U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

i 

25–089 2018

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–23] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING 

ON

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 22, 2017 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida 

RO KHANNA, California 

MARGARET DEAN, Professional Staff Member 

BRIAN GARRETT, Professional Staff Member 

JODI BRIGNOLA, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Miller, Lt Gen Maryanne, USAF, Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters, 

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

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

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

West, Maj Gen Scott D., USAF, Director of Current Operations, Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force ............................ 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Rice, Lt Gen L. Scott, joint with Lt Gen Maryanne Miller and Maj 

Gen Scott D. West ......................................................................................... 27 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 52 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 51 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 22, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:13 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

ON READINESS 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this hearing of the 

Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee 

to order. 

I am pleased to welcome everyone here today for an unclassified 

session on the current state of the U.S. Air Force. The purpose of 

this hearing is to clarify the information we have heard repeatedly 

over the past several weeks and months. We have received briefings and hearings from leading national security experts, testimony 

from all of the service vice chiefs, the Department of Defense’s 

quarterly readiness report to Congress, and the Government Accountability Office assessment of the military’s readiness recovery. 

We have also recently heard from both the U.S. Army and the 

U.S. Navy on those services’ current state of readiness. Each briefing and hearing further confirms that our services are indeed in a 

readiness crisis. 

I reiterate my belief that the first responsibility of the Federal 

Government is to provide for the security of its nations, to accomplish for citizens what they cannot do by themselves. 

Therefore, it is our responsibility as members of the subcommittee to continue to better understand the readiness situation 

of the U.S. Air Force, to understand where we continue to take 

risks and to understand the plan to recover readiness ability. 

I would like to welcome the distinguished panel of senior leaders 

of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Air National Guard, and the Air 

Force Reserve present today. This afternoon, we are honored to 

have with us Lieutenant General L. Scott Rice, U.S. Air Force, Director, Air National Guard; Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller, 

U.S. Air Force, Chief of Air Force Reserve, and Commander, Air 

Force Reserve Command; and Major General Scott D. West, U.S. 

Air Force, Director of Current Operations and Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. 
2 

I thank each of you for testifying today and look forward to your 

thoughts and insights as you highlight the current state of the U.S. 

Air Force. 

I now turn to our ranking member, Delegate, Congresswoman 

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

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

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

you to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. 

General Rice, I would also like to thank you again for your January visit to the territory of Guam. 

And welcome to General Miller and General West. 

We have had airmen from all squadrons deployed over the past 

year. And as you know, our men and women of the Guam Air National Guard are keeping busy, and I know they appreciate your 

support. And of course, there is significant investment and activity 

at Andersen Air Force Base, which will require continued attention 

as the most strategic American base in the Pacific region. 

I would also like to note my appreciation that each component 

of the Air Force is represented today, given that we had to reschedule the Reserve Component discussion last year. 

While some challenges, such as critical skills shortages, affect 

each component, they do so differently. So it is essential that we 

receive perspectives from each of you to fully understand the Air 

Force’s state of readiness. 

This is the third in a series of hearings we have held in this subcommittee on the state of the military departments. However, the 

Air Force is unique in that the demand for its units has increased 

in recent years while the service has shrank. 

While we will certainly discuss pilot shortages, I am also interested to learn about where recruiting and retention challenges are 

facing other critical specialties. 

The new administration has proposed a significant increase in 

military spending, the majority of which is, theoretically, to help 

build back readiness in the short term. However, it is not clear that 

the Department of Defense has a coherent view to do so in the long 

term. And I will be interested to hear about the Air Force’s plan 

to meet both its near- and long-term readiness and what methods 

are in place to guide your progress. 

I am concerned that without careful attention, existing challenges could be compounded, as we are likely to continue to sustain 

high operational tempos. 

So again, ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to our discussion 

here today. And I, again, thank you to our witnesses for being here 

and for your service to our great country. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo, for your 

extraordinary service. 

We will now have opening statements beginning with General 

Rice and proceed. And we look forward to your testimony today. 
3 

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

NATIONAL GUARD, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General RICE. Thank you, sir. Chairman Wilson and Ranking 

Member Bordallo and the distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for inviting me here today to join the Active Component 

and the Air Force Reserve in the discussion about the United 

States Air Force readiness. 

First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the men 

and women of the Air National Guard for their hard work, professionalism, and dedication to serving this great Nation. Day in and 

day out, we have 105,700 uniformed Guard airmen as well as civilians serving with great distinction and patriotism as they help defend the homeland and support America’s national security interests around the world. 

I also want to thank you for your support of the Air National 

Guard and its important mission. 

Today, the Air National Guard, as an operational Reserve, continues to be exceptionally capable and effective in its global warfare, warfight, and domestic roles. The complexities and uncertainties of the strategic environment underscore the importance of ensuring that the Air National Guard is resourced to respond successfully to the Nation’s growing reliance on its capabilities. 

We ask a lot of our people and it is my job to ensure our airmen 

have the resources and training to do the jobs we ask them. Readiness is my first priority, followed second by 21st century Guard airmen, with modernization and recapitalization third. 

Our lines of effort in these areas will enable the successful accomplishment of the National Guard’s core mission sets of fighting 

America’s wars, protecting and defending the homeland, and building domestic and global partnerships. 

Readiness is more than an isolated priority within the Air National Guard. Improved readiness implicitly includes advancement 

in my two other priorities. The Air National Guard is undertaking 

two lines of effort to improve readiness. 

First, we are working to increase end strength and effective manning. As you know, end strength alone does not tell an accurate 

story about readiness. A better indicator of readiness is effective 

manning or measuring the amount of fully qualified Guard airmen 

who occupy positions within their career field. 

I need your support for a wide variety of recruiting and retention 

initiatives in order to ensure I have the right airmen in the right 

positions. I would also ask for your support to take advantage of 

opportunities to recruit new members into the Air National Guard, 

including those separating from the Active Component. 

My second line of effort to improve readiness is maximizing 

training opportunities and the funding to support it. Right now, the 

total force faces a training shortfall in many critical areas. There 

simply is not enough initial training slots to meet demand. Numerous unit conversions, churn, endured by the Air National Guard 

over the past 15 years have increased the demand for training, 

which decreases the value of experience. 

We also need continuation training, the training in which our 

fully qualified Guard airmen must engage to remain current. Two 

ways to increase readiness to meet the continuation training de-
4 

mands are funding both a second-shift maintenance in order to 

make additional aircraft available and authorizing and funding the 

additional full and drill status positions. 

This committee’s interest, knowledge, support, and time is vital 

to increasing the readiness of the Air National Guard. Together, we 

must ensure the men and women of the Air National Guard have 

the support they need as they balance responsibilities at home, civilian careers, patriotic domestic service, and their responsibility 

that this commitment is to our national security. We must ensure 

they are prepared for the tasks we expect them to perform. 

Thank you for inviting me here today, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

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

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

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

General Miller. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN MARYANNE MILLER, USAF, CHIEF OF 

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

General MILLER. Chairman Wilson, Congresswoman Bordallo, 

and members of the subcommittee, I thank you very much for the 

opportunity to address you on the readiness of the Air Force Reserve. 

For 69 years, this Nation has called on the Air Force Reserve to 

support national security objectives and all types of military operations all over the globe. Today, the Air Force Reserve balances the 

operational agility needed for today’s fight while simultaneously 

providing the strategic depth needed to respond to the unexpected 

and emerging threats of our Nation. 

Combatant commanders benefit from the capabilities and experiences our Reserve citizen airmen bring to the joint fight. On any 

given day, there are approximately 6,000 Air Force Reservists on 

Active Duty orders operating in air, space, and cyber domains, supporting overseas contingency efforts and operations around the 

globe. 

Ready airmen ensure the capability of a unit to accomplish its 

designed mission to meet the demands of the National Military 

Strategy when called upon. Over the past few years, shrinking defense budgets and lack of fiscal stability have stressed our readiness levels, threatening our ability to reach and sustain full readiness. Congress’ efforts to assist with our budget shortfalls have 

helped, but permanent relief from the BCA [Budget Control Act] 

caps is crucial to a steady and enduring full readiness recovery. 

As I measure the state of readiness within the Air Force Reserve, 

I assess across the spectrum of people, equipment, training, and 

the demands of the operational tempo. As you know, our people are 

our greatest asset to ensuring global vigilance, global reach, and 

global power. 

In order to support emerging mission requirements of the Air 

Force while continuing to support enduring combat missions, I 

need a slight growth in manpower over the next few years. 

With respect to our personnel readiness challenges, I am focused 

on three main areas, the first being the pilot shortage, the second, 
5 

the shortfalls in full-time support, and finally, critical skills manning. 

The readiness and modernization of our aircraft and equipment 

are essential to maintaining an agile, combat-capable, and interoperative Air Force. The Air Force Reserve leverages the National 

Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation to increase capability 

and ensure interoperability within the joint fight. This account is 

particularly important in this fiscally constrained environment, and 

I want to thank you all for your tremendous support of that account. 

Training is our number one job when not engaged in the fight. 

To maximize our training successes, we need predictable, reliable 

funding and training allocations in order to match our resources to 

our Reservists’ availability. 

Over the last 26 years of being engaged across the globe in exercises, contingencies, and operations, we have successfully adjusted 

to an operational Reserve. Portions of our force are stressed, but 

our airmen are resilient, engaged, and honored to serve. 

Thank you for your tremendous support of the Air Force Reserve 

and for the opportunity to discuss our readiness. I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General Miller. 

We now proceed to General West. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN SCOTT D. WEST, USAF, DIRECTOR OF 

CURRENT OPERATIONS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General WEST. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Readiness, thank you 

for conducting this hearing and allowing me to join the leadership 

of the Air National Guard and Air Reserve Command in testimony 

on readiness. 

For the past 69 years, the Air Force has been breaking barriers 

as a member of the finest joint warfighting team on the planet. We 

have protected the homeland, provided two legs of the Nation’s nuclear triad, and provided unmatched air, space, and cyber dominance. Our joint partners and allies rely on us. We ensure freedom 

from attack, the ability to attack at a time and place of our choosing, and the ability to operate freely in peace and in combat. In no 

modern war, no other nation has achieved such an asymmetric advantage. 

We describe what we provide to the Nation as global vigilance, 

global reach, and global power. By global vigilance, airmen have 

built a real-time global intelligence and command and control network that can find, fix, and finish the smallest of targets, to include individuals who wish to do us harm. 

Airmen operate multiple satellite constellations which range 

from GPS [Global Positioning Satellite] and space situational 

awareness, to nuclear warning and protected satellite communications. Cyber operators build, secure, operate, and defend our networks and are ready to take offensive actions in, from, and through 

cyberspace. 

Via global reach, airmen rapidly range the earth to respond to 

a crisis or deliver critical supplies or personnel to any location on 
6 

the planet. Airmen are engaged 24/7 with an aircraft taking off 

every 2.8 minutes somewhere around the globe. 

Airmen are in 23 countries at 77 locations operating a global system of airfields that enable operations of allies and joint partners. 

It is the strength and reliability of our mobility forces that make 

the U.S. military a global force. 

Via global power, airmen can strike an enemy on short notice 

anywhere in the world with fighters, bombers, remotely piloted aircraft, and ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. Air Force 

special operators conduct counterterrorism operations daily while 

our nuclear force provides the foundation for deterrence. 

Airmen provide two legs of the triad and are responsible for 

resourcing 75 percent of the nuclear command and control and 

communications network that connects the President to the triad. 

In sum, your airmen fight from just about anywhere at any time. 

More than 100,000 airmen stand watch around the globe in deployed locations, from Korea to the Arabian Peninsula. 

In the United States 27,000 airmen are engaged in operations 

against ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria], from flying bomber 

sorties to conducting surveillance missions from the homeland. 

However, the Air Force is as small as it has ever been. Many envision our Air Force is as large as the one that helped win Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That is not reality. At the start of 

2016, our numbers stood at 311,000 Active Duty, down from more 

than 500,000 during Desert Storm, a 38 percent decrease. 

For 26 years, the Air Force has conducted continuous combat operations, resulting in a growing toll on airmen, their readiness, and 

their equipment. That 1991 force, which featured 134 fighter 

squadrons across the Active, Guard, and Reserve, has gradually declined to a total of 55 operational fighter squadrons today. We have 

become more reliant on our civilians for critical mission support. 

Though we will increase the force to about 321 [thousand] in 2017, 

that size will be too small for the myriad tasks that America’s airmen perform around the world every day. 

Over this same time period, the Air Force has also reduced its 

aircraft inventory from 8,600 to 5,500. And today, the average aircraft is 27 years old. 

The Nation faces today a resurgent Russia, a rising China powered by new warfighting approaches and modern weapons. We keep 

a watchful eye on North Korea, Iran, and other hot spots around 

the globe. Accordingly, current budget levels and Budget Control 

Act restrictions will force the Air Force to continue to make tradeoffs between force structure, readiness, and modernization, all 

while potential adversaries close the technological gap in critical 

warfighting areas. 

Our Nation needs to increase its investment in the Air Force’s 

force structure, readiness, and modernization. With the focus of today’s hearing being readiness, I note that investments in all three 

result in readiness improvements. For example, modernization investments today underpin the readiness of our future. 

Nonetheless, to begin to improve readiness now and attain manning levels that match requirements, the Air Force must increase 

its Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve end strength to include growing the Active Duty end strength to 350,000 over the long term. As-
7 

sessing and retaining more airmen is the first step to improve our 

readiness. 

Today we need congressional support for an FY17 [fiscal year 

2017] appropriation and amendment that accelerates our readiness 

recovery. Repeal of the Budget Control Act and predictable future 

funding are critical to rebuilding military readiness, a priority of 

our Secretary of Defense. 

The Bipartisan Budget Act was extremely helpful. And on behalf 

of the airmen who serve our Nation, thank you for your support. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you to each of you. And we will now 

begin with 5-minute sections for each person. 

And Margaret Dean will maintain our time. 

Even before we begin, I want to thank each of you in a different 

way. The Air National Guard is so special and the district that I 

represent with the McEntire Joint Air Base. I grew up in Charleston, and I know how important the Reserves are there. 

And then, General, when you mentioned 1991, it brought back 

extraordinary memories of a State Senate colleague, Phil Leventis, 

who was a pilot in 1991, the victory there in the Persian Gulf War. 

So each one of you really have made such a difference for our 

country. Thank you very much. 

General Rice, I understand the Air Force is looking to retire the 

F–15C/D fleet as a cost-saving measure and try to fill the air superiority role with F–16s. Clearly, these are two different types of aircraft with different capabilities. What would replacing the F–15C/ 

D fleet with F–16s, would this have a negative impact on air superiority? Is there a risk with this decision? 

General RICE. There is a risk in changing any of our force structure decisions. But specifically on the F–16 with the F–15, there 

are capabilities we can add and provide on the F–16 that will provide us a gap as we try to go into the future. So overall, our readiness and then our protection of the U.S. will change. But I think 

overall, we will be okay. 

Mr. WILSON. And so this could be addressed? 

General RICE. Yes, it could be addressed. 

Mr. WILSON. And, General West, provided in today’s hearing 

memo is a copy of the Air Force’s aircraft availability numbers. 

These reflect how many aircraft are fully mission capable and 

available to be flown. All but one aircraft type model failed to meet 

that requirement in the last quarter. In fact, I understand that just 

this morning two B–1 aircraft were scheduled to respond to a clear 

and present danger in North Korea, yet only one aircraft was able 

to be successfully launched. 

For too long, the dictatorship in North Korea has become 

emboldened, testing weapons and missiles, but also testing and expanding their ballistic missile capability. And I have introduced bipartisan House Resolution 92 to address the issue of sanctions on 

North Korea. 

Can you please explain to us the impact of nearly every type of 

Air Force aircraft failing to achieve the aircraft availability targets? 

Does this have impact on our strategic response? 

General WEST. Yes, sir, it does. It has impacts on our ability to 

recover readiness. As I said in my prepared statement that the av-
8 

erage age of our fleets is 27 years old; it ranges from the oldest 

which is JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System], 

down to our newest acquisition which is F–35s that have just 

joined the fleet. 

Given that the age of the aircraft and parts obsolescence and the 

fact that older aircraft tend to fail in newer ways, it is more difficult to make them available for training, which affects our readiness. Coupled with our shortage of maintainers to be able to generate sorties to improve our readiness and enable us to train for 

full-spectrum operations, it exacerbates the issue with sustaining 

older fleets with less-than-required manning in order to achieve the 

readiness levels that we need to. 

As to continuous bomber presence in Guam, we have done that 

for years, we will continue to do that in Guam. And it is important 

that we do that not only for dissuasive reasons in the Pacific, but 

also to assure allies. We conduct exercises and training events with 

allies and partners in Guam on a routine basis. We will continue 

to do that with appropriate funding. 

So it is important that we be able to generate the sorties when 

we want to to have the effect that we want to have on the day and 

the time of our choosing. And it is more difficult to be able to rely 

upon that when the systems we operate can’t be generated in a 

timely manner. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you for responding. 

And, General Miller, during the past few years, the Air Force has 

espoused the idea of an integrated total force as a model for integration of Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard. A key example is the use of classic and active associations between the Active 

Duty and Guard, Reserve Components. What impact do these associations have on Air Force readiness? What are the benefits of 

these associations and should they be expanded in the future? 

General MILLER. Sir, we have been associating since 1968. And 

associations are critical to our readiness in order to be able to get 

the mission done every day. We are the smallest Air Force that we 

have ever been and it takes each one of our components at this 

table to get the mission done. Integration is key. 

On the classic association side, we have been doing it, as I said, 

since 1968. On the active association side, Active Component members join us in the Guard and Reserve as we own the aircraft on 

the ramp and they participate. 

This is critical to the absorption on the fighter side of our force 

to absorb pilots and to experience them so they can then go back 

out and do staff jobs and do other things that work towards them 

becoming our future leaders of the Air Force. So associations are 

critical to our future. And we are committed to them at the Air 

Force Reserve level and through each component. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you each for your response and your 

service. 

We now proceed to Ranking Member Bordallo. 

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

General Rice and General Miller, to what extent are you experiencing pilot and other critical skill shortages? We know that bonus 

and incentive programs alone are not a cure-all as quality-of-life 
9 

concerns persist. So where are you finding success in addressing 

these issues? And how can we in Congress assist you? 

And we will begin with General Rice. 

General RICE. We are definitely feeling the similar types of pilot 

shortages that the Active Component is experiencing. For example, 

we have over our whole fleet of pilots we are probably approximately 800 to 900 pilots short. 

And we are working on our different statuses, from our Active, 

Guard, and Reserve members that are pilots, to our technicians 

that are pilots, both of those are full-time personnel, to our drillstatus guardsmen and our part-time pilots. And each one of them 

have different metrics and different reasons on why we have shortages. And our most critical one is our technicians. And a piece of 

that is, is the way that that model is constructed. 

So what we are attempting to do as we go into the future budgets is convert some of this program to an AGR [Active Guard/Reserve]-type program, and that will help us because that is one of 

our strongest accounts. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

General Miller. 

General MILLER. We are currently 300 pilots short across the Air 

Force Reserve. Our part-time numbers, our percentage of part-time 

pilots is around 92 percent. It is the full-time piece that we are 

struggling with right now. We are roughly 66 percent manned on 

the full-time side. And that is due to overall the pull from the airlines, and the second part of that is being able to compete in the 

salary range of the technician force. 

So where could we use your assistance? In relocation, retention, 

and bonuses. We are providing bonuses, but we could really use 

your help on special salary rate and recruiting, retention, and relocation bonuses. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, General. 

General MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I have a question for General West. As force 

structure declines and weapon systems and aircraft experience different issues and challenges, is the way we measure readiness a 

single, static Air Force goal for a percentage of C–1 and C–2 units? 

Is its simplest form, is that helpful, or do we need to revisit to ensure we are speaking most accurately when talking about readiness levels? 

General WEST. We measure readiness, ma’am, in two different 

ways, and they are both related to—well, one way is readiness for 

what? And we measure that through the Defense Readiness and 

Reporting System where commanders get to subjectively assess 

their capacity to meet their mission statement. That covers the 

what part. 

And our concern about the what part is not that we don’t have 

capacity and won’t continue to have capacity to support operations 

related to counterterrorism. We can continue to do that as airmen. 

The issue we have is our readiness to conduct combat against a 

near-peer adversary or the systems that they export. That is a 

much tougher issue on the readiness for what, and that is what we 

mean by full-spectrum readiness. That is the what. 
10 

The other thing that we measure is ready with what. And the 

with what gets to metrics of, do you have the right personnel? Are 

they trained to the right skill level? Do they have the right equipment? And are they properly resourced, the status of resource, and 

training system that we have had in existence in the Department 

of Defense? 

I think the combination of the two of them are important to take 

together, an objective, whether or not you agree with the percentages or not, because all the services have the same percentages on 

the ready with what, and then a subjective commander’s assessment, do I think my unit is prepared to support its mission statement. And those two together inform how we measure readiness. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I don’t have much time left, so if you 

can be brief in your answers, I would like to really ask each of you, 

we have heard you speak of the five key areas needed for readiness. In other words, which is your biggest concern, your number 

one priority? 

General Rice. 

General RICE. If there is one thing I could do, it would be put 

more maintenance on the flight line, so part-time and full-time. 

Ms. BORDALLO. General Miller. 

General MILLER. Manpower, part-time, full-time. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And General West. 

General WEST. Manpower, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I still have 22 

seconds, but I am yielding back. 

Mr. WILSON. Excellent questions. Again, we can count on the 

ranking member. Thank you very much. 

We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. General West and General Rice, in the joint testimony you mentioned the C2ISR [command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] platform and specifically 

the E–8C JSTARS aircraft. 

And, General West, could you explain how or why it is so important to the joint and combatant commanders’ needs? 

And then, General Rice, could you give us some input on how we 

or the Air Force program office could accelerate the acquisition 

process? And what do you think the process should look like? 

General WEST. JSTARS has and will continue to have and provide an important capability to provide battle management command and control and provide an all-weather ground moving target 

indicator capability to be able to detect enemy movements on the 

ground. The demand for that from combatant commanders, I do not 

see that that will diminish. 

General RICE. And from my point of view, as I see it, two parts 

to that question on the acquisition process and then how we would 

accelerate it. I am not really well-versed because I am not an acquisition person, so most of that I will take for the record and say 

how do we accelerate this. I will push that to the record and say 

we can get back to you on that. 

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

page 52.] 

General RICE. The other piece, though, on acquisition is I think 

the Air Force is in a good place right now. And moving forward, 
11 

we have made the decision to fundamentally support the mission 

requirements that General West just talked about. And now we are 

down to the process of requesting information, getting contractors 

to start building the packages to present a platform with a capability on it. And I think we are heading in a good direction. But 

how we accelerate, I will take that for the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

General Miller, you have stated that you were focusing on critical 

skills manning. And what exactly does that mean? And what is the 

impact on your mission? 

General MILLER. Critical skills are those career fields that do not 

have enough people to support them based on the demand. So the 

manning is low and the demand is high. So those are the critical 

skills that we target. So within the Air Force Reserve, those career 

fields are the pilots and it is across the fighter, mobility, RPA [remotely piloted aircraft], it is across all spectrums of that. 

On the enlisted side, it is cyber, intel, and RPA sensor operators. 

So those are the key. I have a longer list, but those are the critical, 

those are the most critical of the critical. And we provide incentives 

for those folks to bring them in and keep them because, like I said, 

they are in high demand, but there are few of them. 

Mr. SCOTT. In your opening statement, you referred to the 

emerging mission requirements. Growth in manpower over the 

next few years in those areas, emerging mission areas for the Air 

Force Reserves, what do you see the volume of that growth being 

and in what particular areas? 

General MILLER. We would really, first of all, like to get our 

manning documents up to 100 percent to meet that wartime readiness requirement. That will help with our ops [operations] tempo. 

The second growth area would be in the space arena, looking at 

future growth in the intel support of all space ops. And I am working with General Raymond on that. 

In the cyber community, really it is a growth with the Active 

Component in mission defense teams, cyber mission forces and, of 

course, supporting the combatant commander joint environment in 

the cyber ops arena. So it is really the space and cyber that we are 

going to focus most of that on. 

Mr. SCOTT. General West, in the joint testimony, again, you relay 

that installations are in excess of our operational needs, specifically 

in the continental U.S. In addition, during the state of the military 

hearing last month, General Wilson related there are 25 percent of 

excess in Air Force infrastructure. How is this calculated and what 

is included? Is it 25 percent of aircraft support facilities, such as 

runways, hangars, et cetera? Is it 25 percent of overall base infrastructure to include workspace facilities and housing? What installations specifically have excess? And if we did not have—if we 

weren’t 900 pilots short and the aircraft short, would we have that 

excess capacity? 

General WEST. Sir, if the Congress supported Air Force growth 

to 350,000, we would still have 24 percent excess infrastructure capacity. Today, we have a backlog of $25 billion in either MILCON 

[military construction] or facilities sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization. If we were to be able to apply $1 billion per year, 
12 

it would just arrest the decline of what we have got to do to keep 

facilities up to proper standards. 

That is a tradeoff of how much money we put into proposals for 

MILCON and facilities sustainment and restoration and modernization versus how much funds do we recommend to modernize, 

to new aircraft, B–21s, F–35s, KC–46s, versus how much funds do 

we propose to recapitalize existing fourth-generation systems 

versus how big is our end strength. 

Our total obligation authority is limited, so we have to make 

tough choices. That is why in the comments I think that our vice 

[chief] made, we would recommend that another round of base realignment and closure be initiated by Congress. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ma’am, gentlemen, thank you for your service. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Scott. 

We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of California. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

And thank you to all the generals that are here presenting to us 

today. 

I have the honor of representing Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

home to the 30th Space Wing, where the Joint Space Operations 

Center and Joint Functional Component Command for Space are 

located and where various launch operations take place. 

In your joint testimony, all of you have stressed the importance 

of U.S. ability to effectively operate within the space domain. However, I have some concerns in terms of the lack of investments we 

are making in space, especially as space has to compete with other 

Air Force priorities, such as more aircraft. 

There is a concern that the Air Force is not investing enough in 

the research and development area, and we are losing the talent 

pool that we need to maintain space superiority. I would like to 

hear from you on what steps the Air Force is taking to ensure Vandenberg Air Force Base—I am losing my sheets here—on what 

steps Vandenberg is taking to ensure that readiness in space, including sustaining a strong space industrial base. 

General RICE. I will start with answering actually a very narrow 

piece of that. The Air National Guard supports space operations in 

a number of places, but our forte is that surge to war capability. 

As space evolves into a benign environment to a contested environment, the Air National Guard is very much a piece of that. 

And so as we build capability and as General Miller talked about 

one of her priorities is space, that is among our first priorities as 

well, to provide combat-ready airmen to the enterprise and the 

agency to provide all these capabilities with space. Thank you. 

General MILLER. Congressman, space is certainly a priority for 

me. As I spoke before, I sat with General Raymond, actually General Hyten before he left for STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command] and then General Raymond, and we talked about the future 

of space and the Reserve Component piece of that. 

Currently, I have 1,500 space professionals and operators in that 

space environment. And we are looking to grow in the space mission forces along with General Raymond. And we are working specifically on areas to leverage our space capabilities. We do have civilians who work in the space industry and those folks are also, in 
13 

some cases, Reserve citizen airmen, so we are leveraging that experience. 

It is a priority. I can’t get out ahead of the growth, but I can certainly be a wingman for that growth. 

General WEST. Sir, I would highlight two initiatives that the Air 

Force has underway, initiated by Air Force Space Command, General Hyten during his tour of command. One is development of the 

space mission force and the second is space enterprise vision. 

The space mission force is changing the way we provide space 

airmen such that they concentrate more on conducting operations 

in a contested environment. It is demonstrated contested something along the order of 10 years ago, China launched an anti-satellite weapon on one of its own degrading satellites to demonstrate 

that the domain is contested. 

So what space mission forces does is changes the training regimen that includes, how do we operate systems wherein we are contested? How do we develop the techniques, tactics, and procedures 

so that we continue to provide all the capabilities that we need 

across all the joint forces to conduct operations? We rely on space, 

and it is our asymmetric advantage. 

The space enterprise vision is getting at, how do we field systems 

that cannot only continue to provide protected communications, 

space situational awareness, GPS position, navigation, and timing, 

et cetera, that all the 12 constellations provide, but how do we field 

those that are more resilient? And how do we build our capacity 

to know and have more space situational awareness? 

Between the two, equipping the force and focusing our training 

on a contested environment, I think that is the proper way to go 

forward. And Vandenberg is a big part of it since it is one of only 

two places that we have to conduct launches and it gives us an opportunity to choose between the two based on the conditions for 

each launch. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Carbajal. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

your service. We appreciate you very much. 

General West, I just want to follow up, the chairman was asking 

about the F–15s. And General Wilson, as you know, testified that 

only 50 percent of the combat air forces were prepared for a highend fight, like might be encountered over South China Sea or Eastern Europe. And many of our air-to-air fighters were designed and 

built during the late 1970s and cannot face new threats, such as 

the Chinese J–20, without capability enhancements and service life 

extension. 

So I was wondering if you could give us some insight into the Air 

Force’s plan to bridge the capability gap between now and the nextgeneration air dominance program. And do you foresee the Air 

Force making significant investments into aircraft, such as the F– 

15C, with upgrades and service life extension programs? And if not, 

what are the alternatives? 

General WEST. Thanks, ma’am. As General Rice had just mentioned briefly here, the choices that we have to make, given certain 

total obligation authority, it balances the choices that we have to 
14 

make. The F–15C has served the Nation well, as have its pilots for 

decades, and it was our air superiority fighter. Now F–22 has 

taken that role. 

We do have capacity in the F–16C community to recapitalize it 

with an improved radar to serve the same function as the F–15 has 

done, and thereby reduce the different systems that we have to 

sustain and operate. And that makes it more efficient so that we 

can make other choices, either for modernization or grow end 

strength, without having multiple different systems to maintain. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay, great. And I wanted to follow up also on, 

both, General Rice, and you, General West, talked about the maintainer issue. And that is something that I have been very concerned about, too, is the shortfall there. 

So, you know, one Fox News report said there was 4,000 aircraft 

maintainers short, short vital parts. So how have these shortfalls 

affected the Air Force’s ability to generate the necessary forces to 

meet mission requirements? And do these shortages still exist? And 

if so, how does the Air Force plan to address them? 

General RICE. Those shortages definitely exist. And fundamentally, what we are doing now is we have built a maintenance model 

to maintain our flying the aircraft. And as the aircraft age and get 

older, they require more maintenance and we haven’t changed that 

model. And we have underfunded those to meet the Budget Control 

Act and sequestration limits. 

So accordingly now, we are asked, do you need more money and 

where would you put it? I would put it in maintenance. And I 

would put it in maintenance in two ways. One is to fill out our documents as they are existing now, and then I would even add more 

authorizations on top of that and fill those out as well. And I am 

asking not only for the authority to increase that manning, but the 

funding to fund that and the authorization. 

And also at the same time, I am asking for the authority and the 

authorization to increase our overall manning of the Air National 

Guard to grow from roughly 106,000 to 110,000. Most of that I will 

put into maintenance to flesh this out and add more maintenance, 

more hours on the jets to keep those jets flying at a higher rate. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Very good. 

General West. 

General WEST. Ma’am, we appreciate the support that Congress 

has given us to be able to address our maintenance shortfalls. Absent filling our manning documents for maintenance, it is difficult 

for us to generate the sorties on a fast-enough basis. 

But as something that General Rice said earlier, it is not just 

having the maintainers, it is having them in the right position, but 

more importantly what we have got to be able to grow to is that 

mid-career, noncommissioned officer who has been in the service 8 

to 10 years, has done a lot of troubleshooting, has seen a lot of 

issues and has experience to guide our newly accessed maintainers 

on how to solve problems as quickly as possible. That is why it 

takes so long to get where we are fully ready. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Sure. That is where I am a fan of the Reserves 

and the Guard, they help bring that component in. 

General Miller, you want to add anything? 
15 

General MILLER. We are roughly 400 maintainers short. Our 

stress is—on the part-time side I am nearly 100 percent manned; 

it, again, is on the full-time side, that technician force. Because the 

draw there is I can’t compete from a dollars perspective with the 

commercial or civilian industry on that. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Sure. And as a former teacher, and my husband 

and I own a farm equipment dealership, it is just very difficult to 

find people interested in being technical skills. You see that, having trouble with recruiting new people. If you had the funds to 

have more manning, are there enough people out there interested 

into going into, becoming maintainers? 

General WEST. Yes, ma’am, I think there is because there is a 

sense of patriotism that still exists in our younger generation. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Good. 

General WEST. And they want to join not only for patriotic reasons, but there is a lot of benefits that you can get, education and 

so forth, when you come into the military, the capability to go forward. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Absolutely, that is very encouraging. I am glad. 

Thank you. 

My time is up, appreciate it. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aloha and welcome. 

Lieutenant General Rice, it is good to see you. 

My question is about National Guard pay status. Obviously, the 

National Guard has a very unique role to play on many different 

levels and what has gone along with that is a wide variety of duty 

and pay statuses, whether it is a traditional drill-status guardsman, a dual-status technician, active guardsman as well as other 

various State and Federal statuses. 

Can you speak to your view on whether or not this large number 

of different statuses impacts the overall readiness of the Guard? 

Should it be simplified? Would it help? And if so, how should that 

be done? 

General RICE. I definitely think it adds complexity to our organizations. Not only does the pay status diverge among different 

statuses, there are whole different authorities that come with each 

one. Our dual-status technicians are under great stress. They don’t 

carry the protections that an Active, Guard and Reserve and AGR 

member might have. 

So accordingly, I would like to simplify the program. And indeed, 

I am starting down the path to say it seems that AGR status is 

a less costly status for us, where in the past it was more. So now 

that it is a less costly and it is more aligned with the duty status 

of a title 10 member that is on Active Duty, I am leaning and moving and driving our agency in that direction. 

Ms. GABBARD. How do your TAGs [The Adjutant Generals] feel 

about this move? 

General RICE. There are TAGs that sit on both sides of the fence 

because the Army is even a little bit different than the Air Force. 

So the Air Force, the TAGs lean towards yes, let us move to a more 

AGR force. 

Ms. GABBARD. The Air Force TAGs? 
16 

General RICE. No, all TAGs in dealing with an Air Force program. And then all TAGs in dealing with an Army program need 

the split because there are still authorities differences and the benefits and value of authorities in both is of interest. 

But for the Air Force program, for all TAGs, they are leaning towards an AGR program. 

Ms. GABBARD. Okay. And so it is possible or likely perhaps that 

there would be a different, some changes made perhaps to the Air 

Force side, but not the Army side. 

General RICE. Correct. And it is all about percentages where I 

am 25,000 technicians, 14,000 AGRs. I am moving towards flipping 

that so that I have more AGRs than I do technicians. It is going 

to save the government money overall and it is going to reduce my 

duty status and complexities. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. 

Lieutenant General Miller, you have, all of you have spoken 

about the manning shortages and the stress that that places on 

readiness and some of the challenges of recruiting. Given cyber, 

intel, and some of these other, pilots for that matter, areas where 

it is high demand and also high competition with the private sector, what are some of the tools that you folks are looking at in 

being able to recruit, given you are never going to be able to compete monetarily? 

General MILLER. You know, we were talking about yesterday 

that recruiting is really not the issue. We can get them in the door. 

On the Active Component side, they are coming into the Air Force, 

they are coming into pilot training. On the Reserve side, I fill all 

my quotas with that. 

It is retaining them. So it is a retention issue. Once we get them 

in and get them trained, then, you know, only 17 percent of the Active Component go to retirement. And in accessing 11Fs last year 

for the Air Force Reserve, and actually an average over the last 5 

years, we have accessed on the 11F, which is the fighter pilot, 

around 23 percent of the pilots getting off of the Active Component. 

Overall, 11Ms, which are the mobility pilots, we access roughly 

33 percent of those, almost equivalent to the Guard actually. Our 

accessions are almost equal with them for folks coming off. 

The accessions rate for pilots coming off the Active Component 

has decreased 6 percent over the last couple of years and the trend 

is down. So they are affiliating less with us and they are not getting to retirement, but they are leaving the Air Force early and 

then proceeding to the airlines. 

So it is not getting them in the door, it is keeping them and getting them to affiliate. 

Ms. GABBARD. I guess then the question is, is the same, then, 

you know, what are some approaches or do you conduct exit surveys to try to understand why folks are leaving? Is it purely financial? Is it, you know, the high OPTEMPO? Is it, you know, what 

are the things that are causing that to happen? 

General MILLER. It is a balance between—it is a little bit of both. 

It is the OPTEMPO and some weapon systems. It is the draw of 

the airline because the airline has increased the pay over the last 

few years. And we just can’t keep up with that, we can’t match 

that. 
17 

General WEST. I think four areas that—I am going to be redundant just a little bit. But we focus on production, absorption, retention, and requirements between the four of them. We will put forward initiatives for your consideration that relate to our increased 

capacity for production across Active and Reserve Components, 

same thing with absorption across the components. 

Thanks for the help with retention efforts for the bonus. But I 

think just as important with retention, it has to do with the capacity to train so that you have a sense that I am actually good at 

what I joined the Air Force to do. 

And finally with requirements, we limit where we put—we focus 

on the line first to be able to execute combat operations, which 

means we don’t man staff positions as heavily as we once were able 

to. And the staff suffers for not having rated experience. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Gabbard. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Martha McSally of Arizona. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

your testimony. 

I had another line of questioning, maybe I will get to it in round 

two, but I feel like I have heard some breaking news here today, 

and I want to just make sure I understand. Has there been a decision or a proposal by the Air Force to get rid of the F–15C and to 

replace it with F–16s with new radar on it? This is the first I have 

heard. I didn’t see that in any of the budget documents, so I am 

just trying to understand. It has been mentioned now twice. What 

exactly are we talking about here? 

General WEST. I don’t know if that is formal, but I know we are 

discussing ways to maximize the use of what limited total obligation authority that we have. And to minimize the number of systems that we operate and the sustainment for that, but still be able 

to accomplish the mission is what we are always trying to do to be 

able to address a myriad of things with the limited total obligation 

authority. 

So has it been official, is it official? I don’t think so. But I want 

to be forthcoming. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Is it predecisional? 

General WEST. Predecisional would be a good way to word that, 

ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Predecisional Active Duty. What about in the 

Guard? 

General RICE. Yes, predecisional because we are actively a part 

of planning choices. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

General RICE. And right now it is planning. We haven’t made the 

choices yet. So planning choices started for 2019 last fall. We got 

and received this information. There are about four or five different 

things. One of the options is retiring the F–15Cs and then replacing them with F–16s with upgraded AESA [active electronically 

scanned array] radars. Can we do that? Is that a plan and timewise? Is it the capability we want? Those are still in planning 

choices and we are talking about those. 

Ms. MCSALLY. And let me just say I know sequestration has, you 

know, put all the services in a very, very difficult situation in the 
18 

choices that you have all laid out. I totally get that. But as we are 

working through this process, I think the other subcommittee I am 

on, Tactical Air and Land, we would like to be a part of this discussion with you for sure. 

As you know, and I don’t want to get into pilot rivalries here, but 

if we are talking about fourth-generation, you know, assets, you 

have got the F–15C which is, you know, prior to the F–22, the best 

at air-to-air; or had the A–10, best at close air support, rescue; F– 

15E if you want to do air interdiction. And the F–16 is an incredible, versatile, multi-role, a little bit less expensive, sort of, decathlete, right? Sort of fills in those gaps. 

So I think, you know, comparing the capabilities side by side, we 

all need to be careful through that analysis. That an F–16 with an 

upgraded radar does not meet the same capabilities as an F–15. 

But I realize the funding challenges that you have as you go 

through this decision process, but it doesn’t bring the same capability that the F–15C does with the expertise in air-to-air. 

General RICE. That is correct. But I think we are getting beyond 

that. And as we get into the digital age and we get to these systems of systems, those systems and how they integrate is as important and in the future will be even more important than the platform itself. And so we are trying to balance that as well. How does 

one specific system with its optimized capability fit into a system 

of systems? And those are the kind of things that, you know, does 

a bunch of F–16s equal one F–15 or numbers? And how does it 

integrate to the whole spectrum? 

Ms. MCSALLY. Exactly. And I would just add—— 

General RICE. It is part of planning choices. 

Ms. MCSALLY. You know, we have had long discussions about the 

A–10 decision. But in hindsight, a lot of factors of how many of 

these does it take to replace this many A–10s on station and how 

many more tankers is that and how many more squadrons is that 

based on the weapons load? 

So just, you know, after the fact those were some considerations 

that weren’t really, you know, GAO [Government Accountability 

Office] validated, weren’t really looked into. So as you are going 

forward and looking at this, please, you know, learn those lessons. 

And I think there is also a readiness issue if we are talking 

about units that are shifting from F–15C to F–16. You now have 

a bunch of pilots who are qualified and capable and want airplanes 

and we are already in a readiness crisis. And if you are not retraining everybody to another aircraft, that does have, in the midst of 

a crisis, a bit of a short-term dip in readiness as well just as far 

as the capabilities and qualifications of those that are flying. Is 

that fair? Are you looking into that as a factor as well? 

General WEST. We do. And we manage how often and how quickly because when you are doing a change from one major weapon 

system to another, you are going to be off the line for a while. 

However, I would also, given the fact that our technology advantage that we enjoy today is lessening, it is important that we also 

achieve modernization as rapidly as possible. So we are going to 

have to take some units off the line to achieve the transition. But 

I think sooner is better, given that the investments that are being 

made by China and Russia particularly are pretty significant. 
19 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes, I am with you on that point for sure. But 

with us being down to 55 fighter squadrons, we have just got to 

be careful on how that, manage, transition would happen should 

this decision come to fruition. 

Do you have any idea of the timeline? Is this, like, a fiscal year 

2019 issue? Or where are you in the decision-making process on 

this? I just want to make sure we are asking the right questions. 

General RICE. I would say it is coming into 2019 for planning 

choices. I don’t think we will get there, though, in this cycle. I 

think it is probably next year it will come more to a head. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Thank you. I have a lot more questions for 

a second round, so I yield back now. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman McSally. 

We now proceed to Congressman Joe Courtney, of Connecticut. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick because I know the vote is happening right now on the floor. 

Again, thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony which 

I read, but I just kind of had to jump in from other stuff going on 

here. 

I just wanted to really quickly touch on the C–130 program 

which, again, Seapower and Readiness negotiated over the last couple of years with the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] 

and then with the budget the AMP 1 and 2 modernization, moving 

it up. I was just wondering if you could just sort of in public talk 

about, again, the Air Force’s commitment to moving forward on 

that and how it is doing. 

General RICE. The Air Force is very committed to modernizing 

the C–130H. In fact, AMP 1 has been fully funded and we believe 

the timeline on what the technology that is coming to the table and 

what we are hearing from the contract will be ahead of schedule 

and we will meet the deadlines by 2020. 

AMP 2 is not fully funded, but it is definitely fully committed to. 

That is outside the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program], most 

of that, so we have definitely laid in the right kind of money now 

during this fiscal budget and that program is well on track. I believe that will also come in early and under cost as well. So that 

is also in good shape. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Ahead of schedule, under budget, those 

are—— 

General RICE. Under budget, that is the word I was looking for, 

yes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Yes, that is right, those are good messages. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Courtney. 

We now proceed to Congressman Rob Bishop, of Utah. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I will get this in so we can both ask these 

questions in here today. 

Look, everything we ask is parochial. Obviously, I have Hill Air 

Force Base which has F–16s and F–35s and the Utah Test and 

Training Range which I consider, you know, a world-class national 

asset. If you don’t, tough. It still is a national asset. 

However, with the new F–35s, advanced, modernized, electronic 

warfare threats, I am making the assumption that our test and 

training range need to be updated as well, even though we are sim-
20 

ply suffering from the effects of years of maintenance backlog as 

well as deferred upgrades as time goes on. So I am assuming that 

is a given that we need to do that. 

Can you just tell me how the overall issue of test and training 

ranges modernization fits into the Air Force’s future budget? How 

significant, where does it fit, where are you going with it? And you 

have got to do it in 30 seconds or less. 

General WEST. Yes, sir. I think you will see something in our 

budget submissions to address our operational and test and training infrastructure that addresses not only what we have on the 

ranges, but also what we can do via simulation and virtual systems 

as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. That would be helpful. And the recent Red Flag, I 

think the 34th Squadron did a 15-to-1 kill ratio down there. Obviously, what is the need for adversary air for training purposes? 

And what is the Air Force’s long-term strategy to provide that kind 

of training? 

General WEST. Largely contractual in the short term. Longer 

term, we will look to, after we get our operational forces filled with 

manning and longer term I think we will look at making that blue 

suit again. But in the short term—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Manpower comes first. 

General WEST. Manpower for—blue suiters for operational, and 

then training support will be contracted. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. Trent, you have got 

3 minutes. Go for it. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you. 

I represent Columbus Air Force Base in Mississippi. And I know 

some of you have probably trained there or most people go through 

there at some point in time. 

My primary concern, I am also a serving National Guardsman. 

And I am a traditional guy. I am one of those non-AGR, non-technician guys that I think are the heart and soul of our entire Reserve 

Component. We have to have all three of those things; the right 

mix is important. 

But I am concerned about a program now that transfers equipment, specifically airplanes, from one unit to another, specifically 

from National Guard or Reserve units to Active Component units 

based on usage in which the same people are determining what 

type of usage that they have are also making the decision of which 

assignments and how often you get to use those aircraft. 

Are you all familiar with what I am talking about, General 

West? Because that really concerns me that the same person would 

decide we are going to transfer airplanes based on usage requirements, but we are going to also control who gets to use what and 

which contracts people get and which ones goes to civilian and 

those kind of things. Are you all aware of that? 

General RICE. Yes, sir, I am definitely aware of that. And the 

fleet management program has a good side and a bad side. And 

some of the devil is in the details that could come out on the bad 

side if you move older aircrafts all to one unit through this fleet 

management program. That could be a bad side. 

But the good side of what fleet management does is, if you think 

about older aircrafts have to retire when they get to a certain end 
21 

of their life and certain hours on the airframe, and if that happens 

sooner in some units because their OPSTEMPO is higher and they 

start falling off and retiring, and yet we have others that have 20, 

30, 40, 50 years left in their life, we will have too much of a dispersion in the fleet. 

So we do need to narrow down the time in the fleet from something, like, some of our fleets, for example the C–17 fleet, as we 

manage that C–17 right now has a 50- to 60-year timeframe when 

the first plane hits its end of life to the last plane. And we can’t 

have our units that are out orphaned at the 50-year point with just 

a few aircraft. 

So we need to squish that time down to, like, 20 years and move 

some of the older ones around, mix them in with the newer ones 

and do that and make sure we do no harm with the capability of 

the aircraft and the unit itself. 

Mr. KELLY. Just a final comment, Mr. Chairman. 

I just think it is very important that we not wind up with all the 

old-model equipment in the Guard and Reserve and all the other 

stuff wind up somewhere else. I think it is important that we look 

and smell alike across the board, that our Active, Reserve, and National Guard all look the same with the same types of equipment 

and that we don’t go back to being a strategic Reserve as opposed 

to an operational Reserve. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

General RICE. I couldn’t agree more, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congressman Kelly. 

Thank each of you for being here today. We are actually voting 

right this second. 

Before we leave, I do have a question for the record. How does 

a full-year CR [continuing resolution] impact readiness to the Air 

Force? How does it impact service members? And how does it impact families? 

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

page 51.] 

Mr. WILSON. Additionally, Congresswoman McSally has additional questions that she will be providing for the record. 

And at this time I want to thank Ms. Dean again for her service 

here. 

And again, thank each of you for being here and your service for 

our country. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 22, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 22, 2017 

(27) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: TOTAL FORCE READINESS 

STATEMENT OF: LIEUTENANT GENERAL SCOTT RICE 

DIRECTOR AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARY ANNE MILLER 

CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

AND 

MAJOR GENERAL SCOTT WEST 

DIRECTOR OF CURRENT OPERATIONS, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMlTTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNlTED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

March 22, 2017 
28 

INTRODUCTION 

Since our establishment 70 years ago, the United States Air Force has secured peace 

throughout the full spectrum of hostilities with a decisive warfighting advantage in, through, and 

from air, space, and cyberspace. Without pause, we deliver global combat power by deterring 

and defeating our nation's enemies, while supporting joint and coalition forces at the beginning, 

middle, and end of every operation. Though the intrinsic nature of warfare remains unchanged, 

the character of war-and the approach joint forces must take to address new and changing 

threats-must continually evolve. 

As the nation plans to counter the national security challenges posed by Russia, China, 

Iran, North Korea, and Violent Extremist Organizations, controlling and exploiting air, space, 

and cyberspace remains foundational to joint and coalition success. Today's 660,000 active duty, 

guard, reserve, and civilian Airmen meet these challenges by deten·ing threats to the U.S., 

assuring our allies, and defeating our adversaries 24/7/365. We provide unwavering homeland 

defense and operate a robust, reliable, flexible, and survivable nuclear enterprise, as the bedrock 

of our national security. 

This steadfast watch, however, comes at a price. Conducting continuous, worldwide 

combat operations since 1991 has taken a toll on our A inn en, equipment, and infrastructure and 

the overall readiness of our Air Force. While the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of2015 provided 

some space to improve readiness and continue modernization efforts, your Air Force needs 

ongoing Congressional support to ensure we continue to strengthen America's military to win 

today's fight, while building the Air Force our nation needs to meet tomorrow's challenges. 

1 
29 

ALWAYS THERE 

Your Air Force has been globally engaged for the last 26 years in combat operations. We 

relentlessly provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power for the nation ... we're 

always in demand ... and we're always there .. .in every domain. Though our end strength has 

decreased by 38% since 1991, we have experienced significant growth across several mission 

areas. 

Our Airmen provide joint forces with Global Vigilance using real-time multi-domain 

platforms and sensors integrated across our global intelligence and command and control 

networks to find, fix, and finish a range of hostile targets simultaneously around the world. 

Without fail, the Total Force flies 60 combat lines of persistent attack remotely piloted aircraft 

(RPA) per day ... the unblinking eye supporting combatant commanders around the globe. 

Through our Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (fSR) capabilities, we provided 

warfighters over 6,000 intelligence products per day used to identify enemy targets and trigger 

70% of Special Operations Forces assaults on terrorists. 

In securing our networks and digital infrastructure, 2016 saw Air Force cybcr operators 

block more than 1.3 billion attempted malicious connections an average of more than 40 per 

second. Meanwhile, our space operators provide relentless and reliable interconnectedness, 

global positional awareness, global missile warning, and battletield situational awareness for our 

joint forces. 

Nearly every three minutes a mobility aircraft departs on a mission, providing Global 

Reach and access, projecting power through a network of airfields in 23 countries and 77 

locations, while providing critical aerial refueling capability. In 2016, our aeromedical 

professionals evacuated over 5, 700 patients and provided emergency medical care resulting in a 

2 
30 

98% survival rate. Your Air Force provides unrelenting ability to maneuver, sustain, and recover 

personnel and assets ... at home, abroad, and with our allies and partners. 

With our fighters, bombers, RPAs, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), the 

Air Force provides conventional and nuclear Global Power that can strike an enemy on short 

notice anywhere in the world. In Iraq and Syria, the Air Force led 65% ofthe more than 17,000 

coalition airstrikes since 2014. We delivered decisive firepower supporting joint, special 

operations, and coalition ground forces to defeat and degrade ISIS in order to regain critical 

territory. All the while, our Airmen continue to provide two legs of the nuclear triad, resource 

75% of the Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications framework, deter our adversaries, 

and connect the President to strategic options. 

Stitched together, the fabric of our Air Force weaves multi-domain effects and provides 

the strongest blanket of protection and ability to project America's full range of combat 

capabilities. Make no mistake, your Air Force is always there. 

READINESS IN A CHANGING WORLD 

However, being "always there" comes at a cost to our Airmen, equipment, and 

infrastructure; we are now at a tipping point. Sustained global commitments combined with 

continuous fiscal turmoil continue to have a lasting impact on readiness, capacity, and capability 

for a full-spectrum fight against a near-peer adversary. In 2013, sequestration abruptly delayed 

modernization and reduced both readiness and the size ofthe Total Force. 

We entered FY!4 expecting a corresponding decrease in both operations and overall 

funding. Instead, FY14 began with increased operations, a government shutdow11 and fiscal 

planning focused on a second year of sequestration. Compounding the fiscal austerity, 2014 

presented enonnous geopolitical challenges to the U.S. including ongoing operations in Iraq and 

3 
31 

Afghanistan, the rapid rise of! SIS, Russia's annexing of Crimea, and Chinese island-building in 

the South China Seas. The combination of decreased funding and increased military operations 

required the Air Foree to make tradeoffs that adversely affected readiness. In FYI6 and FYI? 

budgets, we made necessary adjustments to balance near-term readiness with future 

modernization. However, due to continuous combat operations, reduced manpower, an aging 

fleet, and inconsistent funding our readiness suffered. 

Instead of rebuilding readiness for near-peer conflicts, your Air Force is globally engaged 

in operations against lesser-equipped, but still highly lethal enemies. This requires Airmen to 

serve at home and abroad to underpin joint force success, but at the expense of full-spectrum 

readiness. 

Your Air Force needs permanent relief from the BCA caps, predictable funding, and 

sufficient end strength to recover full-spectrum readiness. We will continue to innovate, 

transfonn, and improve how we maximize our resources. However, we can't do this by 

ourselves, we still need your help in providing stable, predictable funding giving us the ability to 

provide a predictable path to modernizing our capabilities at the pace required to fight and win 

against any threat. 

STATE OF AIR FORCE READINESS 

We are America's first and most agile responder to crisis and conflict, underwriting 

every joint operation. 

To meet the full requirements of our Defense Strategic Guidance and current operation 

plans, we require 80 percent of our combat squadrons to be full-spectrum ready. We define fullspectrum readiness as the right number of Airmen, properly led, trained and equipped, to 

4 
32 

accomplish our Air Force mission in support ofjoint forces in both contested and uncontested 

environments. 

We measure full-spectrum readiness through our five levers of readiness: critical skills 

availability, weapons system sustainment, training resource availability, flying hour program, 

and operational tempo. The following sections highlight key areas where Congressional support 

is needed in order to balance our five levers of readiness. 

PEOPLE 

Airmen are our greatest resource and our Air Force needs sufficient end strength to meet 

national security requirements. Manpower shortfalls in key areas remain the number one issue 

limiting readiness and is our top priority. At the start of2016, our end strength stood at 311,000 

active duty Airmen, down from more than 500,000 during Desert Storm-a 38 percent decrease. 

We appreciate your support to build the torce up to about 321,000 in 2017, yet we will remain 

stretched to meet national security requirements. 

We are currently working with the Secretary of Defense to develop the FY18 Presidential 

Budget to address manning shortfalls in key areas. We must increase our Active Duty, Guard 

and Reserve manning levels in key skill areas to meet the emerging mission requirements while 

continuing to support enduring combat operations. Our Total Force model (incorporating our 

active duty, guard, reserve, civilians, and our contracted capabilities), not only recognizes the 

value of an integrated team, but helps guarantee capabilities tor today and tomorrow's tight. We 

are developing plans to address shortfalls in a number of key areas, including critical career 

fields such as aircraft maintenance, pilots, NC3, ISR, cyber, and battlefield Airmen. 

As we drew down active duty manpower in recent years, we have relied more heavily on 

our civilian Airmen. Our civilians make up 26% of our Total Force-of which, 94% are in the 

5 
33 

lield, providing vital mission support through weapons system maintenance, sustainment, 

engineering, logistics, security, intelligence, and medical functions. Currently, our civilian 

workforce has over 8,000 vacancies. At the historical attrition rate, vacancies in the civilian 

workforce may grow to almost 13,000 over the next four months. 

In the aircraft maintenance lield, the active component is short approximately 3,400, the 

Air National Guard is short 1,600 and the Air Force Reserve is short 1,500 full-time aircraft 

maintainers. Because of this shortage, we cannot generate all of the training sorties needed for 

our aircrews. The same pool of maintainers keeping our existing aircraft flying at home and in 

combat, must simultaneously support tiel ding new platforms. Due to an ongoing shortage of 

active and reserve component aircraft maintainers, we will continue to fund contractors to till the 

gap at select non-combat A-10, F-16, and C-130 units. This allows us to strike a balance between 

meeting today's demand while modernizing lor the future. 

We also face a pilot shortage crisis across all disciplines, most acutely in the fighter 

community. The Air Force has the world's lines! pilots who enable an incomparable duality of 

global mobility and combat lethality. As airlines continue hiring at aggressive rates, they draw 

away experienced pilots from both active and the reserve components. Without a healthy pool of 

pilots, we will lack the ability to provide airpower to the nation. 

Pilots are strategic national assets and the pilot crisis extends beyond the Air Force and 

military. To address this national challenge, the "Air Force -Airline Collaboration", formally 

known as the National Pilot Sourcing Forum has increased efforts to effectively utilize and train 

an adequate number of pilots to meet our nation's pilot demand signal. 

However, Air Force pilot retention has declined for live straight years. We ended FYJ6 at 

723 fighter pilots below requirement and 1,555 total pilots short across all mission areas. 

6 
34 

Similarly the Air National Guard is 887 pilots short and the Air Force Reserve is 445 pilots short. 

Pilot training and retention are priorities across the Total Force. The increased end-strength 

provided in the FY17 NDAA will allow us to increase the training pipeline and better fill our 

under-manned units, which is vital to our recovery. We are grateful for your support to increase 

the pilot bonus, and we will continue to ensure our retention programs are appropriately sized 

and utilized. 

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE OPERATIONS 

We require additional resources to invest in our nuclear capabilities and infrastructure 

that arc the bedrock of our national security. While our nuclear forces remain safe, secure, and 

effective, we require significant investment to ensure robust, reliable, flexible, and survivable 

nuclear readiness and deterrence well into the future. 

On average, our B-52 bombers are 55 years old and our nuclear facilities are now over 50 

years old, with many facility systems operating well past their 20-year designed life span. 

CmTently, all of our weapons storage areas are operating with waivers and deviations from our 

high standards. Although these storage areas are uncompromised-they remain safe and 

secure--we must recapitalize this inftastructure to address the recommendations identified in our 

Nuclear Enterprise Reviews for facility and weapons sustainment. 

Meanwhile, we must continue to invest in modernization of our air- and ground-based 

nuclear weapons delivery platforms. The B-2 and B-52 require upgrades and we must ensure one 

of our main acquisitions priorities, the B-21 bomber, proceeds on schedule. In addition, our 

ICBMs, which provide the US with a stabilizing and responsive strategic deterrent capability, are 

being maintained and operated well beyond their planned operational lite-cycles and face 

significant sustainment challenges. The Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) 

7 
35 

recapitalization program, which will replace the ICBM tleet, must proceed as planned in order to 

ensure the ground leg of the nuclear triad remains credible and effective in the decades ahead. 

Our nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) system ensures the authorized 

employment and termination of nuclear weapon operations under all threats and scenarios. 

Accordingly, NC3 must be modernized to support accompanying nuclear capabilities. 

Finally, we must modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile, by continuing to support the 

B-61 nuclear bomb life extension program, while investing in the development of the LongRange Standoff weapon as a survivable air-launched cruise missile providing credible standoff 

attack options and holding heavily defended targets at risk. Though we are grateful for modest 

relief of spending limitations that allow us to address a scrutinized priority list of nuclear 

modernization efforts, we will still need to invest in foundational nuclear capabilities and 

infrastructure. 

SPACE 

Underwriting every joint operation across the globe is our ability to operate within the 

space domain at the time and place of our choosing. But our freedom of action in, through and 

from space can no longer be taken for granted. Our potential adversaries have had a front row 

seat to the many successes achieved by our space integration into joint warfighting and, 

unfortunately, they are rapidly developing capabilities to deny us space superiority. In the not too 

distant future, our potential adversaries will have the capability to hold all of our military space 

capabilities at risk. 

Space is a warfighting domain. The paradigm for space operations has shifted from a 

force enabler/enhancer to an integrated war fighting capability. As the Nation's lead service for 

space, we require your support to build more resilient and agile Air Force space systems. This 

8 
36 

means supporting investment requests for capabilities to defend our space assets, while 

maintaining a cycle of continuous upgrades in each generation of spacecraft to ensure systems 

are fully ready when called upon by the joint warfighter and can continue to operate in an 

increasingly contested environment. 

Maintaining assured access to space remains one of our top priorities. We are working to 

mature and advance our Launch Service Agreement strategy to develop affordable, sustainable 

launch capabilities that will eliminate dependence on foreign rocket propulsion systems. 

We arc also developing Space Situational Awareness and Battle Management Command 

and Control (BMC2) capabilities, which underpin our efforts to integrate space into full spectrum 

joint operations. Investments in space situational awareness capabilities, such as Space Fence, 

ground-based radar and optical systems and on-orbit surveillance capabilities, like the 

Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP) [our geosynchronous orbit 

"neighborhood watch"], enables critical battlespace awareness in space and the unprecedented 

ability to characterize the space operational environment. 

Similarly, investments in the Joint Interagency Coalition Space Operations Center 

(JICSpOC) and the Joint Space Operation Center (JSpOC) Mission System (JMS) provide the 

decision superiority and data we need to deter attack, and, if necessary, defend our capabilities 

and freedom to operate in space. Lastly, space systems provide mission-critical services and 

capabilities to support our joint forces in theater and around the globe, every day. Continuing to 

modernize and replenish our missile warning, nuclear command and control, satellite 

communication and Global Positioning System constellations ensures we will have resilient, 

mission-assured capability to support daily joint operations. 

9 
37 

Finally, we need to continue integrating our organizations and capabilities across both the 

DoD and the Intelligence Community, while improving training for our space force and 

cultivating an enduring cadre of space operators and acquirers. We must normalize and 

operationalize the space domain by maturing our tactics, techniques and procedures and "train 

like we fight," in space, just as we would in any other domain to ensure we are fully prepared to 

deal with today's adversaries and emerging technology. 

CYBERSPACE 

Cyberspace capabilities are essential to joint operations. The Air Force remains 

committed to providing 39 fully operational Cyber Mission teams by the end of FY18. Our cyber 

teams are conducting defensive cyber operations in support of combatant commanders daily, 

therefore we must commit to a robust and resilient cyber enterprise. 

Today, the Air Force cyber enterprise lacks sutlicient numbers of trained cyber forces to 

meet the ever-increasing demands. Additionally, the increasing frequency of malicious cyber 

activity targeting our cyber infrastructure and weapon systems, from state and non-state actors, 

continues to tax the limited personnel and tools to effectively defend critical assets and preserve 

freedom of movement in cyberspace where actions happen at the speed oflight. Adequate and 

consistent resourcing over time will enable us to obtain and maintain cyber superiority in this 

highly dynamic environment. 

We need to continue modernizing and developing offensive and defensive cyberspace 

tools and measures to harden current infrastructures while integrating cyber security into every 

new capability to counter cyberspace adversaries. This will ensure Air Force and joint force 

mission assurance-command and control, weapon system cyberspace defense, information 

dominance, and integrating offensive cyberspace effects into multi-domain operations. 

10 
38 

COMBAT AIR FORCES 

Our average age of Air Force aircraft is 27 years old. If aircraft required license plates, 

54% of our platforms would qualifY for antique designation in the state of Virginia. The ability 

to fly, fight, and win with aging aircraft is made possible by remarkable Airmen in an allvolunteer force. Modernization can no longer be delayed ... it is the capability and capacity for a 

high-end fight. Today's modernization is tommTow's readiness. 

To continue to provide unrelenting air superiority and global precision strike, we cannot 

accept a less than ready force. We have an ever-growing demand signal, our Air Force requires 

sufficient combat air forces capacity to keep pace. In addition to our other recapitalization 

efforts, we must also continue to procure the F-35 to counter rapidly advancing near-peer threats. 

To ensure our Ainnen are ready to face any emerging or future threat, we need to provide 

our Airmen with advanced threat testing, training, and associated technology. Our forces must 

have access to realistic test and training ranges and investment in computer-aided live, virtual, 

and constructive (L VC) infrastructure. L VC capability provides opportunities to test and train 

against the world's most capable threats, reduces costs, and supports full-spectrum readiness. 

Finally, we must have sufficient munitions to counter current threats, while developing advanced 

munitions to counter future threats. 

INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) 

The Air Force TSR enterprise is often the first in the fight and the last to leavc ... providing 

continuous coverage of global threats and targets ... from the earliest surveillance of the 

battlespace, to long after weapon impact. However, Combatant Commander's demand for 

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

11 
39 

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

continual combat lines of persistent attack RPAs. Within current constraints, we are committed 

to improving quality oflife and work for our Airmen, and are prioritizing investments to create a 

dedicated launch and recovery MQ-1/9 squadron, increase training, and restore two MQ-9 

operations squadrons. Additionally, we are training enlisted operators to fly the RQ-4 Global 

Hawk and funding a strategic basing initiative to eventually fly RPAs at new locations on 

schedule. 

However, our ISR enterprise still needs help. We have more than 7,000 Airmen working 

around the clock in our Distributed Common Ground System. These Airmen supported over 

29,000 ISR missions, analyzed more than 380,000 hours of full motion video and disseminated 

2.6 million images to our warfighters in the last year alone, attempting to quench the insatiable 

demand for !SR. They have operated at these surge levels for over a decade with no forecasted 

decline in the near future. 

To meet the needs of combatant commanders, the RPA force requires additional Airmen 

to achieve a healthy and sustainable force. Moreover, we continue to pursue emerging ISR Cybcr 

and Space capabilities. We must also recapitalize our C2JSR platforms, such as our E-8C 

JSTARS aircraft, which provides a unique combination of airborne C2, communications, and 

high-fidelity moving-target surveillance capability. The joint and coalition's demand for Air 

Force ISR will only continue to grow in the foreseeable future and we must be prepared to meet 

their demand. 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

We project airpower from a network of globally positioned bases, and we must focus on 

maintaining these bases as part of our strategic force posture. However, our infrastructure, 

12 
40 

particularly our installations in the continental U.S., are in excess of our operational needs. This 

is an inefficient arrangement with aging and underused facilities consuming funds that should be 

prioritized for readiness and modernization. 

Budget pressures have repeatedly delayed investments in aging infrastructure such as test 

and training ranges, airfields, facilities, and even basic infrastructure like power and drainage 

systems. Our infrastructure problem has only been exacerbated by the funding caps imposed 

under the BCA. Every year we delay infrastructure repairs affects operations and substantially 

increases improvement costs. It is time for another round of Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) to allow us to reinvest funds in higher priority areas across the Total Force. 

CONCLUSION 

Since 1947, the Air Force has relentlessly provided America with credible deterrence and 

decisive combat power in times of peace, crisis, contingency, and conflict. However, our relative 

advantage over potential adversaries is shrinking and we must be prepared to win decisively 

against any adversary. We owe this to our nation, our joint teammates, and our allies. The nation 

requires full-spectrum ready air, space, and cyber power, now more than ever. America expects 

it; combatant commanders require it; and with your support, Airmen will deliver it. 

13 
41 

Lieutenant General L. Scott Rice 

Lieutenant General L. Scott Rice is the Director, Air National Guard, the Pentagon, 

Washington, D.C. He is responsible tor formulating, developing and coordinating all 

policies, plans and programs affecting more than 105,500 Guard members and civilians in 

more than 90 wings and 175 geographically separated units across 213 locations 

throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin 

Islands. 

General Rice was commissioned in 1980 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps at 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York and graduated from undergraduate pilot 

training at Reese Air Force Base, Texas in 1982. He is a command pilot with more than 

4,300 hours in the F-Ill and A-1 0. Before assuming his current position, General Rice 

served as The Adjutant General and Commander, Massachusetts Air National Guard. 

He has served in various operational and staff assignments including Commander, Air 

Force Forces, Exercise Eastern Falcon in United States Central Command. He has 

commanded a squadron, operations group, and fighter wing. He also served as the 

Assistant Adjutant General for Air, and Commander, Massachusetts Air National Guard. 

EDUCATION 

1980 Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. 

1981 Master of Science in Industrial Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. 

1986 F-11 1 Weapons Instructor Course, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 

2000 Air War College, by correspondence 

2009 National and International Security Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

2009 and 20 I 0 George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies, Garmish, Germany 

2010 CAPSTONE, National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 

20 II Senior Reserve Component Officer Course, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa. 

20 II Combined Force Air Component Commanders Course, Maxwell Air Force Base, 

Montgomery, Ala. 

2011 General and Flag Officer Homeland Security Executive Seminar, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, Mass. 

2012 National Security Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 

2015 National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

I. May 1981 - May 1982, Undergraduate Pilot Training, Reese Air Force Base, Texas. 

2. May !982- Feb 1983, Student, AT -3 8B Lead-In Training Course, Holloman Air Force Base, 

N.M. 

3. February 1983- June 1983, Student F-lllCourse, Royal Air Force, Lakenhcath, England 

4. June 1983- October 1985, F-11! Pilot, Instructor, Evaluator, Weapons and Tactics Pilot, 493rd, 

494th, and 495th Tactical Fighter Squadrons, Royal Air Force, Lakenheath, England 

5. October 1985 -May 1986, Flight Examiner, Royal Air Force, Lakenheath, England. 

6. May 1986- June 1987, Chief Weapons and Tactics Officer, Royal Air Force, Lakenheath, 

England 

7. June 1987- Aprill988, f. Ill Student, Instructor Pilot, 391 st Tactical Fighter Squadron. 

Mountain Home, Air Force Base, Idaho 

8. Aprill988- November 1989, Chief, Wing Weapons Section, 366th Tactical Fighter Wing, 

Mountain Home, Air Force Base, Idaho 

9. November 1989- September 1999, AlO Pilot, Instructor, Evaluator, Flight Commander, !31st 

Fighter Squadron, I 04th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air Guard Base, Mass. 

10. September 1999- June 2002, Commander, 131st Fighter Squadron, 1 04th Fighter Wing, 

Barnes Air Guard Base, Mass. 
42 

II. June 2002 - May 2004, Commander, I 04th Operations Group, Barnes Air Guard Base, Mass. 

12. May 2004- July 2007, Director of Air Operations, Director of Joint Intelligence, Joint Force 

Headquarters, Massachusetts National Guard, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass. 

13. July 2007- September 2010, Assistant Adjutant General -Air, Joint Force Headquarters, 

Massachusetts National Guard, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.; dual hatted February 2009-

September 2009, Commander, 1 04th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Mass. 

14. September 20 I 0 - December 2012. Chief of Staff and Air Commander, Massachusetts Air 

National Guard, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.; dual hatted February 2010- February 2011, 

Headquarters Air Force A-6 Assistant to the Director, Air National Guard, Washington D.C.; dualhatted March 20 II -June 2012, Mobilization Assistant to the Commander, United States Air 

Forces Europe 

15. December 2012 - May 2016, Adjutant General, Massachusetts National Guard, Hanscom Air 

Force Base, Mass. 

16. May 2016- present, Director, Air National Guard, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

I. May 2004- July 2007, Director of Joint Intelligence, Joint Force Headquarters, Massachusetts 

National Guard, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., as a colonel 

2. April2012- May 2016, The Adjutant General, Massachusetts National Guard, Hanscom Air 

Force Base, Mass., as a major general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: command pilot 

Flight hours: more than 4,300 

Aircraft flown: T-37, T-38, F-ll!AID/F, and A-1 0 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Distinguished Service Medal 

Legion of Merit 

Bronze Star 

Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters 

Aerial Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Army Commendation Medal 

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS 

1972 Eagle Scout 

2005 George W. Bush Award for Leadership in the Guard/Reserve 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant May 17, 1980 

First Lieutenant November 18, 1982 

Captain November 18, l 984 

Major November 18, l 992 

Lieutenant Colonel September 9, 1998 

Colonel JLme 15, 2003 

Brigadier General July 24, 2007 

Major General December 23,2010 

Lieutenant General May 04, 2016 

(Current as of July 2016) 
43 

Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller 

Lt. Gen. Maryanne Miller is the Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C., and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, 

Georgia. As Chief of Air Force Reserve, she serves as principal adviser on reserve matters 

to the secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staft As commander of Air 

Force Reserve Command, she has full responsibility for the supervision of all U.S. Air 

Force Reserve units around the world. 

General Miller was commissioned in 1981 as a distinguished graduate of the ROTC 

program at The Ohio State University. She is a command pilot with more than 4,800 flying 

hours in numerous aircraft. 

The general has commanded two wings and held numerous staff positions at the unit, Air 

Staff and Joint Staff levels. Prior to her current assignment, she was the deputy director of 

Partnership Strategy for the director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff at the 

Pentagon. 

EDUCATION 

1981 Bachelor of Arts degree in criminal justice (minor in sociology,) The Ohio State University, 

Columbus 

1983 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1986 Flight Safety Officer School, Norton AFB, Calif. 

1994 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

2004 Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Ala., by cotTespondence 

2006 Director of Mobility Forces Course 

2009 Senior Reserve Component Officers Course, Army War College, Carlisle, Pa. 

20 I I Seminar XXI, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, 

Washington, D.C. 

20 II Master's degree in business administration, Trident University, Calif. 

2012 Senior Executives in National and International Security, Harvard Kennedy School of 

Government 

ASSIGNMENTS 

I. September !981 -August 1982, Student, undergraduate pilot training, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

2. August 1982- March 1983, Student, pilot instructor training, Randolph AFB, Texas 

3. March 1983-July !984, T-37 Instructor Pilot and RSU supervisor, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

4. July 1984-January 1985, T -3 7 Check Pilot and RSU Supervisor, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

5. January 1985- March 1985, Student, Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

6. March 1985- February 1986, Executive Officer for 96th FTS Commander, T-37 Instructor 

Pilot, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

7. February 1986 -July 1986, Student, distinguished graduate C-141 training, Altus AFB, Okla. 

8. July 1986-July 1987, C- I 41 Aircraft Commander and Executive Officer for 8th Airlift 

Squadron Commander, McChord AFB, Wash. 

9. July 1987 -June 1988, C-141 Instructor Pilot, 8th Airlift Squadron McChord AFB, Wash. 

10. June 1988 -July 1989, Chief of Flying Safety and C-141 Examiner Pilot, McChord AFB, 

Wash. 

11. July 1989 -· September 1993, C-141 Examiner Pilot , 313th Airlift Squadron, McChord AFB, 

Wash. 

12. September I 993 -April 1994. Deputy Operations Group Commander, 459th Airlift Wing, 

Andrews AFB, Md. 

13. April1994 October 1995, Operations Officer, 756th Airlift Squadron, Andrews AFB, Md. 

14. October !995- October 1996, Chief; Strategic Airlift, Reserve Operations, Headquarters U.S. 

Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

15. October 1996-January !998, Fighter Forces Programmer, Reserve Plans and Pro!,rrams, 
44 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

16. January 1998 December 2001, Operations Officer and Deputy Operations Group 

Commander, 459'" Airlift Wing, Andrews AFB, Md. 

17. December 2001- May 2004, Air Reserve Technician C-5 pilot, Dover AFB, Del. 

18. May 2004 ····January 2006, Operations Group Commander, 932nd Airlift Wing, Scott AFB, Ill. 

19. January 2006-January 2008, Commander, 932nd Airlift Wing, Scott AFB, Ill.. 

20. January 2008- November 2009, Commander, 349th Air Mobility Wing, Travis AFB, Calif. 

21. November 2009- January 2012, Director of Programs and Requirements, Office of the Air 

Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washin1,>ion, D.C. 

22. January 2012 --October 2013, Deputy Director of Partnership Strategy, J5, the Pentagon, 

Washington, D.C. 

23. April 2012 -August 2012, Interim Deputy Director for Trans Regional Policy, J5, the 

Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

24. October 2013- July 2016, Deputy to the Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S Air 

Force, Washington, D.C. 

25. July 2016 -·present, Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, 

D.C., and Commander of Air Force Reserve Command, Robins AFB, Ga. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

January 2012 September 2013, Deputy Director of Partnership Strategy, J5, the Pentagon, 

Washington, D.C., as a brigadier general and a major general 

FLIGHT lNFOR..MATION 

Rating: Command pilot 

Flight hours: More than 4,800 

Aircraft flown: T-37, T-38, C-1418/C, C-5A/B, C-9A/C, C-40C, KC-lOA and C-17 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Defense Superior Service Medal 

Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters 

Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters 

Aerial Achievement Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

Air Force Achievement Medal 

Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with four oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Organizational Excellence Award 

Combat Readiness Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Southwest Asia Service Medal with bronze star 

Kosovo Campaign Medal 

Global War on Terrorism Medal 

Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with Gold Border 

Air Force Longevity Service Award with three oak leaf clusters 

Armed Forces Reserve Medal with hourglass 

Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with bronze star 

Air Force Training Ribbon 

Kuwait Liberation Medal 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant June 12, 1981 

First Lieutenant Aug. 30, 1983 

Captain Aug. 30, 1985 

Major March 5, 1992 

Lieutenant Colonel June 13, 1996 

(Current as of July 2016) 

Colonel Feb. 17,2005 

Brigadier General June 1, 2009 

Major General Jan. 1, 2013 

Lieutenant General July 15, 2016 
45 

Major General Scott D. West 

Maj. Gen. Scott West is the Director of Cmrent Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. The directorate, encompassing 

five divisions, the Air Force Operations Group and the Air Force Agency for Modeling and 

Simulation, is responsible for policy, guidance, and oversight of Air Force current 

operations in air, space and cyberspace. The Directorate provides time-sensitive situational 

awareness and analysis to Air Force senior leaders and links worldwide operations with 

core Air Force processes to enable global vigilance, reach and power. 

General West entered the Air Force in 1982 after graduating lrom The Citadel. He has 

served as an instructor pilot in the F-16 and tlown combat missions in Operation Southern 

Watch. General West has commanded the 36th Fighter Squadron, 8th Operations Group, 

27th Fighter Wing, 613th Air and Space Operations Center, the Air Force Operational Test 

and Evaluation Center, 9th Air and Space Expeditionary Task Force-Afghanistan and 

NATO Air Command-Afghanistan. He has completed staff assignments on the Joint Staff, 

Air Force Secretariat, Pacific Air Forces and NATO's Joint Warfare Centre. 

EDUCATION 

1982 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, The Citadel, Charleston, SC 

1985 Master's in Business Administration, Barry University, Miami, FL 

1991 USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, NV 

1994 Squadron Officer School, by correspondence 

1997 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, AL 

1998 Master's in Airpower Arts and Sciences, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell 

AFB,AL 

2002 Master's in National Resource Strategy, Industrial College of the Anned Forces. Fort McNair, 

Washington, D.C. 

2007 Senior Executive Fellow's program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University, Cambridge, MA 

2011 Combined Force Maritime Component Commander course, Pacific Fleet Headquarters, HI 

2014 Joint Force Air Component Commander course, Maxwell AFB, AL 

2015 Joint Force Land Component Commander course, Carlisle Barracks, P A 

ASSIGNMENTS 

I. June 1982 ~.June I 984, Design Engineer, 3 I st Civil Engineer Squadron, Homestead AFB, FL 

2. July 1984 December 1985, student, Undergraduate Pilot Training, Columbus AFB, MS, and 

Lead-in Fighter Training, Holloman AFB, NM 

3. January 1986 ~June 19&6, F-16 student pilot, 311th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, Luke 

AFB,AZ 

4. July 1986 ~June 1989, F-16 Instructor Pilot and Chief of Training, 429th Tactical Fighter 

Squadron, Nellis AFB, NV 

5. July 1989 ~December 1991, F-16 Instructor Pilot and Chief of Weapons, 72nd Tactical Fighter 

Training Squadron, MacDill AFB, FL 

6. January 1992 ~June 1994, F-16 Instructor Pilot and Flight Commander, USAF Fighter Weapons 

School, and F-16 Flight Examiner, 57th Operations Group, Nellis AFB, NV 

7. July 1994 ~July 1996, staff officer, Weapons Division, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force 

(International Atfairs), the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

8. August 1996 July 1998, student, Air Command and Staff College and School of Advanced 

Airpower Studies, Maxwell AFB, AL 

9. August 1998 ~September 1999, Assistant Operations Ot1icer, 68th Fighter Squadron. and 

Operations Officer, 69th Fighter Squadron, Moody AFB, GA 

10. October 1999 ~July 2001, Commander, 36th Fighter Squadron, Osan Air Base, South Korea 

II. August 200 I ~June 2002, student, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort McNair, 
46 

Washington, D.C. 

12. July 2002- December 2002, Commander, 8th Operations Group, Kunsan AB, South Korea 

13. January 2003 --December 2004, Chief of Forces Division, Force Structure, Resources and 

Assessment Directorate (J8), Joint Staft: the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

14. January 2005- Februaty 2006, Vice Commander, 52nd Fighter Wing, Spangdahlem AB, 

Germany 

15. March 2006- September 2007, Commander, 27th Fighter Wing, Cannon AFB, N.M. 

16. October 2007 August 2008, Commander, 613th Air and Space Operations Center, Hickam 

AFB,H1 

17. September 2008- August 2010, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, Joint Warfare Centre, 

Sttpreme Allied Command for Transformation, NATO, Stavanger, Norway 

18. August 2010- August 2011, Vice Commander, 13th Air Force, Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam, HI 

19. August 2011 -September 2012, Deputy Director of Operations, Plans, Programs and 

Requirements, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 

20. September 2012 April20 15, Commander, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, 

Kirtland AFB, NM 

2l. April20!5- April2016. Commander, 9th Air and Space Expeditionary Task ForceAfghanistan; Commander, NATO Air Command-Afghanistan; Director. AFCENT's Air 

Component Coordination Element for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan & NATO's Operation Resolute 

Support; and Deputy Commander-Air for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. 

22. May 2016- present, Director of Current Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. January 2003 December 2004, Chief of Forces Division, Force Structure, Resources and 

Assessment Directorate (18), Joint Staff, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., as a colonel 

2. September 2008- August 2010, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, Joint Warfare Centre, 

Supreme Allied Command for Transformation, NATO, Stavanger, Norway, as a brigadier general 

3. April2015 April2016, Commander, NATO Air Command-Afghanistan; Director, AFCENT's 

Air Component Coordination Element for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan & NATO's Operation Resolute 

Support, as a major general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: Command pilot 

Flight hours: More than 2,500 

Aircraft flown: A-10 and F-16 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Deiense Superior Service Medal 

Legion of Merit 

Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Air Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Achievement Medal 

Joint Meritorious Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with three oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Organizational Excellence Award 

Combat Readiness Medal with four oak leaf clusters 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 

Southwest Asia Service Medal with bronze star 

Global War on Terrorism Service Medal 

Korea Defense Service Medal 
47 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant June 2, 1982 

First Lieutenant June 2, 1984 

Captain June 2, 1986 

Major July 1, 1994 

Lieutenant Colonel Sept. 1, 1998 

Colonel Aug. l, 2002 

Brigadier General Nov. 21,2008 

Major General June 8, 2012 

(Current as of April2016} 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 22, 2017 

(51) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

General RICE. The impact of a full-year CR to the Air National Guard (ANG) is 

manageable, assuming normal CR constraints were relaxed or eliminated. A fullyear CR provides funding at FY16 levels, and overall the ANG will be able to fund 

required training, full-time manpower and mission essential requirements. For the 

ANG Operations and Maintenance (O&M) appropriation, a full-year CR represents 

an $88 million increase over the current FY17 Conference Report numbers. Assuming there are no other statutory limits on funding for O&M, the ANG will be better 

off with a full-year CR in O&M. For the ANG Military Personnel appropriation, a 

full-year CR represents a decrease of $82 million from the FY17 Conference Report 

numbers. Although the decrease will reduce the level of funding available for ANG 

readiness, the Air National Guard will still be able to maintain required training 

levels for FY17. A full-year CR will have one negative impact for ANG, in that National Guard Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) funding will not be available for FY17 which would affect the C–130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 

and delay the C–130 modernization program. A full-year CR will not impact service 

members and will not impact families. [See page 21.] 

General MILLER. A full-year continuing resolution (CR) would stifle improvements 

in Air Force Reserve (AFR) readiness and degrade our ability to sustain any 

progress to date. It would cut crucial funding to our special tour program and Operations and Maintenance funds curtailing critical training and equipment. Aircrew 

proficiency training would be limited, as well as our key participation in joint exercises. A full-year CR would further decrease aircraft availability, shrink critical commodities and weaken our ability to meet the demands of the Air Force. The uncertain nature of a full-year CR uniquely affects AFR service member participation. 

The lack of predictable funding caused by a CR can create proficiency gaps for the 

AFR when training is forced to be rescheduled or cancelled, which can result in personnel becoming non-current in their AF specialty. In addition to impacting their 

military training, a full-year CR can negatively affect an AFR member’s civilian employment, family, remuneration and morale. In particular, AFR Traditional Reservists (TR) may become hesitant to commit to their military training in an uncertain 

fiscal environment as most need to consider the impact on their civilian jobs. This 

hesitancy is because they do not want to take leave from a civilian job to participate 

with the AFR and subsequently have their military duty curtailed due to a lack of 

stable/predictable funds. This type of situation causes not only a loss of military pay 

for the member, but also a potential problem with their civilian employer and stress 

for their family. [See page 21.] 

General WEST. A full-year Continuing Resolution (CR) will affect the Air Force’s 

top readiness priorities with readiness recovery repercussions felt long after FY17. 

A full-year CR creates a $2.4B (Base and OCO) shortfall in the O&M portfolio that 

will need to be sourced at the expense of readiness requirements. It eviscerates our 

Flying Hour Program (FHP), grounds non-deploying squadrons, and degrades qualifications and proficiencies of remaining aircrew. This reduces the Air Force’s ability 

to meet pilot production throughout and reduces readiness in Air Forces units for 

the foreseeable future. In addition, it forces a $1B cut to our Weapon System 

Sustainment (WSS) accounts, preventing us from maintaining predictable and sufficient funding for our sustainment actions—limiting aircraft availability, beyond 

those grounded for lack of FHP, needed for wartime and full-spectrum training. 

The Air Force would need to reconsider participation in 3rd and 4th quarter livefly exercises. Distributed exercises could be supported but would continue at a lower 

level of participation. While the Air Force cannot ‘‘cancel’’ any Combatant Command 

exercise, the Air Force could reduce participation in such exercises, which would impact training in support of combat capabilities. 

A year-long CR would also significantly reduce Air Reserve Component (ARC)- 

filled OCO taskings, causing significant degradation in Air Force support of current 

global operations. 

A full-year CR would have an adverse impact on our people and readiness recovery. We would have to cut over $2.8B in base and Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) funding in the remaining five months of the Fiscal Year, forcing actions simi-
52 

lar to those taken in 2013 during Sequestration. In addition, the full-year CR halts 

efforts to grow active duty personnel end-strength as directed in the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), preventing us from meeting our top readiness priority. It also inhibits manpower growth in new or expanding mission areas 

including Remotely-Piloted Aircraft (RPA), cyberspace operations, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3). 

The full-year CR would delay operational, unit, and training permanent-changeof-station moves until Fiscal Year 2018, halting all moves internal to the Continental U.S., creating a severe training backlog, and leaving positions vacant across 

the Air Force. This severely degrades the quality of life for our Airmen and their 

families in the process of moving, as schools, jobs, child care, and other plans are 

disrupted. 

It would defer bonus payments across numerous critical career fields, devastating 

critical programs we must have in place to retain Airmen with indispensable 

skillsets. Our taxpayers invest approximately $11M to produce each fifth-generation 

fighter pilot, and our active-duty fighter pilot shortage is expected to exceed 1,000 

by the end of Fiscal Year 2017. The Aviation Retention Bonus is critical to our efforts to address this crisis. Most important, deferring bonuses breaks faith with our 

Airmen, who make great sacrifices every day to defend our nation. It also would preclude filling civilian vacancies outside of mission-critical areas, which would directly 

increase workload demands on remaining personnel, decreasing quality of life. 

It would also halt all restoration and modernization projects, effectively cancelling 

301 projects at 78 installations across the Air Force, including 51 directly related 

to maintaining Air Force readiness levels. It also limits facility projects to only those 

actions addressing life, health, and safety. 

A full-year CR would impact more than 60 Air Force acquisition new starts in aircraft, space, missile, and ammunition procurement while simultaneously curtailing 

our Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation efforts. In addition, it limits munitions production to Fiscal Year 2016 rates, which do not meet current usage and 

inventory requirements. Finally, inventory levels for flares, cartridges, and training 

munitions are already very low, impacting our aviators’ ability to counter real-world 

enemy fire while reducing live fire training scenarios—both essential for success on 

the battlefield. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

General RICE. The fastest way to JSTARS Recap Initial Operational Capability 

(IOC) is to execute the current acquisition strategy. This strategy establishes the 

conditions required to create and exploit opportunities to accelerate IOC/Full Operational Capability through four means: (1) Radar Risk Reduction; (2) source selection criteria; (3) incentive fee structure; (4) and use of mix of contract types. The 

Air Force has and will continue to look for opportunities to accelerate. However, the 

focus at this stage—prior to selection of a prime contractor and integrated solution 

(platform, radar, battle management command and control, communications)—is on 

establishing the conditions for success. If there are opportunities to accelerate after 

selecting the prime contractor and integrated solution, the Air Force will brief the 

Congressional Defense Committees as directed in the FY17 NDAA and Appropriations Act. [See page 10.] 

Æ