U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

51–762 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–45] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST ON ARMY AIRCRAFT 

PROGRAMS 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 23, 2009 
(II) 

AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

DOUG ROACH, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN WASON, Professional Staff Member 

BEN GLERUM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, April 23, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization 

Act—Budget Request on Army Aircraft Programs ............................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, April 23, 2009 ........................................................................................ 29 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT— 

BUDGET REQUEST ON ARMY AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, a Representative from Hawaii, Chairman, Air and 

Land Forces Subcommittee ................................................................................. 1 

Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G., a Representative from Maryland, Ranking Member, 

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee ................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Davis, Brig. Gen. Walter L., USA, Director of Army Aviation, U.S. Army; 

and Brig. Gen. William T. Crosby, USA, Program Executive Officer, Aviation, U.S. Army .................................................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Brig. Gen. Walter L., joint with Brig. Gen. William T. Crosby ........ 33 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Hunter ........................................................................................................ 63 

Mr. Marshall ..................................................................................................... 63 

Mr. Massa ......................................................................................................... 63 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 63 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. Kissell ......................................................................................................... 68 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST ON ARMY AIRCRAFT 

PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, April 23, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:17 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Neil Abercrombie 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII, CHAIRMAN, AIR AND LAND 

FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Miller is going to come up. I think Mr. 

Bartlett is almost here, but this is liable to get tricky in terms of 

time, so we are just going to get started. And when Mr. Bartlett 

gets here, we will catch up, I am sure, okay? 

Ah, there he is. Speak of the devil and hear the flutter of his 

wings. Jeff, why don’t you come down here? You don’t have to stay 

down there. 

Mr. MILLER. (OFF MIKE) 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. Right, you make a quick exit. 

Mr. MILLER. (OFF MIKE) 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is right. 

Aloha. Good morning, everybody. The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee is meeting this morning to receive testimony from Army 

aviation programs. 

By the way, parenthetically, I should note, I suppose, that I read 

the editorial recently saying the Air Force should disappear, and 

we will just turn over all the air assets and so on to the Army. And 

I see, if you keep facing this way, then maybe the cameras won’t 

catch your smile. 

Immediately after the hearing, we will adjourn to room 2337 to 

receive a classified briefing on related issues. And if we get off into 

areas where you think it is appropriate to speak there rather than 

here, just say so. It is inadvertent and not intended. 

And of course, on that note, we welcome our witnesses from the 

Army, Brigadier General Walter Davis, Director of Army Aviation, 

and Brigadier General William Crosby, Program Executive for 

Aviation. 

We know very little about the fiscal year 2010 Army aviation 

budget beyond what Secretary Gates provided on April 6th, and 

subsequent rumors detailed to the media primarily on the Joint 
2 

Cargo Aircraft. Those rumors I understand and know very, very 

clearly, gentlemen, did not come from you. 

And because they are rumors, that is why we are having this 

hearing today, and we will deal with what should be out there 

right now today, and what should be in the classified hearing, we 

will take up then for the Members’ benefit. 

The annual request for Army aviation accounts has increased by 

90 percent in the last 5 years. This subcommittee and the committee as a whole, under Mr. Skelton’s leadership, has supported 

those requests, other than requests for the Armed Reconnaissance 

Helicopter (ARH). We registered our concerns with the ARH beginning three years ago. And as we know, the Department of Defense 

canceled this program late last year in part for the reasons we had 

cited in our oversight capacity. Secretary Gates indicated he was adding $500 million to the fiscal year 2010 budget to sustain more helicopters in the field. He 

indicated he thought the primary limitation on current helicopter 

capacity is not airframes, but shortages of maintenance and flight 

crews. 

A review of readiness data indicates that, while there are personnel shortages in Army aviation brigades, the shortages indicated for equipment for helicopters cause an even greater degradation of readiness. We looked at your own statistics for this. We 

don’t want to get in an argument with Mr. Gates, as such. It is just 

that it seems to be a bit of an anomaly to us. 

Even for units involved in overseas contingency operations, 

shortages of equipment are the most stressing shortfall, not personnel, at least from the statistics we have been given. We will get 

into this detail in our classified session after the hearing. 

But to the degree that this can be addressed in this hearing, I 

would very much appreciate and ask our witnesses to address what 

seems to be an apparent inconsistency between the readiness data 

and the Secretary’s statement. Is that clear where I am going? 

Perhaps the significant increases in procurement funding and 

aviation account the past few years will address the current equipment shortfalls once the helicopters procured are fielded. If not, we 

want to look at fiscal year 2010 budget requests to determine 

whether it is sufficient to address the shortfalls in equipment. 

Secretary Gates did not address the Joint Cargo Aircraft program in his April 6th press conference, but it seems to be common 

knowledge that there are major changes planned in the fiscal year 

2010 budget request. Again, to the degree you as witnesses can address the JCA, we ask that you do so. 

I do want to indicate, as well, that this is not just my line of inquiry. Other Members have already indicated to me and to committee staff that they want to explore these issues in greater depth 

and detail. 

The Comanche helicopter program was canceled in February 

2004, and the ARH program was canceled in October 2008. Therefore, it has been a long time since the Army developed and fielded 

a new helicopter. 

Recently, Secretary Gates and General Cartwright raised the 

possibility of substituting unmanned capabilities for some fighter 

aircraft. This begs the question whether a similar substitution 
3 

could be considered for some helicopter capabilities, or is being considered for some helicopter capabilities. 

We would appreciate, again to the degree you can, in this context, give your views on this, as well. This is a primarily an information session. 

Finally, for our perspective, vis-a-vis the 2010 budget, but you 

can see the implications for the Army down the line are considerable. 

Finally, Secretary Gates emphasized the importance of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and electro-optical (EO) full-motion 

video (FMV)—I like that—electrical-optical full-motion video. It 

sounds like a new band—video capability in overseas combat operations. Yet a relatively small percentage of the Army’s Shadow 

UAVs are deployed overseas. 

Again, I would appreciate, to the degree you can in this context, 

state your views as to why this is the case, this small percentage 

of the Shadow UAVs deployed overseas, why is this the case, and 

is anything being done to increase the percentage of Shadow UAVs 

deployed overseas. This is a bit of a mystery to me. 

Then those are the essential issues. Everything clear? 

Before we begin, I would like to turn to my good friend and colleague from Maryland, the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND, RANKING MEMBER, AIR AND LAND 

FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. Apologize for being late. There were 

a rash of accidents, and every access to the city was closed this 

morning. Very slow. Evacuating this city in a real crisis is going 

to be a challenge, isn’t it? 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us. 

We are very fortunate to have each of you serving our country, and 

we are fortunate to have you here with us today. 

We are here to talk about the Army’s aircraft programs. This is 

a very critical subject matter, and there are many important questions I know we on the committee have in regards to this subject. 

Unfortunately, we do not have a budget yet, and I understand 

the witnesses are prohibited from discussing anything in regards to 

the pending fiscal year 2010 budget request. However, there are 

still many things our witnesses can discuss, such as the conditions 

and performance of our current aircraft programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize 

the incredible performance of our Army aviation soldiers and aircrews during the past seven years. Army aviation has truly been 

building the plane in flight. 

In the midst of a war in two very different theaters, the Army 

has completely transformed its aviation force structure, adapted to 

the enemy and the environment, and moved ahead in its modernization. I would ask our Army witnesses to please take this 

message of congratulations and gratitude for their incredible performance back with them to the Pentagon and pass it on to our soldiers as you visit them, whether here in the United States or 

abroad. 
4 

Also on Iraq, the increase in Improvised Explosive Devices 

(IEDs) not only resulted in the Department pursuing more survivable vehicles, such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP), but also increased the demand on rotorcraft and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets. And this demand will certainly increase as we grow our presence in Afghanistan while continuing to maintain a significant force in Iraq for the 

foreseeable future. 

Although I have many questions, there are two areas I hope to 

learn more about today. The first is in regards to Secretary Gates’ 

recent comments on adding funding to the training of Army aviation pilots. While I applaud any increase in funding that provides 

training for our pilots, it seems to me that the shortage of equipment on hand, such as helicopters, is a more immediate concern. 

I realize we will have to discuss the details in our classified session. But in this unclassified session, I would like to hear from our 

witnesses if they are more concerned about the availability of aircraft or the availability of trained pilots. 

The second area I am interested in is in regards to the unmanned aerial vehicles. A lot has changed, technically, since operations began seven years ago. UAVs are one of our most promising 

new capabilities. What have we learned from operations in theater 

in regards to how we utilize this nascent capability, and what do 

you see in the future for UAVs? What new ways are you exploring 

for how to deploy and use these platforms? 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I want 

to thank you again for your service to our country and for appearing before us this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thanks, Mr. Bartlett. 

Gentlemen, I assure you we did not collaborate on our statements when I mentioned that Members are concerned about these 

things and paying attention. I think Mr. Bartlett’s remarks reflect 

that interest and concern. 

And I assure you we all join in his observations to you about 

what you have accomplished in Army aviation and with the personnel associated with it, and we all would appreciate you extending our grateful thanks, as well. 

This morning, we are going to go by regular seniority in terms 

of the questions and observations that will be made by Members. 

Next hearing, we will go in reverse order of seniority. So with that, 

if it is okay with Mr. Bartlett, I am going to start the request to 

the witnesses to begin their commentary. Silence is ascent, according to Thomas More. 

So who will go first? General Davis. 

General DAVIS. Sir, what I would like to do is just start, if I 

could, with just a quick opening statement. And again, Chairman 

Abercrombie—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You are going to speak for both? Is that correct? 

General DAVIS. Yes, sir. I will 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. General Crosby, you are doing support and 

backup here? Thank you very much. 
5 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WALTER L. DAVIS, USA, DIRECTOR 

OF ARMY AVIATION, U.S. ARMY; AND BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM T. 

CROSBY, USA, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AVIATION, 

U.S. ARMY 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WALTER L. DAVIS 

General DAVIS. And again, Chairman Abercrombie, Ranking 

Member Bartlett, and other distinguished Members of the Air-Land 

Forces Subcommittee, it really is a privilege for us to be here today 

to talk about Army aviation. First, I want to thank the committee 

for their continuing and enduring support for our Army, and specifically for our aviation soldiers and families. 

As you stated, Mr. Chairman, the demand on aviation capability 

has continued to grow, and we will soon have our Sixth Combat 

Aviation Brigade deployed, and that will occur here next month 

where we will have six in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom. 

Concurrently, we continue to have a brigade committed in Korea, 

as well as about a brigade’s worth of capability committed in other 

places around the globe. And while our operational tempo is very 

high, our commitment to ensuring our aviation force remains a 

vital and essential enabling capability not only to the Army, but 

certainly to the joint force, as well. 

And so, too, has the Congress’s support, and specifically this committee’s support, helped to enable that we have had full support for 

our aviation forces and for the programs that we currently have in 

effect. 

Recently, Secretary Gates did publicly present the key decisions 

that he will recommend to President Obama with respect to the fiscal year 2010 defense budget, and some of these recommendations 

do concern aviation programs. And I am sure, again, as you stated, 

Mr. Chairman, there are plenty of relevant questions that pertain 

to that. 

And we will do the best of our ability to answer those within the 

limitations that have been imposed on us by the current process 

that we are in. And I apologize in advance for any inconvenience 

that that may cause here. But we look forward as that is released 

and we are able to come back to talk about that. 

But with that, sir, again, we appreciate your support, and we 

look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Davis and General 

Crosby can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, General. 

Members, including myself and Mr. Bartlett, may submit questions to you, or perhaps some of these things will be dealt with in 

the classified section. But for now, we are going to go to directly 

to Members for questions and observations and start with Mr. Marshall. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

All of us, I think, are a little concerned by the latest news that 

JCA, at least where the Army is concerned, appears to be being 

canceled. Most of us have spent a fair amount of time getting to 

the point where we appreciated the tactical need that JCA was 
6 

going to meet, and that is one of the reasons we were willing to 

fund it. 

And I am curious to know what has changed with regard to the 

tactical need that JCA was going to fill that would cause us to 

think that maybe we shouldn’t have been funding this to begin 

with, and we shouldn’t fund it, going forward. If either of you can 

explain what has changed that would warrant not moving forward 

with JCA, it would be very helpful to me. 

General DAVIS. And Congressman Marshall, again, from my perspective and what I can say is that nothing has changed. I mean, 

we still have a requirement for—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Excuse me, General. I neglected to mention, 

just for a moment, Members have a complete set of charts in here 

with regard to various issues and that. So if you want to refer to 

any of that and then refer to the Members to the appropriate chart 

in the context of your answers, please do so, okay, if you feel that 

is appropriate or it would be helpful to the Members’ understanding. 

Sorry. Thank you. 

General DAVIS. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

And again, nothing has changed with respect to the requirement 

that we still have for the capability that the JCA provides. And you 

said that, Congressman, which is we are currently conducting our 

missions for time-sensitive, mission-critical distribution of logistics 

to the point of need. The work that we do in the austere environments, whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, currently with our C–23 

Sherpas contract there, of course our CH–47 fleet, but nothing has 

changed. 

And that is what I can say. We still have a requirement for the 

capability that the JCA provides. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I assume that, in the past, you have either presented the committee, or internally to the Secretary’s office, detailed written descriptions of the tactical need that justifies JCA. 

Could you go ahead and hunt up all of that that has previously 

been provided to us, gather it and get it over to us again, rather 

than relying upon our ability to search our files to try and generate 

that information? We would like to see the case that has previously 

been made so that we clearly understand why it is that we have 

consistently thought funding this thing was a wise idea. 

General DAVIS. We will, Congressman. With respect to the concept of operations that was done, as well as the validated requirement, we will. 

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

page 63.] 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you. 

I have no further questions. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is it clear, General, what Mr. Marshall would 

like? 

General DAVIS. It is, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the previous 

documentation. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay, because we want to be able to see a 

continuum of commentary, memos, whatever. 

General DAVIS. It is, Mr. Chairman. 
7 

Mr. MARSHALL. If I could, there is a tactical need, I think a clear 

case can be made. We have already made it. We need to be just 

totally on top of what that case is as we consider what the Secretary is apparently going to propose. I don’t really have a dog in 

the fight who manages this thing. 

I am not troubled by the idea that the Air Force might manage 

the program. But I am troubled by the idea that capacity that we 

thought was necessary might be set aside. And we just need to understand what the capacity of the need is as we evaluate whether 

or not we need to move forward. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The reason that Mr. Marshall’s request is as 

specific as it is and why I support it is that we are having some 

difficulty in other contexts. Sometimes statements come out of the 

Secretary’s office or elsewhere in the Pentagon that indicate, for example with the air tanker, that if an approach to purchase of these 

tankers is invoked by the Congress, that there would be expenditures forthcoming as a result of that, but we can’t find anything 

where that was ever brought up before. 

I am just drawing you a parallel. I don’t expect you to answer 

anything, or comment. But I have been following it for at least 

eight years now, and I don’t have a clue as to what is being talked 

about. So we don’t want to find ourselves out there having to answer questions to ourselves or to the public and not have any basis 

for understanding what the original rationale of the services were 

with regard to any weapons platform. 

General CROSBY. Sir, if I might add, the program and the confidence that you showed in us to go after that requirement that 

General Davis spoke about, that program is on track. It has performed very well. We have two aircraft that have already been delivered and 11 ongoing contract to be delivered. 

So the confidence you showed in us to go and procure the system, 

we have met all the obligations. What will happen from here, 

again, that is to be determined by the Secretary and what they recommend to Mr. Obama. 

But we have met the obligations of what we promised you we 

would do in the program that we put together, and now we have 

to bow to the requirement of where it stands. 

Mr. MARSHALL. For the benefit of the Department here, it is not 

just the Army, but for all the branches, at least this member, and 

I suspect all of us, are going to be pretty consistent in insisting 

that we be given access to the entire argument that occurred, all 

of the information, all of the positions that were taken, that led to 

a particular decision by the Secretary. 

It is not going to be an instance in which that is the decision 

made by the Secretary, and Congress is not going to be given access to the arguments, the detail, etc., that led to that decision. We 

want to hear the case against the decision made by the branches. 

And we are going to want to have that case. We are going to 

want to hear that kind of information consistently throughout the 

process of considering authorization. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General DAVIS. Understand, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. 

We will go to Mr. Bartlett. 
8 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

I would like to yield my time to Mr. Miller, who has a commitment and cannot stay, and then I will simply switch with his time. 

Thanks. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Miller, please. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bartlett, for yielding the time. 

I have one two-part question, Generals. It is in regards to the 

shortage of rotary-wing aircraft dedicated to U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), particularly in Afghanistan. 

Can you give us a sense of the dedicated level of rotary wing support currently for USSOC? And also, can we expect that our special 

operators are going to be given increased rotor wing support to get 

them into the fight? 

General DAVIS. Congressman, I will try to answer that to the 

best of my ability. 

With respect to the special operations aviation, which again 

comes under U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)—but if 

I could provide some framework, we did an exhaustive analysis of 

the capability demands for aviation specifically in OEF, and we did 

that at the request of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

And what we found, that there is, in fact, a shortfall of the special operations capability in Afghanistan that we are addressing, 

the conventional side, not necessarily a shortfall in capacity or capability, but on the special operations side. 

With that, as you know, Special Operations Command, even 

prior to 2001, was growing their aviation capability. And so they 

are still in the process of doing that. What has changed is, again, 

2001 occurred, and we find ourselves in operations in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and OEF. 

And so they are growing their capability, specifically their MH– 

47s and their MH–60’s, for increased capacity both in terms of 

numbers and, of course, their force structure that corresponds to 

that. 

Do they need to increase further? They are going through the 

process of analyzing and determining what their future force structure, and it will certainly compete with our others. But there is a 

thrust to increase their capacity. 

Mr. MILLER. If you would, I would like a little more detailed answer in writing as to what the plan is, where we are going. And 

yes, we are all aware September 11th, 2001 happened, but that 

was some time ago. We have to continue to grow the force, and we 

know that special operations is, in fact, growing, and the shortfall 

is something that we should not continue to have. 

So if you would, I would like a written response that is a little 

more detail. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Miller, some of this we are going to deal 

with upstairs, and we will make certain—— 

Mr. MILLER. Unfortunately—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE [continuing]. I know that you maybe have 

other obligations. We will make certain that the detailed or broader, deeper answer will be provided. 

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

page 63.] 
9 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, General. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is that it? Thank you. 

Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Generals, for being here today. We do appreciate 

your service. 

And I am a freshman Congressman, but I had the privilege of 

being with our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan the week before 

last, and truly impressive people serving our Nation. Makes you 

very, very proud. 

And my question is really a follow-up to what Mr. Miller said, 

and I know we will have some more information upstairs. But had 

some conversations with some Marines in Kandahar, and I said, 

‘‘What do you need?’’ And they said, ‘‘Mobility.’’ And then, I asked 

other generals and officers along the same lines and told them that 

answer, and there was agreement that we need mobility. 

And it doesn’t take a lot of thinking about this to realize the limited number of troops in a large country, that that is what we need, 

and that is a subject that you guys are talking about, and we will 

get more detailed of an answer later on. But we need that answer, 

because we have seen other things that our troops have needed in 

the past that, for whatever reason, they didn’t get as quickly as 

they needed them. And so I just pass that on as a comment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Kissell. 

We will go to Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

What are the plans to replace the C–23, the Sherpa aircraft, currently flown by the Army National Guard? 

General DAVIS. Sir, our plans for—and are—to replace it with 

the Joint Cargo Aircraft. It is a direct replacement for the C–23 

Sherpas. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay, which brings me to my second question. 

Yesterday’s article in The Hill reported Department of Defense 

(DOD) is moving the Joint Cargo Aircraft program to the Air Force 

and cutting overall program quantities. This revelation came as 

quite a shock to us, because our memory was that the Air Force 

was kind of a reluctant partner in this joint procurement. Some 

might have said that they were dragged, kicking and screaming, 

into the original relationship. 

And now, the Army that had the original use for the aircraft, requirement for the aircraft, is not going to get the aircraft, and the 

Air Force, who really was very reluctant, hardly wanted into the 

program at all, is now going to have responsibility for the program 

and get all of the additional aircraft. 

In light of the reduced numbers that are being reported, can you 

shed some light on plans to address both the stateside Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mission handled by the 

Army National Guard and the Army time-sensitive, mission-critical 

requirements for the transportation of cargo and personnel to forward-deployed Army units in areas of responsibility, particularly in 

Afghanistan? How are you going to do that without this plane? 
10 

General DAVIS. Sir, if I could, respectfully, I would ask to—as I 

went back to Congressman Marshall’s question, where we will provide the information that set the framework up to the point where 

we are now on a program that I just cannot talk in detail on on 

your questions with respect to what has come out in the press. As 

soon as it is releasable, sir, we will come back and talk in the detail that, quite frankly, you should expect us to provide you. 

What I can tell you is is that what we are doing in OIF with respect to that particular mission is doing it with a combination of 

rotary wing and contract fixed-wing to do the direct support, timesensitive, mission-critical, and other rotary wing, for that matter, 

our UH–60 Black Hawks, to do that mission. 

Mr. BARTLETT. If DOD was leaking this information, it would 

have been nice if they would have leaked a little of the rationale 

for it so we could be a little more comfortable with the direction 

they are planning to take us. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will look forward to our 

classified session, more discussion later. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. 

General Davis and General Crosby, I realize you are under difficult circumstances here, but let me tell you something. I am not 

telling you something, but let me make an observation that should 

be taken back to the Pentagon. 

That information that was in the newspaper compromises this 

hearing. It puts us in a very difficult situation, puts you in a difficult situation. People talk about the Congress. I don’t know of 

anybody in the Congress, not—in the upcoming 20 years that I will 

have been associated with this committee, I don’t know of a single 

member ever—ever, under any circumstances, leaked or put information out to the press of a classified nature or of anything else 

having to do with what should be closely held until the proper 

time. 

What we are talking about here and what puts this hearing in 

particular difficulty—and it is more than irritating to me because 

you have already, on couple of occasions already, just the beginning 

of the hearing, have found yourself in a situation where you can’t 

respond to Members over something that is already in the public 

domain. Now, that came from the Pentagon. 

It came from the Pentagon. I don’t know if it came from the Secretary’s office. But when the Pentagon starts playing games in public because you are having internal discussions or difficulties or 

tensions or confrontations over what should or should not be policy, 

particularly when it is to be reflected in the budget presentation 

yet to come. 

I mean, the Pentagon budget is being routinely discussed in detail in the press, and we are in a position where we can’t explore 

it. We can’t give answers to people, let alone to ourselves. 

Now, you are in this difficulty today, right, and it is not right. 

It is not right, and it should be stopped. Now, I realize the cynics 

out there, particularly in the press, will say, ‘‘So what? That is 

what goes on all the time. That is our job.’’ I am not blaming the 

press. They are pushing to get this information. 

But somebody over there, maybe even in the Secretary’s office, 

is providing the details. You can’t print something in the paper. I 
11 

mean, you could lie, I suppose, but nobody said that that is the 

case, or they made it up. 

I mean, this isn’t Fox News that is doing it. This is a respectable 

journalist operation rather than a vaudeville presentation. But it 

puts the committee, it puts Members in a very difficult—I won’t 

say awkward, but it puts them in a position of where we can’t exercise our responsibilities correctly. 

Now, if somebody in the Pentagon, even in the Secretary’s office, 

thinks it is useful for this internal discussion or decision-making 

process to play it out in the press, it is not. It is causing you difficulty, believe me, and it is going to cause the Secretary difficulty, 

because Members are not going to be made into extras in a Pentagon scene that is going to be played out. 

Now, again, don’t take this personally. You happen to be, unfortunately, the bearers of the responsibility—excuse me, having to 

take public responsibility for the irresponsibility of whoever or 

whatever office has involved itself in this kind of a thing. 

So I don’t know. We are going to continue to—please try to answer as closely as you can to the Members’ perfectly legitimate 

questions, or make your observations as close as you can, based on 

the information that is already out there. 

I don’t want to get into a situation where I start pressing you, 

or Members start pressing you, saying, ‘‘But this is already in the 

public discussion, because it appeared in the press.’’ It is very difficult for Members here to pursue their line of questioning if you 

have to pretend that you don’t know what they are talking about. 

I see heads nodding, but you understand the difficulty here. Mr. 

Bartlett’s questions are perfectly reasonable, and they are perfectly 

reasonable. He is not asking you about classified data that we need 

to pursue in the next briefing. 

In the light of that, can you give him a little bit better answer? 

General DAVIS. Sir, what is not releasable is that which is in the 

resource management decision 802, which outlines, again, the programs and the programmatics of those programs. And so that is 

not releasable. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. All right, I will stop with that. 

But that is the reason that should not be in the press. That is 

precisely the reason why this should not be part of some kind of 

internal game-playing in the Pentagon. 

It is a disservice to you, and it is a disservice to the fighting personnel in the field, because we are trying very hard here to be responsive to them, not to the machinations of some marginal gain 

against somebody else in an internal turf battle, or whatever it is, 

going on in the Pentagon. It undermines the capacity of the subcommittee and the committee to be responsive to you in your professional judgment as to what is necessary to support troops in the 

field. 

Mr. Bright, to be followed by Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. BRIGHT. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for this meeting. 

Thank you to the witnesses. Generals, thank you very much for 

being here today. 

And last week during a press conference, Secretary Gates stated that he had recommended to the President adding $500 million to 
12 

the fiscal year 2010 to ‘‘Increase the throughput of pilots and maintenance crews for our helicopters, to help train more instructors, to 

help with the infrastructure, and possibly get more airframes.’’ In 

addition, he noted that more up-to-date maintenance facilities and 

additional classroom space was required. 

Now, this appears to be a very ambitious multi-year mandate in 

terms of personnel, helicopters and military construction that eventually will have a significant impact on Army aviation and a base 

in my district, Ft. Rucker, Alabama. 

My question is, have any detailed requirements, based on Secretary Gates’ press conference, been provided to the Army aviation 

school? 

General DAVIS. Congressman Bright, again, as you know, the 

Secretary visited Ft. Rucker this past week and spent an entire 

afternoon with both the Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) commander and the Commandant, Major General Jim 

Barkley, to do a firsthand assessment of the capability that Ft. 

Rucker possess. 

So the Secretary’s thrust in this in terms of additional resources 

is a good news story. I mean, the Training and Doctrine Command, 

and specifically Ft. Rucker, was working to increase their capacity 

even before this with respect to training an additional student load, 

as well as other instructor pilots, other already rated pilots, as well 

as we had an initiative to put additional capability there with respect to aircraft. 

What is currently occurring is that Training and Doctrine Command and General Barkley, they are doing the assessment on how 

best to apply those resources that the Secretary alluded to in the 

budget to have the most benefit, whether that is infrastructure, 

which certainly he noted in his press conference that there is the 

potential for that, whether it is their operation and maintenance 

funding, whether it is additional aircraft to support this increased 

ability to produce more pilots. 

And so that is ongoing right now. We do not have the details of 

that, but it is certainly ongoing. And as he said, we have time to 

do that in a very thoughtful way. That will certainly help. 

But it is a long-term process, as you know. It won’t yield results 

overnight. But I will tell you that we are working very, very hard 

to ensure that we apply them in the right way and to do what they 

need to do, which is increase their output by an additional 300 aviators per year, is what they are doing. 

Mr. BRIGHT. So there is no set number at this point in time, or 

the types of helicopters that might be added to the aviation school? 

General DAVIS. What we know is that we have a shortfall now 

of AH–64, which we are working internally with in the Army to 

provide some additional capacity, as well as UH–60 Black Hawk in 

the training base. And so we are working also to put additional aircraft there to give them more capacity. 

General CROSBY. Sir, what I would like to add, as General Davis 

says, it is not an immediate thing. And I think what we need to 

give you all is the comfort level that all of the aspects of Army 

aviation are working together as we look at that. So as they consider procuring more aircraft, either moving them in or whatever, 
13 

they are working with me about the lead-times to procure those 

aircraft and working with the industrial base to produce them. 

So we are not just doing this in a vacuum. It is all of the facilities, all of that is being done and considered. 

Mr. BRIGHT. Okay. 

And I hope that, when the report comes in, that will include the 

infrastructure that we will need there. And you know this, but Ft. 

Rucker has been in existence quite a few years, and we do need 

additional infrastructure to handle the additional pilots and staff 

that is going to be coming through there. And hopefully, that report 

will reflect that. Is that correct? 

General DAVIS. It will, Congressman, in terms of the capability 

that he needs. And the infrastructure is part of that assessment 

right now. 

Mr. BRIGHT. The concern I have is that, you know with any military construction (MILCON) project, it takes approximately five 

years from start to finish to get that project completed. And I am 

concerned that, with the additional workload and requirement 

placed by Secretary Gates, that we will fall—hopefully consider 

that timeframe, and we can start things and upgrading the facilities right away, or soon, anyway. 

General CROSBY. Yes, sir. While the Secretary was down there, 

he made the comment specifically about the facilities. And I believe 

we have a phone call each week with the five players in aviation 

together to discuss this. And that is one of the things General Barkley specifically addressed was the facilities, the time, and the ability to get that moving as quickly as possible to support the entire 

effort. 

So yes, sir, that is being considered, and we are looking for ways 

to streamline that, if you will. 

Mr. BRIGHT. Good. And I will help you any way I possibly can. 

I was down last week and took a detailed tour of the facilities 

out there. So we need to very seriously consider that infrastructure 

upgrade in addition to the pilot upgrade. 

Thank you very much, and thank you for being here. 

General DAVIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BRIGHT. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am new to the committee as well, a freshman Congressman, 

and one of the things that confuses me is where you delineate the 

responsibilities between the Air Force and the United States Army 

when it comes to fixed-wing aircraft for logistical support. 

General DAVIS. Sir, I guess the Army has been in the fixed-wing 

business a long time, as you well know, Congressman. And where 

we delineate is with respect to how we characterize the mission of 

direct support, in direct support of a commander on the ground, 

and general support, which is a more broadly—I mean, to service 

many other areas. 

And frankly, within the timeframe of the delivery of that particular support and how it is prioritized and characterized, really, 

in terms of how it best supports our forces on the ground. So if the 

Army is conducting a direct support mission where we have the 
14 

most responsive fixed-wing capability, support for, again, a timesensitive, mission-critical type, whether it is ammunition, whether 

it is supplies, whether it is delivery of personnel to a point versus 

a more general support approach to providing that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. What kind of expeditionary airfield—what type of 

runway is needed for the Joint Cargo Aircraft? 

General DAVIS. It is designed to land in a more austere environment, a less improved environment, shorter field for take-off and 

landing, which again opens up the access to areas within our operations, or area of operations that we can actually execute those in 

what we currently have. 

Mr. COFFMAN. What is your relationship with the Air Force when 

it comes to procurement on the Joint Cargo Aircraft? 

General CROSBY. The program as established today, sir, is what 

we call a joint program office, where Air Force personnel sit right 

with my Army personnel in the office. The Army today has the lead 

on the program. They participate in there. 

There was a plan for a split buy. The training was planned to 

be a joint effort to train one location and train both sides. We have 

already graduated one class, loadmasters and pilots, and are about 

to start the second. And those are for Army crews, because the first 

fielding was for Army. 

But the Air Force is engaged on a day-to-day basis as part of that 

program. Their requirements are a little bit unique in the Air 

Force than the Army in the way that we track and do things. But 

overall, the one contract for the system is the way we are set up 

right now. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And the Air Force is—is the training joint between the Air Force and the Army, or are these just Army pilots? 

General CROSBY. Today, we are only training Army pilots because the first deployment was for Army personnel. The standardization and the verification of that training system is Army. But 

the training itself is designed to be a joint training where Air Force 

and Army personnel would both go through the same training program, yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Is the Air Force—what is their mission in comparison to your mission in terms of utilizing this aircraft? 

General CROSBY. Sir, I don’t know that theirs is any different, 

aside from what General Davis talked about with the time-sensitive, mission-critical cargo is our mission, theirs would be in the 

same light, I would think. 

General DAVIS. They will employ the aircraft in a general support role with the ability to conduct direct support of a ground commander and our forces on the ground, much as we will employ ours 

in a direct support, but we will have the ability within a system 

where there is visibility for all of the theater fixed-wing support assets to have the ability, if they are not committed to doing a direct 

support time-sensitive, mission-critical mission over a period of 

time, that they would have the ability to reach in and use those 

assets to conduct general support missions. 

So currently, again, they come after us in the fielding plan for 

JCA, but again, we have worked the concept of employment to utilize those assets either in a direct support or a general support 

role. 
15 

Mr. COFFMAN. How much is this enhanced from its predecessors 

in terms of logistical capability? 

General DAVIS. It is clearly a greatly enhanced capability over 

what the Army has with our aging fleet of C–23 Sherpas right now, 

which are a old, slow aircraft. It performs magnificently in theater 

right now, but it performs, again, in OIF. We do not have it deployed to OEF. So it is a leap ahead in capability for early replacement of the aging C–23 fleet. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. Massa, to be followed by Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

General Davis, thank you very much for your testimony. I apologize in advance in that I am a freshman Member of Congress from 

western New York State, and we don’t do a lot of Army aviation 

there. So if I could just ask some simple questions to get some 

baseline education, I would find that helpful. 

Is it true that the CH–47 is the Army is premiere, if not only, 

heavy-lift helicopter? 

General DAVIS. That is correct, Congressman. It is. 

Mr. MASSA. Would you characterize that the Army is now being 

given additional tasks and requirements to use air mobility assets 

in the high altitudes—in high-density altitudes of Afghanistan? 

General DAVIS. Congressman, again, you know we are deploying 

the additional brigade, which has additional CH–47Fs that are 

going as part of the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade. Also, there are 

contract air that is providing that mission right now. 

So I don’t know if I would characterize it as additional to what 

we were doing now. Certainly, it is a capability that is needed in 

theater, an additional capability that is needed in theater. 

Mr. MASSA. So if it is an additional capability, there are additional requirements, so the answers could be yes. 

General DAVIS. Again, some of those requirements, sir, are again 

being provided by CH–47, and certainly it could displace perhaps 

contract air that is being used. 

Mr. MASSA. My experience with people returning from that theater have told me, at the operational level, that the number one requirement shortfall in Afghanistan is consistent capability for highdensity altitude and high-altitude vertical air mobility. It is also 

my understanding that the CH–47 and all variants is really the 

only aircraft in the Army inventory, coupled with the CH–53 Echo 

in the Marine Corps, that can provide that, and that the ’60, frankly, doesn’t have the lift capabilities to meet the requirements that 

the ground commanders need. 

I note in your chart that there is a requirement for 413 CH–47 

aircraft inventory-wide, and we currently have 407 of all general 

of air—plus additional 54 for special operations. And by my backof-a-napkin, that gives me a 54-aircraft shortfall. 

Sir, can you please provide me an answer in writing for the 

record, if not today, if there is any way to accelerate the procurement of these aircraft in a hot production line so that finally, as 

we spend the billions of dollars that we spend in the Department 

of Defense, we can actually get something to the troops that they 
16 

need, when they need it, and perhaps before we leave? Is that possible? 

General CROSBY. Sir, I can certainly give you the details of the 

procurement plan to get us up to that acquisition objective. The 

Army has committed at this time to resource to that objective. 

The challenge we have, we have lost 27 aircraft in the theaters 

plus in the training and getting them to the theaters. And replacement of those or upgrade to an ‘‘F’’ program encompasses both new 

builds as well as remanufactures of the old airframes. 

And the capabilities within the production line require that we 

remove some aircraft from the fleet. So it is an acute balance, not 

of just resources available. 

Just throwing more money at it won’t increase the production 

line. We then incur operational impact of how many we take out 

of the field in order to do that. But we can certainly lay out for you 

the by-year plan of where we are going to get to there. 

Through the supplementals, we have been very fortunate that 

you all have been very supportive of us replacing the ones that we 

have lost, but there is a time lag to do that, as well. All of the sup 

flows down to the sub-vendors. It is not a fast process. I wish it 

was, but it is not a fast process. 

Mr. MASSA. Well, thank you, General. And I would just observe 

that, while it is not a fast process and it does, in fact, require planning and execution, if we start now, maybe two years from now we 

won’t have to ask questions again. 

And while I understand, with great respect and deference to the 

uniformed officers present today, that the Army is fully committed 

and resourced to this program, only three weeks ago we heard the 

exact same commitment to a program we found out yesterday was 

canceled. So it creates somewhat of a testimonial credibility gap 

when that is the answer that we receive. 

So I do look forward to an exceptionally detailed briefing on the 

CH–47 program, and that I happen to believe, and I am certain— 

I could be wrong, and I hope somebody will tell me one way or the 

other—that the CH–47 program, as far as it applies to operations 

in the global war against terrorism, it is probably the fulcrum piece 

of operational equipment in Army aviation command today, if not 

the number one at the very top. So I am going to commit resources, 

time and effort to learning and understanding this program in as 

much detail as it takes to help whoever has to make the decisions 

get it right. 

General CROSBY. Understand, sir, and I appreciate that support. 

I do agree with your assessment of the capability, the flexibility 

that that airframe brings. It is a great capability that we in the 

Army share. It is the one that can operate at those high altitudes 

because of its tandem rotor capability. It doesn’t suffer from the 

tail rotor loss effectiveness of those low-density altitudes, so it is 

a great capability. 

The Army is committed to it, and I think we can lay out for you 

and show you will be convinced just how committed we are to that 

program. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you. 

And my last question is, General, I noticed that you are air assault qualified. And it would be my understanding that there are 
17 

only two twin-rotor helicopters that can both do the rappelling mission and the parachuting mission required by Special Forces, one 

of them in Army, one in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is 

currently, I believe, not yet fully certified for the V–22 in that operation. 

So it adds another layer of operational requirement, commitment 

and importance to this helicopter in that it has been explained to 

me to date. And I look forward to receiving your detailed instruction, education and explanation. 

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

page 63.] 

General DAVIS. Congressman, if I could add one thing that also 

would provide some context as well, we are going to undertake— 

because you mentioned that as force structure, and frankly is what 

we have as our objective enough. 

And so we are going to take a hard look internally within aviation. We are going to conduct aviation study two, which the Chief 

of Staff of the Army has directed us to do, to take a look to see 

if we have our structure right with respect to the missions that we 

find ourselves in now, and of course as we look forward into the 

future on that. 

So I just wanted to provide some context as well in terms of looking at the structure and the numbers of CH–47Fs, along with our 

capability, as well. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson, to be followed by Representative Fallin and Representative Hunter. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Generals, thank you very much for being here. I have a great appreciation of what you do. 

I represent a community near McEntire Joint Air Base at Eastover, South Carolina. I have had wonderful visits there. I know the 

professionals that you have trained. 

In fact, just two weeks ago, I was in Iraq, and we were on an 

Apache helicopter traveling around the country. And as I was departing, for the first time I could look down and actually see the 

floorboard. And on the floor was a Palmetto tree and crescent, and 

so those are my people. 

And so it was just a wonderful experience, so I know how proud 

they are of their service. And on visiting with troops from South 

Carolina, it just warms my heart to see their enthusiasm, their 

competence and capability, and that it is also very personal. 

My third son—I can’t wait until July for a change of command. 

He will be the commander of the 351st Aviation Support Battalion 

at Sumter, South Carolina. And then my fourth son, Army ROTC 

at Clemson, last year graduated from Air Assault School at Ft. 

Knox, Kentucky. My wife is not pleased about his ability to jump 

out of a helicopter, but I am, and of course he is. So thank you for 

what you do. 

And General Davis, in your written testimony, you state that the 

Army will proceed with the modernization of all AH–64A Apache 

battalions in the National Guard by remanufacturing two of the 
18 

battalions and cascading the remaining two. Which battalions will 

be remanufactured or cascaded? 

General DAVIS. Congressman, again, if I could—first, I want to 

thank you for your service and that of your sons. We appreciate 

that. There are many, many, and I am sure there are other Members that may have children in uniform, as well, so we thank you 

very much for that. 

I know how proud you are of them. I have a son at Ft. Rucker 

right now getting ready to go to flight school, or he is in flight 

school. But again, I appreciate that. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, military service is opportunity, and so I am 

just grateful for the opportunities you are providing the young people of our country. 

General DAVIS. Again, sir, I am so excited about thanking you 

that your question, again, so I make sure I answer it. 

Mr. WILSON. It is about the modernization of the A to D. 

General DAVIS. Yes, sir. 

If I could provide some context, sir, when we were in the process 

of deciding on Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, and also as we 

looked at the total force structure in our Army, both active and 

Guard in reserve, there was a thrust to balance the capability within the Army National Guard. And so we were going to balance with 

replacements for AH–64s in four units to give a balanced AH–64 

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter capability within the Guard. 

Of course, with the termination of ARH, we have to regroup. All 

along, though, we were going to modernize two of those battalions. 

The other two battalions within the National Guard that are currently ‘‘A’’ model battalions, we would have to determine whether 

that was the best course of action, given the outcome of the ARH. 

Right now, what is approved by the Secretary of the Army is a 

strategy to modernize all four to AH–64D. And of course, the first 

in line that is working right now is the battalion out of Pennsylvania National Guard. But our intent is, and we have a plan to, 

modernize all four of those battalions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Additionally, as a Member of Congress, as a veteran myself, but 

particularly as a parent, to me, UAVs, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 

are so reassuring. I had two sons. My oldest son was field artillery 

serving in Iraq. Another son, a doctor in the Navy. I just always 

hoped there was one overhead. 

And I was really encouraged to see that the number of UAVs 

have increased from six to 1,000 in theater in the global war on 

terrorism. What is the role of the National Guard with UAVs? 

General DAVIS. In the area of National Guard, we will field the 

Shadow system to the National Guard. Again, what our priority of 

fielding is is to, certainly with our smaller ones to our brigade combat teams and the battalions below for Raven, for the handheld, for 

the Shadow to our brigade combat teams, and of course the larger 

extended-range multipurpose to that. 

But we do have to take a hard look, again, at what we are going 

to field to the National Guard as well as what is our capability 

and, frankly, our ability, resource-wise, to field the other systems 

as well, specifically the Extended-Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) 

UAV. 
19 

Mr. WILSON. Well, again, thank you. I know, as a parent, it is 

so meaningful. And also, I want our enemy to know of our capabilities. So, thank you very much. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Representative Fallin. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I would like to visit with you about the Aerial Common Sensor 

(ACS). And if you could give us a current status of the Army’s plan 

to re-launch the ACS development program, and where are we at 

right now? 

General CROSBY. The Aerial Common Sensor, as you know, is 

managed by a different Program Executive Officer (PEO). However, 

because it is an aerial platform, my office will participate in that 

selection. 

There is a validated requirement. There is an existing program 

to do so. 

My involvement of my folks will be to actually sit and be part 

of the selection board to select a platform that the sensors will be 

mounted on. And of course, it is to replace some existing—several 

different platforms that we have today, and to bring and fuse those 

sensor capabilities together. 

The details of the program, the schedule and all that, I can take 

that as a question for the record and get you the details of that, 

if that is what you need, ma’am. 

Ms. FALLIN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And one other thing. On the aircraft survivability equipment, I 

know you have had some delays in the development of a successful 

countermeasure system. Now, what is the capacity of the current 

aircraft survivability equipment to adequately address the current 

and anticipated threats to the Army aircraft? What kind of 

progress are we making on that? 

General CROSBY. We have made significant progress. And as you 

know, when you are dealing with threats, we have quite often oversimplified the threats that are out there. Those threats are our 

enemy is very creative and innovative and able to adapt. So it is 

a constant upgrade process to manage these systems. 

Our current system is called a Common Missile Warning System 

(CMWS), and we are still fielding the fifth sensor to significantly 

improve some vulnerabilities we identified. To go any further than 

that, ma’am, I would request we do that in the classified session 

after, if that is okay. 

Ms. FALLIN. All right. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for your service to our Nation. We appreciate you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We are going to go in order of appearance, so 

we will go to Mr. Hunter, and then to Ms. Giffords. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. Could you give me a non-classified, nottoo-down-deep-in-the-weeds status of Task Force Observe, Detect, 

Identify, and Neutralize (ODIN) in Afghanistan? 

General DAVIS. Congressman Hunter, again, thank you. 

Yes. From a large scale, again—and I think you had been briefed 

previously that the timeline that we are on for the deployment of 

the resources that will comprise Task Force ODIN in Afghanistan 
20 

is on track right now. Of course, what they have done is consolidated assets that were already in Afghanistan, certain capabilities, 

to form the nucleus of it. 

An initial operational capability had been declared for that capability in the late winter-early springtime, and so we are on track 

to continue to push that capability over for a full operational capability some time in the late summer. 

Mr. HUNTER. Are you doing anything in the meantime—you have 

all seen the same graphs that I have of IEDs going up, casualties 

going up, deaths going up in Afghanistan while they are going 

down in Iraq due to IEDs right now. 

So we are losing soldiers and Marines literally probably today, 

we will lose a few because the Army and the Marine Corps are not 

over-watching the roads well enough. And the Marine Corps might 

not have the assets to do that, but the Army does. Are you doing 

any stopgap right now before ODIN is in place totally to stop our 

soldiers from dying? 

General DAVIS. Congressman, I would have to take that for 

record to find out exactly what is being employed in theater with 

respect to the different regional commands, and specifically to the 

unmanned aircraft systems or other fixed-wing risk to ISR systems. 

I would tell you, again, that as we flow forces in, again, I mentioned the Combat Aviation Brigade that flows in that brings its 

own capability with it. Certainly for the rotary wing capability, but 

as the BCTs come in, as well, they bring the Shadow and the 

Raven systems to give them the risk to ISR, the sensor capability. 

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

page 63.] 

Mr. HUNTER. Are you using Constant Hawk right now in Afghanistan? 

General DAVIS. It deploys later in this year. 

Mr. HUNTER. Got you. So Constant Hawk, with the same sensors 

that it has on it in Iraq right now, it is going to be put to use in 

Afghanistan later on this year? 

General DAVIS. Yes, it is. 

Mr. HUNTER. Are you familiar with the Angel Fire aircraft? The 

Angel Fire aircraft is a C–12 with the same sensor array that Constant Hawk has? 

General DAVIS. We are, Congressman, familiar with Angel Fire. 

Mr. HUNTER. Did you know that we had four aircraft sent home 

from Iraq as opposed to re-deploying to Afghanistan, and that was 

due to Central Command (CENTCOM) and the Army saying that 

those were not needed in Afghanistan right now, as we have a severe lack of ISR in Afghanistan? We are actually sending aircraft 

home from Iraq back here and letting it sit on the tarmac here 

while we have guys dying in Afghanistan. Were you aware of that? 

General DAVIS. Congressman, I was aware that the decision had 

been made—and again, by the theater commander in terms of redeploying a capability. I know that, at least on the Army staff, our 

senior intelligence officer, our G–2 of the Army, assessed that capability in terms of its—whether you could maximize that in the area 

of operations in—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Once more, it has the same sensor array as Constant Hawk. So if you want Constant Hawk, I don’t understand 
21 

why the Army aviation wouldn’t want a UAV or a C–12 with the 

exact same sensor array as the UAV that you are asking to come 

into theater later this year, and you could have it right now, literally right now, over-watching the roads with that same sensor 

array. 

And it just seems silly to me that you would re-deploy something 

from Iraq back here where it is going to be mission impossible now 

to get it back overseas to Afghanistan outside of being in some 

nice, big Army program that spends billions of dollars to re-sensor 

it and get it back over to Afghanistan. 

So instead of doing the smart, efficient thing, for Army aviation 

to say, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute, we have four aircraft that we can use 

right now in Iraq, we are simply going to fly them over to Afghanistan and use them right now as a stopgap measure until ODIN is 

in place,’’ the Army lost them now. 

And I think the Air Force has them now or something, and the 

Air Force is actually going to put them to good use probably sooner 

than the Army could, but the Army and CENTCOM had the ability 

to do this. And it is unfortunate that the Army missed that opportunity to protect the soldiers and Marines over in Afghanistan 

right now. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. General Davis, I am a little confused by the 

answer. Maybe not confused. I am not sure there was an answer. 

What is the current status of the Angel Fire aircraft? 

General DAVIS. Chairman, I can answer the question of what is 

the current status. It is a Marine Corps aircraft. I don’t know 

where it is with respect to—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Not anymore. If the Chairman would yield, it is not 

a Marine aircraft program anymore. The Marines gave it up because they, for some silly reason, said that they didn’t want it either. So the status of it is it is on a tarmac here, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand that. The Air Force and the Marines developed this. You said earlier that there was compatibility 

between the services with regard to the utilization of aircraft or 

whatever it may—helicopters, whatever, in terms of service for an 

immediate mission, and you separated what was Air Force and 

what was Army on the basis of general application as opposed to 

specific mission. 

And where the Angel Fire is concerned, it is superior—at least 

this is my understanding, and Mr. Hunter has a comment on this. 

If I don’t have it down correctly, feel free to let me know—is superior in its capacity to deal with what we are speaking of here. 

The question to you is why was it returned—why are these aircraft here in Virginia? Why? When I said status, maybe I misspoke. I am not asking you to account for its present status. I want 

to know the rationale. What is the reasoning? I don’t believe you 

answered Mr. Hunter. I am not trying to take your time, Mr. Hunter, but understand I don’t believe—pardon me? 

Mr. HUNTER. I am out of time—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Oh, okay. I am going to exercise my prerogative, then, a little bit. 
22 

I don’t understand that. Secretary Gates says that we need this 

capability. We have spent hundreds-of-millions of dollars, by my accounting, to try to develop this capability. We have sent questions 

to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, the Joint Staff, CENTCOM, 

the Air Force, and we can’t get an adequate answer. 

And so I was hoping at this hearing that we could get something 

from you with regard to this issue. 

General DAVIS. Chairman, with all respect, if I could take for 

record the concerns of Congressman Hunter and yourself and come 

back to lay out the rationale and analysis that was done by the 

theater commander, as well as the service, with respect to this capability, as well as our own assessment that was done by the Army 

staff on why not to either retain it in OIF and-or move it between 

OIF and OEF, which is a CENTCOM decision, as you well know, 

but I would respectfully request to come back to you with that level 

of detail that you are asking for here in terms of the assessment 

that was done, because I do not know the exactness—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Weren’t you briefed on this? Weren’t you 

briefed on this, that this issue would, in all likelihood, come up? 

General DAVIS. Sir, I was briefed that Angel Fire would come up. 

Some of this will go into the classified that we can talk about there, 

but I did not have a detailed—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Are you prepared in that—we are not to the 

session yet. My suggestion to you is is that, if you are not prepared, 

that somebody get in touch with somebody who is prepared to come 

to the classified—if you think that is where it has to be discussed, 

that is fine with me. I will take your word on it. I don’t know if 

Mr. Hunter will be able to make that session or not, but other 

Members are interested, as well. 

Mr. Marshall has a follow-up on what I am speaking of, and then 

we will move to Ms. Giffords. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, we had a pretty good classified 

hearing with the Task Force that has been assembled across the 

services by the Secretary to move these kinds of assets forward as 

rapidly as possible. And I would suggest that perhaps the Chairman, through staff, might make an immediate inquiry to that Task 

Force about this particular situation. Seems to me that Task Force 

is exactly the right group to respond to us with an explanation for 

why that asset isn’t forward. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, we have put that forward, and they declined to respond. Now, are you—at this stage. 

General DAVIS. I am not prepared, sir, to talk the level of detail 

that you are asking here in terms of the assessment. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. Can you get someone that is prepared 

by the time we get to the classified section today? 

General DAVIS. I will attempt to do so, sir, but I can’t make a 

guarantee right now. I apologize. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. But my mother used to say, ‘‘A word 

to the wise should be sufficient.’’ If you can’t settle it today, it is 

going to have to be settled very, very quickly. This can’t be put off 

any longer. We are not looking for villains. We are trying to support people in the field. Okay? 

General DAVIS. Understand, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 
23 

Is that all right, Mr. Hunter? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Representative Giffords. Thank you for your 

patience. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Bartlett. 

And thank you, General Crosby and General Davis, for your 

service. 

I have a couple questions specifically about the Unmanned Aerial 

System (UAS). Specifically, can you please elaborate on how the 

Army Sky Warrior UAS system is going to be used in terms of its 

mission, relationship to the Predator program that the Air Force 

runs? 

General DAVIS. The Sky Warrior, we are going to field our first 

quick-reaction capability of four systems this summer in OIF, and 

they will be used in direct support of the assignment of the division 

that they will go to, or to the corps that they will go to. So they 

will be used in direct support of our forces on the ground there. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. General Davis, again, the differences between coordination with the Air Force program, I mean, is there a strategy, 

the coordination, or are you working specifically from the Army’s 

perspective and not looking at the—obviously, this is new type of 

technology and the possibilities that it could be used collaboratively. 

General DAVIS. Again, the capability is somewhat similar. The 

ERMP will deliver more capability than the current Air Force 

Predator does. However, again, the Predator is used in a theaterwide role prioritized by the theater commander. 

In the case of ERMP, or the Sky Warrior, in this case, again, it 

is an asset that we will field directly to our divisional elements. 

They will be resident in our Combat Aviation Brigades, and again, 

the division commander will determine—the ground force commander will determine the prioritization of how that asset is used. 

And so it won’t be apportioned or allocated based on theater-wide 

requirements for that capability. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. In terms of what is happening down at Ft. 

Huachuca, one of the challenges we have is with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the restrictions that they are putting on over-flights. And I am curious about the challenges to unit 

training and readiness, but particularly in relationship to the 

Guard units. So if you could please address that, if you are working 

with the FAA, or what the plan is there? 

General CROSBY. Boy, that is a mouthful. 

Ma’am, the thing that we are struggling with with the UAS is 

operations in the FAA airspace. And you talk about the challenges 

we have there, we are learning with the FAA as we go forward. 

What we originally started out with some of these programs and 

the capabilities within them as far as control, utilization of sensors 

and the hazards associated with them, we are now learning that 

the FAA is not comfortable with that. So we are having to build 

in some redundancies in there, just as you would with a manned 

aircraft, in order to be able to operate in that airspace. 

Today, to do training at Ft. Huachuca, which I know you are 

very familiar with, we have to really block off a lot of airspace in 
24 

order for us to be able to train in those areas. That will be a very 

difficult situation outside of places like Ft. Huachuca that have significant airspace allocated to do that. 

We are working very hard with the FAA every day trying to address that. The challenge that we are going to have to have with 

our Guard and Reserve is they are not normally located at places 

that are going to have those kind of ranges. So our approach today 

is to try and build in those redundancies and get to the point 

where—I mean, we are spending a lot of effort and see and avoid 

technologies. 

Well, that is easy with a manned person in the cockpit, not so 

easy with the UAS. Those are the kind of paths that we are pursuing. It is unknown territory with FAA, and we are learning as 

we go. That is not a great answer, but we are pursuing it as diligently as we can. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. One final question. In terms of the training for 

the cargo delivery mission for the UASs, is that something that you 

see taking place in areas like Ft. Huachuca, or you would have specific locations where you are looking at for that training piece? 

General CROSBY. Army aviation took over to be the proponent for 

the UAS systems. But because our focus today in the Army has 

been on RSTA, or Reconnaissance Surveillant Targeting Acquisition, Ft. Huachuca being our intelligence center has been—there 

has been an inseparable marriage or link there, if you will, between the two communities. 

Today, as it stands, I have no requirement been—to me to do a 

cargo version of a UAS. Is that coming? I can’t predict a crystal 

ball. But I would think, as we continue to expand on these capabilities, that would certainly—the potential is there for the future. 

Today, as we have it, with the UAS systems we have and the 

Army, we are focused on reconnaissance and surveillance targeting 

acquisition. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. That is true. But looking at future roles for UAS 

is certainly the cargo delivery is a potential. So are you saying that 

there are no dedicated locations at this point, or there is no decision to do training in specific areas? 

General CROSBY. Simply, I don’t have any resources today because, if there is no requirement, they don’t give me the resources 

to pursue that. There is probably some effort ongoing in the science 

and technology arena with the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) to look into those things. But as far as any plans 

for the training, until they get a program of record to pursue, we 

have not gone down that path, frankly. 

General DAVIS. But I think, if I understand, ma’am, kind of the 

thrust of your question, because we are doing joint training at Ft. 

Huachuca on our other systems as the Marine Corps, and we saw 

their initiative to take a look and try to determine whether there 

is a contractor out there that can provide the capability that they 

need for cargo, then where would you train it. 

Certainly, we do have to assess the ability to do that at some locations. That could be Ft. Huachuca, because, again, we do do the 

joint training there, or another location. Don’t know. So we would 

have to do that and work in concert with the Marine Corps in that 

case. 
25 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We will go to a second round. But if we can 

stay brief, or if the Members can defer questions, I want to get to 

the classified section of the briefing as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. I have one brief, quick question. 

As I noted in my opening statement, we were pleased that the 

Secretary has advocated additional funding for pilots. But as I 

looked at the readiness chart, I saw a whole lot more red in the 

equipment column than I did the personnel column. 

Did I read those charts wrong? And what concerns you more, 

availability of equipment on hand, or personnel? 

General DAVIS. Congressman, you did not read the charts wrong. 

I mean, it does reflect that equipment readiness is primarily a driver for the overall readiness of many of our aviation brigades. And 

we can talk in more detail, sir, of course, in the closed. 

But they don’t necessarily reflect—a unit might have equipment 

shortfalls, but they might not be aircraft. They may be other systems. They could be trucks. They could be other ground support 

equipment. So while you didn’t read them wrong, they aren’t necessarily reflective of an aircraft shortfall. 

Of course, the units that we deploy to combat go at their full 

complement of equipment, to include aircraft. And so that is, of 

course, where the priorities. We had mentioned, Congressman, 

again, that we have many, many losses of aircraft, over a brigade’s 

worth of losses which, gratefully, you have provided the funding to 

get those replacements. That takes time. 

So in some of the units that do have readiness reflected in their 

equipment, there are shortfalls of aircraft. And we work hard, of 

course, to prioritize moving aircraft to those units to give them 

their full complement that are either in combat or in the trained 

and ready phase of their preparation to go to combat. 

So we can talk into somewhat more specifics, of course, in the 

classified, but they don’t always necessarily tell the story of the 

shortfalls just by the rating that they are given, the red. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Look forward to that, Mr. Chairman, because I was somewhat 

confused, if more red appears in the equipment column, why we 

are putting more money in the personnel column. Look forward to 

the classified briefing. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can you be prepared, then, particularly as we 

move toward the defense bill, to let us know what the equipment 

differentiations are so that we don’t have any confusion—— 

General DAVIS. We can, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE [continuing]. With regards to aircraft versus 

some of the other what you mentioned? 

General DAVIS. We can, Mr. Chairman, yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If you look at the charts—by the way, we do 

read the charts, you know, so if anybody is over there saying, ‘‘Why 

are we doing this,’’ we pay attention to what you put there. 

Maybe you need to have some addendum or an appendix that 

shows what some of that means. I understand why you put the 

chart together and the way it has been put together, because you 

have to have a picture for us. But then, maybe we need some of 
26 

the details as to what makes up that picture so that we can handle 

questions like that. 

Mr. Marshall, do you want to ask something at this stage? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t want to delay getting to the closed session 

any longer. I would just simply like to say that appreciate very 

much the service that you and all of those that you command provide us. Air dominance, air mobility, air surveillance, just critically 

important to our success for the safety and effectiveness of our missions. So what you are doing is terribly important to all of us, and 

we on our part will do what we can to assure continued air dominance, air mobility, and air surveillance capacities that are needed 

for our ground forces. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. 

And with that very fine commentary that I believe reflects all 

our thoughts, I will bring this—unless you have final—Mr. Wilson? 

To think I was inches from a clean getaway. 

Mr. WILSON. No, no. Hey, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Again, I appreciate so much the capabilities of UAVs. I have had 

the opportunity to see the capabilities of UAVs, to monitor the 

Basra rail yard. To be able to note the movements of rail traffic, 

truck traffic, whatever, how helpful that was to protect American 

lives. 

I have seen the recounting of a mortar attack on a base, and 

then, subsequently, the perpetrators putting the mortar in the back 

of the vehicle, and then a Hellfire missile dispatching them, and 

how wonderful that was and the capabilities, again, protecting our 

American service members. Additionally, I have seen the coverage 

of roadways, where you can detect where an IED has been placed, 

protecting our soldiers. 

With all of that, something that has concerned me is the coordination between the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force with the 

different competing systems. How do you coordinate and get realtime immediate information to our troops on the ground who are 

in harm’s way? 

General CROSBY. The one program that falls under my project 

manager for Unmanned Aerial Systems, we have the one system 

remote video terminal and the one-system ground control station, 

which will become the universal. 

But they have a common data link that they share that puts that 

data right in the hands of the soldier. We had planned to only build 

about 700 of them. We now have put in about 3,500 because it has 

been so capable, that young infantry platoon leader, infantry company commander, having that data. 

And what has been so impressive, sir, is the innovation of our 

soldiers to work this. We are now doing what we call manned-unmanned teaming, where we are streaming the video right into the 

cockpit of our Apaches and that capability, and then sharing that 

real-time video down through those assets. 

Are we as good as we can be between our brothers in the Marine 

Corps and Air Force? No, sir, but we are working toward it, is the 

answer I can give you. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, as a veteran and a parent, I want to thank 

you for what you have done. But the coordination just, to me, is 

so crucial and what you are doing is so meaningful. And it is inno-
27 

vativeness of our military personnel who are doing such a great job 

protecting American families. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Anything else? 

Thank you very much. We will repair to room 2337. 

[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 23, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 23, 2009 

(33) 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 23, 2009 

(63) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER 

General DAVIS. Congressman, the answer to your question would be best provided 

by the Commander, Special Operations Command, but I can offer that Special Operations is currently reviewing their aviation force structure. It is expected they will 

want to grow that force to some extent which has not yet been determined. But we 

fight as a Joint Force, and the Army is currently providing aviation support to combat operations by Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and will continue to do so in future operations based on prioritization and taskings by the Joint 

Force Commander. [See page 8.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MARSHALL 

General DAVIS. I have provided your staff the documents that support the capability and ask that you accept these documents as an addition to my written statement. [See page 6.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER 

General DAVIS. The Army is pursuing an integrated strategy to increase counterIED capabilities for our deployed forces as quickly as possible. Task Force ODIN is 

only one piece of this strategy, and we are exploring avenues to accelerate the deployment of this capability into Afghanistan. Prior to TF ODIN’s full deployment 

later this summer, we will also deploy a Combat Aviation Brigade which will greatly 

enhance the Commander’s counter-IED capabilities. This is not a stop-gap measure, 

per se, but a component of our integrated strategy which will significantly increase 

our ability to counter the IED threat. [See page 20.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MASSA 

General DAVIS. Due to the long lead requirements and requisite build times of approximately 36 months for new build aircraft, additional funding would achieve no 

acceleration in filling existing shortages within the Chinook fleet, although it would 

still accelerate the program of record. Currently short 54 aircraft, the Army cannot 

afford the operational impact to accelerate its remanufacture program as this takes 

an operational CH-47D out of the fleet to fill a remanufacturing requirement. Congress has been very supportive of the CH-47 program and as a result the Army will 

fill all of its MTOE shortages by the end of FY13 with a mixture of CH-47D and 

CH-47F aircraft. The active component will be pure fleet CH-47F by the end of FY 

12; the ARNG will have all shortages filled by the end of FY 13 and pure fleet CH47F by the end of FY18; the USAR will be pure fleet CH-47F by the end of FY15. 

[See page 17.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 23, 2009 

(67) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS 

Ms. GIFFORDS. I recently learned that the United States Army intends to move 

the final acceptance of the Unmanned Aerial Systems from Fort Huachuca to 

Dugway Proving Grounds. I understand that the PM for Unmanned Aircraft Systems had been evaluating several installations for this move, including Fort 

Huachuca, Yuma and Dugway, to determine which location is best suited for the 

Rapid Integration and Acceptance Center. I understand that consolidating this mission at one location is a cost and resource saving measure. I am concerned about 

what the methodology was for making the decision to move the mission to Dugway 

and that insufficient research was done prior to making the decision. 

What are the advantages of operating this mission out of Dugway versus Fort 

Huachuca? 

General CROSBY. PM UAS started surveys in March 2008. The locations that were 

surveyed over the next 12 months included Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), AZ, 

Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), UT, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), and Fort 

Huachuca, AZ. The selection criteria included: 

1. maximum amount of restricted airspace available to fly unmanned aircraft 

without requiring a Certificate of Authorization (COA). A COA requires a chase 

plane for UAS operations, which causes additional costs to the program. 

2. a very clean frequency spectrum, not only for current needs, but for future data 

and video links and payloads 

3. ability to launch and deploy external stores and weapons 

4. ability to support large scale joint interoperability testing with multiple aircraft 

and control stations 

5. available facilities or ability to expand with new facilities to support current 

and future growth 

6. high priority with maximum flexibility to fly unimpeded when needed 

7. the ability to consolidate all the activities at one location 

YPG, DPG, WSMR and Huachuca were visited one or more times with the above 

criteria as baseline factors. During the analysis of the three most likely locations 

(Ft. Huachuca, YPG, and DPG), DPG was the clear lead in every criteria. WSMR 

was not considered a suitable location due to the current and projected workload 

and the lack of suitable facilities to support the RIAC mission. DPG was primarily 

selected given its large (1300 sq mi) restricted air space with ability to expand to 

almost 8000 sq mi using the adjacent airspace with the Utah Test and Training 

Range (UTTR). Additionally, DPG has an almost ‘‘clean’’ frequency spectrum along 

with multiple runways of 11kft, 8kft, and 2.5kft long with the ability to expand the 

existing facilities with its expansive land area. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Fort Huachuca controls its own restricted airspace which is a great 

advantage when flying UASs, describe how Dugway’s airspace is more advantageous 

than Fort Huachuca’s? 

General CROSBY. DPG’s airspace is also restricted and controlled by the Army. 

DPG’s controlled airspace is as large as that at Fort Huachuca, but substantially 

less congested, not having to deal with the UAS Training Center, as well as manned 

and unmanned traffic (border patrol missions and other training activities) at Libby 

Army Airfield. Additionally, with prior coordination, additional restricted airspace 

controlled by the Air Force could be made available if needed for weapons firing and 

long-range datalink testing. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. What is the comparison of infrastructure upgrades required at 

Dugway versus Fort Huachuca to conduct this expanded mission? 

General CROSBY. There were no facilities available at Fort Huachuca for consolidation of Army UAS activities at that location. Fort Huachuca, Rapid Integration 

and Acceptance Center (RIAC) activities would be in three different locations unless 

an entirely new complex is built, including runways, office and hangar space, etc. 

DPG offers an airfield that allows for at least three simultaneous UAS flight activities to occur, one off a 13,000 foot long runway that has minimal air traffic, one 

taxi way over 8,000 feet long, and another taxiway of over 2,000 feet. DPG also has 

a 20,000 square foot hangar, almost half of which is being made available until suitable maintenance buildings can be built. DPG also offers an expansive area for any 
68 

new facilities needed, all adjacent to the existing ramp and accessible to the runways. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. What is the difference in cost of conducting the mission from 

Dugway versus Fort Huachuca? 

General CROSBY. Every location surveyed required additional infrastructure and 

associated costs with Fort Huachuca requiring the most. Additional infrastructure 

needed at Fort Huachuca would include: runway, hangars, and office buildings. 

A quantitative cost analysis was initiated during the range survey focusing on 

contract cost savings for consolidating assets at one location; however, due to the 

lack of specific cost proposals for building hangars and other maintenance buildings, 

office complex, and runways, only a qualitative analysis was completed for development of buildings and flight line infrastructure costs. 

DPG had an existing runway infrastructure requiring minimal upgrades. Additionally, DPG had a portion of an existing 20,000 square feet hangar available for 

temporary use until new maintenance buildings could be built. DPG, also had available land space near existing utility infrastructure for office complex, etc., holding 

down additional cost burden. 

Fort Huachuca’s lacked any existing locations for consolidating all the RIAC activities in one location per Fort Huachuca garrison staff. As such, a totally new complex would have to be constructed in an undeveloped area, including new runways, 

maintenance buildings, and office complex, along with the infrastructure costs associated with bringing utilities into a new location. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. When were site surveys conducted at Fort Huachuca? 

General CROSBY. PM UAS has had presence at Fort Huachuca full-time since October 2000 so was very familiar with the capabilities and limitations Fort Huachuca 

had available. Starting in the summer of 2008, PM UAS held several meetings with 

the Deputy Commanding General for Fort Huachuca to discuss the RIAC plans and 

potential for Fort Huachuca support. Follow-on discussions were held in early 2009 

with the Garrison staff for Fort Huachuca. A final meeting was planned on 27 April 

09. The final survey trip was cancelled due to receiving the decision by the Vice 

Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) that DPG was selected for the RIAC. The last 

surveys were for final confirmation of what had already been gathered during previous surveys. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. What are the plans for relocating the skilled workers with experience on the Shadow UAS system from Fort Huachuca to Dugway? How many of 

these employees are expected to actually relocate to Dugway? 

General CROSBY. For Shadow (AAI), a ‘‘phased relocation’’ plan and schedule is 

in place that has the first fully operational team on site at DPG around the mid 

October 2009 timeframe. The remaining team transition will take place from November to be completed by the end of February 2010 or sooner if possible as business support and obligations allow. Concurrent operations is planned at both Fort 

Huachuca and DPG during the transition and phasing ‘‘in/out’’ operations. According to current employee response to relocation queries, approximately 70-75% of the 

current work force of 85 is on track to move. Replacement staff to backfill attrition 

is in present resource planning. Note: these values represent an ‘‘approximation’’ 

and more detail will be available as the July 31 timeframe closes in. 

For Hunter (Northrop Grumman Corp), the current plan (in coordination with 

PM-UAS) is to start flying at DPG around mid-November 2009. Initial estimates indicate only about 15 NGC staff will be impacted by the move. These are mechanics, 

technicians, and operations personnel needed to perform flight operations. At this 

time, no engineers will be moving to DPG. They will provide support on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis. In the future, if engineering task and payload development increases on 

Hunter an additional three to five people could move to DPG. Most of these people 

(15) will be on Temporary Duty (TDY) to DPG with the team relocating there over 

the next year. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KISSELL 

Mr. KISSELL. What do you believe is the future of the ARH Program in light of 

the Administrations Defense Priorities? 

General CROSBY. The ARH Program was cancelled by the Defense Acquisition Executive on 16 October 2008. However, the Army remains committed to the critical 

requirement for a light, armed, aerial scout capability to replace the aging Kiowa 

Warrior. Any future program will be informed by a comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives that will consider manned, unmanned, or manned-unmanned teaming possibilities to fulfill this critical requirement. This comprehensive analysis of all armed 

aerial scout alternatives is fully aligned with the administration’s intent to proceed 
69 

with balanced modernization of conventional systems. Also, the acquisition of this 

system will fully comply with the administration’s procurement and contracting reforms. 

Mr. KISSELL. How does the announcement of the Kiowa interim upgrade program 

affect the timing of the ARH program? 

General CROSBY. The criticality of the ARH capability requirements and the 

timeline to fulfill those requirements is not affected by the Kiowa Warrior upgrade. 

The Kiowa Warrior Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade Program is an interim solution to 

address obsolescence and sustainment until a viable replacement is procured to 

meet the capabilities identified in the Analysis of Alternatives study plan. The Army 

is proceeding quickly and with diligence toward executing the Analysis of Alternatives which will be complete in early FY11. The results of the analysis and the 

decisions made during the acquisition process will ultimately decide the timeline of 

a follow-on program to fulfill the requirement. A future program that addresses the 

armed aerial scout capability requirements is influenced by the time required to perform the Analysis of Alternatives, complete the requirements development, and determine prospective materiel solutions. 

Mr. KISSELL. What do you see as the timing for the release of an RFP for the 

ARH Program? 

General CROSBY. Pending a determination of a materiel solution from the Armed 

Aerial Scout Analysis of Alternatives and an approved Capability Development Document, a Request for Proposal for follow-on program is not expected until FY11. 

Mr. KISSELL. We hear from soldiers in theater that the Integrated Vehicle Health 

Management System (IVHMS) is providing significant maintenance benefits on the 

UH-60 fleet. Could you highlight some of those benefits and cost savings? 

General CROSBY. We have been able to retain 21 engines in service, that would 

have otherwise been removed and replaced due to suspected overtemp, during the 

deployment of 122 aircraft in theater for a year ($482K/engine* 21 engines = 

$10.122M). 

By utilizing HUMS information we have identified the degradation/failure of the 

generator spline adapter. This degradation/failure has been correlated to subsequent 

generator failure if the adapter is not replaced. This allows us to preemptively replace the spline adapter and continue the generator in service at a rate of one per 

month for 122 IVHMS equipped UH-60 A/Ls (average $19K/generator each month 

= $228K/yr). 

The IVHMS demonstration has proven a readiness increase during Operational 

Tempo of 5%, due to the ability to realign unscheduled maintenance into scheduled 

maintenance interval (readiness increase = 2.5 aircraft available for deployed operations). The IVHMS demonstration has proven to reduce the maintenance burden 

by 4750 maintenance man hours per year per brigade by removing the 120 hour vibration check. During the IVHMS demonstration, the Army has realized multiple 

safety benefits from having IVHMS installed. Mechanical Diagnostics Data provided 

from IVHMS is used to assess the health of the aircraft after every flight. Multiple 

components have been identified as being faulty between maintenance intervals, 

thus avoiding unscheduled maintenance, second order damage, and possibly catastrophic failure. 

Emerging UH-60 Reliability Metrics 

Mission 

Aborts/100 

FH 

Total 

MMH/ 

FH 

Scheduled 

MMH/FH 

Unscheduled 

MMH/FH 

Unscheduled 

MMH/Total 

MMH 

Unmonitored 1.94 2.91 1.99 0.92 31% 

Monitored 1.01 2.41 1.96 0.45 19% 

Delta 0.76 0.5 0.03 0.44 12% 

–48% –17% –1.3% –52% 

MMH—Maintenance Man Hour 

FH—Flight Hour 

Mr. KISSELL. Can you provide an update on the status of fully outfitting the UH60 fleet with the IVHMS System? How much funding do you need to continue to 

outfit those units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan so they continue to realize the 

benefits of IVHMS? 
70 

General CROSBY. The number of aircraft currently equipped with IVHMS: H-60 

A/L - 437; H-60M - 111. The number of additional aircraft funded and/or scheduled 

to receive IVHMS: H-60 A/L - 329, H-60M - 51 scheduled for FY10 (all aircraft produced with IVHMS installed). 

Priority for new IVHMS installations is for aircraft being deployed to OIF/OEF. 

No additional funding is necessary to equip H-60 units currently deploying to Iraq 

and Afghanistan. We are currently installing IVHMS on approximately 300 aircraft 

per year. At this rate, it is estimated to take 2.9 years to fully outfit the UH-60 

fleet. 

Æ