as the Army is seeking a mine-resistant 

vehicle because the Humvee did not work, we want a fifth generation fighter, we want the right kind of modern tanker, we want the 

right kind of modern ISR equipment, and we want the right kind 

of lift capacity to make sure we can fight also a modern war 

against a different future enemy. 

I think that the capabilities that we have to fight the war today 

gave us a huge complement. I mean, I would say that our ability 

to contain air dominance is well known throughout the world. 

What we are wanting to make sure is, and as I say, it is the duty 

of every airman to make sure that the next generation airman feels 

that same confidence and that same capability, and that is where 

we are headed. 

I would tell you just in the area of your concern, pushing things 

into the laboratory and making sure that we right the laboratory 

capabilities so that Wright-Patterson becomes again the technical 

center of aerospace in America. I want that, and I will tell you 

General Bowlds is doing a great job. 

And with your support, sir, I think we can get there. It is a concern of mine, though, as to how do we fit all of this into the package. And as General Moseley said, it was a pretty good battle. It 

took a lot of time to try to figure out how to squirt all this out. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, as you look at these people, one of our 

blessings is we have the sharpest, smartest, most adaptable, agile 

people in any military. One of our curses is they make this look so 

easy people think it is easy. This is not easy. 

And the recapitalization of this Air Force is a fundamental issue 

right now in this discussion that we are having over budget. Do we 

want to be the global Air Force that I think you ask us to be or 

do we want to be something else? Because we make this look so 

easy, people believe it is. That is a challenge. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I might say to Ms. Castor and to others that we will have a second round, so if you have other questions, please stay. 

Mr. Ellsworth. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for coming. 

I appreciate your hospitality at the Pentagon a couple weeks ago, 

but I have got to tell you when I walked out and got on the bus 

I think the captain, and I hope I got that rank right, had to help 

me pick my jaw up off the concrete before I could get on the bus. 

Because I walked out of there thinking that I came into this job 

two months thinking that we were the best equipped and most advanced, and I walked out of there now having concerns that you 

are expressing again today. 

My question is that we had a small debate last week for about 

three days at the end of the week that got a little attention across 

this country and across the world, and a lot of that debate was 

about the message we were sending to our troops and the message 

we were sending to our enemy. 

And I can’t help but sit here and think that hearing what we are 

hearing today, and I assume there are reporters here and they 
41 

hear that wings are falling off and that we can’t fly our planes at 

Mach 2 or whatever it was, that we have to fly them slower than 

what they were designed for. 

I don’t have any feelings that we won’t hear doom and gloom 

from the Army, the Marines, the Navy, that they are short on 

equipment, like you said, Mr. Secretary. What message, in your 

opinion, are we sending to our troops? And like you said, they will 

stand up and they will do their job and they will fly in there and 

flap their wings if they have to, I know that, to fly and do their 

mission, but what message are we sending to our enemy, and what 

message are we sending to our troops in this type format when we 

don’t supply them the best and most modern equipment available 

to us? 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, there is no doubt in our minds, sir, when 

the North Koreans wake up in the morning they are not worried 

about an invasion; they are worried about the United States Air 

Force. When the Chinese think about how to fight the Taiwan 

Straits, they are worried about the strategic Navy and the United 

States Air Force. 

In the same way, I think we deserve to make sure that our people can fight the fight that you ask of us, and right now I would 

tell you that I think we are prepared to do that. 

In World War II, by the way, the bravery of our airmen took on 

an air force that was superior to theirs, and we lost a lot of great 

airmen bombing Ploesti, bombing Berlin, bombing Tokyo. Doolittle 

signed up phenomenal people that went to the Tokyo raid. 

So our message to our airmen is, ‘‘We believe in you, and we are 

going to support you to the maximum extent possible, and we have 

a duty to future airmen to make sure that they are as confident 

and as capable as you are.’’ And that is our message. 

And to the bad guys, ‘‘We will bring the fight to you.’’ 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. And just as a follow up, I guess I would say, 

what message is Congress sending by putting the boomer in a 45- 

year-old plane? Are we not sending that same message that we 

aren’t supporting—you know, we can pass a resolution that says, 

‘‘We support you.’’ 

The proofs in the pudding, and I am putting you in a plane that 

is not safe, we can’t fly at the speed it is designed and it is 45 years 

old, unless you tell me that that is a great plane, it is still good. 

Then we are sending the wrong message that way, Congress—I am 

not talking about you, I am talking about us sending the wrong 

message to our troops and to the enemy by not backing you. We 

are on the same playing field here. I am talking about we need to 

step up and do our duty. Put up or shut up. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Before I call on Mr. Wilson, I am concerned about this same area 

of readiness. 

I understand while I had to step away that you did discuss readiness, but I think it was also testimony that there is a 10 percent 

reduction in flying hours, and then, General, I think you said, ‘‘We 

are as low as we can go.’’ 
42 

Aren’t these terrible risks when you cut flying hours that much? 

Are we going to find ourselves engaged in combat, not quite as capable as we were a year ago? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, 10 percent is a manageable cut, but my 

concern is that we don’t get on to a habit pattern of continuing to 

raid the O&M accounts and the flying hour accounts. We have done 

about everything we can do to protect the investment accounts, to 

include taking more risk in the O&M account and in the depot account. We are about there now where I am not comfortable with 

any more risk. 

Sir, I will tell you, some of the older pieces of our inventory, you 

couldn’t generate those sorties anyway because the airplanes are 

getting old and they are breaking. So you couldn’t generate those 

UTE rates in those squadrons. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about additional use of simulators; is that 

helpful? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, it is to a point. We discussed this before. 

I started flying airplanes when I was 14, so maybe I am a dinosaur 

about this, but there are certain things you can do in a simulator 

that are just that, you are simulating activities or procedural trainers. You have to be able to fly the airplane, you have to be able 

to understand the inherent dangers of aviation, and you have to be 

able to train at composite force levels. Now, the new simulators are 

wonderful, but they are adjuncts to procedural trainers. You have 

to be able to fly. 

In the abstract, people say, ‘‘Well, you could just do most of this 

in the simulators and then only fly when you really have to.’’ 

Sir, that is a loser argument. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me point out that the B–2 pilots at Whiteman Air Force Base do a great deal of time not in the B–2 but in 

the trainers—— 

General MOSELEY. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. T–38s. 

General MOSELEY. That is right, sir. And that is to get them airborne, to get them flying. 

The procedural trainer that we have at Whiteman with the 509th 

is a great bomber simulator, but you still have to get them into the 

bomber and get them into exercises. And when you can’t do that, 

you have to get them airborne. 

Because, sir, you know from living there and watching us, this 

aviation stuff is inherently dangerous. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

General, thank you, and thank you for bringing your warrior colleagues with you too. 

I am a 31-year veteran of the Army National Guard, and I appreciate your comments earlier about the Air National Guard and the 

competence and capabilities. I know Guard members are just very, 

very proud of their service in the global war on terrorism. 

Additionally, my background, I am very honored that my dad 

served in the 14th Air Force, the Flying Tigers, during World War 

II in China, and three years ago, I had the opportunity to visit with 

President Jiang Zemin in Beijing. And for you and your colleagues, 
43 

I want you to know, you may not be appreciated as much today, 

but, indeed, President Zemin pointed out that the American military is revered in China for their efforts to provide for their liberation in World War II. 

Additionally, I am grateful that I have a nephew that I visited 

in Baghdad last year. He is currently in Alaska. I am very proud 

of his service in the Air Force. 

It has been asked earlier by a number of people about the CSAR 

RFP. I have a specific concern and that is, with all the other good 

questions, in the key performance parameters, one of the indicators 

that was not included was the terminal area of survivability. And 

I would just urge if there is an amendment, that that be looked at. 

And you have answered that, indeed, that pilots that have familiarity are participating in the process, and so I hope that proceeds. 

Additionally, in your statement, you mentioned that the Air 

Force is exploring the concept of time-certain development, which 

would deliver an initial capability to the war-fighter in an explicitly 

specified much shorter interval. In the past, schedule-driven has 

had problems. 

Do you see where this can be beneficial, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, sir, I have the benefit of some history, 

and that is that on the F–16 program, they actually gave us not 

only a time-certain development of 36 months but also a specific 

amount of money that the corporation, if they overran it, had to 

put in their own. It was a head-to-head competition between, if you 

recall, the YF–17 and the F–16. 

At the end of the day, also the Joint Strike Fighter was done on 

a relatively tight time schedule, at least in the concept development. 

We think that time-certain development actually stimulates the 

engineering talent in America and creates problem-solving teams 

that would otherwise be kicked downstream. We also will tell you 

that a time-certain development essentially puts the—you have got 

to put the requirements on the table and you have got to stand 

aside and let the engineers develop. 

So I do see and have participated a little bit in a beneficial event. 

That having been said, yes, you cannot sacrifice schedule for 

quality; it is a balance. 

Mr. WILSON. And in conclusion of my question, I appreciate so 

much Congressman Turner pointing out his concerns, but I appreciate, too, that you have indicated the American Air Force is 

equipped and prepared to face any challenges to our citizens, and 

that is your view. 

Secretary WYNNE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And, General Moseley and Secretary Wynne, I bring you greetings from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North 

Carolina, and we appreciate the Air Force in eastern North Carolina. 

As I have listened to—and that is the advantage of being the last 

one—to so many excellent questions about budget and where you 
44 

are today and the things that you have got to do to remain strong, 

I want to ask you and look a little bit further, like 10 years out, 

that if we are having to make these decisions now—and I heard 

your comment, Secretary Wynne, and I would agree. 

I mean, there is not a nation in this world that does not respect 

and know that we have the strongest air force, I don’t think there 

is any question, but when I look at the financial shape of this country and it is getting—and according to David Walker, who has spoken to this committee, it is getting really tighter and tighter. And 

if we continue to—let’s say we are in Iraq five more years, I hope 

to God we are not, but let’s say we are, and we have to keep spending roughly $250 million a day in Iraq. 

I know what you are saying but my question is this: China, we have a trade deficit with China that is somewhere around $400 billion. I mean, we are sending jobs there, we are sending American 

dollars there, they are putting it in their military. 

When you are here before this committee saying, ‘‘Well, we are 

going to have to readjust here, readjust there,’’ my question to both 

of you is, today we are, but 10 years from now—and I probably 

won’t be in Congress 10 years from now, but there will be somebody else—10 years from now, if we are still having to have these 

debates and discussions that we have got to be more frugal with 

the dollar because we don’t have many dollars, if that should happen, I am not saying it is going to, but if it should, where is China 

today with their air force? 

Where will it be 10 years from now with their air force if we, in 

this country, have to continue to tighten the belt and cut back on 

our Air Force? 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, sir, let me start by saying, I had the 

very good privilege of being at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base 

and watching the 96 Eagles line up, and it is an awesome, awesome sight. I also had the great opportunity to interact with the 

citizens of Goldsboro who support that base, and it was inspiring. 

And I want to thank you because I know you know that Seymour 

Johnson was the source for the 21 airplane salute over President 

Ford’s funeral, and that great tanker squadron, the Reserve squadron there, as well as the active duty squadron interacted terrifically to make that look seamless and flawless and easy, just like 

we talked to Congressman Turner’s question. Sometimes the Air 

Force makes things look very easy. 

And we actually captured a film on You Tube that we use at the 

Air Force Association that citizens around Grand Rapids took and 

filmed, but we can never find out who did it. But they put it up 

on You Tube and it was Taps with a 21-airplane salute into the 

flag. It was awesome. And so I use it as the Air Force Association 

as a dessert after I have bored them with my speech. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary WYNNE. I will tell you that I do worry about the concern that you have expressed. As they did in the ASAT test, the 

Chinese are becoming awesome investors. They are focused, they 

are deliberate, and they are working the problem very hard. I 

would say that over the next 10-year period, we need to work with 

them, if you will, to bring them in in a manageable way, because 

I would not like to be their opponent. 
45 

What I would like to be is I would like to be, if you would, their 

world partner in managing them into the world, and that is really 

our stroke. And it is going to be a carrot and stick, and I think one 

of the things that you are emphasizing is we have got to be careful 

that the stick doesn’t look too weak. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman Jones, their air force is a good 

air force. They feel that a new fighter that they have got in squadron strength, they are co-producing fourth generation systems that 

are designed in Russia. They are extending the range on their 

bombers, they are building new tankers, they are building new 

AWACS, they are watching us, what we have done for the last 16 

years, and they are doing the same thing. 

Sir, I will tell you, it may be a time for a discussion about percentage of GDP on defense budgets. That is not going to be my lane 

to make that call, but when you talk about the challenges that you 

are addressing, we are sitting right now with the lowest percentage 

of GDP since we have been fighting wars, for sure since World War 

II, let me say it that way. 

So I offer to you that this country can afford the best Air Force, 

this country can afford the best Army and the best Navy and the 

best Marine Corps. And so it is based on what you want us to do, 

and it is based on how do we buy ourselves out of a procurement 

holiday that has taken us to an average age of 25 years on this inventory. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, during the first round of questioning, I was inquiring about cost savings. In the first round of questioning, we explored the current policy, which is in U.S., which doesn’t permit the 

Air Force to retire certain airplanes that they would like to retire, 

and we found out that it costs us about $1.7 billion a year to keep 

those airplanes sitting on the ground. And I know that you had to 

step out during that time, but I just wanted to mention it again, 

because I think it is extremely important. 

There is another cost savings set of exercises under way initiated 

by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission actions in 2005. 

And one of the concepts embodied in those recommendations is 

joint basing. 

Actually, I became involved in joint basing two years before 

BRAC did. I went to visit Phil Grone and I said to him, ‘‘Look, the 

three bases that are contiguous in my district, McGuire Air Force 

Base, Navy Lakehurst and Fort Dix Army Base, are three pieces 

of real estate that sit right next to each other, and when I visit 

each of the bases I see a set of activities at McGuire and a set of 

activities at Lakehurst that are the same as the set of activities at 

McGuire and another set of activities at Fort Dix that are pretty 

much the same as the sets of activities that I saw at the Air Force 

base and the Navy base.’’ 

And so I said, ‘‘Why don’t we try to create a concept where people 

can share assets and services can share services and save the taxpayers money and give us money to divert to other things that are 
46 

meaningful in terms of our national security?’’ And that, I believe, 

is how jointness got started. 

The 2005 recommendations came out, the jointness recommendations were involved with my bases at McGuire, Fort Dix and 

Lakehurst as well as Fort Lewis and other bases around the country. That process is ongoing and inching forward. 

Now, I know that there are a lot of important questions to discuss and a lot of important decisions to be made. Two of the most 

important, which are currently under discussion, and I am interested in getting your perspectives, are whether or not land should 

be transferred from one service to another, that is number one, and 

number two is, how we can protect and maintain the proper quality 

of life issues between and among the services. 

I think those are two really important questions that are slowing 

the process down. And I am not in a position to make the decisions, 

but I would sure like to think I am in a position to encourage all 

the services to make these decisions. 

So I would be interested in your perspectives on those. 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, thank you, sir. 

When joint basing started, it was in fact to avoid duplication in 

the procurement of services and avoid duplication in the performance of administrative duties. It has gone beyond that, and it has 

gone in a direction that, frankly, our Air Force doesn’t like. 

First, our Air Force actually fights from the bases that it occupies. This is our place. Whiteman Air Force Base is the place that 

we take off from. McCord Air Force Base is a place that we take 

off from. We want to make sure that our quality of life for our people are very well developed. 

My approach to joint basing is real simple: I want joint basing 

to be a raging success. In becoming a raging success, I want to 

make sure that it adheres to the highest standards for quality of 

life for all of the individuals that are attracted to that base. If another service has a lower set of standards and I can raise those at 

this particular joint base, then their people will be delighted as 

customers to come to that joint base. This is what I think joint basing should be, because it will draw high performers and it will 

draw a success story. 

I do not believe that we should transfer land, I do not believe 

that we should transfer assets, I do not believe in the landlord concept of accomplishing this thing. I don’t think that is what we set 

out to do in the first place. This was more of a trial and pilot to 

try to drive efficiencies into the system. So I am pretty concerned 

about this. 

General MOSELEY. Congressman, please let us, for the record, 

provide you the matrix that we asked our judge advocate generals 

to create for us that shows when you transfer the property what 

legal authorities transfer with that as the commander of the oversight authority for the installation. It is a staggering list of things 

that goes down to even include response for Freedom of Information Act by citizens in the vicinity. 

So please let us provide that for the record, and I will echo with 

my boss, same. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. I look forward to receiving that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Davis. 
47 

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to both of you for being here. I was able to hear 

your testimony, although I had to leave for most of the questions 

for some other committee responsibilities. But I appreciate your 

being here and especially bringing the young people who are so 

outstanding to our country. It was good to hear their background 

and all of their accomplishments. 

Thank you all. 

I am not sure whether this particular question was asked but I 

wanted you to just help us out a little bit with some of the ‘‘in lieu 

of’’ jobs that have impacted the training of traditional Air Force pilots. 

I am not sure if you addressed that, but we know that certainly 

many of our airmen have been asked to take on some responsibilities that perhaps they were not specifically trained for, and I am 

wondering if you could discuss that and has that impacted readiness out of all and their ability to continue to be as sharp as possible in the fields in which they actually did train for? 

Secretary WYNNE. Thank you very much. 

I would say this way: We believe that when the Army is stressed 

and when the Army requests under duress, we should be supportive. We try very hard not to let it affect our pilot community. 

It does affect our maintenance, our support and our administrative 

and especially our security forces that are, if you will, a lot more 

like Army. 

But when you get to the point, as we look at this, where we are 

trying to buy armored security vehicles and the Army is trying to 

buy fixed-wing aircraft, you have got to wonder, what is going on 

here? And I would say to you, what is going on here is we think 

that with the increase and reset of the Army ground forces and the 

Marine ground forces, we need a reevaluation to make sure that we 

are applying and requesting the taskings in the right way. 

It does affect our training. We lose these people, they are not 

doing the job that we have asked them to do for at minimum the 

time that they spend on the ground. But what is hidden, just like 

it is hidden in the Army, is the training is spent up and then the 

retraining of the opportunity after that. So we do not get our airmen back. So even though we say we have about 7,500 that are 

currently involved, you think about it and it is about 21,000 for the 

spent up, for the actual performance and the spend down. 

Chief? 

General MOSELEY. Ma’am, one of the numbers we talked about 

a while ago was about a little over 80 percent of the tasking that 

we have under this in lieu of tasking business is something that 

looks like a core competency of the Air Force. So a little over 80 

percent of the people that do this are doing something that they 

actually have trained for in some fashion in the Air Force. 

So it is not as bleak as you think. The problem is the 20 or 25 

percent that are not. And we send them out to do something that 

is not a core competency for the Air Force. 

The secretary mentioned a bit ago guarding prisoners. The Air 

Force doesn’t have a prison. The Navy and the Army have prisons. 

We almost never have one in prison. So we don’t have a com-
48 

petency of prison guards, so we have to take someone and train 

them to do that. 

But I will tell you, ma’am, the country is at war, and the American military is at war, and the Army is stressed. And so the things 

that we can do to partner with them really, really matter. And the 

things that we can do to help really, really matter. 

This growth that we are going to see and this expansion that we 

are going to see in brigade combat teams and the ability for the 

Army to mobilize a bigger portion of its guard and reserve should 

minimize these out-of-competency taskings for the Air Force. We 

are going through that process right now to see about going to zero 

on the taskings that are outside of our competency. But the ability 

to partner and the ability to fight this war on a global scale, that 

is a big deal for all of us. 

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

And in terms of the leadership, are you more likely to lose some 

of your mid-level leadership as we proceed in this way? Is that a 

worry? 

General MOSELEY. Ma’am, right now, our retention numbers are 

higher than they have ever been, but you are asking the right 

question. If you continue to send people to do things that they did 

not sign up to do or is outside of their competency, you can bet we 

will see impacts on that with retention. 

Secretary WYNNE. It is the old, ‘‘Once is an adventure, twice is 

a job.’’ 

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much. 

General MOSELEY. Ma’am, can I follow up, though? These people 

are incredibly brave, and they are out there doing things that they 

didn’t sign up to do, and they are out there doing this very, very 

well. Because we hold the standard so high on training of the Air 

Force, we hold our recruiting standards so high, these are very valuable people to be out there doing that. I am proud of every one 

of them that we have sent out there. 

Secretary WYNNE. Absolutely. 

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, to get back to the recapitalization issue, I have no 

question concerning your need for equipment and modernization. 

Of course, my concern, as I expressed it, was that doing that at the 

cost of cuts in personnel may have a result of risk of future consequences. 

And my point that I want to just leave with you as I go to other 

questions is that I don’t think that we have had a real clear picture 

given to us of what those costs could be of those future consequences of choosing this tradeoff. 

General, you had said about the Air Force making it look easy. 

If you tell us that you are going to look for efficiencies, everybody 

is for efficiencies, but if you paint a picture of what the actual risk 

of future consequences are, we have a greater understanding of 

what is occurring and then a greater ability to respond to your 

needs. 
49 

One other comment on statements that you have made concerning the loss of the aerospace industrial base. As you know, 

General, it has been an issue that you and I have discussed before. 

Mr. Secretary, I would greatly appreciate if you would adamantly 

communicate with the Commerce Department your concerns and 

issues, because I don’t think our Commerce Department has as 

great of a concern as they have opportunities for trade that can 

support our aerospace industry. They do not see them as important. 

And, certainly, we cannot just support the industry by appropriations with the military side. It also takes a robust economy and a 

robust trade. I think hearing the opinion of you two gentlemen in 

Commerce could help them as they have issues that they could advance to support the aerospace industry. 

And, General, I wanted to thank you for—General Deptula has 

been a great deal of help to me on the issues of NACIC and DAI 

and the issues of overlap or permanent responsibility assignment 

discussions. I have a great deal of concern, as you may be aware. 

NACIC is a jewel that has performed well, and as we look to the 

future, we are not going to have a lessening need for intelligence, 

and I am greatly concerned that territorial battles might weaken 

our overall ability on the intel side. I know that your elevation of 

the deputy chief of staff for intelligence that might be certainly a 

sign of your agreement that this is an area of our need to protect 

those assets and to grow them. 

And I just would like your thoughts from the two of you concerning intel in Air Force’s areas and where you might see that 

there are concerns of overlap and diminishing the Air Force capabilities? 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, one of the things that we are trying to 

do, even with this remote operated visual enhanced received, the 

ROVER system, is to actually diffuse intelligence right down to the 

tactical commander, whether he is in a combined air operation center or in an airplane or right on the ground as the tactical ground 

commander. So we are actually trying to make sure that intelligence is, firstly, boldly fused and driven down to the tactical level. 

Having General Deptula, by the way, who is a real smart fellow, 

helps us because he now can interface with what is available, what 

should not be, what needs analysis and what does not need analysis, how to protect that information as it goes to that tactical area. 

So we are benefiting dramatically from all of the aspects of intelligence, but one of the things is just to focus. 

It is just as you said, focusing on it, just like where now we are 

focusing on cyberspace. We are focusing on cyberspace, it feeds intelligence, intelligence feeds cyberspace. We are truly benefiting 

and we are blessed with the people we have in there. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, having been in the building when it was 

hit on 9/11 and then having read the 9/11 Commission report, I 

concluded that our intelligence system could use a little rework inside the Air Force. 

So when I became the chief, that was one of the first things that 

I did was hold an intel summit and decide to move a lieutenant 

general to be in charge of Air Force intelligence and allow that person then to streamline all of the functions inside the Air Force to 
50 

be able to protect the intellectual capital of things like NACIC and 

to be able to protect where we are and to be able then to allow 

those people to grow into different areas. 

So you take the person and grow the person as fast as you can, 

but you set the institution up to deal with this new global threat 

that is completely different than when I started this 30-something 

years ago. 

And the way to get at that is to have the right set of tools with 

the right set of intellectual capital and the right set of creativity 

inside that intelligence system to be able to deal equally with land 

component, maritime, special ops and the interagency. So it is not 

just inside the Air Force; it is the ballooning of opportunity out 

there and the ability to interface and share. 

I think we are doing a better job with this, and I think this template is going to pay big benefits for us. 

Mr. TURNER. Good. 

General MOSELEY. I know it will for the people, which for a chief 

that is a critical piece, to take care of the people. And so for a lieutenant to come into the intel world or a junior enlisted person to 

come into the intel world and then go into this new business that 

includes cyberspace, the strategic threats and the ability to wrap 

up things like NACIC, this is pretty exciting. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

General, would you say that the personnel in the Air Force are 

being stretched and strained today? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, I would say, yes, we are. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You are stretched and strained today, 

and you have loaned the United States Army 7,700 airmen; is that 

right? 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. And, for the most part, they have 

given them back. 

The CHAIRMAN. All of them? 

General MOSELEY. Well, we have some that have transferred to 

the Army but not many. But we have got most of our people—— 

The CHAIRMAN. How many out there are on loan to the Army 

today? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, to the exact number—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Give me your best judgment. 

General MOSELEY. I think there is about 5,500 or 6,000, somewhere like that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-five hundred are still out there. 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are asking for a reduction in numbers 

in personnel of how much? 

General MOSELEY. Forty thousand. 

The CHAIRMAN. That bothers this country boy from Missouri, because you are going to stretch them and strain them, 40,000 and 

7,500 more; am I correct? 

General MOSELEY. Yes, sir, but, remember, the reason that we 

waded into this was to protect the investment accounts to recapitalize an Air Force that—— 
51 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I understand all that. I am talking about the 

sergeant that is out there and he sees his brother being led off to 

do Army duties and a cut is coming of 40,000. He is going to say, 

‘‘My gosh, I am working as hard as I can now and the corporals 

there with me are working as hard as they can now. What do they 

expect?’’ 

So explain to this sergeant why the 40,000 on top of the 7,500 

is being taken away. 

Secretary WYNNE. Well, sir, we are down now—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no, no. I am asking the general. 

Secretary WYNNE. Oh, I am sorry. 

General MOSELEY. Sir, we have some efficiencies in the system 

that take up some of the 40,000, but that is not the biggest number. We don’t have fleets of people managing vehicles. I mean, we 

have some efficiencies in the system that help. 

The new bomber will take less crew chiefs than the B–52s. The 

C–5 and the C–17 are big differences, the F–22 and the F–15 are 

big differences. We deployed less stuff and less people, but that is 

not the preponderance of the 40,000. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is just going to be a small amount. 

General MOSELEY. The 40,000 is to protect the investment accounts. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what in the world does that mean? 

General MOSELEY. That means if we don’t do anything, given the 

top line that we have got, this Air Force will go from age 24, average, for the inventory to age 30 and then pretty soon we won’t be 

able to fly any of the broke airplanes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are reducing numbers to get more new 

airplanes. 

General MOSELEY. The entire capital investment, sir—spacecraft 

as well as aircraft and as well as ground equipment. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that is why you are reducing the numbers, 

to get things. 

General MOSELEY. And to protect the depot accounts and to protect the O&M accounts and to protect the quality of life on the 

bases and to protect all of the things that we do as an Air Force 

to be able to get underneath the physical guidance and beneath the 

physical guidance in the topline. That is where we had to go to 

keep the investment accounts healthy? 

The CHAIRMAN. How much more strain will there be on the Air 

Force sergeants in this world? If they are strained right now, how 

much more are they going to be strained when you take 40,000 out 

and 7,500 are bled off to the Army? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, we have got about a dozen stressed 

AFSC, our Air Force Specialty Codes. Those are the most stressed 

of all and those are the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. How do you unstress them? 

General MOSELEY. The challenge here, in the case of the PJs, we 

don’t have enough PJs because the appetite for PJs is so high and 

the school house is so long. You continue to recruit PJs and train 

them as fast as you can, but you never meet the appetite. 

In some of our AFSCs that are stressed, we have 120 percent of 

manning in the AFSC but we don’t have seven levels and five lev-
52 

els experienced crew chiefs, for instance. So part of this is just 

aging the force. Part of this is experiencing the force. 

But, sir, we had to come off of the manpower to be able to protect 

the money, to be able to protect the quality of life, the depot accounts, the O&M accounts and the investments. 

Now, the challenges that we will face here is when the Army and 

the Marines grow. We don’t yet know what that means, because we 

have not seen the analysis and the breakout of the brigade and 

regimental combat teams. 

Because, sir, you know very well, we have a lot of people that 

live with the land component. Our special ops folks, our ETACs, 

our JTACs, our ASOS, ASOGs, our combat weather, combat COMs, 

all of those people live out there with the Army, and so if the Army 

brigade combat teams grow, these people will grow in numbers. 

And so that is the part that we are going to spend some time over 

the summer working close with the Army to see where that takes 

us. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are a potential Air Force recruit, and you 

know of the stress and strain, and you know of the 7,500 bled off, 

and you know that the Air Force is going to shrink in size. Don’t 

you think that will have a chilling effect on this bright, young high 

school graduate from joining? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, that is a great question. Let me tell you 

where we are right now. Of every 100 people that we contact or 

that contact us to become an enlisted person in the Air Force, we 

only take one. So we are fairly selective in this business of entry 

into the Air Force. 

So there is some opportunity out there that we don’t avail ourselves of. On the officer side, we only take 30 out of 100. We have 

not had issues yet with recruiting nor have we had issues with retention, because we spend a lot of time on quality of life in our 

bases and where our families live and where our people work, and 

we focus a lot of time on education opportunities in PME so people 

can grow inside the profession. 

But, sir, right now, we are only taking one out of 100, and we 

have not lowered the recruiting standard. We have not lowered 

anything about recruiting or about—— 

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you are turning some of them 

down. 

General MOSELEY. We are turning 99 away for every one kid we 

take to become an airman on the enlisted side. 

The CHAIRMAN. How about your officer corps, your young officer 

corps? How is ROTC doing? How is the Air Force Academy doing? 

Are they coming and staying in? 

General MOSELEY. Sir, for the most part, yes. Our retention 

numbers—we are always going to have challenges with pilots, we 

will always have challenges in some special engineering fields, but 

for the most part, if you continue to produce somewhere around 

1,100 pilots a year, you will be okay. And we are moving toward 

that magic number of 1,100. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, General 

Moseley, for being with us today. 

We have a series of votes now, and if there is no objection, no 

further questions, appreciate it. 
53 

Secretary WYNNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General MOSELEY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

(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 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE 

RECORD 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

(131) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. For those of us who are not pilots, now—what is a 10 percent reduction? What does it mean as far as hours? I mean, how many hours do they—were 

training before? And the 10 percent means how many hours of reduction? And what 

are the risks, if there is any risk involved when you do that? 

General MOSELEY. The 10% flying hour program reduction in the FY08 budget 

submission equated to 104,768 flying hours. Our analysis indicates that 7.5% of the 

current 10% reduction is manageable within low to medium risk categories. The remaining 2.5% of the reduction is in a higher risk category. We continue to evaluate 

and assess the risk incurred by reduction to the program in FY08 and will adjust 

future budget positions based on that analysis. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. What was the specific cost-breach notification that you gave us? 

General MOSELEY. C–130 AMP declared a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach, because 

the current Program Acquisition Unit Cost and Average Procurement Unit Cost will 

exceed both the original Baseline Estimate and current Baseline Estimate by more 

than 50%. C–130 AMP has experienced increases in its unit cost as a result of significant cost growth during the development portion of the program. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE 

Mr. KLINE. What percent of utilization are you flying those 130Hs at? 

General MOSELEY. Sortie utilization (UTE) rate is defined as ’average sorties per 

month per aircraft’, and in this case, includes the entire C–130H inventory (Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command, and Active Duty Air Force). In 2006 the 

C–130H sortie UTE rate was 23.2—a 46.8% increase over the 2001 sortie UTE rate 

of 15.8. The significant increase in C–130H UTE rate from 2001 to 2006 is directly 

attributed to increase C–130H utilization in the CENTCOM AOR. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SAXTON 

Mr. SAXTON. I am interested in getting your perspective on whether or not land 

should be transferred from one service to another, that is number one, and number 

two is, how we can protect and maintain the proper quality of life issues between 

and among the services. 

General MOSELEY. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the 

committee files.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ABERCROMBIE 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The FY08 budget request once again does not include funding 

for the JSF alternate engine program. 

a) What advantage does the Air Force see to not having a JSF engine competition? 

b) Did the Air Force participate in any of the Congressionally-mandated analyses in last year’s authorization bill to support this decision? If so, could the Committee review this analysis? 

c) What amounts would be required to fund the alternate engine in FY08 and 

in the FYDP? Why were these amounts deemed to be unaffordable in FY08 and in 

the FYDP? 

d) Is the alternative engine program proceeding as envisioned with the use of 

FY07 funding until Congress acts on the FY08 budget? 

e) What lessons were learned and what benefits resulted from the F100 and 

F110 engine programs? 
132 

Secretary WYNNE. a) Cancelling F136 development will save DOD ∼$2B through 

FY13. The AF portion of that savings would be ∼$1B. 

b) No, in accordance with the authorization bill language, the AF did not participate in any of the Congressionally-mandated analyses from last year’s authorization bill. The bill specifically directed the studies be done by OSD CAIG, the Comptroller General and a Federally Funded Research & Development Center (FFRDC). 

OSD selected IDA as the FFRDC. 

c) F136 engine development would require ∼$500M in FY08. USAF portion 

would be ∼$250M. F136 engine development would require ∼$2B between FY08 - 

FY13. AF portion of that would be ∼$1B. Cancelling F136 development will save 

DOD ∼$2B through FY13. The Department concluded that a single engine supplier 

provides the best balance of risk and cost and there were higher priorities in the 

constrained budget environment. 

d) Yes, the Department will continue to provide the funds appropriated in the 

FY07 budget for the F136 program and called for in the F136 systems development 

and demonstration contract, while Congress is considering the FY08 request. 

e) The lessons learned from the F100 and F110 engine programs have been captured by three Congressionally-directed studies. The studies all found intangible 

benefits to competition in general. However, results also indicate that it will be difficult to achieve a net return on the investment for an alternate engine. For example, the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) study determined that 8.8 billion in 

constant FY06 dollars would be required to develop, maintain and procure a second 

engine. $2.1 billion of this would occur in fiscal years 2008–2012. They noted that 

offsetting this amount through savings from competition would require a 40 percent 

savings rate in production costs. Production savings of this magnitude appear implausible based on savings of 11–18 percent achieved in historical engine competitions. If Operating and Support (O&S) costs were effectively competed in addition 

to procurement costs, the required savings rate would fall from 40 percent of procurement costs to 18 percent of total costs. Because the Department of Defense has 

not typically linked procurement and O&S costs in a single competition, IDA found 

no historical data with which to estimate plausible O&S savings under such an acquisition strategy. IDA assessed that competition can be expected to bring non-financial benefits in the form of fleet readiness, contractor responsiveness, and industrial base robustness. 

The Department continues to believe that managing the risk with a single engine 

supplier is the best use of the available resources. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Two Joint Strike Fighters were requested in the FY07 Supplemental budget to replace the combat losses of fighter aircraft. Since, the JSF aircraft will not be available to the fleet for several years, why are these aircraft not 

listed in the base budget as they will not reach the Warfighter during the next fiscal 

year? 

Secretary WYNNE. This request is in accordance with DOD guidance which allows 

the Services to request replacement of combat losses in the supplemental. The request for two F–35A aircraft in the FY07 Supplemental is consistent with the Air 

Force’s recapitalization effort and the position of not procuring legacy platforms that 

are incapable of surviving future conflicts. 

Note: White House memo dated 9 March 2007 revised the FY07 Supplemental 

request by deleting the funding for the two F-35A aircraft ‘‘to finance higher priority 

emerging global war on terror needs’’. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained the bid 

protests of Sikorsky Aircraft Company and Lockheed Martin Systems IntegrationOswego (LMSI) against the Air Force’s award of a contract to The Boeing Company, 

for the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Vehicle (CSAR–X). The solicitation 

provided that for purposes of the source selection, cost/price would be calculated on 

the basis of the Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (MPLCC), including both contract 

and operations and support costs. GAO sustained the protest on the basis that the 

Air Force’s actual evaluation of MPLCC was inconsistent with the required approach as set forth in the solicitation. 

Secretary WYNNE. In its March 29 decision the GAO denied all of the additional 

arguments raised by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, ‘‘finding 

that none furnished an additional basis for sustaining the protests.’’ In response to 

the GAO’s recommendation in their February 26 decision the Air Force intends to 

amend the Request for Proposals (RFP) to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of Operations and Support (O&S) costs, reopen discussions with offerors, and 

request revised proposals. If the evaluation of the revised proposals results in a 

change to the CSAR–X Best Value Source Selection decision, the Air Force will 

make 
133 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MARSHALL 

Mr. MARSHALL. The Air Force has initiated internal budget reductions or budget 

shifting through Program Budget Decision 720 (PHD 720), that directly affects base 

operating structures (BOS) through the elimination of fire protection positions. Do 

you feel that these fire protection reductions will affect the Air Force’s ability to adequately respond and mitigate a catastrophic event that could occur at an Air Force 

facility? 

Secretary WYNNE and General MOSELEY. The Air Force will retain its capability 

to respond to emergencies IAW DOD Instructions. We have the mandate to be able 

to respond to and manage a single major emergency event. Our new resource levels 

will achieve that. Our former manning for fire and emergency services was able to 

manage multiple emergencies at a given time. We also will continue to mitigate fire 

risks by ensuring our fire prevention and engineering programs remain intact. Our 

facilities are designed to meet all Life Safety Code requirements. We’re confident 

that we are taking appropriate risk in managing our resources. We have an outstanding record as it has been five years since the Air Force has had a major fire 

event. We are proud of our record and believe we can be more effective and efficient 

in providing fire protection in support of our mission. 

Mr. MARSHALL. A CONOPs, which the Air Force has produced, demonstrates that 

the Air Force intends to rely heavily on outside municipal resources for assistance 

in fire protection, rescue and emergency medical service responsibilities for Air 

Force facilities as part of the base operating structure reductions. Do you feet that 

the Air Force has an inherent responsibility to provide adequate emergency service 

response capability for the protection of Air Force assets and personnel? Given the 

unique hazards of an AF base (combat aircraft, weapons systems and complex research structures), should that responsibility be levied on cash-strapped municipalities and States? 

Secretary WYNNE and General MOSELEY. The Air Force does indeed have a mandated responsibility to provide adequate emergency service response capability to 

protect our people and assets. This is a responsibility we take seriously. Our new 

concept of operations will staff our Fire & Emergency Services, including rescue, to 

handle a major event IAW DOD Instructions. 

The new Fire Emergency Services Concept of Operations does not rely on non-Air 

Force resources to provide fire protection and rescue at required levels. We have had 

in place Mutual Aid Agreements between local municipalities and Air Force bases 

to ensure shared capability is identified for unpredictable catastrophic events. These 

existing mutual aid agreements were not factored into the new concept as far as 

personnel and equipment levels. The mutual aid agreements however continue to 

be an effective tool in managing both on and off base resources for large events. 

The fundamental premise of the staffing reductions is that Air Force fire departments have more resources than they require based on DOD Instruction and actual 

fire emergency response data. Those excess positions can be reduced with no quantifiable risk to Air Force people and property. There is no shift in responsibility for 

fire protection to external entities. Regarding Emergency Medical Services, Air 

Force bases routinely contract with local providers for all service beyond Air Force 

capability at that location. This arrangement is compensated and not based on Mutual Aid Agreements. 

Mr. MARSHALL. These reductions, regarding fire and emergency services also appear to directly affect the Air Force’s capability to affect an aircraft rescue or mitigate an aircraft incident. A review of the CONOPs shows that the AF will reduce 

staffing on aircraft firefighting vehicles from three (3) personnel to two (2). This appears to conflict with DOD requirements (DOD instruction DOD 6055.6) which establishes that such vehicles will be staffed with three (3) personnel. Does the Air 

Force intend to violate DOD Policy regarding these reductions? 

Secretary WYNNE and General MOSELEY. The CONOPS defines the most probably 

major fire emergency involving aircraft. Revised Air Force manpower standards will 

provide the authorizations to deliver this level of service. The CONOPS does not reduce manpower on any fire fighting vehicles. The number of firefighters required 

on fire vehicles is determined by the incident commander. DODI 6055.06, Fire and 

Emergency Services Program, does not prescribe the number of firefighters required 

on specific vehicles. This document addresses ‘‘fire companies’’ which can include 

multiple vehicles for the required company firefighters. The Air Force fully conforms 

to DODI 6055.06 today and will continue to do so after the PBD 720 reductions are 

executed. 
134 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Air Force budget submission requests $69.2 million for the A– 

b Wing Replacement Program. However, the Air Force’s Unfunded Priority List includes an additional $37.5 million for Fiscal Year 2008, to purchase six additional 

wings. Close Air Support is one of the Air Force’s most important combat missions 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. What degree of risk does slowing the rate of A–10 recapitalization create for the Close Air Support mission, given the planned expansion of 

the Army and the Marine Corps? 

Secretary WYNNE and General MOSELEY. [The information referred to is classified 

and retained in the committee files.] 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Does the Air Force consult with the Army and Marine Corps when 

making budget decisions that could affect the availability of air support for ground 

troops? If so, what was the Army and Marine Corps reaction to your budget decision? If not, why not? 

General MOSELEY. The Air Force takes its responsibility very seriously to provide 

timely and effective air, space and information support to meet Combatant Commander requirements of which US and Coalition land forces are one of the integral 

warfighting components. As a member of the Combatant Commander’s warfighting 

team, today’s land forces require close air support aircraft and supporting personnel, 

persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, secure satellite communications, and inter-/intra-theater airlift all provided by the US Air Force. Our staff 

works diligently to balance all of these requirements within our available obligation 

authorization to provide the best balance of trained and equiped forces today and 

in the future. 

The Air Force is a key member of the Joint close air support executive steering 

committee that reports to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), ensuring the Services establish a joint position for the future of close air support operations. These vetted requirements are used to guide and influence budget decisions, 

but there are more requirements than funding available. Each Service then balances 

funding and risk to best optimize their force mix and provide capability to support 

the National Military Strategy and Combatant Commanders. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. CASTOR 

Ms. CASTOR. How does the United States monitor other countries’ procurement 

and development of air systems? What do we know? 

Secretary WYNNE. A key National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) mission is to establish future aerospace force assessments. This mission prevents technological surprise through research, development, and acquisition analysis and forecast assessments. These assessments are derived from manpower, equipment, material, processes and facilities analysis for key strategic countries. In addition, NASIC 

assesses on-going air system developments worldwide to ensure current warfighters 

are constantly appraised of the foreign state-of-the art available to any potential adversary. These technical assessments build on the aerospace force assessment and 

provide detailed capabilities and performance estimates for planning and tactics development, as well as specific requirements for US weapons systems acquisition programs. 

NASIC uses all sources of intelligence to derive these assessments. Our primary 

intelligence monitoring sources are: Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Measurement and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT), and Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). These sources provide 

a foundation to monitor, understand and identify trends in air and aircraft weapon 

systems research, development and acquisition (RDA) processes. The sources also 

help identify air system programs and resources. NASIC collaborates with the entire 

Intelligence Community (IC) to develop and maintain intelligence collection requirements. These are driven by target country doctrine and strategy. The analyses from 

these sources yield assessments on a country’s strategy and capabilities for weapon 

systems development and procurement. The assessments include forecasts of when 

key air systems will become operational, i.e., reach their initial operational capability (IOC). NASIC also conducts analysis on overall trends in a country’s investment in its weapons research, development, test, and evaluation resources. 

NASIC has successfully forecast and accurately assessed strategic countries’ procurement and development of leading air systems. In addition we produce original 

scientific & technical intelligence on the characteristics, capabilities, limitations, 

and exploitable vulnerabilities of foreign air systems. This intelligence is in support 

of current and future warfighters and national policymakers. 

Ms. CASTOR. What is the Air Force doing to facilitate the use of alternative fuel? 
135 

Secretary WYNNE. The Air Force intends to test and certify a synthetic fuel blend 

in the entire aircraft fleet by 2010. 

Currently, we are completing the testing of the synthetic fuel blend in the B–52, 

with certification expected by the end of the 2007. In addition, we are working with 

the Federal Aviation Administration and the commercial airline industry (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative - CAAFI) to test and certify the use of synthetic fuels in high-bypass engines by 2009. Since the commercial airline industry 

uses 85% of the jet fuel in the U.S. and the Air Force uses the same type engines 

on our transport and refueling aircraft, we feel it is prudent to work together to facilitate the use of synthetic fuels. 

The Air Force goal is to acquire 50% of our domestic aviation fuel from domestic 

sources producing a synthetic fuel blend by 2016. It is our intent to procure synthetic fuels from sources that have carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology and equipment in order to greatly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

Ms. CASTOR. What is the most consequential impact to the Air Force of airmen 

and airwoman being assigned in lieu of (ILO) ground force tasks? 

Secretary WYNNE. Airmen supporting US Central Command’s ILO requirements 

predominantly serve in their core competencies and receive valuable combat experience in doing so. Approximately 80% of Airmen serve in core skill sets. The remaining 20% perform ILO tasks outside of their core competency and require extensive 

additional training. These represent the most consequential impact. These areas are 

comprised of interrogator and Detainee Operations specialists. The Air Force does 

not possess an interrogator specialty which requires tasking Airmen to attend 6 

months of training before deploying to the combat zone. These disposable skill sets 

require Airmen to leave their primary career fields for up to 18 months. Detainee 

Operations requirements have similar consequences in that the specific skills, 

taught by the Army to execute the Detainee Operations mission, are not required 

by Airmen on return to their bases. 

The Air Force is aggressively pursuing options to limit Airmen performing duties 

outside their core competency. Currently, all Airmen interrogator requirements are 

eliminated and an ongoing initiative is shifting Airmen from Detainee Operations 

requirements to missions more in line with Security Forces specific skill sets. Ultimately we will continue to work with our joint partners to ensure we provide the 

best military solution for the Combatant Commander. 

Ms. CASTOR. Please detail the strengths and weaknesses in the Air Force Reserve 

and Air National Guard’s ability to contribute to national responses if the nation 

is hit by a natural or catastrophic event. 

Secretary WYNNE. Reserve: The Air Force Reserve is able to respond immediately 

to an event because we train to one-tier of readiness. We are bound only by the 

availability of Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance funds. 

Air National Guard: Thirty-Four percent of our air and space force capability 

is resident in the Air National Guard. Each day, approximately 16,000 Air National 

Guard members are supporting continental air defense, another 5,000 are mobilized 

or deployed and they continue to provide a critical surge capability for the Air Force. 

They not only protect America’s skies, but also provide critical skills for domestic 

operations: airlift, air traffic control, weather, medical, communications, civil engineers, security forces, aerial firefighting systems, and many other capabilities. All 

of these capabilities are ‘‘dual use’’ capabilities derived from the Air National 

Guard’s federal role. 

The Air National Guard’s 177 locations are spread across 54 states and territories 

and, unless deployed away from home, members live and work near their units. If 

one area of the country is hit with a natural or catastrophic event, the other areas 

quickly respond, as they did in their historic response to Hurricane’s Katrina and 

Rita. This response is rapid and agile but can be difficult to coordinate. 

Our adaptable airmen have overcome challenges brought on by a piecemeal approach to how we present capability to the governors and domestic responders. The 

bottom line is there is a lack of identified requirements to allow the Air Force to 

adequately plan and allocate resources. While this can easily be misunderstood as 

a Department of Defense problem, this issue crosses many agencies and departments. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MEEHAN 

Mr. MEEHAN. I would like to complement the United States Air Force for their 

excellent work in protecting our troops by providing ballistic armor in all C–130 and 

C–17 transport aircraft. I know this has been essential to safe operation in many 

theatres including Iraq an Afghanistan. I note with great interest that the Air 
136 

Force, through its unfunded priorities list, has now placed high priority on procuring and installing the same add-on armor on the C–5 aircraft. It’s my understanding that some initial work is being done to procure the first few such armor 

kits. I would like to understand your plans for outfitting the full fleet as quickly 

as possible to ensure that the C–5 crews have the same protection the Air Force 

has always provided for C–17 and C–130 crews. 

Secretary WYNNE. Thank you for your interest in the protection of our aircrews 

and the protective armor needed to help assure their safety. The Air Force Reserve 

has allocated $2.5M in order to procure 11 kits for aircraft assigned to Westover. 

The AF has requested an additional $18.5M to procure the remaining 100 kits to 

outfit the total force fleet via the 2008 Unfunded Priority List. If these funds are 

appropriated, the vendor has demonstrated the capability to deliver. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. EVERETT 

Mr. EVERETT. General Moseley, I know how important educational opportunities 

are in the recruitment and retention of a high quality force. But I understand that 

the current language in the National Defense Authorization Act hinders your ability 

to offer some of the educational programs you would like to see at Air University 

at Maxwell AFB in Alabama. What changes would you recommend to this language 

and why is this important? 

Secretary WYNNE. A change in congressional language would make our professional military education programs more responsive to our emerging GWOT requirements. We see a need for Bachelors Degree for Enlisted Airmen, a hybrid resident 

and distance learning Master’s Degree for young officers, a Master’s Degree in 

Flight Test Engineering for the Test Pilot School, and a PhD for a few officers in 

Strategic Studies. All these programs are beyond our authority under the current 

language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We could be more responsive if the Commander of Air University had the authority to grant these degrees and others we might identify in the future. 

This is not a request for funding . . . just a request to pursue better educational 

opportunity for our people, and to increase our intellectual throw weight in the tactical, operational and strategic levels of discourse regarding the role of an Air Force 

in the affairs of the nation. 

Mr. EVERETT. I was please to see last Fall that the Air Force stood up a Cyberspace Command with the mission of providing freedom of access to cyberspace. 

Within this command, I am particularly interested in the work the Air Force is 

doing in the area of network security. How does both network and application security fit into the overall construct of the mission of the new Cyberspace Command? 

Do you feel as though you have adequate resources to address the threat to our networks and applications? 

Secretary WYNNE. A change in congressional language would make our professional military education programs more responsive to our emerging GWOT requirements. We see a need for Bachelors Degree for Enlisted Airmen, a hybrid resident 

and distance learning Master’s Degree for young officers, a Master’s Degree in 

Flight Test Engineering for the Test Pilot School, and a PhD for a few officers in 

Strategic Studies. All these programs are beyond our authority under the current 

language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We could be more responsive if the Commander of Air University had the authority to grant these degrees and others we might identify in the future. 

This is not a request for funding . . . just a request to pursue better educational 

opportunity for our people, and to increase our intellectual throw weight in the tactical, operational and strategic levels of discourse regarding the role of an Air Force 

in the affairs of the nation. 

Mr. EVERETT. As you know, the force structure of the Air Force Reserve is being 

affected by a variety of factors, including BRAC, the Air Force’s Total Force Initiative, and Program Budget Decision 720, which eliminates 7,655 positions. One issue 

of particular concern to me is inactive duty training (IDT). What steps are being 

taken to ensure that the Air Force Reserve component have the authority they to 

ensure that reservists are receiving the training that they need? 

Secretary WYNNE. At this time the Air Force Reserve (AFR) is meeting all training requirements. As requirements evolve, we will make necessary adjustments, including seeking legislative relief, if necessary. 

Mr. EVERETT. Given China’s January 11th test of an anti-satellite weapon-the 

first antisatellite test in over 20 years, a) What new capabilities or additional resources are needed to counter this threat and address other growing threats to 

space? b) In your testimony, space situational awareness (SSA) is a top priority yet 
137 

for two key SSA programs, Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) and the Space 

Fence, the Air Force has requested $46 million less than expected in fiscal year 

2008. Furthermore, funding of space control technology, counterspace systems, and 

SSA systems and operations comprises roughly $300 million in FY 2008. Is this 

funding adequate given the overall investment in space and growing threats to 

space? c) As threat to space and operations in space increase, so too will the need 

for a robust space intelligence capability. How does the Air Force plan to address 

this requirement? d) To what extent will the Chinese test and other emerging 

threats to space change the DOD’s investment priorities in space? Furthermore, to 

what extent will this drive us to different types of systems and capabilities, or a 

different space architecture? 

Secretary WYNNE. The Air Force recognizes space control as a top priority and is 

placing a greater emphasis on Space Situation Awareness (SSA), space command 

and control, and space protection. One of the key elements of a robust SSA effort 

is the ability to integrate SSA data and enhance space command and control. In the 

FY08 President’s Budget, the Air Force has added funds for a new program called 

Space Situation Awareness Foundational Enterprise (SSAFE), which will ensure the 

right processing and connectivity behind the sensors to support the timely, correct 

decision making necessary to counter emerging threats. 

The budget for SSA and space control is adequate relative to the threat and the 

Air Force’s overall investment strategy. The Air Force’s top SSA priority in the 

FY08 President’s Budget was to maintain the continuity of current capabilities. To 

that end, funding for Space Based Surveillance System (SBSS) Block 10, which will 

supplant the Space-Based Visible as the primary space-based SSA sensor, was increased to ensure that system is launched in FY09. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) is addressing requirement for a robust space 

intelligence capability by improving the capabilities of the National Air and Space 

Intelligence Center (NASIC), the primary DOD producer of foreign aerospace intelligence. Specifically, NASIC is adding resources to collect/process/evaluate open 

source and classified literature/material necessary to exploit and integrate available 

intelligence to increase awareness of foreign space/counterspace capabilities and predict intent. The increase in and acceleration of emerging threats in space validated 

the DOD’s increased emphasis on developing a capability to rapidly launch and deploy satellites to surge capability or reconstitute lost or damaged satellites. In the 

FY08 President’s Budget, the Air Force significantly increased funding for the Operationally Responsive Space program to demonstrate the ability to develop and 

launch Tactical Satellites (TacSat). The first TacSat was successfully launched in 

December 2006 and two more launches are planned for 2007. 

Mr. EVERETT. A topic of considerable focus over the last few years has been the 

relationship between ‘‘black and white’’ space. What areas of cooperation and/or integration between ‘‘black and white’’ space do you see as valuable? What are your 

plans to further black and white space integration? 

Secretary WYNNE. Integration and partnership across Department of Defense 

(DOD) and the Intelligence Community is essential for providing the nation with effective and efficient space capabilities to support national security activities; the Air 

Force is committed to fostering this relationship. 

There is value added to any activity that pursues efforts to maximize the partnership and integration between the Intelligence and Defense communities, particularly 

‘‘black’’ and ‘‘white’’ space. The NSSO is following the highly successful Transformational Communication Architecture with development of architectures for Position, Navigation, and Timing; Space Control; and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. 

Integration efforts include building architectures, Concepts of Operations, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), Communications, Launch and 

Ranges, S&T, Specifications and Standards, Industrial Base, CADRE, Acquisition 

processes and lessons learned, relations with other Civil Agencies, and joint operations where possible. 

Joint forums between the Air Force and NRO afford the opportunity to coordinate 

and share across the National Security Space enterprise. As we look towards future 

integration of black and white space, collaborative efforts such as the Space Partnership Council allows for senior space leadership in the DOD, civil, and intelligence 

communities to discuss issues of mutual interest. The council meets about three 

times a year; example topics include Space Situational Awareness, Space Control, 

Space Acquisitions, Space Professional Development, Space Launch, 

Mr. EVERETT. The Committee noticed that Space Radar funding is now classified 

and reflects a change in funding from an Air Force program line to a Military Intelligence Program (MIP) line. What motivated the change in funding sources for the 

Space Radar? What ramifications will this have on system development, program 
138 

management, and cost sharing between the Department of Defense and Intelligence 

Community? What is the status of the DODIC memorandum of agreement currently 

in revision? 

Secretary WYNNE. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directed the movement of Space Radar funds from the Air Force Military Intelligence Program (MIP) 

to the NRO MIP. This movement has occurred. These funds remain under the jurisdiction of the DOD, to be applied to the Space Radar Program. In concert with this 

movement, OSD and the Office of the Director of Intelligence (ODNI) have developed a cost-sharing budget agreement for FY 2008–13 as demonstrated in the FY08 

President’s Budget (PB) submission. The movement of these funds does not affect 

Space Radar system development or program management. A draft Memorandum 

of Agreement between the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy 

Director of National Intelligence is in final coordination and documents the Space 

Radar cost-sharing agreement. It also establishes the framework for Space Radar 

program management and oversight as a joint OSD and ODNI program. Final cost 

sharing for the production effort in FY14 and beyond is to be determined in the FY 

2009 PB submission. Space Radar continues to be the single, shared space radar capability for the nation. Support for both the MIP and the National Intelligence Program funding lines is important so we can maintain DOD and the Intelligence Community synchronization on the program. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HAYES 

Mr. HAYES. General Moseley and Secretary Wynne, I want to ask you both about 

how you are going to handle the $15 billion contract for the CSAR–X Combat Search 

and Rescue helicopters. The General Accountability Office has just called the winning bid ‘‘inconsistent’’ with the requirements spelled out in the Request for Proposal. The GAO is very impartial, and they found in their recent ruling regarding 

award of CSAR–X that flaws in the initial RFP and procurement process are serious 

enough that the Air Force should re-issue a corrected RFP, solicit updated proposals, and hold new evaluations of the offered proposals. GAO rarely upholds protests, and has never upheld a protest of a program of this magnitude, so it is important for the Air force to follow through on this ruling. In light of the GAO upholding 

the CSAR–X protest, what is the Air Force’s plan to go forward with the CSAR– 

X procurement? 

Secretary WYNNE. In its March 29 decision the GAO denied all of the additional 

arguments raised by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, ‘‘finding 

that none furnished an additional basis for sustaining the protests.’’ In response to 

the GAO’s recommendation in their February 26 decision the Air Force intends to 

amend the Request for Proposals (RFP) to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of Operations and Support (O&S) costs, reopen discussions with offerors, and 

request revised proposals. If the evaluation of the revised proposals results in a 

change to the CSAR-X Best Value Source Selection decision, the Air Force will make 

any necessary changes in the contract award decision. 

Mr. HAYES. How will the Air Force address the need to procure the right aircraft 

for the warfighter and the CSAR mission? 

Secretary WYNNE. From program inception, Air Force Combat Search and Rescue 

(CSAR) personnel, including experienced aircrew and maintainers, have been involved in every step of this acquisition. We have a moral obligation to deliberately 

and expeditiously deliver the Combat Search and Rescue capability the warfighter 

needs to protect those who are in the fight today, and in the future, in operations 

around the world. The Air Force operational and acquisition communities will continue to work as a team to procure and field the best possible aircraft for our 

warfighters. 

Mr. HAYES. I am concerned by recent statements from the Air Force indicating 

that because of the need to get a new rescue aircraft into the field quickly, the Air 

Force is willing to proceed with the intention of ‘‘narrowly’’ interpret this GAO decision. How and why do you intend to do so? Fielding a system quickly is important, 

but most important is choosing the best platform to support the warfighter. In your 

selection process, will fielding a system quickly take precedence? 

Secretary WYNNE. In its March 29 decision the GAO denied all of the additional 

arguments raised by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, ‘‘finding 

that none furnished an additional basis for sustaining the protests.’’ In response to 

the GAO’s recommendation in their February 26 decision the Air Force intends to 

amend the Request for Proposals (RFP) to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of Operations and Support (O&S) costs, reopen discussions with offerors, and 

request revised proposals. In evaluating the responses to the RFP amendment, the 
139 

Air Force will continue to apply an integrated Best Value assessment, which considers Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation factors. If the evaluation of the revised proposals results in a change to the 

CSAR–X Best Value Source Selection decision, the Air Force will make any necessary changes in the contract award decision. The Air Force remains committed to 

a fair, open and transparent process while working to resolve this protest. Additionally, we have an obligation to deliberately and expeditiously deliver the Combat 

Search and Rescue capability the warfighter needs. 

Mr. HAYES. Can you assure the committee that the Air Force will take the proper 

steps to assure the GAO ruling is followed, including their suggestion of a re-bid? 

Can you assure us that proposals will be re-evaluated? 

Secretary WYNNE. In its March 29 decision the GAO denied all of the additional 

arguments raised by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, ‘‘finding 

that none furnished an additional basis for sustaining the protests.’’ In response to 

the GAO’s recommendation in their February 26 decision the Air Force intends to 

amend the Request for Proposals (RFP) to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of Operations and Support (O&S) costs, reopen discussions with offerors, and 

request revised proposals. If the evaluation of the revised proposals results in a 

change to the CSAR–X Best Value Source Selection decision, the Air Force will 

make any necessary changes in the contract award decision. 

Mr. HAYES. Are you planning a thorough requirements review or will cost be the 

only area you are going to examine? 

Secretary WYNNE. The Air Force is not planning an additional review of the 

CSAR–X Capability Development Document (CDD) requirements. The Air Force did 

a thorough review of CSAR–X requirements when the CSAR–X CDD went to the 

Air Force Requirements for Operational Capability Council (AFROCC), en route to 

the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) where the CSAR–X CDD was 

validated on 16 Aug 05. The Air Force intends to comply with the GAO’s February 

26 Recommendation by amending the Request for Proposals (RFP) to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of Operations and Support (O&S) costs, reopen 

discussions with offerors, and request revised proposals. If the evaluation of the revised proposals results in a change to the CSAR–X Best Value Source Selection, the 

Air Force will make any necessary changes in the contract award decision. 

Mr. HAYES. Was the lowest cost helicopter in the original CSAR–X competition 

the one which was selected? 

Secretary WYNNE. The CSAR–X source selection decision was based on an integrated assessment using Best Value source selection criteria. The Best Value selection criteria included Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance and Cost/ 

Price factors. As reported in the 26 Feb 07 GAO decision document for public release, Lockheed Martin had the lowest evaluated Most Probable Life Cycle Cost 

under the Cost/Price factor. 

Mr. HAYES. Also, it is my understanding that CSAR pilots and users were not 

closely included in the source selection process and in the selection committee. I am 

especially concerned that the initial platform chosen was questioned by numerous 

analysts and CSAR crews for this particular mission. Moving forward will CSAR pilots and users’ concerns and input be given thorough consideration? How so? 

Secretary WYNNE. From program inception, Air Force Combat Search and Rescue 

(CSAR) personnel, including experienced aircrew and maintainers, have been involved in every step of this acquisition, as well as participating as members of the 

source selection team and source selection advisory council. The development of 

CSAR–X requirements was led by Air Force pilots, aircrew, and support personnel 

who have flown demanding CSAR missions, maintained the HH–60G, and supported 

CSAR operations in austere locations around the world. As we move forward with 

the CSAR–X program, CSAR aircrew and support personnel will continue to play 

a vital role in its acquisition, development, testing and fielding. 

Mr. HAYES. Have any of the helicopters in the CSAR–X competition been used for 

rescue in Afghanistan or Iraq? Which ones? How did they perform? 

Secretary WYNNE. Variants of the H–47 and EH–101 have been deployed to Iraq 

or Afghanistan. While these platforms provide an inherent rescue capability associated with any helicopter, to the best of our knowledge they are not dedicated to 

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR). The Air Force is the only service within the Department of Defense to provide dedicated forces conducting the CSAR mission. The 

fact these forces are dedicated is critical as it ensures CSAR is always available and 

not delayed. 

Mr. HAYES. How ‘‘survivable’’ is the original contest winner in a high threat area? 

Why do you see it as the best helicopter for the CSAR mission? 

Secretary WYNNE. The Capability Development Document (CDD) is based on rigorous mission analysis and its development aided by combat experienced HH–60G 
140 

CSAR operators and maintainers. The CDD outlines the required key performance 

parameters, key system attributes, and attributes to include survivability needed for 

the CSAR–X aircraft. The H–47 variant proposed by Boeing meets or exceeds all requirements as set forth in the CDD. 

Mr. HAYES. Are any of the helicopters in the competition being used as rescue helicopters by any of our major allies? If so, which ones? 

Secretary WYNNE. While our allies may be deploying variants of the H–47, S–92 

and US–101 as a vertical lift platform with the inherent rescue capability associated 

with any helicopter, to the best of our knowledge they are not dedicated to Combat 

Search and Rescue (CSAR). The Air Force is the only service within the Department 

of Defense to provide dedicated forces conducting the CSAR mission. The fact these 

forces are dedicated is critical as it ensures CSAR is always available and not delayed. 

Mr. HAYES. Do you think that the current situation is a result of an ‘‘era of protests’’ caused by declining defense programs or is it a reflection of a poorly executed 

acquisition? 

Secretary WYNNE. The CSAR–X acquisition is not indicative of problems within 

the Air Force acquisition system. The Air Force is employing and remains committed to fair, open and transparent acquisition processes. 

Mr. HAYES. Since this is the first major acquisition since the Air Force received 

its acquisition authority from OSD, is this executed acquisition indicative of any 

problems or flaws with the Air Force acquisition system? 

Secretary WYNNE. No, the CSAR–X acquisition is not indicative of problems within the Air Force acquisition system. The Air Force is employing and remains committed to fair, open and transparent acquisition processes. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. The first RAND study will be issued 31 March. I am concerned that 

the study will not address the 2005 BRAG finding, now law, that Eglin is an 

RDT&E center of excellence. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to 

submit the DOD and BRAC commission comments on Eglin Air Force Base’s military value and will not read them now. SECDEF quote from BRAC report: ‘‘http:// 

www.brac.gov/finalreport.htmt’’ Eglin is one of three core integrated weapons and 

armaments RDAT&E centers (with China Lake, CA, and Redstone Arsenal, AL) 

with high MV and the largest concentration of integrated technical facilities across 

all three functional areas. Eglin AEB has a full spectrum array of Weapons & Armaments (W&A) Research, Development & Acquisition, and Test & Evaluation 

(RDAT&E) capabilities. Accordingly, relocation of Hill AFB and DTRA NCR W&A 

capabilities will further complement and strengthen Eglin as a full spectrum W&A 

RDAT&E Center. ‘‘Commission findings htm://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html’’ The 

Commission found merit in DOD’s proposal to create a fullipectrum capability at 

Eglin for Weapons and Armaments, and found no reason to disagree with the Secretary’s recommendation. The Commission carefully examined the justification for 

the Secretary’s recommendation to transfer in-service engineering responsibilities 

for research, development and acquisition, test and evaluation from FUII Air Force 

Base to Eglin Air Force Base, and found it would enhance long-term military value. 

‘‘Do you agree with the BRAC law, and if not, what does the Air Force intend to 

do to implement its desired Test and Evaluation plan while still complying with the 

law? 

General MOSELEY. The Air Force Cost-Benefit analysis required by the Fiscal 

Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act will be delivered to Congress no later than 

30 April 2007. The Air Force will comply with BRAC law and will implement the 

Secretary of Defense’s recommendation to relocate Weapons and Armaments InService Engineering Research, Development and Acquisition, and Test and Evaluation from Hill Air Force Base to Eglin Air Force Base. 

Mr. MILLER. As a result of PBD 720, the Air Force proposed realigning a portion 

of its Test & Evaluation capability and divesting itself of other capabilities, in order 

to generate future cost savings. The Air Force is currently conducting a cost benefit 

analysis mandated by Congress in the FY07 National Defense Authorization and 

the Defense Appropriations Acts, prior to implementing such a plan. We have been 

told that the target date for the final assessment is June 2008, although the assessment might be delivered as early as December 2007. Likewise, most of the cuts to 

Air Force T&E in the FY08 and FY09 budget were restored, pending the results of 

the cost benefit analysis. Can you assure this committee that the Air Force will 

maintain funding of its T&E infrastructure at least through the budget submission 

for FY10, which is the budget submission after the cost benefit analysis is com-
141 

pleted? Also, we have been told that there is an additional study underway by the 

RAND Corporation to assess the infrastructure and staffing required to support Air 

Force Test & Evaluation. One could assume that this study might find that additional infrastructure or staffing is required. Has the study been constrained in any 

way to simply look for cuts within the T&E enterprise? 

General MOSELEY. The Air Force is faced with budget challenges, continuous combat operations, and the need to reconstitute the force. This has resulted in the Air 

Force considering all options available to maximize efficiencies. This 

includesoptimizing the Test and Evaluation infrastructure. The Air Force is engaged 

in several studies, including a RAND study, to assist the Air Force with this effort. 

The RAND study was not constrained to only identifying cuts within the T&E enterprise and appropriate funding will be allocated to support optimizing the Test and 

Evaluation infrastructure. 

Mr. MILLER. With the average aircraft age currently at 24 years, I know you’re 

concerned about modernizing and/or replacing many airframes. Are you comfortable 

with the state of our C–130 center wing boxes and our C–130 Fleet overall and second do you feel the budget request was large enough? Do you believe AC–130U operational tempo has accelerated fatigue damage to center wing over the previous projections? 

General MOSELEY. First, let me say we are confident the current restriction/ 

grounding limitations and center wing box replacement program have effectively 

mitigated the risks that center wing fatigue damage has on the C–130 fleet. The 

Air Force budget request is sufficient to address the immediate needs for the Center 

Wing Replacement (CWR) program. However as pointed out, the increase in flying 

hours of the AC–130U in support of the war on terrorism has accelerated the need 

to replace AC–130U Center Wing Boxes from FY12 as originally scheduled to FY10, 

requiring purchase of AC–130U Center Wing kits in FY08 in lieu of those programmed for the C–130H fleet. 

Mr. MILLER. The Air Force has been designated lead service for the Joint SOF/ 

CSAR Recapitalization Program and will procure and field basic aircraft, common 

support equipment and trainers for USSOCOM. It is my understanding that the acquisition strategy is currently under review and a materiel solution has not been 

determined. Additionally, the Joint SOF/CSAR tanker recapitalization ICE was approved by the JROC on 18 Oct 06 and a report to Congress provided in FY06. What 

is the status of the additional report to accelerate SOF tanker recap due in FY07? 

Do you feel the Joint SOF/CSAR Recapitalization Program is on schedule? 

General MOSELEY. The HC/MC–130 Recapitalization Program is progressing well. 

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) in Oct 06, and OUSD(PA&E) graded our Analysis of Alternatives as 

‘‘Sufficient’’ in Feb 07 and recommended recapitalizing Air Combat Command’s HC– 

130P/N and Air Force Special Operations Command’s MC–130Es and MC–130Ps 

with new modified, medium transport aircraft. We anticipate Joint Staff review and 

validation of the Capabilities Development Document in May, which would meet our 

target date. Meanwhile, Aeronautical Systems Center is conducting market research 

to determine the best strategy for HC/MC–130 Recapitalization. That determination 

will be made in the May - Jun 07 timeframe. 

USSOCOM and Air Force are preparing a response to the FY07 NDAA HASC Report request regarding ‘‘U.S. Special Operations Command Aviation Modernization.’’ 

We anticipate the report will be submitted by the end of Apr 07. 

Mr. MILLER. It’s my understanding that the President’s Budget Request for fiscal 

year 2008 includes $49 million for repairs to Santa Rosa Island Range Facilities. 

I’m very happy to see this and was disappointed OMB removed the $169 million 

the DOD submitted in one of last year’s supplementals since the hurricane damage 

was not Katrina related. What is the Air Force’s plan to ensure that at least $169 

million is provided to this island which protects all of Eglin Air Force Base and 

much of the community? 

Secretary WYNNE. The Air Force is committed to restore full access and protection 

of critical test capabilities at Santa Rosa Island Range Complex test sites. The construction funds are needed to construct seawalls, repair roads, and restore the land 

mass. We have included two projects totalling $84.0 million in the FY08 President’s 

Budget; Construct Seawalls ($35.0 million) and Repair Roads ($49.0 million). The 

third project, Land Mass Restorations is tentativly programmed in the FY10 

MILCON program at $38.0 million. This project was deferred to FY10 because of 

need for full environmental assessment study. In addition, we have programmed 

$13.0 million for design of these three projects. The total cost for restoring the test 

capability at Santa Rosa Island Range Complex is about $135.0 million. This is less 

than the original estimated cost of $169.0 million. 
142 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. GINGREY 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Secretary, we certainly understand the need for efficient and 

effective aircraft that meet the warfighter’s needs. As you know, I support both the 

C–17 and C–5 programs. You previously testified that selective C–5A retirements 

would allow you to save excessive maintenance money and buy new C–17s. Considering that the O&S costs of a C–5 and C–17 (on an annualized per aircraft basis) 

are very similar, what analysis has the AF done which suggests that this is fiscally 

advantageous? It is true that C–5A/Bs today have a higher per flying hour cost than 

C–17’s, but when one measures the amount of cargo carried by both aircraft, the 

cost of delivered cargo (cost-per-ton-mile) are remarkably similar between the aircraft. In fact, modernized C–5Ms will have a significant advantage over the C–17 

in terms of cost-per-ton-mile, and the investment will pay for itself. The Year 2005 

USAF estimates of modernization O&S reductions were ∼$20.4B BY00$ or $49.8B 

TY$ which did not include an additionally anticipated $2B in fuel savings. Reduced 

Total Ownership Costs (O&S savings - investment) is ∼$11.48 BY00$ or $38.2B TY$. 

RERP pays for itself while generating an extra $38B TY$s to support AF recapitalization of other priority programs in the future, such as space, tankers and fighters 

that you mentioned. Even the AF’s own C–5 Fleet Viability Board took a look at 

C–5 O&S costs and concluded they were not out of line with other heavy aircraft, 

considering the size and cargo carrying capability of the C–5. Consequently, it does 

not appear that the AF’s argument to trade C–5s (with decades of service life remaining) for C–17 has any fiscal advantage, nor generates a significant operational 

effect. In fact, it seems much more prudent to apply the cost of a single C–17 toward 

modernizing 3 C–5s, which provide 6 times the cargo capacity. Why should Congress 

support replacement of C–5s with C–17s when there appears to be no compelling 

reason to do so? 

Secretary WYNNE. Ongoing evaluation of the RERP program has brought previous 

estimates of cost savings into question. The assumptions that led to predictions of 

$11.4B in cost savings through 2040 did not account for the recently identified cost 

pressures associated with engines, pylons, and touch labor. The Air Force is currently engaged in a detailed cost estimating effort to establish a service cost position 

for C–5 RERP. This detailed cost estimate is forecast to complete by July 2007. 

A robust, modernized C–5 fleet is a force multiplier, carrying roughly twice the 

palletized payload of a C–17 and is the only aircraft that can carry certain cargo. 

This enables the C–17 fleet to fully exploit its unique multi-role, aeromedical, airdrop, special-operations and austere airfield capabilities (short/unimproved airfields, 

direct delivery). It is clear that we need both. The three RERP aircraft currently 

in flight test are performing well. Outside of RERP testing, there are other legacy 

aircraft issues emerging, which will also need to be addressed. No modernization 

program can address everything. As we see with all our aging aircraft, unforeseeable issues continue to materialize. Investment in new aircraft is the only other option currently available that reduces the risks associated with an aging aircraft 

fleet. 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Secretary, I supported the procurement of C–17s to replace the 

C–141, and Congress is on track to provide funding for 190 of these aircraft. The 

MCS, QDR, and the AF’s own program of record also support C–5 modernization 

as part of the nation’s strategic airlift solution set. These studies have all suggested 

that 292 aircraft are sufficient. By my numbers, the AF will grow to 301 strategic 

airlift aircraft, which appears to meet all of those requirements. Considering Congress’ previous support for your airlift plans, why do you now present the dilemma 

that C–5As need to be immediately replaced by additional C–17s? From my perspective, there is nothing to preclude the AF from buying additional C–17s today. However, it was the AF that chose not to put additional C–17s in the budget, nor include 

any additional C–17s in its top 25 unfunded priorities for FY08. Why is the AF 

sending such mixed signals? Given the fact that the C–5 fleet has 70% service life 

remaining, and that the benefits of C-5 modernization are clearly documented (last 

year the USAF told us RERP pays for itself while generating an additional savings 

of ∼$11.4B BY00$ or $38B TY$s), why would the AF not accelerate this program 

for the entire C–5A/B/C fleet to realize even greater future savings while maximizing cargo capacity? 

Secretary WYNNE. The ongoing evaluation of the RERP program has brought previous estimates of cost savings into question. The assumptions that led to predictions of $11.4B in cost savings through 2040 did not account for the recently 

identified cost pressures associated with engines, pylons, and touch labor. The Air 

Force is currently engaged in a detailed cost estimating effort to establish a service 

cost position for C–5 RERP. This detailed cost estimate is forecast to complete by 

July 2007. The three RERP aircraft currently in flight test are performing well tech-
143 

nically. However, there are other legacy aircraft issues emerging, such cracks in the 

fuselage crown skins, which will also need to be addressed. 

Although the Air Force did not include additional C–17s in the FY08 budget, we 

did include additional C–17s in the FY08 Unfunded Priority List as a part of Remaining Requirements. 

Acceleration of the C–5 modernization program could in result in higher O&S savings and mitigate upward programmatic cost pressure, but in the current fiscally 

constrained environment this is a challenge for the Air Force. 

Æ