U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

80–756 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–27] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 12, 2013 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

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

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

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

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

MICHELE PEARCE, Counsel 

MICHAEL CASEY, Professional Staff Member 

AARON FALK, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2013 

Page 

HEARING: 

Friday, April 12, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization 

Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force .................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Friday, April 12, 2013 ............................................................................................. 35 

FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET 

REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

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

WITNESSES 

Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force ............................................ 3 

Welsh, Gen Mark A., III, USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force .......................... 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Donley, Hon. Michael B., joint with Gen. Mark A. Welsh III ....................... 42 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ ................................................................... 39 

Smith, Hon. Adam ............................................................................................ 41 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Enyart ........................................................................................................ 79 

Mr. Johnson ...................................................................................................... 79 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Barber ......................................................................................................... 93 

Mr. Bridenstine ................................................................................................. 91 

Mr. Brooks ......................................................................................................... 90 

Mr. Carson ........................................................................................................ 88 

Mr. Enyart ........................................................................................................ 89 

Mr. Franks ........................................................................................................ 87 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 83 

Mr. LoBiondo .................................................................................................... 83 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 83 

Mrs. Noem ......................................................................................................... 93 

Mr. Nugent ........................................................................................................ 91 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING—Continued 

Mr. Palazzo ....................................................................................................... 92 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 89 

Mr. Shuster ....................................................................................................... 88 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 86 
(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Friday, April 12, 2013. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2118, 

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

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

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

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning. The committee meets today to receive testimony 

on the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of the Air Force. I am pleased to welcome Secretary Donley 

and General Welsh. 

It takes great leadership to guide people through the kind of uncertainty we have been experiencing, and our Nation is fortunate 

to have you as our Nation’s flight leads. Thank you for your outstanding service as you tackle the incredible national security 

issues we face. 

After reading your budget materials, I was struck by the fact 

that in fiscal year 2013, your Active Duty end strength was 

329,500 men and women, a number which makes the Air Force 

about the same size it was when it became a separate component 

in 1947, and yet the world is certainly a different place today. 

Your fiscal year 2014 request reduces end strength to 327,600. I 

worry about this, especially as we consider the strategic implications of recent events on the Korean Peninsula where airpower 

plays such a critical role in assuring our national security interests. 

As you say in the budget materials, you are attempting to trade 

size for quality, but quantity often has a quality all of its own, particularly in the vast expanse of the Pacific. You know, when Admiral Locklear was here a few weeks ago, he pointed out to us that 

if you take the size of the Pacific, you could put all the land mass 

in that space and still have room left over for, I believe he said, 

Africa and Australia. Pretty big area. 

At some point we almost recognize that the assumption of mission risk will be too great. I hope that you will highlight your concerns regarding this issue in your testimony and provide more detail about where you see this trend going into the future. I also 

hope you will discuss the recent announcement at unit standdowns 

across the Air Force and its implications for force readiness. 
2 

You know, I think this committee is well aware of these problems, but I don’t think the whole Congress is, and I am convinced 

that the Nation really doesn’t understand the severity of the cuts 

that we have been imposing. It could take years to recover from 

this decision because your people won’t be able to train. This complicates an already seemingly untenable situation after nearly two 

decades of procurement, reductions, or deferrals for the Air Force 

and the resulting risks of maintaining an aged fleet of aircraft. 

With pilots not training, depot maintenance not being done, and 

the continued reduction of new aircraft procurement, we must ask 

ourselves where is the breaking point, and what we need to do to 

prevent it, how much risk is too much. 

I am encouraged by the request for the Air Force’s three most 

important modernization program, the KC–46A tanker, the F–35A 

[Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter], and the Long-Range Strike 

Bomber, but those programs are budgeted to stay on track, but the 

effects of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 could result in a potential $1.6 billion bow wave in research, development tests and evaluation, and a $1.3 billion bow wave in procurement. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request does not provide any margin 

to repay programs that will be sourced to pay for critical readiness 

in fiscal year 2013. Air Force modernization cannot wait for the 

next big uptick in defense spending. We are in a difficult time, and 

we must make hard choices. Your testimony today will go a long 

way to help this committee and others in Congress make the right 

choices. 

Again, thank you very much for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the chairman has summed up quite well the challenges 

that you face. And we are all familiar with the impacts of sequestration, or I should say we are familiar with the fact that it did 

make things very difficult. The particular impacts are still being 

sorted out, I mean, literally on a day-by-day, if not hour-by-hour 

basis by all of our Services, and, of course, outside of the Department of Defense all aspects of the Government that are impacted 

by sequestration, and that is the great challenge. Given the defense 

threat environment that we have out there, which is not shrinking, 

it may be shifting and changing, but it is certainly not shrinking, 

how do we meet those threats? How do we budget? How do we plan 

in this uncertain environment? 

We have heard some about some of the changes the Air Force 

had made, the air wings, bomber wings that you have had to stand 

down, and I think what we are going to be most interested in 

throughout this hearing is how you plan to manage through that 

process. 

Again, I will just take this opportunity to emphasize that as a 

Congress, we need to stop sequestration. However we put it to-
3 

gether, whatever the agreement is, mindless across-the-board cuts 

is simply the wrong way to run a government, you know. We can 

find ways to save that money, gosh, even within the discretionary 

budget a lot smarter than we are doing so right now, and I think 

a sense of urgency is simply not where it should be with this Congress to fix that problem. 

But we look forward to your testimony, Secretary Donley and 

General Welsh. You have served this country very, very well. We 

appreciate your hard work, and please let us know how you are 

dealing with this challenge and what we might be able to do to 

help. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

Secretary DONLEY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, 

members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here again representing our Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen. I 

am also honored to be here with my teammate, the 20th Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force, General Mark Welsh. 

For fiscal year 2014, United States Air Force requests $114.1 billion in our baseline budget. As with all budgets, our fiscal year 

2014 request represents a snapshot in time, our best analysis of 

Air Force needs based on available information, and especially 

given the budget turmoil over the past year, this morning’s discussion on the fiscal year 2014 budget needs to begin with where we 

stand this year in fiscal year 2013. 

First, I would like to highlight that throughout the current budget turmoil, our Air Force priorities remain aligned with the January 2012 defense strategic guidance. This includes supporting combatant commanders in the current fight in Afghanistan, maintaining a strong and stable presence in the Pacific and Korea, supporting nuclear and regional deterrents, counterterror, and other 

operations. 

There is demand for airpower, and your airmen are busy around 

the world. Today more than 35,000 airmen are deployed, more than 

57,000 are stationed overseas, and more than 132,000 are providing support to combatant commanders. And as the fiscal constraints get tighter, we must tighten our alignment with a new 

strategy and strengthen our commitment to joint interdependent 

solutions to the Nation’s military challenges. 

You have heard many times that the implications of sequestration reductions are dire. They are. That is why the President has 

put forth a balanced deficit reduction proposal that would allow 

Congress to repeal sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. 

While the Department is working full out to adapt to the new fiscal realities, it was not possible, given the necessary timelines, to 

turn around a new fiscal year 2014 budget based upon new assumptions derived from the March 1st sequestration and from the 
4 

final Defense Appropriations Act, also approved last month, nearly 

6 months into fiscal year 2013. 

We need to stipulate up front that the fiscal year 2014 budget 

does not provide funding to recover from the damage done by even 

a partial year of fiscal year 2013 sequestration, much less the full 

impacts that would hit the Air Force if the President’s proposal to 

replace sequestration for fiscal year 2013 and beyond is not enacted. 

This morning I will summarize the state of the Air Force in three 

broad areas: force structure, that is, the size and composition of our 

Air Force; readiness, that is the training, preparedness of our airmen and their equipment; and modernization, the replacement of 

aging aircraft and infrastructure, and our investment in future capabilities. 

First, force structure. Last year in our efforts to meet the requirements of the first half of the Budget Control Act involving reductions of 487 billion over the—over 10 years, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposed a number of force structure changes, 

including aircraft transfers, retirements, and changes in unit missions that were the subject of much controversy in our Reserve 

Components with the State Adjutants General and congressional 

delegations. 

Thanks to the work of this committee and others, we were able 

to fashion a compromise, which you approved in the National Defense Authorization Act. This year I can report that the fiscal year 

2014 budget proposes no major changes in force structure. As compared to the levels enacted in the fiscal year 2013 NDAA [National 

Defense Authorization Act], the fiscal year 2014 proposal would reduce Active Duty end strength by about 1,800 Active Duty airmen, 

reduce Air Force Reserve end strength by just under 500, and reduce National Guard end strength by 300. 

We retain C–130 [Hercules tactical airlifter] and Global Hawk 

Block 30 [RQ–4 surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle] force structure, as you directed, through fiscal year 2014. Our nuclear forces 

remain at current levels, pending future decisions on implementation of the New START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] agreement, and we are on track to achieve 65 medium-altitude combat 

air patrols with our remotely piloted aircraft fleet. 

We will focus in fiscal year 2014 on implementing the retirements, transfers, and mission changes that you approved in the 

NDAA, and then we have provided two reports to Congress outlining implementation plans for each affected unit and location. 

Looking ahead, it has never been more important for the Air 

Force to maximize the strength of our Total Force. Our Active, Reserve, and Air Guard Components are increasingly integrated, 

training, deploying, and conducting a full range of missions together as a Total Force. We must continue to ensure that our Active/Reserve Component mix correctly balances the strengths of 

each Component and meets our strategic requirements and fiscal 

demands. 

We have made progress over the last year in our governmental 

relationships, working with DOD [Department of Defense] and the 

Council of Governors to formalize the consultative process between 
5 

DOD and the States to provide more transparency in planning and 

programming. 

Within the Air Force, working with our Guard and Reserve Air 

Force leaders, General Welsh and I have established a Total Force 

Task Force to provide strategic options on the appropriate mix of 

Total Force capabilities, and to inform our strategic planning for 

fiscal year 2015 and beyond. This task force will also serve as a resource to the congressionally directed National Commission on the 

Structure of the Air Force that is standing up this month. 

In summary, our proposed force structure is relatively stable for 

now, but, beyond fiscal year 2014, is dependent on decisions yet to 

be made and especially on achieving a balanced approach to deficit 

reduction to avoid further sequestration. 

Turning to readiness. While the Air Force has met the demands 

of a high operational tempo in support of today’s fight, this has 

taken a toll on our weapons systems and people. Unit readiness declined significantly from 2003 onward, and despite significant investments in the past few years, only half of our combat air forces 

have met acceptable readiness standards. 

With the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and our continued presence in the Middle East and Africa, we expect the demand for Air 

Force capabilities will remain constant, perhaps even increase over 

the next decade. We must improve readiness to prevent a hollow 

force. 

With respect to fiscal year 2013, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Air 

Force leaders have already recounted the readiness impacts we anticipated this year as a result of sequestration. Passage of the final 

fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, which included defense appropriations, was helpful to DOD overall, but did not improve the 

Active Air Force’s operation and maintenance budget, left shortages 

in the overseas contingency operations accounts, and did not mitigate the impacts of sequestration, which required approximately 10 

billion in reductions to be taken in the last 7 months of fiscal year 

2013. 

Except anticipating this challenge, we took steps to cut back normal operations, including a civilian hiring freeze for permanent, 

temporary, and term vacancies; canceling non-mission-critical official travel and conferences; reducing major command and combatant command O&M [Operations and Maintenance] budgets by approximately 10 percent; and deferring non emergency facilities 

sustainment projects. However, these steps alone are not sufficient 

to absorb the full impacts of sequestration without affecting readiness. 

Collectively, the sequestration reductions and readiness impacts 

are now being felt across the Air Force. This week eight fighter and 

bomber units ceased flying operations, four additional squadrons 

will completely stand down when return from deployment in the 

next few weeks, and one additional bomber squadron will stand 

down this summer when it returns from deployment. 

Flying hour reductions will halt training for the rest of the year 

in many units and will take up to 6 months to restore pilot proficiency. Other impacts include reductions in weapon systems 

sustainment that will delay necessary maintenance, increase costs 

and take potentially 2 to 3 years to recover from repair backlogs. 
6 

And there is the potential furlough of our valued civilian workforce, 

significantly reducing their pay and potentially devastating morale 

and slowing productivity. 

Our main objective in the fiscal year 2014 budget mirrors our objective for 3 years running: to slow and reverse the erosion of Air 

Force readiness. To that end the fiscal year 2014 budget is aimed 

at setting the Air Force back on a course toward full-spectrum 

readiness. The budget prioritizes funds for 1.2 million flying hours, 

an increase of 40,000 hours from last year, to ensure pilot proficiency and continue new pilot production. It funds training ranges 

to enhance flying training effectiveness and to restore infrastructure. It also adds 1.5 billion across the 5-year defense plan to weapons systems sustainment to keep our aircraft and space systems 

ready. 

Unfortunately, fiscal year 2013 sequestration now jeopardizes the 

gains we had hoped to achieve next year. Even assuming this budget is approved as proposed, and even if the Congress acted sometime this summer to repeal and replace sequestration in fiscal year 

2013, we would almost certainly begin fiscal year 2014 carrying forward a significantly degraded readiness posture from this year. 

The Air Force is working with DOD on a fiscal year 2013 reprogramming requests to indicate OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] and other O&M shortfalls and to address some of the 

worst effects of sequestration. However, the budgetary transfer authority available to DOD is not sufficient to address all our known 

shortfalls. Even if such transfer authority were available, we do not 

have sufficient internal resources to pay for these shortfalls without digging far too deeply into modernization programs, and there 

may not be sufficient time left in fiscal year 2013 to repair the 

damage now immediately ahead. 

To sum up the readiness situation, we have been consuming Air 

Force readiness for several years and will continue to focus the resources available to meet combatant commander requirements, but 

with the steep and late fiscal year 2013 budget reductions brought 

on by sequestration, the readiness hole that we have been trying 

to climb out of just got deeper. 

The full readiness and budgetary implications of this situation 

could not be accounted for in the fiscal year 2014 budget and are 

still under review, and we will continue to work with DOD and 

Congress to fashion a practical way forward. 

Turning to modernization. As I previously testified to this committee, the modernization challenge facing the Air Force is pervasive and will, if unaddressed, seriously undermine our ability to accomplish the missions the Nation asks us to undertake. The average age of our fighter aircraft is now 23 years; rescue helicopters, 

22 years; training aircraft, 25 years; bombers, 36 years; and tankers, nearly 50 years. Satellites for missile warning, navigation, secure communications, and other needs are also aging, and the replacements must be built and launched on a schedule consistent 

with the life expectancy of current constellations. 

Our most significant Air Force priorities remain on track in fiscal 

year 2014, the fifth-generation F–35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC– 

46 tanker, the Long-Range Strike Bomber. The continued modernization of existing fleets, such as the B–2 [Spirit stealth bomb-
7 

er], the F–22 [Raptor fighter jet], F–15 [Eagle fighter jet], F–16 

[Fighting Falcon fighter jet], and C–17 [Globemaster III tactical 

airlifter], to name some, to keep them operationally effective and 

to extend their service lives is also key. 

We request funding for preferred munitions as well as critical 

space satellite assets, such as the Global Positioning System, the 

Advanced Extremely High-Frequency, AEHF, Satellite, and SpaceBased Infrared System programs. We intend to maintain science 

and technology funding in order to stay on the cutting edge of technological innovation and sustain our airpower advantage. 

While we often face challenges with major acquisition programs, 

we have recently achieved some notable success using block buys 

and more efficient procurement strategies to drive down the cost of 

three large space programs by over $2.5 billion. And the fiscal year 

2014 request includes the first of a multiyear procurement for the 

C–130J, which is expected to save over 500 million over the next 

5 years. We will need more successes like these in the future because there is still significant pressure on our modernization programs. Last year, in programming the Air Force share of the first $487 

billion in DOD reductions over 10 years, the cancellation or delay 

of modernization programs accounted for 65 percent of total Air 

Force reductions across just the first 5 years. This year each program was reduced by more than 7 percent in sequestration. In the 

immediate years ahead, major programs like the F–35, the KC–46, 

and the bomber are scheduled to grow as the overall DOD budget 

declines, and some longstanding needs like a new trainer and a replacement for the E–8 JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack 

Radar System] remain unfunded. 

Looking ahead, if there continues to be resistance to force structure adjustments, base closures, and constraining growth and compensation, and given our current need to focus on improving readiness, it is very likely that outyear reductions in the Budget Control 

Act will require further disproportionate cuts in our modernization 

programs. 

As advanced technologies continue to proliferate around the 

globe, these cutbacks in modernization would put at risk the Air 

Force capabilities this Nation will need in the decade ahead. The 

decisions ahead of us are extraordinarily difficult, but Congress has 

the power to help the Air Force and the Department of Defense 

maneuver through these unparalleled budget challenges. In recent 

years Congress has placed limits on the Air Force’s effort to take 

tough, but urgently needed actions to balance our readiness, modernization, and force structure, and rejected some of DOD’s proposals to help slow the growth in military compensation. 

As our DOD leaders have testified, these congressional actions, 

if sustained, would add billions to our costs over the next 5 years. 

We hope that in view of the serious economic problems facing the 

Nation and our Department of Defense, Congress will allow us to 

implement these and other important changes. 

It is now all the more critical that we get your support for reductions in base infrastructure. The Air Force executed BRAC [Base 

Realignment and Closure] 2005 on time and under budget, and 

those adjustments are today generating savings estimated at $1 
8 

billion per year. We are looking at European basing requirements 

with our DOD partners, and we are ready to begin next steps in 

the continental U.S. We estimate that more than 20 percent of our 

basing infrastructure is excess to need. BRAC authority is a tool 

that we urgently need to allow DOD to divest excess infrastructure 

and refocus resources to meet other critical needs, including readiness, modernization, and taking care of our people. 

In the area of military compensation, we are committed, as you 

are, to taking care of our airmen, but the impact of increasing personnel costs continues to be a concern in the Department and can 

no longer be ignored. Therefore, we support DOD’s efforts to slow 

the growth of personnel costs. We support the modest 1-percent 

pay raise and the TRICARE [health care program] fee and pharmacy copay changes included in the fiscal year 2014 budget. 

While these are some of the broad outlines of our request, there 

is clearly more work to do as we assess the rolling implications of 

sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. We will need your 

help to make necessary adjustments in our force structure, to keep 

us ready, and to avoid a hollow force, and to equip this Air Force 

with the modern capabilities it needs for the future. 

But perhaps one of the most helpful things Congress can do is 

to return to regular order and approve the annual defense authorization appropriations measures in a timely way. Throughout history our Nation has effectively dealt with strategic challenges and 

fiscal constraints, but our recent track record of delay and uncertainty, continuing resolutions that disrupt programs and budget 

planning, and midyear cuts that impair readiness and threaten civilian furloughs must not become the new normal. We sincerely appreciate the ongoing commitment and efforts of this committee and 

its professional staff to return to regular order. 

Today’s world is a dangerous place, and it is counterproductive 

to generate problems of our own making when so many other serious threats beyond our control demand attention. Together we 

must do better for our men and women in uniform and their families, our civilian workforce, and for our national security. 

Mr. Chairman, the American people have the world’s best airmen 

and the world’s finest Air Force. Your Air Force leadership team 

remains committed to you and the most capability possible from 

whatever level of resources you provide. We remain grateful for the 

support of this committee and its unfailing support in providing to 

the Air Force and to the men and women of our Armed Forces the 

best capabilities available. We stand ready to assist in any way we 

can and look forward to discussing our budget. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and General 

Welsh can be found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Welsh. 

STATEMENT OF GEN MARK A. WELSH III, USAF, CHIEF OF 

STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General WELSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, for letting us 

be here this morning. It is always an honor, and it is a special 

privilege to be here with my boss and partner, Secretary Mike 
9 

Donley, who is coming up on about 5 years running our Air Force, 

a long road, and he has done it tremendously well. 

Despite the budgetary turbulence and what I hope will be an 

atypical year, I believe we will see a continuing demand for American airpower in the future. From the airlift requirements of a responsible drawdown in Afghanistan to, as the chairman mentioned, 

the vast distances and increasingly vocal international actors in 

the Asia-Pacific region to growing national reliance on space-based 

capabilities, America’s foreign policy choices reflect a conscious reliance on its Air Force to help realize success. 

These strategic choices followed 22 years of sustained combat operations for your Air Force and a slow decline of readiness that we 

simply must reverse. These choices are also bounded by shifting fiscal realities that will force the entire Defense Department to focus 

on those capabilities and missions that are truly essential in the 

future. 

As an indispensable part of that joint force, the Air Force intends 

to continue operating in airspace and cyber, and to prioritize those 

core missions that have existed since our birth as a separate service in 1947: air and now space superiority; rapid global mobility; 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; global strike; and 

command and control at the theater level. Our airmen perform 

these missions exceptionally well, and, in doing so, they do provide 

global vigilance, global reach, and global power for America. 

Out fiscal year 2014 budget request does not fully account for 

necessary recovery actions from the current budgetary turbulence, 

nor does it fully incorporate the potential cuts for sequestration in 

2014 and beyond, but what it does do is prioritize the effort to reverse our declining readiness trend, recognizing that low states of 

readiness negate many of the strategic advantages of airpower. 

Flying hours are allocated to maintain and, in some cases, incrementally improve readiness levels across the Total Force in this 

budget. In the past we have relied on overseas contingency operations funding to partially fund those flying hour programs and to 

maintain our current and substandard readiness levels. We will 

continue to reduce our reliance on that OCO funding for the flying 

hour program through 2015, at which point we should have as 

much as 90 percent of our peacetime flying requirement back in 

our baseline budget, a level we haven’t reached in quite some time. 

We have also restored emphasis on training ranges, funding about 

75 percent of the requirement in that area, up from recent lows of 

only 25 percent. 

Our fiscal year 2014 budget request also seeks to corral the force 

structure cost creep in both personnel and infrastructure that we 

have been experiencing. After years of trading quantity for quality, 

we now have fewer people in aircraft in our Air Force than at any 

time since we became an independent service in 1947. 

Unfortunately, while the numbers have gone down, both the real 

cost of personnel and their proportion relative to rest of the budget 

has increased dramatically. Pay and benefits continue to rise, as 

have the costs of the Defense Department health care program, 

which has grown approximately 270 percent over the last 11 years, 

and, as we all know, these are huge cost drivers. They scream for 

more control. 
10 

We support the Defense Department’s request to limit the military pay raise to only 1 percent in this budget proposal and to explore meaningful modifications in the TRICARE system. As a side 

note, we may also realize personnel cost savings from the Total 

Force Task Force that the Secretary mentioned. This group was 

formed to examine the operational impacts and cost factors associated with various approaches to Total Force integration. By identifying and implementing the optimum force mix of an Active, Reserve, and Guard Component, we should be able to maximize operational effectiveness, better optimize Total Force efficiencies, and 

provide better stability over time to our Guard unit States and Reserve organizations. You can expect to see the results of this work 

reflected in next year’s budget submission. 

Our fiscal year 2014 budget request also restores military construction investment to historic norms, following our deliberate infrastructure pause in fiscal year 2013. The $1.2 billion proposal in 

this area prioritizes bed-down requirements for the KC–46 and the 

F–35, for combatant commander nuclear deterrent and cyber requirements, and for projects to facilitate a rebalance of the AsiaPacific region. We will look to consolidate infrastructure and reduce 

excess capacity where allowed, and we support the Defense Department’s request for further BRAC authority in fiscal year 2015. 

As difficult as a BRAC would be for everyone, we can simply no 

longer afford to retain unnecessary overhead that diverts precious 

resources from readiness and modernization. Our fiscal year 2014 

budget request strives to protect that modernization in order to 

support current defense guidance and to preserve the ability to execute our core missions in the future. 

The KC–46, F–35, and Long-Range Strike Bomber remain our 

top three investment priorities. We need the F–35. It remains the 

best platform to address the proliferation of highly capable integrated air defenses and new air-to-air threats. The Long-Range 

Strike Bomber will give our Nation a flexible, credible capability to 

strike globally with precision on limited notice should the national 

interest require. 

The KC–46 is our highest modernization priority and will ultimately replace a third of our current tanker fleet, most of which 

is almost as old Secretary Donley. Hard to believe, I know. That 

tanker fleet puts the ‘‘global’’ in global vigilance, global reach, and 

global power. It provides strategic options for our Nation. We simply must modernize it. 

Four of the Air Force’s 10 largest modernization programs are 

space-based platforms. We plan to extend our streak of 58 consecutive successful launches, and expand and modernize our constellations, like the Global Positioning System, the Defense Meteorological Satellite program, and others upon which the entire Nation 

and many of our allies and partners depend. 

We will also continue to invest in our most important resource, 

our airmen. We will provide the training, education, and professional development opportunities they need to be the best in the 

world at what they do. If we can’t do that, they will find other 

work. 

We will continue to foster work environments that are safe and 

respectful. We will develop leaders of character who demonstrate 
11 

operational effectiveness and innovation, but also the selfless, caring approach required to lead America’s sons and daughters. 

We will continue to do everything in our power to care for our 

airmen and their families, while balancing the resources required 

to do that with the understanding that our primary job is to fight 

and win the Nation’s wars. 

My job is to help Secretary Donley field the most capable, credible Air Force possible. I believe our 2014 budget request moves us 

in that direction. It postures the Air Force to improve readiness, 

to limit force structure cost, and to protect vital modernization, and 

Secretary Donley and I stand ready to answer any questions you 

may have about it. 

Thank you again for the chance to be here, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I am glad the tankers are only as old as Secretary Donley. If 

they were my age, we would really have problems. 

Gentlemen, I am fully aware that without the equipment, aircraft space systems and networks, we have no Air Force. Air and 

space forces, more so than ground forces, require materiel and technology to execute the mission. Investments in RDT&E [Research, 

Development, Testing, and Evaluation] and procurement during 

the Cold War provided the Air Force with much of the equipment 

that it is using today; however, all of this equipment is aging out, 

and it is aging out simultaneously, because many procurement and 

modernization programs failed, were delayed, or were deferred during the past 15 years. 

The Air Force needs to simultaneously recapitalize across major 

categories of capabilities. There is great risk that the effort is 

unsupportable in the current fiscal environment. 

How is it that with all the efforts and emphasis on reforming the 

acquisition process, to include Secretary Hagel’s recent remarks at 

NDU [National Defense University] on the matter, we haven’t had 

a confirmed senior acquisition executive for the United States Air 

Force since 2009? All the while we continue to see Air Force acquisition failures, such as over a billion dollars wasted on a failed logistics program known as ECSS [Expeditionary Combat Support 

System], more than $750 million wasted on C–27J [Spartan military transport] aircraft, a DOD IG [Inspector General] investigation and subsequent cancellation of the G222 airlifter acquisition 

for the Afghans at a price of over $600 million, and GAO [Government Accountability Office] protests and court proceedings on the 

Light Attack Aircraft program for the Afghans. 

Please tell me what your plan is to remedy this egregious situation. 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, regarding the absence of a confirmed acquisition official, we had had in place a very 

capable principal deputy for 2 years of that period, and since his 

departure last year, we have been looking for a replacement. I do 

believe we have a candidate lined up who will be in place within 

the next month or so. So, this has been more a product of the personnel process than from a lack of interest in filling the position 

on our part. We have had several candidates. We have discussed 

who we have identified along the way who have been unable to 

step up to the requirements of leaving their corporate position to 
12 

spend time in Government. So it has been a lengthy process, certainly longer than I would have liked. 

We have undertaken a number of acquisition improvements in 

the Air Force, as I offered. We have made great progress on controlling the costs of our space programs over the past several years, 

some of our largest programs and the ones that had the largest 

cost growth in the early 2000s, so there has been some progress 

there. 

With respect to ECSS, which was one program that was canceled 

last December, we have no apologies for that. We had been working 

on the program for 7 years. We could have done better up front in 

having the right technical expertise on that program, more oversight from our logistics team and logistics experts on the contractor 

team. That program went through multiple restructurings over 7 

years until we finally got to a point where it was just unacceptable 

to proceed. So we have no hesitation in canceling programs that 

are not performing. 

The G222 falls in the same category. This was a version of the 

C–27 program, earlier version of the C–20 program that had been 

purchased for the Afghan Air Force, again at some expense to the 

American taxpayers, where the contractor simply did not perform 

over several years, and we reached a point where we viewed that 

performance by that contractor and that airframe to be unrecoverable. And, again, we have no hesitation in stopping a program that 

we don’t think is working correctly. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good point, and I think it is very important to stop programs that aren’t performing. I think my criticism 

would be—and this is not just the Air Force, it is across the whole 

Pentagon—is sometimes we take too long to make the decision to 

cancel it. If we could identify the problems earlier, like the marine 

landing vehicle that we went 20 years, I think that is important. 

The comment you made on the problem with getting people, if 

there is something we can do to help you on that as we go through 

our bill this year, if you can think of anything that we could do 

that could make it easier to bring people into—I realize it is a sacrifice for a lot of these people to come to work, such as yourself. 

They can make more money on the outside, and then the complications that they have to go through, the things they have to comply 

with to work for the Government makes it almost too big of a burden for—to even ask people to undertake, but if there is something 

we could do, please, please let us know on that. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just two questions, one on the KC–46. I know the new tanker. 

I know there was an issue about whether or not the contract, given 

sequestration, you would be able to continue with the contract. 

That was really important that you got an appropriations bill this 

year, which after a fashion we got. Is the existing contract on that 

new tanker sustainable now based on where we are at, admittedly 

not predicting for the future here, but based on where we are at 

for fiscal year 2013? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And then on BRAC, you know, it is sort of selfevident when you look at how the military is going to change as 
13 

the budgets have come down with sequestration, you know, drawdown from Iraq, drawdown from Afghanistan, the fundamental 

changes that are happening in our strategy, do we need to realign 

our base structure? I don’t think there is any question about that. 

You know, Members are understandably nervous about that because it affects individual districts in unpredictable ways. 

One of the criticisms of it—and I am a strong supporter of base 

closure. You know, BRAC, however you want to get there, it needs 

to be done in order to get our force in the right structure and to 

save the money that needs to be saved. One of the problems, of 

course, is that BRAC actually winds up costing money in the first 

5 to 6 years, depending on the BRAC. So within the BCA [Budget 

Control Act] timeframe, if you do a 2015 BRAC, it doesn’t actually 

save you money for those 10 years. 

Can you please, you know, give us your justification for doing a 

BRAC in that timeframe despite that reality, and also what you 

might be able to do to make it less costly this time? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, sir, the costs of BRAC vary significantly, depending on how you approach the problem. If you are just 

trying to realign forces from point A to point B, or if you are actually able to close locations, bring down force structure at the same 

time, that involves much less cost. So depends how you are able to 

approach BRAC—— 

Mr. SMITH. So, do you envision then a BRAC process that could 

save money within the BCA timeframe? 

Secretary DONLEY. I don’t see why not, if we get started on it. Just to give you an example, on BRAC 2005, we spent about $3.5 

billion, and, as I indicated in testimony, it has generated savings 

now of about a billion dollars a year, so that will pay back in 3 or 

4 years. So I think that is an investment well worth making. 

I also think that beyond the 10-year period, if you just—— 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. 

Secretary DONLEY. Yeah, if you just think about the places you 

have never heard of, Castle, Williams, Hamilton, places from deep 

in the Air Force’s past, there are dozens of them because DOD, Air 

Force, and congressional leadership stood up to close those bases 

decades ago. If we were carrying that overhead with us today, we 

would have enormous costs. 

Mr. SMITH. No, I think that is absolutely true. I think long-term 

there is no question. The main thing you need to work on in terms 

of making the pitch is to show how it—you know, within the BCA 

timeframe, how you can do it more cost-effectively. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here. 

You have certainly got a very challenging situation. We all do. 

I was very pleased to see that you followed the guidance of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA and provided us with the budget breakout for 

the air and space control alert mission. That was really a long time 

in coming. 

However, in the missions fiscal year 2014 budget, there was no 

request for MILCON [Military Construction] projects, and I find 
14 

this concerning and troubling, because, as you may recall, there 

was House report language for the fiscal year 2013 MILCON and 

VA [Veterans Affairs] appropriation bill that stated opposite. It 

pretty much said that the committee recognized the strategic importance of Air Guard Components of the ACA [Aerospace Control 

Alert] mission and their role in the country’s homeland defense, 

and the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to 

reprioritize its investments and place the maintenance facilities for 

legacy F–16 fighter aircraft with ACA missions that are responsible 

for high-value metropolitan areas at the top of the military construction list. 

Now, listening very carefully to your opening statement, Mr. Secretary, you stated that it is a priority of yours to keep operationally 

effective the legacy assets, and certainly of all the alert missions 

in the country, the 177th Fighter Wing fits your criteria for a 

prime metropolitan facility. There is no other facility in the Nation 

that, when alerted, can be over top of Washington, D.C., or New 

York simultaneously if necessary in 9 minutes or less. So that having been said, I have to believe that there was an oversight that 

in the MILCON, the new fuel cell and corrosion control hangar was 

not put in fiscal year 2014, but rather let go to fiscal year 2017, 

especially since in the reprioritization of the F–16 fighter aircraft, 

we looked at, because another base is going to be drawing down, 

that the 177th will be receiving newer legacy aircraft. 

So, I am hopeful, in light of what I think is an oversight, that 

you can agree to work with our office and work with the wing commander to see if there isn’t something we can do that seems like 

it would meet with what your request in priorities are. 

Secretary DONLEY. Thanks for that input, sir. I will just offer 

that we are way behind on MILCON, so the focus is new mission 

capabilities that are right out in front of us, F–35, tanker, some immediate operational things at locations like Guam. And last year 

was our lowest year almost on record for MILCON, so we are just 

in the process of recovery. We are not nearly where we want to be, 

but we understand the priorities as you see them. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Can we count on at least some dialogue in attempting to work together considering the high priority that you 

placed on the metropolitan bases? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, we have lots of MILCON priorities, but 

we would be happy to talk with you and your staff about its placement in fiscal year 2017. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. And just lastly, General Welsh, I would be 

hopeful you can chime in here. When can the committee finally expect to see a plan on paper that will address the need for recapitalization of the Air National Guard’s F–16 fleet in this coming year? 

It is something we have been asking for and asking for, and I understand there have been complications, but I am hopeful you can 

shed some light here. 

General WELSH. Congressman, the Total Force Task Force, the 

guidelines we have given them are to put together a proposal for 

active ARC [Air Reserve Component] mix to include mission assignments, the model we use, whether it is a proportional—a percentage of the active mission set, resides in the Reserve Component, whether it is specific missions that reside exclusively in the 
15 

Reserve Component, and what are both the costs and the operational impacts of those courses of action that they are going to review. 

We have three two-star generals leading this effort, one Guard, 

one Active, and one Reserve. We have two TAGs [Adjutant General] advising them. They report out weekly to me, monthly to the 

Secretary, monthly to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and 

then quarterly the intent is to work through OSD [Office of the 

Secretary of Defense] to update the Council of Governors. 

The discussion on the options they look at and are assessed by 

a common team of analysts will go on for the next 6 months or so. 

At the end of that timeframe, we will bring a recommendation to 

the Secretary for inclusion in the 2015 budget. That is where we 

intend to have this on paper. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So, somewhat possible this calendar year? 

General WELSH. Oh, I think the recommendations will clearly be 

being discussed this calendar year, yes, sir, by this fall. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much, both of you, for being here. 

You know, you said, and we all know this, that the strength of 

our military lies in our people, and one of the most difficult issues 

that I think we always address come back to personnel. 

There are recommendations in the budget that would increase 

TRICARE fees and decrease the traditional way that we have paid 

the military, the raises beyond 1 percent, and I know this is difficult for everybody because we face our constituents and the men 

and women who serve our country. If that change does not come 

forth in the NDAA, where does it come from? Where do those increases come from? How do they affect readiness? What are the 

consequences of that? We know that there are certainly consequences; there always are. How can you respond to that? I think 

it is important for us to understand it. 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, ma’am, and I think they are pretty clear, 

especially in the constrained environment in which we live. Just 

again sort of the context for this on TRICARE. When TRICARE 

was created in the mid-1990s, retirees paid about over 20 percent 

of the costs of their medical care. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I think it is 27 percent. 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, ma’am, I believe it is 27 percent. Today 

they pay 11 percent. So costs have moved up without changes in 

the fees, so that certainly needs to be addressed. If we don’t address these issues, the dollars come out of modernization, or they 

come out of readiness, or they make the military smaller. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Can you be a little more specific? 

Secretary DONLEY. Actually, if you look at the historical data, 

and I think you are familiar with this, ma’am, the U.S. military 

has been getting smaller over the last 30 years, and our personnel 

costs have been going up. So there has not been a correlation between a declining size of the Department of Defense and its military personnel and a decline in military personnel costs. Even on 

an inflation-adjusted, that is kind of—that costs have continued to 
16 

rise for these kinds of reasons. So if those personnel costs are left 

unaddressed, they will squeeze out modernization, they will 

squeeze out the readiness of the force. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General, did you want to respond? 

General WELSH. Yes, ma’am. I will admit freely to not being the 

world’s best researcher, but in research to try and understand the 

problem we are in now with the drawdown from the peak spending 

of a few years ago and where we are going, with the potential of 

sequestration cuts over 10 years, the first thing that became obvious to me is related to the Secretary’s point about personnel costs 

going up so remarkably over the last 10 years. 

One of things that has happened over time is that as we built 

up force structure, our top-line budget in the Department of Defense would rise, and then when it was time to draw it down, it 

came down to just below where we started from typically. 

One of the differences this time is that in the past, when that 

budget line went up, our force structure went up with it. This time 

in the Air Force, our budget went up, but because of that increase 

in personnel costs, our force structure went down. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Went down, yeah. 

General WELSH. So now the lines are split, which is why we are 

the smallest Air Force we have ever been since we became an independent service. As we come down the topline curve, we will come 

down in parallel in the force structure curve. That is the thing that 

makes this noticeably different from a capability perspective as I 

look at the operational end of the Air Force. 

Everything we take from the capabilities side to fund the people 

side is worth considering carefully. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General, if I could interrupt because time is running 

out, but one of the other areas that is so critical is military professional education, and it is my understanding from a previous hearing that about 8,000 airmen would not be receiving the military 

professional education that they need to be promoted and obviously 

to go on to be the great officers that we need. 

Is that the case, or with some changes in sequestration in terms 

of the way you can move your dollars around a little bit more, does 

that change, or are we still looking at that number for the number 

of the airmen who might not be able to be promoted? 

General WELSH. Congresswoman, we are doing everything we 

can to not have that happen. It all comes out of the same pot of 

money. It is all out of the O&M account. And so one of the things 

that we are trying to do is as we get reprogramming authority, 

which the Congress has given us, the Department, and we have 

gotten part of that, we have been able to shift money back into flying hours to support combatant commanders who have been able 

to minimize the impact on people’s ability to go to school. We will 

continue to work to do that, and, over time, clearly that is money 

well spent. It is not something we should stop doing. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. [Presiding.] Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here. 

I have two questions and only 5 minutes, so I am going to throw 

them both out and for either or both of you to respond to, if you 
17 

would. The first one is the Air Force’s bomber force is aging rapidly, with the B–52 [Stratofortress strategic bomber] and B–1 

[Lancer strategic bomber] scheduled for complete retirement by 

2040 and the B–2 by 2058. What value does the Long-Range Strike 

Bomber, the LRSB, offer the Air Force as a replacement for these 

systems, particularly in the antiaccess/area denial environments 

that we will be dealing with? That is one. 

And then the second one, a followup kind of on what Mrs. Davis 

just asked. We know with the President’s F–14 budget failing to 

meet the restrictions of the Budget Control Act by a reported $52 

billion, there is a concern about sequestration across-the-board cuts 

continuing to fiscal year 2014. 

Could you address specifically how that might impact your flight 

hours and training for less experienced pilots, and what impact 

that would have on our long-term readiness? So either or both of 

you on those two questions 

Secretary DONLEY. Mr. Forbes, I will take the first one, and I 

think the Chief is in a good place to answer about pilot training. 

With respect to the Long-Range Strike Bomber, you outlined our 

challenge with the bomber force, which is aging. Even the B–52 

now is—excuse me—even the B–2, our most capable stealth bomber, is 20 years old now, so we are particularly concerned about the 

age of the B–52 and the B–1s. 

Long-range strike has been a core function of the United States 

Air Force since our inception, and it offers the President options to 

strike any place on the planet at any time if national interests require it. It is a good tool for the U.S. military to have, and it is 

an essential capability for our Air Force, so we need to get on with 

the LRSB. 

It is especially important as we look to the Asia-Pacific rebalance 

and as we consider the possibility of denied areas and the anti-access/area-denial challenges that we may face in the decades ahead. 

We need long-range and payload to deliver a punch, and while our 

fighter force structure does this in many different dimensions, it 

falls to the bomber force to be able to do this at long ranges and 

with high payloads. 

So it is a very valuable tool for national security. Got supported 

in the defense strategic guidance. And we need to get on with 

LRSB. It is a very important priority. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And, General, if you could address the training hours and the impact sequestration might have on those flight hours and how that 

impacts our overall readiness. Sometimes that gets lost in what we 

are looking at here. 

General WELSH. Congressman, thank you. It is a great question. 

As you know, with the abrupt and kind of arbitrary nature of the 

mechanism of sequestration, flying hours became a problem for us 

instantly. We are protecting basic flight training, and we are protecting our flying training units that transition new pilots into specific weapons systems, whether they be fighters or bombers. They 

are going to be funded through the rest of the year, at least until 

September, when we may run out of flying hour money completely 

if something doesn’t change and we have more reprogramming authority. But until then, we will protect those courses. 
18 

Our advanced training programs, instructor pilot upgrades, the 

fighter weapons instructor courses we are shutting down. We don’t 

have the flying hours to operate them. That gift will keep on giving 

throughout the 20-year career of the individuals who did not attend. There is no way we have the capacity to plus-up in the future 

years to go back and fix that. So it will have an impact on our force 

for a while. 

In 2014, we must prioritize money for flying hour training. We 

recruit the best people we can. We have to train them better than 

anybody else in the world does. We have to prioritize it. 

Mr. FORBES. General, thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, one of the things that not many of our citizens 

would be comfortable with is putting their sons or daughters on a 

commercial airliner where the pilot only had 70 percent of his 

training. We don’t want to make sure our men and women going 

to fight for us have anything less. So thank you for fighting for 

both of those. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley and General Welsh, thank you for appearing 

today and providing us with your testimony. And I look forward to 

working together as one of the co-chairs of the Air Force Caucus. 

The island of Guam is very proud of the close relationship that 

we share between Anderson Air Force Base and our local community. And, as you know, Guam is very supportive of the overall 

DOD efforts to rebalance forces to the Pacific. 

Now, my first question is for both of you regarding Guam Strike, 

or Pacific Airpower Resiliency, as I believe it is now referred to. 

The Asia-Pacific region is the world’s most militaried region, with 

7 of the 10 largest militaries and multiple nations with declared 

nuclear arms. Instability in this region will have a direct and immediate effect for our entire Nation. 

The current missile threat from North Korea highlights the need 

for hardening and disbursal of Air Force assets in the region. Now, 

unfortunately, the Senate has had a very unique and interesting 

position on this matter, so I do appreciate the Air Force’s continued 

support of the effort. 

Can either of you comment on the need for hardening of structures on Guam, the funding and the technology improvements for 

runway repairs, and elaborate on other aspects you see as vital for 

the protection of Guam’s forward defense assets. 

Secretary. 

Secretary DONLEY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Guam is a very important anchor for the United States in the 

Pacific and a very important anchor for the United States Air 

Force. So Andersen Air Force Base gets a lot of attention and a lot 

of business from our Air Force. We routinely use this location in 

both fighter and bomber deployments into the region. And, as you 

know, it is a joint area of operations of interest to all of the military services. 

We have five projects in our MILCON budget this year that are 

focused on the kinds of improvements which you described. We see 
19 

ourselves at Guam in perpetuity. Andersen is a very important 

asset to us. And as potential threats develop in this region, we 

need to be prepared to respond to those threats. 

And I think you put your finger on it. This is not a choice between disbursal or hardening; it is a combination of factors that 

will help make our bases, from which we fight, resilient in any 

number of threat scenarios. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

And, General, do you have anything to add to that? 

General WELSH. Congresswoman, I would just add that, operationally, if we expect to be able to survive an attack with the 

weapons that are now available to the enemy and continue to operate from Guam, hardened facilities will be mandatory. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

I have a second question. The Air Force has expressed concerns 

about the current ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] assets and their capability in a more contested area. However, I believe that the Global Hawk remains a proven platform 

with continued utility. The language in last year’s bill is very clear: 

Congress believes the Global Hawk program should be continued. 

Can you comment on how the Air Force intends to sustain the 

Global Hawk Block 30 program past fiscal year 2014? Will the Air 

Force use the funding provided in the appropriations bill to procure 

the additional three Block 30 aircraft? And, finally, what is the Air 

Force doing to work with the contractor to address some of the cost 

and capability concerns? 

I personally believe there are commonsense solutions that enhance the Block 30 capabilities, like the transferring of some of the 

equipment from the U–2s [‘‘Dragon Lady’’ reconnaissance aircraft] 

to the Global Hawk. 

So could you answer that, either one of you? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, ma’am, this remains a difficult area 

where we have been in disagreement with the Congress over the 

past year. We have funded the force structure for the Global Hawk 

Block 30s, as I indicated, through fiscal year 2014, and there is 

procurement money that has not been expended. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Decided. 

Secretary DONLEY. We went through this discussion again in our 

Air Force leadership, concluded that the decision that we had made 

last year to divest Global Hawk force structure is probably the 

right one. We like the persistence of the Global Hawk, but it does 

not have the sensor capabilities of the U–2. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Can you exchange equipment? 

Secretary DONLEY. Not without cost and time. And at this point, 

our outyear budgets do not include funding for sustaining the Global Hawk force structure. So if we would add that back, that would 

be a bill to the Air Force. The moving of U–2 sensors onto the Global Hawk is another bill to the Air Force. So—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you. But I will continue my interest 

in the Global Hawks. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
20 

Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here again. 

If I could be shameless at the very beginning, basically since 

Korea, this country has maintained air superiority, which is a fact 

we usually take for granted, which is too bad. In the present situation, when the United States wanted to show a show of force, it 

was missile defense, it was bombers, it was the F–22 that was sent 

over there to illustrate the United States commitment. So much for 

those outside the military that told me that these were relics of the 

Cold War and we didn’t need them in the future. Not that I am 

bitter. I still wish we still had 200 more of those F–22s to be flying 

around here. 

It also shows that the role of the Air Force is both significant 

and—I am as frustrated as others with not only of the impact of 

sequestration but the other two cuts to the military that took place 

in these last 5 years. It is the three cuts combined that have 

caused the significant problems that we now face. And each of 

those cuts was a difficult one to handle. 

So if I could ask you, General, just a couple of questions that are 

probably more parochial than anything else, I would appreciate it. 

General WELSH. Sure. 

Mr. BISHOP. The Secretary of Defense was quoted in the press 

the other day as saying that—and he said this yesterday, as well— 

that we have to do some substantial reductions in our civilian 

workforce. 

Obviously, the air logistics complexes, we have a large civilian 

defense population. With AFCM’s [Air Force Materiel Command] 

reduction in personnel over the last couple of years as well as the 

reorganization that took place last year, is it the contention that 

we still have a large number of civilian workers that could easily 

or should be reduced at our air defense depot sustainment programs or systems? 

General WELSH. Congressman, I will tell you that that is not my 

contention. 

I believe we have taken a look at the problem. I think what the 

Secretary of Defense has discussed, at least in the meetings where 

I have been in the room with him, is the need for us to take an 

honest look at the joint force of the future: Pick the essential capabilities the Department will need; look at everything, to include 

worst-case options if sequestration is in place at max impact for 10 

years; and then come up with a realistic game plan for how we go 

from here to there. That move will require reductions in lots of 

areas. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you. 

I will try and get these last three in as quickly as I can. Once 

again, parochial, the same time. 

The FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] contract towers reduction has had an impact on maybe only a couple of bases. I think 

Congressman Fleming has Barksdale in Louisiana, and I have Hill, 

Utah, where the bases are within 3 miles of the airport. The airspace overlaps, and there is potential there for conflict if this actually goes through. 

I would simply like to ask if either of you have a problem with 

allowing your local base commanders to communicate safety con-
21 

cerns they may have with the FAA, either in letter or other kinds 

of communication forms. 

General WELSH. No, sir. And they have been doing that. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you. And they have. 

Two other questions very quickly, if I could. You mentioned briefly in there the total force integration. Is it your contention that this 

so far has been a success? And do you have the intentions of continuing that concept in the future? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, it has been a success, and absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. And this is probably the last one unless I can get 

more to sneak in here. Other than what Congresswoman Bordallo 

said about the Global Hawk, I agree with her. 

The last one is, General Hostage the other day talked about 

ranges, maintaining a couple of the long ranges but having smaller 

ranges being some kind of jeopardy as this kind of infrastructure, 

that we need it to be able to make sure that we can drop bombs 

properly. 

Would you just like to mention a couple of words about the significance of the range infrastructure that we have and its maintenance potential? 

General WELSH. We cannot train our force to be the best Air 

Force in the world without a range infrastructure. That is why we 

are bumping our funding back up from 25 percent to 75 percent for 

the infrastructure and the people that support it. We have to try 

and do even better in the future. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Gentlemen, once again, thank you for being here. And I appreciate what the Air Force does to defend this Nation. And, obviously, 

in recent weeks, we have seen the significance of having a strong 

and powerful Air Force. I hope that we can maintain that going 

into the future. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley and General Welsh, first of all, I want to thank 

you for the work that you did in the last Congress regarding the 

force structure change with the Air National Guard. Obviously, 

there was a gap or a disagreement at the outset of that process 

with Congress. But, again, the final product in the defense authorization bill was obviously a very positive step. And I know that 

wasn’t easy, and I just want to at least publicly thank you for that 

effort. 

And just to follow up on that, you know, the 2014 budget, which 

was released this week, I mean, can you comment about whether 

or not the resources are there to implement that force structure 

change for the Air Guard? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Okay. And, I mean, in Connecticut, we were 

pleased to see and we are looking forward for welcome eight C– 

130s to the State. There are a couple issues that we are trying to 

work out in terms of that transition period. And, again, I hope, you 

know, we can continue with the collaboration, you know, that was 
22 

the hallmark of last year to try and work through those issues, and 

I hope I can get that commitment from you here this morning. 

Secretary DONLEY. Absolutely, we will continue to work through 

those issues. 

In the white paper that I referenced earlier in my testimony, we 

have provided schedules for all the force structure adjustments. 

And we are happy to respond to any questions you or your staff 

may have on that. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. 

And as far as the C–130s are concerned, again, there was an 

issue regarding modernization, which, again, ended up getting referred to the Institute for Defense Analyses. And I was wondering 

if you have anything you can share with us this morning about 

where you see that headed and just the general issue of C–130 

modernization, which is going to be an issue, I think, for the fleet. 

Secretary DONLEY. It is important to us, but I would offer that 

we have been trying to find ways to minimize the costs there as 

we get squeezed on the budget front. 

So we had a C–130 AMP [Avionics Modernization Program] program that you are probably familiar with, which was a broad Avionics Modernization Program for C–130s. It would have been a $2 

billion effort. That was terminated, and we dropped back to something called an optimized CNS [Communication, Navigation, and 

Surveillance], navigation upgrades. That was about a $650 million 

program. We have terminated that, backed off even further. 

And this year we are proposing a minimum program, a minimized strategy, if you will, that will include only the FAA upgrades 

to the C–130s that are required to meet FAA requirements for the 

National Airspace System by 2020 and to meet other international 

FAA-equivalent standards. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Great. 

Well, thank you. Again, I want to, again, just end by applauding 

the work that you did with Congress last year, and look forward 

to continuing it this session. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley, General Welsh, thank you for being here. 

I want to echo the statements of Rob Bishop concerning the importance of the Air Force as we look to the crisis that we are currently in. I think it absolutely illustrates the need for strong air superiority and air capabilities and for missile defense. 

And as chairman the Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee and, 

of course, the co-chair of the Air Force Caucus and with WrightPatterson Air Force Base in my backyard and the 30,000 people 

who work inside the fence, who contribute every day to the national security, I know that you know that I appreciate what the 

Air Force mission is. 

And I want to commend General Wolfenbarger of Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for her effort and leadership with the workforce at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, considering the difficult time of sequestration. She has raised the issue 

that sequestration, which I know both of you gentlemen know that 
23 

I opposed, the effects that this has on individuals and that there 

are people who have kids in college, house payments to make, family vacations that are being cancelled, as you look to the almost 

13,000 people at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the civilian 

workforce that would be facing furlough. So I appreciate your dedication and attention to those individuals as we go through the sequestration implementation. 

A few comments about the issue of sexual assault, which has unfortunately been one that the Air Force has had to deal with very 

frequently. I want to commend General Harding. He has done an 

excellent job on the Special Victims’ Counsel Program as a result 

of legislation that came out of the House and this committee trying 

to provide victims with legal counsel. General Harding has, I believe, a model for DOD. And my co-chair, Niki Tsongas, and I of 

the Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus are very pleased with that. 

And, General Welsh, thank you for your support for the amendment of Article 60 as a result of General Franklin’s, I believe, inappropriate and improper setting aside of a sexual assault conviction 

in the officer’s court-martial conviction. Congresswoman Tsongas 

and I are working on language that would amend Article 60, and 

we think we have a good proposal that we appreciate, General 

Welsh, your willingness to work with us on your thoughts on that. 

Mr. Secretary, we have talked before about NASIC [National Air 

and Space Intelligence Center]. As we look to cuts in budgets and 

we look to sequestration, I am always concerned about the effect 

on our intel community. I believe that, you know, as we look to reorganizations, BRACs, sequestration, issues like that are always at 

risk. And I think you know that NASIC is a high performer and 

is critical to our intelligence community and certainly has played 

a significant role as we look to the issue of the threats of North 

Korea. 

I wondered if you might speak for a moment on the importance 

of NASIC’s function and the Air Force’s recognition that, as we go 

through this process, the importance to uphold NASIC. 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, NASIC is critical to our air and space 

intelligence enterprise. It provides not just good intelligence support to the Air Force and the joint team, but this combination of 

intelligence and technical support that is focused on aerospace matters is particularly important to the Air Force right now, and especially in the space domain and in the cyber domain as those areas 

grow in importance. So this is a very important asset for the 

United States Air Force. 

Mr. TURNER. Great. Thank you. 

General Welsh, as we look to sequestration and the effect on our 

tactical fighter inventory, we have grave concerns as to what those 

impacts will be in the short term, long term, and also the effects 

of—as we look to inventory shortfalls, productions, increased costs 

later as we try to respond. If you could speak for a moment about 

the effects of sequestration on that production, I would appreciate 

it. 

General WELSH. Congressman, as you know, it affects us nearterm, and clearly it will affect the cost of modernization and the 

cost of acquisition of new programs. Everything that delays a pro-
24 

gram like the F–35 will add unit cost over time; it will stretch the 

program out, which will add additional costs. 

I think our focus has to be to minimize that, which is the reason 

for some kind of predictable topline budget going forward which allows us to do the long-range planning we need to do to be able to 

do this the right way. Everybody understands that we are going to 

have to take cuts in the Department; we would just like to responsibly plan to get from point A to point Z. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

And, gentlemen, as we look to sequestration, I would appreciate 

your articulating very clearly the impacts on our national security 

and how it affects our readiness. I know DOD was restrained previously from doing that. 

Unfortunately, the President, in his budget, as you know, when 

he stated he was going to give us a sequestration proposal, did not. 

There are things in here like ‘‘have savings in Medicare as a result 

of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.’’ This is not a proposal that 

could either go to the House or the Senate and be passed and be 

implemented in any way that would offset sequestration. I would 

appreciate you telling the Administration they need to come up 

with a real proposal. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At the outset, I would like to echo the comments of Congressman 

Turner about the work that the Air Force is doing on victims’ counsel, providing access to counsel. I do agree it is a model, and I appreciate all the work that General Harding has put into it. And we 

continue to look forward to working with you on the powers of the 

convening authority. 

But I want to thank you both for being here as part of the regular process. I am the daughter of an Air Force officer. He was a 

survivor of Pearl Harbor, went on to serve for 20 years. And I grew 

up on Air Force bases across this country and the world, and it was 

quite a life. 

And I believe it is vital for our committee to work with you both 

to make sure we are providing the very best services for our airmen and fielding peerless technologies to defend our Nation. Clearly, as one of the country’s preeminent high-tech clusters of industry 

and academia, my State, Massachusetts, plays a critical role with 

this latter responsibility. 

So to get to an issue that is close to home, my office has been 

working with the committee for the past year to look for a path forward for a $450 million enhanced-use lease renovation project for 

MIT’s [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] Lincoln Labs, which 

is located on the grounds of Hanscom Air Force Base. 

Lincoln, as I am sure you know, is one of the Nation’s very finest 

federally funded research and development centers. And since the 

height of the Cold War, Lincoln has led the way in long-term defense technology development as well as rapid system prototyping 

and demonstration. 

But, unfortunately, parts of the facility have run into obsolescence issues. I view this as a critical project to keeping Lincoln Lab 
25 

on the cutting edge of technology and to make sure it is able to continue to work to confront the Nation’s most complex technological 

challenges. 

I appreciate the work both the Air Force and the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense have been doing to develop a path forward on 

this lease. But I would ask that you put a priority on this project 

and that you keep me informed should you have any issues or 

should you require the assistance of me or the committee. 

We included language in the last year’s defense conference report 

urging the proposal to move forward. We have to remember there 

are no taxpayer dollars associated with this. This is a commitment 

that MIT is making. And yet it has been too long in the making. 

So my question is a very simple one: Can I count on both of your 

support with this request, that we work on this and resolve it as 

expeditiously as possible? 

Secretary DONLEY. Ma’am, I am aware of this problem. I don’t 

have a solution for you today. 

As far as I can tell, this has to do with the scoring mechanisms 

that are out there, which are prejudicial, in the sense that the 

United States Air Force cannot stand behind a loan without having 

it be scored by OMB [Office of Management and Budget]. And if 

it has to be scored by OMB, it is the equivalent of a MILCON 

project. In other words, it goes on our books as a liability in that 

context, as a cost. We will continue to work those issues with OMB 

to try to find a way forward. 

I am going up there in 2 weeks and expect to get briefed on this 

project. I understand the larger scheme of the requirement and the 

need to find a way forward. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. As I have learned in life, where there 

is a will, there is a way. So let’s harness the will so we can find 

the way. 

Another question, quickly. Another concern around Hanscom Air 

Force Base is that fundamentally there is a lack of appreciation for 

Hanscom’s mission among many in the Air Force and that some of 

the misconceptions about Hanscom could be held toward other 

technical facilities as well. 

By the Air Force’s own admission, Hanscom’s C4ISR [Command, 

Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance] acquisitions portfolio is the most complex in 

the service. It seems to me that the best way to better appreciate 

that is if I could invite you, General Welsh, up to Massachusetts 

to come to Hanscom with me so that we can begin to better understand really the extraordinary offerings at Hanscom and the extraordinary work it does on behalf of the Air Force. 

Could I invite to you come up there at your convenience? 

General WELSH. I am honored that you would ask me. I would 

love to do that. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Great. Thank you so much. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. 
26 

General Welsh, I would be remiss if I didn’t pass on the fact that 

Carol Ann Bonds from San Angelo, Texas, sings your praises every 

single time I am around her. So you have done something to pull 

the wool over her eyes someway. I am not sure how that is working. 

General WELSH. Thank you. 

Mr. CONAWAY. As I spoke with Secretary Hagel yesterday, I am 

still keenly interested in the Air Force providing me and the rest 

of the taxpayers of the United States with auditable financial statements, systems that are sustainably auditable over the infinite horizon kind of thing. 

Can you talk to us a little about the struggles you are going to 

face with all these budget cuts, all these challenges to resources? 

And one of the easiest things to cut sometimes would be something 

like this, that we still have to move it forward in spite of everything else that is going on. So can you talk to me a little about 

where you are currently standing? 

Secretary DONLEY. We do have to continue to move this forward 

as a priority. 

I will say that it is more complicated as we make midyear 

changes and budgets go up and down and we focus on—in the Department of Defense and in the Air Force, we are spending more 

and more time on shorter and shorter distances in front of us. So 

we are very focused on just executing fiscal year 2013 right now, 

and a lot of other work has been pushed off. 

But to your specific question about audit readiness, we are still 

working this. We have had some progress. We have had some challenging aspects to this. 

Last year, we put out a bid for contractor support to get independent auditors to help us work through our auditable statements 

before they are submitted in their final form at the end of 2014 and 

beyond, to help us get ahead of this and get a professional look at 

what we are doing. That contract was protested and has been 

under protest, so we have lost some time there. 

But we have extended the DEAMS [Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System], our new budgeting system at Scott 

Air Force Base, which is getting off the ground there. We did get 

a clean opinion recently on missile components, part of our enterprise. And I think this was the first time that a part of DOD’s investment portfolio had gotten a clean opinion. 

So there has been some progress, but this is still uphill work for 

us. There is lots to do. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I recognize that. And just understand that 

we are going to continue to push where we can. 

Under the rubric, or under the category of if you are faithful to 

small things, you will be faithful to big things, my mail budget out 

of my congressional office has shrunk considerably because I quit 

using all the slick, four-color, five-color things and just try to communicate, trying to trim it back wherever I could. I just got handed 

the fiscal-year-something rollout. And we have pretty slick documents here that I don’t know what it cost to print them or prepare 

the data. 

But as you look at trimming costs wherever you can, these are 

the kinds of things that I think can—don’t get read, quite frankly, 
27 

and are just—the taxpayer could put that—you, I think, could put 

taxpayer money in better places than on these slick documents, 

some of which are just duplicates of things that have already been 

done. 

So I appreciate your commitment. 

General Welsh, I don’t know if you had a comment. I need your 

leadership, as well, on this audit thing. And getting a few comments from you would be helpful to the team you lead to make 

sure that I and they know how committed you and Secretary 

Donley are to this auditability thing. 

General WELSH. Congressman, I think we are on a well-designed 

and aggressive path to getting where we need to be by 2014. 

As you well know, the availability of IT [information technology] 

systems that allow us to expose and share data across system and 

functional lines is the biggest shortfall we have. It is a big shortfall. And there are an awful lot of people working awfully hard to 

figure out how to sneakernet and manually overcome that while we 

develop the IT systems in the future. 

This is a huge task. We are working it as hard as we can. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And you are committed to—— 

General WELSH. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. Thank you, General. 

Secretary, thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, what are the costs, the Air Force costs, of forwarddeploying nuclear weapons in Europe? 

General WELSH. Congressman, there are several types of costs 

that go into this. There are operations and maintenance costs. 

There is the cost of maintaining the storage facilities. There are the 

costs of the people that you train and station overseas to protect 

those facilities. There are the flying-hour costs to keep aircrews 

certified in the mission itself. There is the cost to do integrated 

training with NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] because 

it is an integrated mission inside the NATO structure. And then, 

of course, there are the costs over time of upgrading infrastructure, 

like the weapons storage vaults, upgrading weapons systems, upgrading command and control systems to support it. 

I couldn’t even begin to give you a number off the top of my head 

that incorporates all of that, but it is expensive over time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Uh-huh. Approximately, per year, are we talking 

about, what, $5 billion? $10 billion? Neighborhood. 

General WELSH. Yeah, Congressman, I would have to get back to 

you with that, unless the boss knows a number. There are so many 

pieces of that are in different places, that we would have to pull 

that together. I would be glad to try and do that and give you a 

ballpark figure, though. 

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

page 79.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

You would not have anything to add to that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary DONLEY. No. 
28 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. 

Well, what about cyberspace and the Air Force’s ability to operate within that space? Is the Air Force currently addressing cyberspace as a part of its defense capabilities? 

Secretary DONLEY. Absolutely. This has been part of our force 

structure for some period of time. And it has been about 4 years 

since we established 24th Air Force, which is the Air Force component of U.S. Cyber Command, which reports to Strategic Command. So we have had a dedicated number at Air Force to the 

cyber work. And there are other cyber capabilities that we provide 

to the DOD and joint community that are considered very highvalue assets. 

This is one area where it is not clear how big the cyber workforce 

is going to be in the future. We all face manpower constraints, and 

it is one where technology and expertise plays a very big role. And 

so we are not quite sure yet what the joint requirement will be or 

what the upper limit requirements will be for Air Force personnel 

and force structure. 

The chief, I think, has a little bit. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you recruiting and training airmen with cyber 

skills, and are you retaining them after the training? 

Secretary DONLEY. Absolutely. There is cyber training at three or 

four levels in our Air Force, from basic introductory to journeyman 

to highly expert network warfare kinds of training, takes place 

across our Air Force. 

We have been able to retain airmen, generally. Where we have 

had more difficulty in doing that at some of the more highly skilled 

levels that are prone to having airmen leave and go to work in the 

private sector, we have extended enlistments and we have added 

dollars to our personnel accounts to induce airmen to stay longer 

to provide extra benefits and extra pay, if you will, to keep them 

longer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that something that you need any help from 

this committee with? 

Secretary DONLEY. If we do, we will be sure and tell you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. 

And Mr. Bishop opened up the question of the long-range strike 

bomber, and so, Mr. Secretary and General Welsh, I want to return 

there. The home of Global Strike Command is in my district. I was 

very pleased to hear you say very supportive things about the fact 

that we need to continue funding the development and, in fact, increase funding for development of this valuable program. 

I didn’t get a chance to ask this question, though, to Secretary 

of Defense Hagel. Can you give me an idea of, does he share, Mr. 

Secretary, your feelings about the long-range strike bomber and 

the need to develop it? 

Secretary DONLEY. I would say over the course of the last month 

the Secretary and I have not had an opportunity to talk specifically 

about the long-range strike bomber. I believe he understands the 
29 

value of this capability. It got support in the Defense Strategic 

Guidance, which remains an anchor for the Department as we consider future alternatives and options going forward. 

So I believe he supports the program, but I have had no direct 

conversations with him on that. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. Yes. 

One of the issues that pops up at times is this nuclear triad, 

which, of course, has been a fundamental part of peace through 

strength and nuclear deterrence. Mr. Secretary and General Welsh, 

both, what is your feeling about maintaining and continuing the 

concept of a nuclear triad? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, I would just offer and would like the 

chief to chime in, as well, with his views. 

My view is that, even if the nuclear enterprise gets smaller, it 

is important that we remain committed to, we take advantage of 

the diversity of the nuclear triad. 

So each, the land-based, the sea-based, and the bomber-based, 

leg of this triad has operational advantages and disadvantages. 

And our task and our opportunity with the triad is to complicate 

an aggressor’s problem by presenting so many problems and challenges that no one would contemplate using nuclear weapons 

against the United States. And I think the triad helps fulfill that. 

Dr. FLEMING. Extremely well put. 

Yeah, General Welsh. 

General WELSH. I would just like to add to that by saying, in 

operational terms, what the triad gives us is flexibility, responsiveness, and survivability. And those three things together, I think, 

are kind of the strength of our nuclear deterrence posture. 

Dr. FLEMING. Obviously, deterrence is the real bottom line to nuclear weapons. We have them and we can deliver them so that we 

never have to do that. And, certainly, I agree with you; creating serious problems for potential adversaries in that arena is really our 

goal here. 

What about the ALCMs [air-launched cruise missile]? What is 

our follow-on to our current ALCM, which is, of course, the modern 

system by which we deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons 

from our bombers? 

Secretary DONLEY. Well, our plan is to sustain the ALCMs 

through about 2030. There is a follow-on program, the long-range 

standoff missile, which is early in development and is part of the 

nuclear modernization plan that has been described to Congress in 

the past. 

Dr. FLEMING. Uh-huh. 

Anything else to add to that, General Welsh? 

General WELSH. No, sir. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. Great. With that, thank you, gentlemen, and 

thank you for your service. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

It looks like votes are imminent, and we still have several Members that haven’t had the opportunity to ask questions. We will try 

to get one or two in, and I think we can still make the first vote. 

And there are three votes, so we would have to have a short recess. 
30 

But I want to ask, any of the Members, will you be coming back? 

One, two—okay. 

Mr. Secretary, General, if you could be patient with us. 

Let me ask again, will any of you return after the series of votes 

that don’t get to ask your questions first? 

Okay. Then we will come back after the recess. 

Mr. Gallego? No questions? 

Mr. GALLEGO. I am happy ask after or submit them. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is your turn now, if you want to ask. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to submit them for the 

record, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Then, Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley, our national security space capabilities provide 

a tremendous advantage to the warfighter, whether it is GPS 

[Global Positioning System] signals navigating bombs to targets or 

missile warning satellites keeping watch around the globe 24/7. We 

invest billions in these capabilities. We rely on our space launch infrastructure to provide us assured access to space and these capabilities. 

The Air Force’s launch program, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, has a tremendous record of over 50 consecutive successful 

launches. Can you describe what the Air Force’s plans are in fiscal 

year 2014 and beyond in regards to maintaining the space launch 

capability? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, I think we are very well-positioned in 

that area. As you described, EELV [Evolved Expendable Launch 

Vehicle] has been a very successful program. Our concern has been 

that it has been growing in costs. 

We now have potential alternatives to that that are coming along 

through a group of companies that are described as new entrants 

into space launch. Working with NASA [National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration] and the National Reconnaissance Office, the 

intelligence community, we have crafted a strategy for how to bring 

in new entrants and certify them in space launch. 

At the same time we have been doing that, we have been working with ULA [United Launch Alliance] to drive down the costs of 

EELV and have developed an acquisition strategy to do that 

through block buys. And so we are getting—I think we are poised 

to get the best for the warfighter and the best for the taxpayer at 

the same time. 

So we will have block buys of EELV for the next few years. And 

then in the midteens, there will be an opportunity for new entrants 

to compete. And we will have the capability, subject to their certification and their readiness to compete, we will be able to have 

EELV and new entrants competing for launch capability. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Great. Let me just clarify, in your view, should 

the EELV launch capability contract be phased out or continue? 

Secretary DONLEY. There is a separate contract, I think it is referred to as the ELC [EELV Launch Capability] contract, which involves ULA support at the east and west range. And we recognize 

that this is an additional cost in EELV that needs to be worked out 

in order to create a level playing field between ULA and the new 
31 

entrants when we get into a competitive environment. So we are 

looking at how to work out that ELC contract in the context of creating a level playing field. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Just a couple points on your budget and sequestration. You 

know, obviously, your hands are tied. But we are going to rely on 

you, in part, for your professional advice, General Welsh and Secretary Donley, on how to reprioritize these cuts if, in fact, these 

deficit-reduction targets are with us to stay. 

And so a couple of the things I would like to look at are, if we 

are going to do a base realignment and closure commission and if— 

and I rely on you. If you say we have surplus capacity that is driving unnecessary costs, I am going to support you on that. But I 

really strongly believe that—and I think that there was language 

passed in the previous National Defense Authorization Act for you 

to look at foreign—I mean, overseas basing, as well. 

I really think that the notion of, you know, maintaining permanent forward-deployed bases where, you know, we have all the infrastructure there to support the military families and the schools, 

dependent schools, and all those things, as opposed to, you know, 

doing joint military exercises to demonstrate our support for our allies and rotational forces for shorter periods of time, moving units 

in and out, I think, is a lot more cost-effective. 

And especially when we are looking at closing bases down in the 

continental United States, I think it is unfair not to take that 

strong look in terms of our overseas bases. 

Would any of you like to comment on that? 

General WELSH. Congressman, I absolutely think we need to be 

taking a hard look at overseas infrastructure. We are in the process of doing that right now, both within the Air Force and in conjunction the Department of Defense, which is taking a broader 

look, and we are feeding that discussion. 

I don’t think we will find that end game that you can bring everything home. I think the idea that everything can be done 

rotationally—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Sure. 

General WELSH [continuing]. Is a nonstarter. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Nobody is saying that. 

General WELSH. But I think there are opportunities for consolidation and closures in areas in Europe, for example. I think we 

should do that. We are doing that this year to make it very clear 

so that we have done that before we ask for a round of BRAC in 

2015. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Enyart. 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General Welsh. 

General Welsh, in the fiscal year 2013 through 2017 FYDP [Future Years Defense Plan], Scott Air Force Base, which happens to 

be in my district, was positioned for three construction projects, 

two of which are the building of a TRANSCOM [Transportation 

Command] mission planning center for fiscal year 2016 at a cost 

of $76 million, and in addition to the 126th Refueling Wing, a 
32 

squadron operations facility, that also was fiscal year 2016, at a 

cost of $11.4 million. 

Now, as you are well aware, Scott is, of course, the headquarters 

for TRANSCOM as well as AMC [Air Mobility Command] and 

other critically important missions. And the service they provide 

there to our Nation is critical, particularly considering the important work being done to transition our forces out of Afghanistan 

and enabling our military and, indeed, our Nation’s global reach. 

Yet, in the President’s new budget, these projects have been removed. 

Can you explain to me why they were a priority last year but not 

a priority this year, according to DOD? 

General WELSH. Congressman, I can’t. I will ask the Secretary 

if he can or I will take it for the record and get you an answer very 

quickly. 

Secretary DONLEY. Happy to do that for the record. 

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

page 79.] 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you. 

I would yield back the balance of my time and submit the balance of my questions in writing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. 

And you spoke briefly about the JSTAR, Secretary Donley. Obviously, that is in my district. I am very familiar with that platform. 

It is time that we either have to re-engine or replace. They are aircraft that continually fly. It is a mission that is extremely important to the Air Force and our national security. And I want to work 

with you in any way I can to make sure that we do what the Air 

Force needs there. 

My question is about the preferred approach to modernizing 

these aircrafts. It is my understanding that you prefer to replace 

it with a new platform. Is that correct? And could you speak to that 

briefly? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so—— 

Secretary DONLEY. But right now that—the funds to do that are 

not available. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. 

Just turning briefly to weapons system sustainment. We have 

three depots left in the Air Force. Obviously, aircraft is what we 

do in the Air Force, and we have to maintain a lot of them. 

Are you comfortable with the current requirement that the Air 

Force maintain the three depot strategy? 

Secretary DONLEY. I am. I think the Air Force is about rightsized at three depots. They are all very busy and have plenty to 

do. 

I am concerned in the near term about the impacts of sequestration—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. 
33 

Secretary DONLEY [continuing]. Which will defer about 60 aircraft, about 35 engines, and will create some backlogs for us moving forward. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. I am extremely concerned about that, as 

well, and want to work with you any way I can. 

I hope to have both of you at Robins Air Force Base and then 

in Moody Air Force Base, as well, in Georgia. I represent both of 

those areas. And, gentlemen, thank you for your service to the 

country, and thank you for your time. 

I yield the remainder of my time back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We have 1 minute left. Mr. Nugent, if you want to take 1 

minute? 

Mr. NUGENT. What I will do is give my question to the record, 

you know, if they would answer. 

We appreciate your time. Obviously, having been in the blue, we 

appreciate what you do, both of you, in seeing you just recently. So 

my question will come back in a form in writing to you. Thank you 

so very much for your service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I just don’t want to see 

you miss the vote, and we have 2 minutes left to get there. 

And Mr. Langevin also had a question, and there may be some 

others that would submit for the record. 

But I don’t want to have you sitting here and then have them 

not come back. 

So thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your comments. I think this has been well worthwhile. 

And this committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 12, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 12, 2013 

(39) 

Statement of Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services 

Hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization 

Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force 

April 12, 2013 

The committee meets today to receive testimony on the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of the 

Air Force. I am pleased to welcome Secretary Donley and General 

Welsh. It takes great leadership to guide people through the kind 

of uncertainty we have been experiencing, and our Nation is fortunate to have you as our Nation’s flight leads. Thank you for your 

outstanding service as you tackle the incredible national security 

issues we face. 

After reading your budget materials, I was struck by the fact 

that in fiscal year 2013, your Active end strength was 329,500 men 

and women, a number which makes the Air Force about the same 

size it was when it became a separate component in 1947, and yet 

the world is certainly a different place today. Your fiscal year 2014 

request reduces end strength to 327,600. I worry about this, especially as we consider the strategic implications of recent events on 

the Korean Peninsula where airpower plays such a critical role in 

assuring our national security interests. As you say in the budget 

materials, you are attempting to trade size for quality, but quantity 

often has a quality all of its own, particularly in the vast expanse 

of the Pacific. You know, when Admiral Locklear was here a few 

weeks ago, he pointed out to us that if you take the size of the Pacific, you could put all the land mass in that space and still have 

room left over for, I believe he said, Africa and Australia. Pretty 

big area. 

At some point we almost recognize that the assumption of mission risk will be too great. I hope that you will highlight your concerns regarding this issue in your testimony and provide more detail about where you see this trend going into the future. I also 

hope you will discuss the recent announcement at unit standdowns 

across the Air Force and its implications for force readiness. 

You know, I think this committee is well aware of these problems, but I don’t think the whole Congress is, and I am convinced 

that the Nation really doesn’t understand the severity of the cuts 

that we have been imposing. It could take years to recover from 

this decision because your people won’t be able to train. This complicates an already seemingly untenable situation after nearly two 
40 

decades of procurement, reductions, or deferrals for the Air Force 

and the resulting risks of maintaining an aged fleet of aircraft. 

With pilots not training, depot maintenance not being done, and 

the continued reduction of new aircraft procurement, we must ask 

ourselves where is the breaking point, and what we need to do to 

prevent it, how much risk is too much. 

I am encouraged by the request for the Air Force’s three most 

important modernization programs, the KC–46A tanker, the F– 

35A, and the Long-Range Strike Bomber, but those programs are 

budgeted to stay on track, but the effects of sequestration in fiscal 

year 2013 could result in a potential $1.6 billion bow wave in research, development tests and evaluation, and a $1.3 billion bow 

wave in procurement. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request does not provide any margin 

to repay programs that will be sourced to pay for critical readiness 

in fiscal year 2013. Air Force modernization cannot wait for the 

next big uptick in defense spending. We are in a difficult time, and 

we must make hard choices. Your testimony today will go a long 

way to help this committee and others in Congress make the right 

choices. 
41 

Statement of Hon. Adam Smith 

Ranking Member, House Committee on Armed Services 

Hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization 

Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force 

April 12, 2013 

I think the chairman has summed up quite well the challenges 

that you face. And we are all familiar with the impacts of sequestration, or I should say we are familiar with the fact that it did 

make things very difficult. The particular impacts are still being 

sorted out, I mean, literally on a day-by-day, if not hour-by-hour 

basis by all of our Services, and, of course, outside of the Department of Defense all aspects of the Government that are impacted 

by sequestration, and that is the great challenge. Given the defense 

threat environment that we have out there, which is not shrinking, 

it may be shifting and changing, but it is certainly not shrinking, 

how do we meet those threats? How do we budget? How do we plan 

in this uncertain environment? 

We have heard some about some of the changes the Air Force 

had made, the air wings, bomber wings that you have had to stand 

down, and I think what we are going to be most interested in 

throughout this hearing is how you plan to manage through that 

process. 

Again, I will just take this opportunity to emphasize that as a 

Congress, we need to stop sequestration. However we put it together, whatever the agreement is, mindless across-the-board cuts 

is simply the wrong way to run a government, you know. We can 

find ways to save that money, gosh, even within the discretionary 

budget a lot smarter than we are doing so right now, and I think 

a sense of urgency is simply not where it should be with this Congress to fix that problem. 

But we look forward to your testimony, Secretary Donley and 

General Welsh. You have served this country very, very well. We 

appreciate your hard work, and please let us know how you are 

dealing with this challenge and what we might be able to do to 

help. 
42 
43 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 AIR FORCE POSTURE STATEMENT 

STATEMENT OF: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL B. DONLEY 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 

GENERAL MARK A. WELSH III 

CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

APRIL 12, 2013 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
44 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... . 

Strategic Environment. ....................................................................................................... . 

Fiscal Environment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Air Force Core Missions ...................................................................................................... 4 

Air and Space Superiority ...... ................ ................ ................ ................ .................... 5 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance .... ................ ................ .................... 8 

Rapid Global Mobility ............................................................................................... 10 

Global Strike .............................................................................................................. 13 

Command and Control ............................................................................................... 15 

Airmen Readiness and Development ........ ................ ................ .......... ................ ............... 17 

Readiness .......... ........... ..... ................ ..... ........................... ..... ........... ..... ..... ...... ..... .... 17 

Ainnen Development ................................................................................................. 22 

ActivelReserve Component Balance .................................................................................. 24 

Conclusion ... ................................ ..... ...... ..... ..... ........................... ..... ........... ..... ................ .... 25 
45 

INTRODUCTION 

Today's Airmen playa pivotal role in the constant pursuit of better ways to defend the Nation. 

Since the airplane was employed over the battlefields of World War I, Airmen have stood for 

and pioneered new and innovative ways to shape the fight and reinvent the battle itself. While 

pre-Kitty Hawk warriors relied on breaking through fortified lines on the ground, Airmen have 

always sought to go over, not through, those fortifications to achieve victory. This spirit of 

innovation, seeing problems from an alternative, multi-dimensional perspective, is in our Service 

history, in our culture, and in every Airmen-Active, Guard, Reserve and Civilian-regardless 

of his or her specialty or role. We call this perspective "airmindedness." Airmen 

characteristically view security challenges differently-globally, without boundaries. 

As a direct result of our status as the world's preeminent aerospace nation, airpower-the ability 

to project military power or influence through the control and exploitation of air, space, and 

cyberspace to achieve strategic, operational, or tactical objectives-allows America to control 

the ultimate high ground that is essential to winning our Nation's wars. The air arms of the 

Army, Navy, and Marine Corps are supremely capable at what they do---facilitating their parent 

Service's respective mastery of operations on the ground, at sea, and in a littoral environment. 

However, America has only one Air Force specifically designed and precisely employed to 

exploit the singular global advantages of military operations in air, space, and cyberspace. 

Airmen provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power for America through the 

enduring Air Force core missions of air and space superiority, intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR), rapid global mobility, global strike, and command and control. By 

integrating capabilities across these core missions, we bring a unique set of options to deter war, 

deliver rapid, life-saving responses to threatened areas anywhere on the planet, and strike hard 

and precisely wherever and whenever the national interest demands. 

Recruiting and developing high-quality, innovative Airmen who leverage technology to rethink 

military operations to achieve strategic objectives will remain a fundamental tenet of the United 

States Air Force. Only through the efforts of Airmen who have led the way in integrating 

military capabilities across air, space, and cyberspace-even as their nnmbers have become 

significantly smaller-has our Nation maintained its airpower advantage. In an uncertain world, 

the Nation will depend even more on ready Airmen to deliver Global Reach, Global Vigilance, 

and Global Power. 

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT 

In January 2012, the Secretary of Defense issued new defense strategic guidance (DSG)-

Sustaining u.s. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense-which serves as a 

foundational document in establishing national security interests, the threats to these interests, 

and the fiscal realities that guide our military posture. The DSG directed a rebalance of forces, 

with a renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific region, as well as continued emphasis on the Middle 

East. Using the DSG as a point of departure, the Secretary of Defense recently directed a 

strategic choices and management review in light of budget realities-such as sequestrationand strategic uncertainty. This review will continue to help the Air Force to identify the major 

strategic choices that we must make to properly and realistically plan for the future. 

Although the future is uncertain, we know that the capability to sustain national priorities hinges 

upon a strong and capable Air Force. Over the last 12 years, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
46 

required Air Force capabilities to help force rogue regimes from power and then to provide 

critical support to land forces engaged in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, and 

the Air Force currently plans to maintain these capabilities. In addition, the expected military 

challenges of the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, and Africa suggest an increasing reliance 

on airpower, not only by America and her allies, but also by her adversaries. The defming 

characteristics of American airpower-range, speed, flexibility, precision, persistence, and 

lethality-have played a crucial role in cultivating stability in these regions, a trend that will only 

increase in the future. The sheer geographic size and extended lines of communication of the 

Asia-Pacific region, along with the developing military expansion of potential regional 

adversaries, demand an air force that is postured to ensure stability and preserve U.S. interests. 

The Air Force is committed, along with our joint partners and allies and through cooperative 

military relationships, to ensuring global and regional stability and mutual freedom of access to 

the global commons to secure our common interests around the world. 

The Air Force's technological advantage is threatened by the worldwide proliferation of 

advanced technologies, including integrated air defenses, long-range ballistic and cruise missiles 

with precision-capable warheads, and advanced air combat capabilities. Advances in adversarial 

capabilities in space control and cyber warfare may also limit U.S. freedom of action. Some of 

these technologies are attained with relatively minimal cost, greatly reducing the barriers to entry 

that have historically limited the reach and power of non-state actors, organized militias, and 

radical extremists. We live in an age of surprise, where individual acts can be powerful and the 

effects can be global. Today's strategic environment presents a broad range of threats and an 

unpredictable set of challenges, ranging from non-state actors to nuclear armed nations. We 

must continue to invest in our science and technology base to ensure that the future balance of 

power remains in our favor. This requires flexibility, versatility, and a shift to inherently agile, 

deployable, and networked systems from those designed for fixed purposes or limited missions. 

One initiative that we continue to pursue as we consider the strategic environment is the Air-Sea 

Battle concept. Air-Sea Battle is an operational concept focused on the ways and means that are 

necessary to overcome current and anticipated anti-access and area denial threats. By focusing 

on increased integration and interoperability between all Services, the concept ensures that joint 

forces maintain the ability to project power and protect national interests despite the proliferation 

of anti-access/area denial threats worldwide. The concept is not a strategy, nor does it target a 

specific adversary, but instead focuses acquiring pre-integrated, joint capabilities. Beyond 

conflict, the Air-Sea Battle concept can enhance response to humanitarian missions where 

weather or geography may deny access. 

Even as we rebalance our forces, we are aware that the time, place, and nature of the next 

contingency can never be predicted with certainty. When contingencies arise, we must maintain 

the ability to respond immediately and effectively if called to action. To align with the DSG, the 

Air Force has traded size for quality. We aim to be a smaller, but superb, force that maintains 

the agility, flexibility, and readiness to engage a full range of contingencies and threats. 

FISCAL ENVIRONMENT 

We recognize that because our Nation is striving to reduce spending and our military is 

transitioning operations from the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility and rebalancing 

to the Asia-Pacific region, the Air Force must adapt to a relatively static or reduced budget. 

2 
47 

However, reliance by the joint team and the Nation on our unique ability to provide Global 

Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power constrains Air Force options in reducing or 

terminating capabilities or missions. Therefore, we are working hard and making real progress 

in eliminating unnecessary expenses and ensuring more disciplined use of resources. 

Nonetheless, the fiscal environment requires us to make trades between force structure, 

readiness, and modernization among the core missions to ensure the highest quality and ready 

Air Force possible. 

Fiscal Year 2013 Sequestration Effects 

As a result of the triggering of the 2011 Budget Control Act's sequestration provision, the Air 

Force is implementing significant reductions to our fiscal year 2013 (FY13) operations. If the 

post-sequester Budget Control Act funding caps remain in effect, the Air Force will be unable to 

achieve our agenda of reinvigorating readiness and aligning to the DSG. In both the short- and 

long-term, sequestration will have devastating impacts to readiness, will significantly affect our 

modernization programs, and may cause further force structure reductions. 

Sequestration will force the Air Force to reduce expenditures by around $10 billion in FY13. 

These actions include a planned furlough of more than 170,000 civil service employees, an 18 

percent reduction in flying training and aircraft maintenance, and deferment of critical facility 

requirements (including runway and taxiway repairs). 

Many of these actions severely degrade Air Force readiness. Lost flight hours will cause unit 

stand downs which will result in severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation. 

We have already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber force. Within 60 

days of a stand down, the affected units will be unable to meet emergent or operations plans 

requirements. Lost currency training requires six months to a year to return to current suboptimal levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers requiring even longer. 

Sequestration impacts are already occurring, and the FY14 President's Budget (PB) does not 

assume the costs of recovering the readiness impacts from even a partial year of sequestration. 

Depot delays will also result in the grounding of some affected aircraft. The deferments mean 

idled production shops, a degradation of workforce proficiency and productivity, and 

corresponding future volatility and operational costs. It can take two-to-three years to recover 

full restoration of depot workforce productivity and proficiency. In our space portfolio, 

sequestration will force the elimination of some system redundancies, as well as other 

preventative maintenance actions designed to minimize risk. All of these sequestration impacts 

negatively affect Air Force full-spectrum readiness at a time when we have been striving to 

reverse a declining trend in this critical area. 

As a result of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, the Air Force 

has been able to make limited funding transfers and reprogramming actions that will help 

alleviate the most problematic and immediate FY13 funding shortfalls. However, the decisions 

that we have been forced to make in short-term spending may increase total costs over the long 

run. For example, sequestration cuts to Air Force modernization will impact every one of our 

investment programs. These program disruptions will, over time, cost more taxpayer dollars to 

rectifY contract restructures and program inefficiencies, raise unit costs, and delay delivery of 

validated capabilities to warfighters in the field. The drastic reduction to modernization 

3 
48 

programs reduces our Air Force's competitive advantage and decreases the probability of 

mission success in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Sequestration Effects in FY14 and Beyond 

The President's Budget includes balanced deficit reduction proposals that would allow Congress 

to replace and repeal sequestration in FY13 and the associated cap reductions in FY14 - 21. If 

sequestration is not replaced, however, the Air Force will have to rebuild degraded unit 

readiness, accept further delays to modernization, absorb the backlog in depot maintenance 

inductions, and invest additional funding to restore infrastructure. While the Air Force has made 

every effort to minimize impacts to readiness and people, the bow-wave of reductions, 

deferments, and cancellations associated with sequestration will challenge the strategic choices 

made in the FY14 budget submission. 

The exact impacts of sequestration on Air Force resources in FY14 and beyond depend on 

congressional action. We do know, however, that the national fiscal situation will require some 

reductions that may increase risk to our readiness, force structure, and our ability to modernize 

an aging aircraft inventory. In addition, the outcome of the strategic choices and management 

review may drive further changes. 

As we navigate the uncertain way ahead, in order to mitigate risk in critical areas like readiness, 

force structure, and modernization, and to avoid a hollow force, we will continue to work with 

Congress to develop force shaping options, urgently seek another base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round, and ask for relief from legislative restrictions on the reduction of excess force 

structure and from mandatory expenditures on programs that we have proposed to retire or 

terminate. To slow the growth in military compensation while also fully supporting the allvolunteer force, we also request congressional support on limiting the basic military pay raise to 

one percent and allowing sensible TRICARE fee and pharmacy co-pay changes. 

In spite of these fiscal challenges, the Air Force will continue to strive to balance reductions 

across the force to maintain the capabilities of the remaining forces and keep the Air Force 

strong. 

AIR FORCE CORE MISSIONS 

The Air Force will only remain a superb fighting force in FY14 and beyond by investing in the 

capabilities that enable us to bring our five core missions to the joint team. President Truman 

assigned several roles and missions to the Air Force at its establishment in 1947. Today, the Air 

Force brings essentially the same interdependent, integrated, and enduring contributions to the 

joint fight: 

• Air and space superiority; 

• Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; 

• Rapid global mobility; 

• Global strike; and 

• Command and control. 

4 
49 

Through these core missions, our Airmen provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global 

Power for America. While the means through which we provide these core missions will change 

and evolve--for example, the addition of space and cyberspace--the core missions themselves 

will endure. None of these core missions function independently. Their interdependency and 

synchronization provide an unparalleled array of options, giving America the ability to respond 

quickly in the face of unexpected challenges. 

The five core missions shape where we invest the resources we are given. However, the 

significant reductions that the Air Force has faced in the last few years have required us to make 

difficult choices. We have become a markedly smaller Service-the smallest in Air Force 

history. 

Despite this decline in size, our Airmen have stepped up to the challenge and delivered 

incredible airpower for the Nation, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They always 

respond when needed-from combat rescue Airmen who exfiltrate the wounded from 

battlefields, to joint terminal attack controllers who direct the actions of combat aircraft engaged 

in close air support, to mobility Airmen who quickly airlift personnel, vehicles, and equipment in 

both combat and relief operations, to the missile combat crews who sit nuclear alert to deter our 

enemies. These brave and innovative men and women must be properly trained and equipped to 

defend the Nation. Experience has taught us that during periods of fiscal austerity, tough 

decisions are necessary to avoid a hollow force--one that looks good on paper, but has more 

units, equipment, and installations than it can support, lacks the resources to adequately man, 

train, and maintain them, and are not provided with enough capable equipment and weapons to 

perform their missions. 

In each core mission described below, we highlight what each core mission means, why it is 

important, our Airmen's recent accomplishments in that area, and what we are focusing on for 

the future with respect to force structure and modernization. 

AIR AND SPACE SUPERIORITY •• • FREEDOM FROM ATTACK. FREEDOM TO ATTACK 

Air Superioritv 

Air superiority is foundational to the application of joint military power, and it ensures that the 

advantages of the other Air Force core missions, as well as the contributions of our sister 

Services, are broadly available to combatant commanders. It includes the ability to control the 

air so that our military forces do not have to worry about being attacked from the air, and it 

ensures that joint forces have the freedom to attack in the air, on the ground, and at sea. Air 

superiority has been and remains an essential precondition for conducting successful military 

operations. Air superiority has provided our Nation with a decades-long asymmetric advantage. 

Joint force and coalition commanders have come to expect mission-essential air superiority 

provided by America's Airmen. The Air Force has given them ample reason-not since April 

15, 1953, has an enemy combat aircraft killed a service member in the American ground forces. 

In the six major U.S. combat operations of the last two decades, the Air Force's ability to provide 

air superiority has played an indispensable role in determining the outcome of each conflict. 

Recently, in Operations ODYSSEY DAWN and UNIFIED PROTECTOR, our Airmen patrolled the 

skies of Libya providing 50 percent of allied airborne reconnaissance and 40 percent of allied 

strike missions, equating to over 1,800 total strikes in support of the United Nations-sanctioned 

5 
50 

no-fly zone. In addition, the Air Force provides nearly 100 percent of the Nation's homeland air 

defense. 

Although air superiority underwrites the freedom of action required for all joint military 

operations, there is no guarantee of it in the future. Substantial near peer investment and 

proliferation of advanced technologies threatens this freedom of action. Our legacy, or fourthgeneration, fighter fleet has secured more than 20 years of an air superiority advantage, but may 

lose its ability operate as effectively in contested environments. Large-scale use oflegacy 

aircraft in these environments could be inhibited by the increased survivability of highly lethal, 

advanced integrated air defenses that will likely persist for the duration of future conflicts. Our 

air superiority future depends on modern technology and fifth-generation fighter capability. 

Weapon systems like the F-22, with contributions from the F-35, are what will carry America's 

Air Force forward to continue to provide that capability. Fifth-generation aircraft possess the 

survivability to operate despite these threats, and the Nation will need them in quantity. 

In FYI4, the Air Force will focus on maintaining air superiority by investing $1.3 billion to 

modernize the F-22 and F-15 fleets. The last F-22A was delivered in May 2012. The current F22 upgrade programs include hardware and software enhancements to improve electronic 

protection, weapons capabilities, and service life. The F -IS is undergoing full scale fatigue 

testing to determine remaining service lifespan. In FYI4, the Air Force is requesting $308 

million for F -IS fleet radar and electronic warfare upgrades that will permit it to operate in 

conjunction with fifth-generation aircraft in the future threat environment. 

Space Superiority 

Along with air superiority, space superiority is integral to our forces' ability to remain free from 

attack and have the freedom to attack in the air, on land, and at sea. Joint, interagency, and 

coalition forces depend on Air Force space operations to perform their missions every day. For 

example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) enables precision guided munitions employment 

by all Services, in all weather conditions, minimizing collateral damage and providing the 

nanosecond-level timing needed by today's interconnected and highly-networked 

communications systems. Beyond defense uses, annual GPS benefits to the economy are in the 

tens of billions of dollars. Air Force military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) systems, 

including Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and Wideband Global SATCOM 

(WGS) satellites, provide wideband and protected communications to deployed forces around the 

globe. This enables the command and control needed by our joint force commanders and allows 

deployed warfighters to receive intelligence, logistical, and other support from those serving at 

their home stations. 

In calendar year 2012 (CYI2), the Air Force launched nine National Security Space (NSS) 

satellites to bolster our GPS, MILSATCOM, and sitnational awareness, and this year, we have 

successfully launched an additional satellite to enhance our missile warning capability. These 

launches include putting the fourth WGS, the second AEHF satellite, and the Space-Based 

Infrared System (SBIRS) GEO-2 satellite into orbit. The Air Force also delivered to orbit a new 

communications satellite for the Navy, a third GPS II-F satellite, and four National 

Reconnaissance Office satellites, as well as handled the third successful launch of an orbital test 

vehicle (OTV), including the first reuse of OTV -I. These launches make 58 consecutive 

successful Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EEL V) launches to date and 90 consecutive 

successful NSS missions. 

6 
51 

To continue to advance our space superiority mission, the Air Force will continue to launch 

satellites to enhance the GPS, AEHF, WGS, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), 

and SBIRS constellations. In CY13, in addition to the SBIRS GEO-2 launched in March, the Air 

Force has five more launches planned- two GPS, one AEHF, and two WGS. In CYI4, the Air 

Force plans five launches-three GPS, one DMSP, and one additional EEL V launch. Each of 

these launches will continue the necessary modernization of space-based positioning, navigation, 

and timing, protected communications, weather monitoring, and missile warning. 

Despite our success in space, we cannot take our space technological capabilities and advantages 

for granted. The barriers to space access have dropped; nine nations have cleared the 

engineering and technical challenges required to reach space independently, and at least 40 other 

nations have a space presence. As a result, the current space environment is more congested, 

contested, and competitive than ever, and we will see this trend continue for the foreseeable 

future. To ensure that America remains a nation with unfettered access to space and superior 

space capabilities, the Air Force is pursuing ways to maintain a resilient! and affordable system 

architecture. Building and launching satellites is expensive, and we are exploring ways to reduce 

costs, increase competition, and improve resiliency without introducing unacceptable risk. 

Our space programs demand significant modernization investment, and the pace of 

modernization for those programs often is based on the life expectancy of on-orbit capabilities. 

The Air Force's 10 largest programs include four space systems upon which the joint team and 

the American public depend. We must sustain these critical space capabilities with a focus on 

warfighting and mission assurance priorities, while accepting risk to meet fiscal goals. 

To get our satellites safely into orbit, the Air Force has implemented a new EEL V acquisition 

strategy to efficiently purchase up to 36 EEL V common core boosters at a savings of more than 

$1 billion. This strategy also introduces a competitive environment for up to 14 additional 

common core boosters for which new launch provider entrants can compete, starting as early as 

FYI5, giving new entrants a clear path to compete for future NSS missions. For FYI4, we are 

investing $2 billion in EEL V. 

Our Efficient Space Procurement (ESP) strategy is driving down satellite costs, resulting in 

savings across the future years defense program (FYDP) of more than $1 billion for AEHF 

satellites, and modernizing MILSATCOM systems to provide greater capacity, force reach back, 

and access in benign, contested, and nuclear environments. To improve our ability to provide 

global, persistent, and infrared surveillance capabilities, the Air Force is requesting $1.2 billion 

in FY14 for sustained funding of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS). We have already 

achieved over $500 million in savings due to our "block buy" approach and have the potential 

for additional future savings in the SBIRS program due to the ESP strategy. 

I Resilience is the ability of an architecture to support the functions necessary for mission success in spite of hostile 

action or adverse conditions. An architecture is "more resilient" if it can provide these functions with higher 

probability, shorter periods of reduced capability, and across a wider range of scenarios, conditions, and threats. 

Resilience may leverage cross-domain or alternative government, commercial, or international capabilities. 

2 ESP is an acquisition strategy that builds on the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation-developed concept known as Evolutionary Acquisition for Space Efficiency (EASE). EASE sought to 

lower the cost of acquiring space systems by using block buys and reinvesting the savings into the Space 

Modernization Initiative. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition took the EASE 

concept as a building block and added "should cost/will cosf' methodology and ftxed price incentive fee contracting. 

7 
52 

In addition to replenishing and modernizing aging satellite constellations in critical space 

mission areas, the Air Force must improve space surveillance and the resilience of space-based 

capabilities. Therefore, in FY14, we are requesting $1.2 billion to modernize the GPS space, 

control, and user segments, including the addition of new signals and enhanced anti-jam 

capabilities. To ensure precision navigation and timing capabilities in the future, we are also 

developing technologies, including chip scale atomic clocks, cold atoms, and vision-based 

navigation to reduce dependency on GPS. Space situational awareness (SSA) is truly 

foundational for ensuring our ability to operate safely and effectively in space. To improve our 

ability to discover, search, and monitor near earth objects, we are requesting $403.7 million to 

fund the Space Fence, a new system that will provide increased capacity to observe objects in 

space and, therefore, improve our ability to safely operate our critical space systems. 

International Space Partnerships 

The Air Force remains fully committed to the long-term goal of fostering international 

relationships and supporting ongoing security efforts with partner nations around the globe. 

Teaming with allies and partners not only helps cost-sharing, but it also increases their capability 

and their capacity to support contingency operations. Space is an area in which we have made 

significant progress in building partnerships. For example, in May 2012, the Air Force 

concluded a United States-Canada SSA partnership memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

regarding the Canadian Sapphire satellite system, and we successfully concluded a United 

States-Australia MOU in November 2012 to begin an eight-year, bilateral effort to provide 

dedicated space surveillance coverage in the southern hemisphere. International partners are also 

supporting our SATCOM efforts. In January 2012, the Air Force signed the WGS MOU with 

Canada, Demnark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and New Zealand to enable expansion of the 

WGS program to a ninth satellite, thus increasing interoperability and partner access to the 

system. We are also acquiring and fielding the AEHF constellation in cooperation with our 

international partners from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada. In addition, the 

Air Force has also established nine bi- or multi-lateral international agreements to advance the 

benefits of the GPS system. 

In coming years, our Nation's ability to gain and maintain superiority in air and space will 

become progressively more contested as sophisticated technologies continue to proliferate. 

Beyond modernizing our systems, the key to maintaining air and space superiority is ready and 

trained Airmen who are properly equipped for their mission. When called upon, these Airmen 

must command a well-honed combat edge so that they are ready to prevail even against the most 

advanced opponents. 

INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE ••• EYES AND EARS ON 

ADVERSARIES 

Since the beginning of armed conflict, superior knowledge of adversary intentions, capabilities, 

and actions has been a critical enabler to victory. The evolution of globally integrated ISR has 

fundamentally changed how our military fights wars. The tremendous demand for Air Force ISR 

during recent conflicts and crises highlights their combat advantage. ISR capabilities are among 

the first requested and deployed, and they are increasingly essential to all facets of Air Force and 

joint operations. Airmen deliver integrated, cross-domain ISR capabilities that allow the Air 

8 
53 

Force to provide our Nation's decision-makers, commanders, and warfighters with a continual 

information advantage over our adversaries. 

The Air Force ISR force is networked to provide both foundational intelligence and immediate 

warfighter support. Sensors operating in air, space, and cyberspace, global communication 

architectures, and a network of regionally aligned centers enable our forces to conduct 

exploitation and analytical efforts in support of combatant commander requirements. The Air 

Force Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) is a critical capability within this global 

network, providing decision advantage across the spectrum of conflict, in all theaters, and in 

support of all operations. 

Last year, our ISR Airmen conducted intelligence preparation of the operational environment, 

shaped combat plans for 33 named operations, enabled the removal of700 enemy combatants 

from the fight, and provided critical adversary awareness and targeting intelligence to U.S. and 

coalition forces in over 250 "troops-in-contact" engagements. ISR Airmen enhanced battlespace 

awareness through 540,000 hours of sustained overwatch of tactical maneuver forces and lines of 

communication and identified over 100 weapons caches and explosive devices that would have 

otherwise targeted American and partner forces. 

ISR Force Structure and Modernization 

In FYI4, our ISR budget request maintains investments in the DCGS, the MQ-l Predator, the 

RC-135 Rivet Joint, the RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 40, and U-2 programs, and makes internal 

adjustments in MQ-9 Reaper program funding so that the program was able to meet a key 

acquisition milestone. 

The Air Force remains on track to field 65 MQ-IB Predator and MQ-9A Reaper combat air 

patrols by May 2014. To maintain our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations, we are 

standing-up five new medium-altitude remotely piloted aircraft combat air patrols in calendar 

year 2013 and continuing our transition to an all-MQ-9 fleet. We have built a highly effective 

permissive ISR capability-a growth of 4,300 percent since 2000-but the survivability in 

contested environments of some remotely piloted aircraft (RP A) is questionable. Therefore, in a 

post-Afghanistan security environment and as we rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, we are reviewing 

the need to adjust the RP A mix toward more survivable systems. 

The enduring and universal requirement for ISR capabilities, coupled with a complex and 

dangerous future security environment, drive the need to modernize our ISR forces. This 

modernization will include improved automated tools for the Air Force DCGS, a system that 

allows the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of an enormous amount of information 

every day, as well as integrated networks that are secure and reliable. The regionally aligned 

distributed ground sites will be the centerpiece of our cross-domain, global ISR enterprise and 

will allow Airmen to exploit real-time data from sensors and platforms, even in contested 

environments. To modernize to an easily upgradable and interoperable architecture, we must 

overcome policy and technical impediments to allow for seamless intelligence sharing and 

integration with intelligence community agencies, other Services, and coalition partners. The 

FY14 PB requests $62 million for military construction investments for a new DCGS building to 

support more than 200 operators, maintainers, support personnel, and mission systems at Beale 

AFB, California. 

9 
54 

Significant reductions in Air Force-provided ISR capabilities would be inconsistent with the 

current needs of our joint forces. Although ISR forces will continue to engage in 

counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, they must also evolve to address the 

challenges of the more contested environment of the Asia-Pacific region, including increased 

emphasis on air and naval forces, as well as greater cooperation and partnership with allies and 

regional partners. For example, we are currently exploring potential ISR efficiencies that can be 

gained by collaborating with the Navy, and we continue to grow and mature our intelligence 

partnerships with strategic allies across the Pacific. One ISR Airmen will also continue their 

partnerships within the intelligence community to leverage national capabilities for the air 

component commander and better position combat support agencies to support air, space, and 

cyber operations. 

To enhance our ability to conduct ISR across the range of military operations, we must shift our 

efforts to solutions that enable robust and reliable communication architectures, all-domain data 

processing and exploitation, advanced analytical tools, and cross-domain targeting. We are 

dedicated to improving the automation and machine-to-machine capabilities of intelligence 

analysis systems in order to deliver greater operational advantage to combatant commanders. 

Therefore, in the FY14 PB, we are requesting an increase of 88 personnel at the Air Force 

Targeting Center to support deliberate planning requirements, and we are investing $20 million 

for network centric collaboration targeting capabilities, which includes developing targeting 

automation tools, machine-to-machine interfaces, and auto-populate capabilities across ISR 

intelligence and command and control systems. We also plan to add Air National Guard 

targeting units at two locations to solidifY our commitment to reinvigorating the Air Force 

targeting enterprise. 

The strength of our Air Force ISR enterprise continues to be our professional, well trained, and 

dedicated Airmen, officer, enlisted, and civilian, who take all this technology and data and 

transform it into a decision advantage for our Air Force, our joint teammates, and our Nation. 

Air Force ISR allows our forces to own the night in Afghanistan, connect with partners across 

Europe and Africa, and provide warning on the Korean peninsula. The integration of air, space, 

and cyber ISR is a powerful capability-one in which we must continue to invest our talent and 

resources. 

RAPID GLOBAL MOBILITY ... DELIVERY ON DEMAND 

The Air Force's rapid global mobility core mission projects American influence quickly and 

precisely to anywhere on the face of the earth. Air mobility forces provide swift deployment and 

sustainment capability by delivering essential equipment and personnel for missions ranging 

from major combat to humanitarian relief operations around the world and at home. On any 

given day, the Air Force's mobility aircraft deliver critical personnel and cargo and provide 

airdrop of time-sensitive supplies, food, and anununition on a global scale. America's mobility 

fleet averages one take-off or landing every two minutes, every day of the year. 

Airlift 

The Air Force provides unprecedented airlift responses through our strategic and tactical airlift 

fleets. Here at home, a 12-base effort was initiated within 72 hours of Super storm Sandy's 

landfall in October 2012. Active and Reserve airlift crews from Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base (AFB), McChord AFB, and Travis AFB converged on March Air Reserve Base and worked 

10 
55 

together to move 356 utility workers from across California and 134 utility vehicles with their 

associated equipment-totaling 2.4 million pounds of cargo-in less than 96 hours to places like 

Stewart Air National Guard Base and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. This 

Total Force effort helped quickly bring utility trucks and workers to where they were needed on 

the East Coast to help restore power to affected Americans four days sooner than if the vehicles 

and equipment would have been driven across the country. 

In CYI2, Airmen flew 38,000 airlift missions, and over the course of 1,300 airdrops, the Air 

Force dropped 40 million pounds of life-saving sustainment to coalition forces on the ground in 

Afghanistan-86 percent more than the entire Korean War. The capability to airdrop personnel, 

equipment, and humanitarian relief, especially in contested environments, remains critical to our 

Nation's defense. 

For the inter-theater airlift fleet, C-17 procurement will complete this year, but essential 

modernization programs to standardize the configuration of the entire 223 aircraft fleet continue. 

Our FY14 budget request includes $1.1 billion to continue the conversion of 52 C-5B aircraft to 

C-5M Super Galaxy aircraft, with expected completion in FYI7. 

In FYI4, the Air Force will also continue its efforts to modernize its intra-theater airlift and 

special operations C-130-type aircraft. In 2014, the Air Force seeks congressional support to 

embark upon a C-130J multi-year procurement contract that will extend through FYI8. Over the 

course of this contract, we will procure 72 C-13OJ-type aircraft to further recapitalize our airlift, 

special operations, and personnel recovery platforms. The contract is expected to provide 

approximately $574.3 million worth of savings to the Air Force over the life of the procurement 

program and deliver aircraft earlier than annual contracts would. 

Supported by the C-130 multi-year contract, the Air Force has programmed $963.5 billion 

dollars to continue procurement of ACIMC-130Js to recapitalize Air Force Special Operation 

Command's MC-130EIP and AC-130H aircraft. The AC-130H recapitalization effort concludes 

in FYI4, as does the CV-22 procurement, with the purchase of the last three airframes. 

Air Refueling 

Mobility forces also provide in-flight refueling-the linchpin to power projection at 

intercontinental distances. Over the past 50 years, the Air Force has provided unparalleled air 

refueling capability to support the interests of our Nation and her allies. The Air Force flew 

16,000 tanker missions last year, and since September 11,2001, America's tanker fleet has 

offioaded over 2.36 billion gallons to joint and coalition air forces. The new KC-46 tanker will 

help maintain this capability-the backbone of America's military reach-while also extending 

the range and persistence of joint and coalition aircraft. 

As the Air Force considers where to invest in this core mission area, we are seeking the most 

effective and efficient way to move people and equipment. We also anticipate a future that will 

call for us to provide rapid global mobility to remote, austere locations in contested 

environments. This will first require a very capable tanker fleet. Replacing one-third of the 50 

year-old KC-135 aerial refueling tanker fleet with the KC-46A is our top Air Force acquisition 

priority. The KC-46A program will ensure that our Nation retains a tanker fleet able to provide 

crucial air refueling capacity worldwide for decades to come. In FYI4, we programmed $1.6 

billion dollars for the manufacture of four developmental aircraft. The initial flights of the KC11 
56 

46A test aircraft are scheduled to begin in FYI4. The program is currently executing as planned, 

and we are on track to receive 18 operational aircraft by late FYI7. Until the KC-46A reaches 

full operational capability, we are resourcing critical modernization of the KC-lO and KC-135 

tanker fleets. 

Combat Rescue/Aeromedical Evacuation 

Combat rescue and aeromedical evacuation forces are other key parts of the rapid global mobility 

force. The Air Force is the only Service with a dedicated force organized, trained, and equipped 

to execute personnel recovery. These highly trained Airmen support Air Force, joint, and 

coalition forces in a wide variety of mission areas. With a unique combination of armed, highly 

advanced HH-60-G Pave Hawk helicopters and specially trained Airmen, we provide a unique 

capability to recover wounded soldiers and civilians in environments considered too hostile for 

standard medical evacuation units. In addition to overseas contingency deployments, these 

Airmen also serve as first responders during disaster relief and humanitarian assistance 

operations, making pararescue one of the most highly stressed career fields in the U.S. military. 

Since 2001, our combat rescue forces have saved over 7,000 lives, and in 2012 alone, they flew 

4,500 missions that saved 1,128 coalition, joint and partner nation lives in some of the harshest 

environments in the world. 

Aeromedical evacuation also continues to playa vital role in providing responsive, world-class 

medical support to wounded soldiers and injured civilians around the globe. In CYI2, the Air 

Force airlifted 12,000 patients; since 2003, we have transported a staggering 195,000 patients. 

To enhance our response to battlefield evacuation support, we developed and deployed tactical 

critical care evacuation teams to provide triage care on rotary wing aircraft closer to the point of 

injury. Our health response teams include rapidly deployable, modular, and scalable field 

hospitals. They provide immediate care within minutes of arrival, surgery and intensive care 

units within six hours, and full capability within 12 hours of deployment. These advances have 

elevated battlefield survival rates to unprecedented levels, with a nearly 30 percent improvement 

since Operation DESERT STORM (Iraq) in the early 1990s. 

With the recapitalization of the HC-130NIP with the HC-130J through the C-130 multi-year 

program, the Air Force continues its effort to modernize its personnel recovery programs. The 

Combat Rescue Helicopter Program will replace the aging HH-60G fleet, and the Operational 

Loss Replacement Program will replace HH-60G aircraft lost during operations over the past 

decade, returning the HH-60G inventory to 112 aircraft. This year, we budgeted $393.6 million 

to fmalize the modification process and begin testing the fust two aircraft. The ability of Air 

Force helicopters to fight their way in and out of medical evacuation and recovery operations is 

unique to the joint team and has proven its value over the past ten years. Currently, the combat 

rescue fleet is sized appropriately to meet our global strategy. 

Mobility Force Structure 

Air Force mobility forces, including long-range strategic airlifters, tankers, and tactical airlifters 

are sized to move and sustain joint forces over long distances. Congress manages the long-range 

fleet to a specific floor, currently 301 aircraft. However, after submission to Congress of a report 

required by the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act, we anticipate that this floor will be 

lowered to 275. The tanker fleet is largely right-sized to support the joint force. However, the 

tactical airlift fleet is sized somewhat larger than the defense strategy requires. 

12 
57 

Rapid global mobility will continue to be a critical core mission for the Air Force. Whether it is 

sustaining the warfighter in any environment or delivering hope with humanitarian assistance, 

Airmen will ensure that the whole of government and international partners are strengthened 

with this unique capability to get assets to the fight quickly, remain in the fight, and return home 

safely. 

GLOBAL STRIKE ... ANY TARGET, ANy TIME 

As a significant portion of America's deterrent capability, Air Force global strike provides the 

Nation the ability to project military power more rapidly, more flexibly, and with a lighter 

footprint than other military options. The Air Force's nuclear deterrent and conventional 

precision strike forces can credibly deny adversary objectives or impose unacceptable costs by 

effectively holding any target on the planet at risk and, if necessary, disabling or destroying 

targets promptly, even from bases in the continental United States. Global strike may entail 

close support to troops at risk, interdicting enemy fielded forces, or striking an adversary's vital 

centers from great distances. Credible long-range strike capabilities are indispensable for 

deterrence and provide fundamental military capabilities to underpin U.S. military power. Air 

Force global strike capability relies on a wide-range of systems including bombers, missiles, 

tankers, special operations platforms, fighters, and other Air Force systems. 

Nuclear Deterrent Forces 

The unique attributes of the Air Force's nuclear deterrent forces-the stabilizing characteristics 

of the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and the flexibility of the bomber-underwrite 

the Nation's ability to achieve stability amidst the likely crises and challenges of the coming 

decades. Air Force B-2 and B-52 bombers and ICBM crews-who continually stand watch all 

day, every day-provide two legs of the Nation's nuclear triad, while our nuclear command, 

control, and communications systems provide the National Command Authority the necessary 

tools to employ all strategic forces. Together, our bombers, tankers, ICBMs, and dual-capable 

fighters provide this "no fail" capability as the backbone of America's deterrence. 

Against a backdrop of increasingly contested air, space, and cyber environments, the Air Force 

must maintain its ability to hold any target at risk and provide the Nation a credible strategic 

deterrent force. This capability, unmatched by any other nation's air force, will only grow in 

importance as America rebalances its force structure and faces potential adversaries that are 

modernizing their militaries to deny access to our forces. Therefore, the Air Force will 

modernize global strike capabilities to ensure that American forces are free to act when, where, 

and how they are needed. 

Consistent with the DSG, in FYI4, the Air Force is investing in the development of the long 

range strike family of systems. The Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B)-another of the Air 

Force's three top acquisition programs-is a key piece of that effort, and we are requesting 

$379.4 million for LRS-B in FY14. The Air Force is committed to leveraging mature 

technologies and streamlined acquisition processes to deliver an affordable new bomber with 

conventional and nuclear strike capabilities. Therefore, the Air Force will certifY the LRS-B for 

nuclear weapons employment within two years after initial operating capability to simplifY the 

development and fielding of the aircraft, as well as have the benefit of conducting its nuclear 

certification on a mature system. 

13 
58 

While the LRS-B is in development, sustaining and modernizing B-52 and B-2 bombers is 

critical to ensure that these aging aircraft remain viable. Upgrades to the B-2's Defensive 

Management System, communications improvements on the B-52 via the Combat Network 

Communications Technology (CONECT) program, and aircraft sustainment efforts, such as the 

anti-skid system replacement on the B-52, are just a few examples of steps being taken to ensure 

the effectiveness of our bomber fleet for years to come. Independent of specific platforms, we 

budgeted $122.8 million to continue the adaptive engine technology development effort to 

mature advanced propulsion technology to decrease fuel consumption and increase range and 

loiter time. 

Nuclear weapons improvements include the B61-12 tail kit assembly program, which is 

undergoing its preliminary design review. We are also modernizing ICBM fuzes for Mk21 and 

Mk12A re-entry vehicles, leveraging common technologies and components with the ongoing 

Navy fuze program. 

As long as nuclear weapons exist, the Air Force is committed to meeting the President's 

direction to maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrence capabilities. The quantity of 

nuclear-capable bombers and ICBMs comprising the bulk of the Nation's deterrent force may be 

reduced as we continue to implement the New START Treaty. However, the treaty allows both 

sides to determine their own force structures, which gives us flexibility to deploy and maintain 

our strategic nuclear forces in a way that is best calculated to serve our national security 

interests. But deeper reductions must consider multi-dimensional challenges from the world's 

emerging nuclear powers in a more complex security environment. The Nation's nuclear 

expertise must not be allowed to atrophy, and focused attention is necessary no matter the size of 

the nuclear force. 

Precision Strike Forces 

In addition to nuclear deterrent forces, our conventional precision strike forces hold any target at 

risk across the air, land, and sea domains. Currently, precision strike forces and armed ISR 

support joint and coalition ground forces in Afghanistan and Africa. In 2012, the Air Force flew 

and supported over 28,000 close air support sorties in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM 

(Afghanistan). However, as our forces rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region and as antiaccess/area-denial capabilities proliferate, the ability of our fourth-generation fighters and legacy 

bombers to penetrate contested airspace will be increasingly challenged. 

Success in counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions requires the continued ability to 

conduct operations in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments, using other than 

conventional forces. Air Commandos provide specialized expertise for infiltration, exfiltration, 

precision strike, battlefield air operations, ISR, and aviation foreign internal defense that are 

essential to joint special operations capabilities. In 2012, Air Force special operations personnel 

executed 1,642 strike missions and 7,713 specialized mobility missions. Persistent special 

operations presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere, increasing requirements in the Pacific, and 

enduring global commitments will continue to stress our Air Force special operations Airmen 

and aircraft. 

In FYI4, the Air Force is concentrating on funding the F-35 program-one of our top three 

acquisition programs. While also complementing the F-22's world class air superiority 

capabilities, the F-35A is designed to penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range of precision 

14 
59 

mumtlOns. This modem, fifth-generation aircraft brings the added benefit of increased allied 

interoperability and cost-sharing between Services and partner nations. In FYI4, we are 

investing $4.2 billion in the continued development ofthe F-35 weapon system and the 

procurement of 19 low rate initial production Lot 8 aircraft. The Air Force is focused on 

completion of the system design and development of the F-35 by FY17 and requests $782.3 

million in FY14 for this purpose. 

During F-35 development, it is imperative that we maintain our fourth-generation fighter fleet. 

The F-16 is undergoing full-scale durability testing to inform structural modification efforts to 

extend its service life. At least 300 F -16s will undergo a service life extension program and a 

capability enhancement called Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite, which permits 

them to remain relevant in the near-term threat environment until the F-35 is available in 

sufficient numbers. We are requesting $52.3 million in FY14 for these enhancements. 

Modernizing our munitions to align with the DSG is also an urgent requirement that is 

fundamental to managing the risk associated with combat force reductions. In FY14, the Air 

Force is investing $1.1 billion in preferred conventional munitions, such as the AIM-120D, AIM9X, AGM-158, and GBU-53, and is developing new munitions to address future needs. We are 

also continuing our efforts to ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal. 

The Air Force must maintain its ability to neutralize any target at any time with global strike 

forces so that America's military credibility will remain uncontested, allies will not worry, and 

potential adversaries will not be emboldened to challenge the pursuit of our national objectives. 

COMMAND AND CONTROL ... TOTAL FLEXIBILITY 

Airmen employ the Air Force's other four interdependent and enduring core missions through 

robust, adaptable, and survivable command and control systems. The Air Force provides access 

to reliable communications and information networks so that the joint team can operate globally 

at a high tempo and level of intensity. Air Force command and control systems give 

commanders the ability to conduct highly coordinated joint operations on an unequaled scale 

using centralized control and decentralized execution. 

The Theater Air Control System (TACS) is the Air Force's primary system to enable planning, 

control, and execution of joint or combined air operations. The senior element of the TACS is 

the air operations center (AOC). The inherently flexible capabilities of the AOC and its crews 

allow for deliberately plarmed responses to anticipated challenges and dynamically plarmed 

responses to contingencies. The Air Force's primary TACS weapons systems, such as the 

Control and Reporting Center (CRC), the E-3 B/C/G Airborne Warning and Control System 

(A WACS), and the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JST ARS), provide the 

AOC with the critical battle management, sensors, and communications that are required to get 

the right information to the right person in a timely manner. 

In Operation ODYSSEY DAWN (Libya) in 2011, TACS Airmen enabled more than 2,000 sorties to 

enforce the United Nations' no-fly zone. In 2012, Air Force command and control operations 

included: plarming, executing, and controlling over 60,000 combat sorties in support of 

Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (Afghanistan); over 12,000 sorties in support of Operation 

NOBLE EAGLE (U.S. air defense); over 1,700 sorties supporting 35 defense support to civil 

authorities events; over 9,000 global aeromedical evacuation missions; noncombatant evacuation 

15 
60 

operations as a result of the terrorist attack on the American embassy in Libya; and over 1,500 

ISR missions supporting United States Southern Command and Northern Command. Our 

command and control systems enabled us to conduct many of these operations simultaneously. 

It is essential that we continue to modernize, upgrade, and refit our operational and tactical level 

command and control systems and sensors to maintain the Nation's advantage in command and 

control. Our systems are under constant attack, as illustrated by the new and more capable 

threats emerging daily in the areas of cyber weapons, anti-satellite systems, advanced 

fighter/attack aircraft, and electromagnetic jamming. Our potential adversaries are also making 

advances by electronically linking their own combat capabilities, creating new military 

challenges that our forces must be prepared to address. 

To respond to these challenges, the Air Force will field advanced command and control systems 

that are more reliable, resilient, and interoperable. More importantly, we will recruit and train 

innovative Airmen to build, manage, and advance our complex and diverse command and 

control systems while enabling their ready use by our own and allied forces. Modernization of 

existing systems, such as the CRC and E-3G Block 40/45, and AOC 10.2 will serve as the 

backbone of this effort. In FYI4, we are investing $396.8 million in E-3G Block 40/45, $58.1 

million in AOC 10.2, and $26.4 million in CRC. We are also funding critical investments in 

future capabilities, such as the Joint Aerial Layer Network. The Air Force has also initiated 

modernization of crucial national command, control, and communications systems and is 

investing $52.3 million in FY14 to fund data linkages between fifth-generation aircraft and 

legacy fleets. Finally, the Air Force continues to examine alternatives for the future of the 

JSTARS mission area. 

Cyber Capabilities 

The capability to deliver airpower is intimately dependent on the ability to operate effectively in 

cyberspace, which is critical to all of our core missions and many of our command and control 

systems. Operations in cyberspace can magnifY military effects by increasing the efficiency and 

effectiveness of air and space operations and by helping to integrate capabilities across all 

domains. Pervasive and highly interconnected, cyberspace operations will remain extremely 

contested. The United States faces cyber-attacks on key infrastructures. The cost of entry is 

low, anonymity is high, and attribution is difficult. The Air Force recognizes the severity of 

these threats, as well as the speed and interconnected nature of cyberspace, and is dedicated to 

ensuring the access and freedom of maneuver that are essential for effective cyber operations. 

Cyber roles and responsibilities are certainly not exclusive to the Air Force; however, the 

integration of cyber capabilities with each of our core missions is an essential component of how 

we bring innovative, globally focused "airrnindedness" to ensure our warfighting advantage. In 

FY13, the Secretary of Defense decided on a new force model for Department of Defense (DoD) 

cyber operations. This model will increase the Air Force cyber force structure and manning. 

The additional manpower will provide the Air Force capability for national, combatant 

command, and Air Force cyber missions. For example, the Air Force has increased funding to 

$3.6 million in FY14 to Cyber Hunter teams who provide precision capability to identifY, pursue, 

and mitigate cyberspace threats affecting critical links and nodes within the Air Force network. 

The Air Force will continue to synchronize forces across air, space, and cyberspace to achieve 

mission success in dynamic battlespaces and support integrated and interoperable joint command 

16 
61 

and control capabilities that are agile, responsive, and survivable, even in contested 

environments. 

AIRMEN READINESS AND DEVELOPMENT 

While it is common to define the Air Force by its core missions or by our aircraft, missiles, and 

satellites, the reality is that our Service's unmatched capabilities exist only because of the 

imagination and knowledge of our outstanding Airmen. Accordingly, we believe in taking care 

of our people first, while always remaining focused on the mission. To ensure that our Airmen 

can continue to power the enduring core missions for the Nation, we must invest in their 

readiness and development. 

READINESS 

Underpinning our Airmen's ability to provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global 

Power to the Nation and contribute our core missions to the joint team is their readiness. 

"Readiness" is the ability of a unit to provide its designed operational capabilities within the 

required tirneline. It is comprised of personnel requirements, training (to include flying hours), 

weapon system sustainment, facilities, and installations. A good readiness posture depends on 

health in all of these key areas. While protecting future readiness includes modernizing the 

weapons systems and equipment, creating combat readiness in the near-term is a complex task 

involving the intersection of personnel, materiel, and training. It includes balancing time 

between operational and training commitments, funding from multiple sources, informed levels 

of risk, and effectively managing resources to achieve the desired state of readiness. 

Mitigating the risk associated with a smaller military requires a fully ready force. A smaller 

force with less capacity requires greater attention to ensuring adequate personnel levels, aircraft 

availability, weapons, and sufficient training to support the full range of mission requirements at 

the desired level of competency. Ifwe attempt to sustain current force levels while personnel 

and operational costs rise, there will be progressively fewer resources available to support our 

current number of installations, maintain existing aircraft inventories, vital equipment, and 

weapons, and invest in future capabilities. These factors become more critical as shortages in 

aircraft availability, weapons, and key personnel grow and exert a larger negative effect on the 

overall readiness of the force. 

While the Air Force has met the demands of a high operational tempo in support oftoday's fight, 

this has inevitably taken a toll on our weapons systems and people, putting a strain on the overall 

readiness of the force. As reflected by Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD)-mandated Status of 

Requirements and Training System (SORTS) metrics, we have seen a steady decline in unit 

readiness since 2003; our readiness must improve. The rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and our 

continued presence in the Middle East and Africa indicate that the demand for Air Force 

capabilities will remain constant, or perhaps even rise, over the next decade. 

Currently, the bulk of the funding for maintaining numerous missions initially fielded with 

overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding (e.g., MQ-l/9, MC-12, and the E-IIA with its 

battlefield airborne communications node capability) remains in the upcoming FY14 budget 

request. If the Air Force is to retain those capabilities for the long-term, funding for the aircraft 

and the capabilities and the infrastructure that supports them must migrate from OCO funding to 

an adjusted base budget. If the base budget is not adjusted, these capabilities will either have to 

17 
62 

be retired or be retained at the expense of other full spectrum forces and capabilities, which 

would increase risks. 

The Air Force supports combatant command missions that require 2417 availability and attention. 

Space operations, command and control, cyber defense, ISR, special operations, personnel 

recovery, and nuclear deterrence are all high priority missions that cannot be done adequately, 

and in some cases cannot be done safely, at low readiness levels. In support of U.S. defense 

strategy, air forces are inherently capable of responding quickly and can be shifted on relatively 

short notice between critical theaters of operation. Allowing the Air Force to slip to a lower state 

of readiness that requires a subsequent long buildup to full combat effectiveness will negate the 

essential strategic advantages of airpower and put joint forces at increased risk. 

Therefore, the Air Force's portion of the FYl4 PB aligns resources in an effort to slow the 

readiness decline and sets the stage for restoring full-spectrum readiness. However, as noted 

previously, the effects of sequestration in FY13 will hamper our readiness efforts in FYI4 and 

beyond. The pillars of our full-spectrum readiness effort include: a consistent, equitable, and 

attainable flying hour program; prioritized full-spectrum training venues; focused weapons 

systems sustainment funding; appropriate reallocation of manpower to our highest priority 

missions; sustainment of our power projection platforms (Air Force installations); and 

developing and caring for Airmen and their families. 

Through planned funding of weapons system sustainment, the flying hours program, training 

ranges, facilities and installations, and modernization programs, the Air Force could maintain its 

legacy of "spring-loaded" readiness. In the past 35 years, the Air Force has been called upon 

nearly 150 times to conduct combat or humanitarian operations in more than 45 conntries, and 

combat sorties in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility have continued uninterrupted 

since 1991. The completion of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are important 

milestones that should provide an opportunity to reset the force, but other international security 

challenges remain and, in some cases, are growing. America will continue to need a ready Air 

Force. 

Weapons System Sustainment (WSS) 

WSS is a key component of full-spectrum readiness. Years of combat demands have taken a toll 

across many weapons systems, and we continue to see an increase in the costs ofWSS 

requirements, which are driven by sustainment strategy, complexity of new weapons systems, 

operations tempo, force structure changes, and growth in depot work packages for aging, legacy 

aircraft. With recent force structure reductions, we must carefully manage how we allocate WSS 

in order to avoid availability shortfalls. 

The FYl4 budget submission adds $1.5 billion to the WSS portfolio across the FYDP. Although 

the FYI4 PB adds baseline funds for WSS, we continue to rely on OCO funding for global 

contingency operations. 

WSS funding requirements for combat-ready air, space, and cyber forces have consistently 

increased at a rate double that of DoD inflation planning factors. Although service life extension 

programs and periodic modifications have allowed our inventory to support 20 years of unabated 

operations, the cost of maintenance and sustainment continues to rise. As a result, we want to 

improve the link between resources and readiness for Air Force weapons systems by reducing 

18 
63 

costs, improving risk-based decision making, and balancing costs with performance. To address 

the trend of higher costs, we are reviewing and streamlining organizations and processes to 

reduce maintenance and material costs, develop depot efficiencies, and manage weapons systems 

requirements growth. We are taking actions to reduce requirements by examining the potential 

for restructuring or modifYing new and existing contractor logistics support contracts to optimize 

tradeoffs, provide visibility, and improve flexibility between costs and outcomes. We will also 

leverage risk-based strategies and evaluate maintenance schedules to maximize aircraft 

availability and apply performance-based logistics solutions to balance total sustaimnent costs 

with performance. 

Despite our efforts, WSS costs are still expected to grow, and new, more capable aircraft are 

often more expensive to maintain than those they replace. In the current fiscal environment, our 

efforts to restore weapons system availability to required levels will be a serious challenge. 

Flying Hour Program (FHP) 

The emphasis on readiness in the DSG reinforced the need to implement a FHP that achieves 

full-spectrum readiness. The Air Force balanced the allocation of flying hours across the Total 

Force to incrementally improve readiness levels. The flying hour program will continue to rely 

on OCO funding to support Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and the redeployment of combat 

forces from Afghanistan. With the expectation of decreasing OCO flying hours, we have 

programmed increasing O&M-funded flying hours in FY15 and throughout the FYDP. 

Beginning in FYI5, the program is approximately 90 percent of the peacetime training 

requirement to attain full-spectrum readiness across the Total Force, reflecting our assessment of 

the full executable program. 

We are also committed to a long-term effort to increase our live, virtual, and constructive 

operational training (L VC-OT) capability and capacity by funding improvements in L VC-OT 

devices (e.g., simulators and virtual trainers) and networks. Adjustments to the flying hour 

programs will continue to evolve as the fidelity of simulators and L VC-OT capabilities improve. 

Increasing our virtual capabilities will minimize fuel consumption and aircraft maintenance costs 

while ensuring high quality training for our aircrews. In FYI4, we are investing $3.3 million for 

L VC-OT purposes. 

Training Ranges 

Full-spectrum training requires the availability of air-to-air and air-to-ground training ranges. 

Many of our ranges are venues for large-scale joint and coalition training events and are critical 

enablers for concepts like Air-Sea Battle. In FYI4, we are requesting range O&M funding of 

$75.8 million to sustain these crucial national assets to elevate flying training effectiveness for 

the joint team, which in turn improves individual and unit readiness levels. Unfortunately, 

previous years' baseline range funding was at levels as low as 25 percent of requirements, 

resulting in a corresponding corrosive effect as range infrastructure deteriorated and aircrews 

only maintained readiness in skill sets oriented toward current combat operations. This year, we 

are reversing this trend by raising baseline range funding to 74 percent of requirements to begin a 

return to full-spectrum readiness. As we continue to realign to the DSG, additional range 

investment and sustainment funding will be necessary to ensure that our combat forces are 

prepared for the full range of potential threats and environments. 

19 
64 

In FY14, the Air Force is poised to work with the joint community to establish cyber ranges that 

enable realistic testing and evaluation of new cyber concepts, policies, and technologies. These 

ranges will provide a venue for evaluating network services, information assurance, and 

offensive and defensive cyber capabilities in a closed and secure environment. Coupled with the 

Air Force's program for simulator-based cyber education, training, crew certification, and 

exercises, these cyber ranges will provide trained and tested cyber operators able to strike targets 

anywhere on the globe, as well as defend against foreign and domestic attacks. 

Facilities. Installations, and Energy 

From cyber to long-range strike, installation readiness buttresses the Air Force's core mission. 

Therefore, the Air Force's FY14 budget request employs a balanced approach to our installation 

investment strategy. Our installations are power projection platforms comprised of both built 

and natural infrastructure that: (l) effectively enable Air Force core operational capabilities-we 

deliver air, space and cyber capabilities from our installations; (2) send a strategic message of 

commitment to allies and intent to adversaries; (3) foster partnership-building by stationing our 

Airmen side-by-side with our coalition partners; and (4) enable worldwide accessibility in times 

of peace or conflict. Therefore, we must maintain sustainable installations to enable Air Force 

support to the vectors outlined in the DSG. 

In the FY14 PB, the Air Force returned military construction (MILCON) investment levels to 

near historic norms following the deliberate pause ofFY13. This year, the $1.2 billion 

investment focuses on supporting beddown requirements for the F-35 and KC-46, combatant 

commanders' top priorities in cyber and nuclear deterrence, and the re-balance to the AsiaPacific theater. 

Recognizing the links between MILCON and facilities sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization (FSRM), we are funding facilities sustainment at 80 percent of the OSD facilities 

sustainment model requirement, and we added over $400 million for restoration and 

modernization across the FYDP to enable consolidation efforts and improve the quality of our 

most mission-enabling facilities. 

Foundational to all of our efforts, energy enables the force and sustains our national security 

posture. Energy, which comprises about eight percent of the Air Force budget, enables Air Force 

core missions, and fuels our operational capabilities. The Air Force recognizes the vulnerability 

and volatility created by our dependence on finite, non-renewable energy supplies. Therefore, 

we are committed to increasing energy security and becoming ever more energy efficient. We 

have already made great strides in reducing consumption and improving efficiency. Since 2006, 

the Air Force has reduced its fuel consumption by 12 percent, exceeding a 10 percent reduction 

goal three years ahead of schedule. 

Overall, our focus is to reduce our energy footprint across all operations. Investments we made 

in FY12 to improve our facility energy efficiency and reduce our energy requirement are 

expected to start generating savings in FY14. The Air Force is also looking to improve its 

energy security and diversify its energy supply through increased use of renewable energy. We 

also plan to improve our energy security by making the most of private sector knowledge, 

technology, and financing to capitalize on underutilized land on our installations. 

20 
65 

The Need for Base Realignment and Closure 

As we make efforts to improve and sustain our installations, we also recognize that we are 

carrying infrastructure that is excess to our needs. A capacity analysis conducted prior to the 

2005 BRAC suggested that the Air Force had 24 percent capacity that was excess to our mission 

needs. However, the 2005 BRAC did not make major reductions to Air Force facilities, and 

since that time, we have reduced our force structure by more than 500 aircraft and reduced our 

active duty military end-strength by seven percent. The Air Force currently has significant 

excess infrastructure that is very expensive to maintain in terms of both financial and human 

resources. In the current and projected fiscal environment, we simply cannot afford it. The Air 

Force has limited authority under current public law to effectively consolidate military units or 

functions and divest excess real property. The money that we are spending on maintaining 

excess infrastructure is more urgently needed to recapitalize and sustain our weapon systems, 

improve readiness, and invest in the quality oflife needs of Airmen. 

Readiness and Modernization 

The decline in future budgets does not allow us to improve readiness while also maintaining 

force structure and continuing all planned investment programs. To prioritize readiness, we have 

made a conscious choice to take some risk by making sacrifices in modernization programs. 

Although we have been more effective in our use of operating resources and garnered savings 

from better business practices,3 the Air Force has been forced to terminate or restructure several 

programs. Program restructures and terminations include terminating the Space Based 

Surveillance Block 10 follow-on, freezing Gorgon Stare at Increment II, terminating Air Force 

participation in the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System land-based segment, and 

divesting the UAV (umnanned aerial vehicle) Battlelab in FYI4. 

The Air Force also terminated acquisition of the underperforming Expeditionary Combat 

Support System (ECSS). ECSS was initiated in 2005 in an effort to provide end-to-end visibility 

of the Air Force's supply chain and enable better logistics decision-making. As planned, ECSS 

would have transformed the logistics enterprise, making all aspects interoperable and 

synchronized with the fmancial and accounting systems to enhance business and mission 

operations and realize efficiencies. Unfortunately, after several years of schedule delays, poor 

contractor performance, and cost increases, we determined that the program could not meet the 

FY17 financial improvement and audit readiness statutory requirement and was not likely to 

achieve other promised capabilities at an affordable cost. Instead of continuing to spend money 

on an underperforming program, the Air Force determined that the prudent course of action was 

to pursue other ways to transform our logistics business processes. 

The FY13 sequestration cuts took away all program flexibility, deferred some buys, added risk to 

many programs while at the same time forced us to reallocate investment funds to more critical 

O&M needs. Budget projections for FYI4 and beyond, along with the FY13 cuts, may force us 

to halt or slow pending development or productions milestones on II acquisition category 

(ACAT) I programs. Small scale program terminations began in FY13, and we will have to 

3 There are $1.3 billion in FYl4 funding reduction adjustments and $7.9 billion across the future years the Air Force 

has categorized as being reflective of a more disciplined use of resources. Program terminations and restructures are 

$2.4 billion of this total. Savings from better business practices and more effective use of operating resources total 

$3.2 billion across the future years. 

21 
66 

consider expanding terminations in FYI4. Similarly, several key modernization priorities 

remain unfunded given the current fiscal environment, including a replacement for the aging T38 trainer and the JSTARS surveillance aircraft. 

America's Air Force remains the most capable in the world, but we cannot allow readiness levels 

to decline further and modernization cannot wait for the next cycle of increased defense 

spending. We have important production lines under way and development programs that are, or 

will soon be, mature enough for production. Cancelling programs in anticipation of a future 

generation of technology would be wasteful and, in some cases, risk the loss of critical 

engineering talent and technological advantage. New threats and corresponding investment 

needs are not theoretical possibilities for the future. They are here, now. The future success of 

the Nation's military and the joint team depends on modernizing our Air Force and keeping it 

ready to fight. 

AIRMEN DEVELOPMENT 

The Air Force's strategic advantage begins with its ability to attract, recrnit, develop, and retain 

innovative warriors with a commitment to high standards and our core values of Integrity First, 

Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do. To accommodate an uncertain and fiscally 

challenging future, we must continue to invest in our Airmen through education, professional 

development, and support programs for Airmen and their families, coupled with other programs 

to maintain a safe, respectful, and positive work environment. We are focusing on the 

recruitment, development, retention, and overall effectiveness of each individual Airman. 

Through this investment, we will not only improve the capability oftoday's force, but also 

illustrate our commitment to future generations of Airmen to ensure a diverse and inclusive rich 

pool of the highest quality recruits well into the future. 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Providing a safe, respectful, and productive work environment is the responsibility of every 

Airman at every level, and we are working hard to achieve this. We do not tolerate sexual 

assault. In the last year, the Air Force redoubled its efforts to eradicate sexual assault within our 

ranks, and we have invested in several programmatic, educational, and resourcing efforts aimed 

at reinforcing a zero tolerance environment. When sexual assaults are alleged, we are providing 

improved support to victims. In coordination with OSD, the Air Force created a special victims 

capability comprised of specially trained investigators, prosecutors, paralegals, and victim and 

witness assistance personnel. A cadre of 24 special investigators has received special victim 

training, along with 16 senior trial counsel, nine of whom specialize in the prosecution of 

particularly difficult cases, including sexual assault cases. In addition, 60 Air Force attorneys 

have been identified and trained to serve as "special victims' counsel" to provide comprehensive 

and compassionate representational legal assistance to victims. Special victims' counselors 

currently represent over 200 sexual assault victims. The Air Force has also approved all 46 

expedited transfer requests for Air Force victims over the past year, to include both permanent 

change-of-station and local installation reassignments, and we continue to employ over 3,100 

volunteer victim advocates. In accordance with the FYI2 National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA), each of these volunteer victim advocates will receive full certifications to provide 

confidential victim support beyond the training they already receive, and the Air Force is on 

track to place a full-time victim advocate at every installation by October 1,2013. 

22 
67 

Innovative, Global Airmen 

Globalization and the pace oftechnology advances are accelerating. Airmen work with 

advanced technology every day, and developing innovative and technically-savvy Airmen to 

continue to operate on the cutting edge is the lifeblood of our Service. The Air Force's ability to 

leverage and field crucial technologies is dependent on America's aerospace research and 

development infrastructure--a national asset that must be protected to ensure future U.S. 

advantages in technology, commercial aviation, and space. Accordingly, we are protecting 

science and technology funding as a share of our total resources. To ensure that Airmen increase 

their technical acumen, we are strategically managing our science, technology, engineering, and 

math (STEM) workforce and conducting outreach activities to recruit and train an adequate and 

diverse STEM talent pool to develop, operate, and maintain our technical advantage. While 

Airmen must remain technically proficient, we are most interested in whole person development 

- creating leaders of character who demonstrate creativity and empathy in addition to technical 

competency. 

Globalization also makes the development of a global community of Airmen a more achievable 

goal. Efforts to enhance the language and cultural skills of the force continue to lay the 

groundwork for access and coalition building activities that enable future cooperative efforts 

with friends and allies. Likewise, outreach through foreign professional military education 

programs where members of other nations attend Air Force programs, as well as personnel 

exchange programs, significantly increases the likelihood of current and future cooperative 

relationships. The combined effects of these personnel programs and relationship-building 

efforts help ensure that future leaders of friendly foreign air forces will continue to regard the 

U.S. Air Force as one of the finest air forces in the world. 

Airmen and Family Support 

The quality of Airmen and family support programs remains a critical element of the Air Force 

resilience program. Using a strength-based approach to the resilience program builds an 

improved ability to cope with stress and forms the basis for an approach for suicide prevention. 

Regardless of the fiscal environment, the Air Force must continue to address the Service's 

evolving demographics and maintain balanced, healthy, and resilient Airmen and families. We 

will adjust, consolidate, or eliminate services where required to meet changing demands, 

capitalize upon community resources, and gain efficiencies where possible. 

To better support our Airmen and families, we continue to move forward with our "3 to 1 Total 

Force Personnel Management" initiative. This effort integrates personnel management policies, 

processes, and procedures across the Total Force to create a more efficient and effective Air 

Force. To the greatest extent possible, "3 to 1" will yield uniformity, enhance coordination 

across components, optimize war fighter support, and improve service levels for our Airmen. 

This effort will also eliminate cumbersome paper-based personnel workflows, standardize 

human resource management under common directives, and provide "one-stop shopping" for 

personnel support from anywhere, at any time. Finally, we expect this effort to ease Airmen 

transitions on and off active duty and across the three components, all of which are vital to our 

Air Force mission. 

Our Airmen continue to contribute significant capabilities in the joint arena and do so with the 

integrity and excellence expected of them. They remain committed to the Air Force mission and 

23 
68 

our core values. It is imperative for us to apply sufficient resources coupled with well-informed 

personnel policies to support and maintain our high quality, all-volunteer force, retain their trust 

and confidence, and empower them to fly,jight, and win. 

ACTIVE/RESERVE COMPONENT BALANCE 

Today's Total Force consists of about 329,500 Regular Air Force (or Active) Airmen, 105,700 

Air National Guardsmen, and 70,900 Air Force Reserve Airmen actively serving in the Selected 

Reserve, as authorized by the FY13 NDAA. For FYI4, the total number of Airmen will 

decrease slightly to 327,600 Active Airmen, 105,400 Guardsmen, and 70,400 Reservists. In 

addition to these numbers, the Air Force Reserve maintains a strategic depth of more than 

790,000 stand-by or non-participating Reservists and retirees who can be called up for national 

emergencies. We are one Air Force--Reguiar Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force 

Reserve Airmen-working together as a Total Force team every day around the world. 

There is great interdependence between Active, Guard, and Reserve forces. We must ensure the 

right balance between them because too much force structure in the Active component does not 

capitalize on potential lower operational costs of personnel and installations in the Reserve 

component. Too little force structure in the Active component requires Guardsmen and 

Reservists to deploy more often--even in peacetime--which breaks the model of a part-time 

force, threatens the sustainability of the Total Force, and increases costs significantly. 

The analytical foundation used to develop Active and Reserve component force balance starts 

with the National Defense Strategy. The strategy is based on scenarios and associated concepts 

of operation and forces developed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 

the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation. These scenarios form the common starting point for all DoD force structure 

assessments and include major contingency demand (i.e., surge) as well as pre- and postcontingency rotational demand (non-surge and post-surge, respectively). Force demands, both 

surge and post-surge rotatioual, are compared to projected inventories to determine how much 

and what type of force structure is required. Capabilities and risk are balanced across the Air 

Force's core missions to field the most capable and sustainable force within available resources. 

Analysis of Active and Reserve component force levels provides insights into the balance within 

this force that can most effectively and efficiently meet demand within DoD deployment goals. 

Maintaining the appropriate Active and Reserve component force mix is critical to the ability of 

the Air Force to meet forward presence requirements, maintain rapid response, and meet highrate rotational demands within a smaller force. Additionally, appropriate force mix is critical to 

the sustainment, readiness, and health of the Total Force components. Force mix decisions 

cannot be made based solely on cost. We must consider the symbiotic relationship of the Active 

and Reserve components and treat the three components as a complete system, evaluating the 

effects of change on all components to better understand unintended consequences to the whole. 

For example, Reserve forces depend on healthy Active component forces from which trained and 

experienced Airmen transition to part-time status. If the Active component force becomes too 

small, the flow of personnel into the Reserve component will slow, driving the Reserve 

components to increase direct-entry recruitment, causing experience levels to fall and costs to 

rise. Our analysis also will consider how the Reserve component leverages important civilian 

skills and experience, such as in cyber, for the needs of the Nation. Air Force leaders must have 

24 
69 

the flexibility to reorganize force structure within the Active and Reserve components to 

maintain the health of the Total Force and its ability to ultimately execute the National Military 

Strategy. 

Total Force Initiatives 

To get a better understanding of our Total Force mixture, we launched the Total Force Task 

Force, a team led by three two-star general officers from the Regular Air Force, the Air National 

Guard, and the Air Force Reserve. The Total Force Task Force is leading a reassessment of the 

Air Force's efforts to develop the appropriate Active and Reserve component balance through 

processes that enable the Department ofthe Air Force to leverage the inherent strengths, unique 

aspects, and characteristics of each component. The Total Force Task Force is conducting a 

comprehensive review of Total Force requirements and will develop strategic options to ensure 

that the Air Force balances the strengths of each component while sustaining necessary 

capabilities in the years ahead. The team is scheduled to present their findings by October 1, 

2013. We expect the task force to serve as a focal point for the National Commission on the 

Force Structure for the Air Force that was directed by Congress and is scheduled to provide a 

report to the President by February 1,2014. 

Total Force Integration (TFI) works to shape the most capable force possible under fiscal and 

operational constraints for our current and future force. TFI associations are a cost-efficient 

value to the taxpayer as the Active and Reserve components share equipment and facilities. We 

are increasing the number of units that partner Active, Guard, or Reserve Airmen at a single 

location. We currently have 121 such unit associations and plan to add additional associations; 

however, implementation of the FY13 NDAA may affect the number of associations. Already a 

success story for mobility forces, we are planning for every U.S.-based Reserve fighter unit to 

become an association with the Regular Air Force within the FYDP, as will the continental 

United States locations for the KC-46 tanker. We will continue to refine this combination of 

Active and Reserve forces across all appropriate areas of the Total Force. 

Force structure changes require continual dialogue between the Active component, the Air Force 

Reserve, the Air National Guard, and the respective governors. Over the past year, we have 

worked with OSD, the National Guard Bureau, and the Council of Governors to formalize a 

consultative process to exchange views, information, and advice, consistent with the applicable 

guidelines on programming and budgetary priorities and requirements on matters specified in 

Executive Order 13528. Recently, DoD and the Council of Governors agreed to the "StateFederal Consultative Process for Programming and Budgetary Proposals Affecting the National 

Guard." This process will, among other things, increase National Guard involvement in DoD's 

planning, programming, budgeting, and execution processes and improve the dialogue between 

the Council of Governors and the DoD before resource decisions affecting the National Guard 

are made. It is essential that we manage the health of the Total Force holistically, and we are 

committed, now more than ever, to strengthen our integration of effort. 

CONCLUSION 

From airpower's earliest days, Airmen have exploited technology to provide essential knowledge 

and information on when and where to act, to move people and materials when and where 

needed, to control the ultimate high ground, and to strike when and where directed. 

25 
70 

We are confident in our Airmen. They are the best in the world, and we can rely on them to 

meet any challenge, overcome any obstacle, and defeat any enemy-as long as they are given 

adequate resources and the freedom to innovate. As they have time and again, our innovative 

Airmen will fmd new and better ways to approach future military challenges across the spectrum 

of conflict, throughout every domain, and against nascent and unpredicted threats. 

The Air Force's core missions will continue to serve America's long-term security interests by 

giving our Nation and its leadership unmatched options against the challenges of an 

unpredictable future. In the last several decades, Air Force airpower has been an indispensable 

element of deterrence, controlled escalation, and, when so tasked by the Nation's leadership, 

been an instrument of destruction against an adversary's military capability-all accomplished 

with minimal casualties to u.s. servicemen and women and civilians. However, investments in 

Air Force capabilities and readiness remain essential to ensuring that the Nation will maintain an 

agile, flexible, and ready force. This force must be deliberately plarmed and consistently funded, 

as reconstitution of a highly sophisticated and capable Air Force carmot occur quickly if allowed 

to atrophy. 

Today's Air Force provides America an indispensable hedge against the challenges of a 

dangerous and uncertain future. Regardless ofthe future security environment, the Air Force 

must retain and maintain its unique ability to provide America with Global Vigilance, Global 

Reach, and Global Power. 

We are committed to excellence and we will deliver with your help. We ask that you support the 

Air Force budget request of$114.1 billion for FYI4. 

26 
71 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

MICHAEL B. DONLEY 

Mr. Michael B. Donley is the Secretary of the 

Air Force, Washington, D.C. He is the 22nd 

Secretary and was confirmed Oct. 2, 2008. He 

is responsible for the affairs of the Department 

of the Air Force, including the organizing, 

training, equipping and providing for the 

welfare of its more than 333,000 men and 

women on active duty, 178,000 members of 

the Air National Guard and the Air Force 

Reserve, 182,000 civilians, and their families. 

He also oversees the Air Force's annual 

budget of more than $110 billion. 

Mr. Donley has 30 years of experience in the 

national security community, including 

service in the Senate, White House and the 

Pentagon. Prior to assuming his current 

position, Mr. Donley served as the Director of 

Administration and Management in the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. He oversaw 

organizational and management planning for the Department of Defense and all administration, 

facility, information technology and security matters for the Pentagon. 

From 1996 to 2005, Mr. Donley was a Senior Vice President at Hicks and Associates, Inc., a 

subsidiary of Science Applications International Corporation, and a consultant to DOD and the State 

Department on national security matters. From 1993 to 1996, he was Senior Fellow at the Institute 

for Defense Analyses. During this period he was a Senior Consultant to the Commission on Roles 

and Missions of the Armed Forces and participated in two studies on the organization of the Joint 

Staff and the Office of the Chairman, JCS. Prior to this position, he served as the Acting Secretary 

of the Air Force for seven months, and from 1989 to 1993 he was the Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force (Financial Management and Comptroller). 

Mr. Donley supported two Presidents and five National Security Advisers during his service at the 

National Security Council from 1984 to 1989. As Deputy Executive Secretary he oversaw the White 

House Situation Room and chaired interagency committees on crisis management procedures and 

continuity of government. Earlier, as Director of Defense Programs, Mr. Donley was the NSC 
72 

representative to the Defense Resources Board, and coordinated the President's quarterly meetings 

with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He conceived and organized the President's Blue Ribbon Commission 

on Defense Management (the Packard Commission), coordinated White House policy on the 

Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986, and wrote the National Security Strategy for 

President Reagan's second term. He was also a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed 

Services Committee from 1981 to 1984. 

Mr. Donley served in the.U.S. Army from 1972 to 1975 with the XVlIIth Airborne Corps and 5th 

Special Forces Group (Airborne), attending the Army's Intelligence and Airborne Schools and the 

Defense Language Institute. Mr. Donley earned both Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in 

international relations from the University of Southern California. He also attended the Senior 

Executives in National Security program at Harvard University. 

EDUCATION 

1972 U.S. Army Intelligence School, Fort Huachuca, Ariz. 

1973 Defense Language Institute, Monterey, Calif. 

1974 U.S. Army Airborne School, Fort Benning, Ga. 

1977 Bachelor of Arts degree in international relations, University of Southern California, Los 

Angeles 

1978 Master of Arts degree in international relations, University of Southern California, Los 

Angeles 

1986 Prograrn for Senior Executives in National Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 

Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

CAREER CHRONOLOGY 

1. 1972 - 1975, U.S. Army, XVlIIth Airborne Corps and 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort 

Bragg, N.C. 

2. 1978 - 1979, Editor, National Security Record, Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. 

3.1979 - 1981, Legislative Assistant, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 

4.1981 -1984, Professional Staff Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C. 

5. 1984 - 1987, Director of Defense Programs, National Security Council, the White House, 

Washington, D.C. 

6.1987 - 1989, Deputy Executive Secretary, National Security Council, the White House, 

Washington, D.C. 

7. 1989 - 1993, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller), 

Washington, D.C. 

8.1993, Acting Secretary ofthe Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

9.1993 - 1996, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Va. 

10. 1996 - 2005, Senior Vice President at Hicks and Associates, Inc., a subsidiary of Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, Va. 

11. 2005 - 2008, Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

Washington, D.C. 

12.2008 - present, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

(Current as of July 2012) 
73 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

GENERAL MARK A. WELSH III 

Gen. Mark A. Welsh III is Chief of Staff of 

the U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. As 

Chief, he serves as the senior uniformed Air 

Force officer responsible for the organization, 

training and equipping of 690,000 active-duty, 

Guard, Reserve and civilian forces serving in 

the United States and overseas. As a member 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the general and 

other service chiefs function as military 

advisers to the Secretary of Defense, National 

Security Council and the President. 

General Welsh was born in San Antonio, 

Texas. He entered the Air Force in June 1976 

as a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. 

He has been assigned to numerous 

operational, command and staff positions. 

Prior to his current position, he was 

Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe. 

EDUCATION 

1976 Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

1984 Squadron Officer School, by correspondence 

1986 Air Command and Staff College, by correspondence 

1987 Master of Science degree in computer resource management, Webster University 

1988 Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. 

1990 Air War College, by correspondence 

1993 National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 

1995 Fellow, Seminar XXI, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 

1998 Fellow, National Security Studies Program, Syracuse University and John Hopkins University, 

Syracuse, N.Y. 

1999 Fellow, Ukrainian Security Studies, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University, Cambridge, Mass. 

2002 The General Manager Program, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Mass. 

2009 Fellow, Pinnacle Course, National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, 
74 

D.C. 

2009 Leadership at the Peak, Center for Creative Leadership, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1. August 1976 - July 1977, Student, undergraduate pilot training, Williams Air Force Base, Ariz. 

2. July 1977- January 1981, T-37 Instructor Pilot and class commander, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

3. January 1981 - May 1981, Student, fighter lead-in training, Holloman AFB, N.M. 

4. May 1981 - August 1981, Student, A-to training, Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz. 

5. August 1981 - May 1984, Instructor pilot, Flight Commander and wing standardization and 

evaluation Flight Examiner, 78th Tactical Fighter Squadron and 81st Tactical Fighter Wing, Royal 

Air Force Woodbridge, England 

6. May 1984 - June 1987, Commander, Cadet Squadron 5, later, executive officer to the 

Commandant of Cadets, u.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

7. June 1987 - June 1988, Student, Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, 

Kan. 

8. June 1988 - October 1988, Student, F-16 conversion training, Luke AFB, Ariz. 

9. October 1988 - July 1992, Operations Officer, 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron, later, Commander, 

4th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Hill AFB, Utah 

10. July 1992 - June 1993, Student, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 

11. June 1993 - June 1995, Chief, Defense and Space Operations Division, Operations Directorate 

(J3), Joint Staff, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

12. June 1995 - April 1997, Commander, 347th Operations Group, Moody AFB, Ga. 

13. April 1997 - June 1998, Commander, 8th Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base, South Korea 

14. June 1998 - June 1999, Commander, College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, 

Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

15. June 1999 - September 2001, Commandant of Cadets and Commander, 34th Training Wing, 

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

16. September 2001 - April 2003, Director of Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in 

Europe, Ramstein Air Base, Germany 

17. April 2003 - June 2005, Director of Global Power Programs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Air Force for Acquisition, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

18. June 2005 - June 2007, Deputy Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for 

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, U.S. Strategic Command, Bolling AFB, 

Washington, D.C. 

19. July 2007 - August 2008, Vice Commander, Air Education and Training Command, Randolph 

AFB, Texas 

20. August 2008 - December 2010, Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for 

Military Support/Associate Director for Military Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

21. December 2010 - July 2012, Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe; Commander, Air 

Component Command, Ramstein Air Base, Germany; and Director, Joint Air Power Competency 

Center, Ramstein Air Base, Germany 

22. August 2012 - present, Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. June 1993 - June 1995, Chief, Defense and Space Operations Division, Operations Directorate 
75 

(J3), Joint Staff, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., as a lieutenant colonel and a colonel 

2. June 2005 - June 2007, Deputy Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for 

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, U.S. Strategic Command, Bolling AFB, 

Washington, D.C., as a major general 

3. August 2008 - December 2010, Associate Director for Military Affairs, Central Intelligence 

Agency, Washington, D.C., as a major general and a lieutenant general 

4. December 2010 - July 2012, Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe; Commander, Air 

Component Command, Ramstein Air Base; and Director, Joint Air Power Competency Center, 

Ramstein Air Base, Germany, as a general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: Command pilot 

Flight hours: More than 3,300 

Aircraft flown: F-16, A-I0, T-37 and TG-7A 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Defense Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster 

Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster 

Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

Air Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Aerial Achievement Medal 

Joint Service Commendation Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant June 2, 1976 

First Lieutenant June 2,1978 

Captain June 2, 1980 

Major May 1, 1985 

Lieutenant Colonel June 1, 1989 

Colonel Feb. 1, 1994 

Brigadier General Aug. 1, 2000 

Major General Aug. 1,2003 

Lieutenant General Dec. 9,2008 

General Dec. 13,2010 

(Current as of August 2012) 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 12, 2013 

(79) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is carefully positioning our most urgent military 

construction requirements in the Future Year’s Defense Program. While there remains a requirement for the projects in question at Scott Air Force Base, there is 

not enough funding to accommodate all of the Air Force’s requirements within the 

current Air Force Budget. We will strive to include these projects in a future President’s Budget as funds are available and priorities permit. We look forward to your 

continued support for military construction projects and other critical Air Force priorities through the fiscal year 2014 budget cycle. [See page 32.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON 

General WELSH. The current amount funded by the Air Force to support forward 

deployed nuclear weapons in Europe is: 

Fiscal Year ($M) FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FYDP 

(FY14–18) 

Officer 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.8 37.1 

Enlisted 64.9 66.2 67.8 69.1 70.8 71.8 345.7 

O&M 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 12.7 

Weapon Storage Sys. 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 11.9 

Transportation Costs 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 14.8 

Total 79.6 81.1 82.8 84.4 86.3 87.6 422.2 

[See page 27.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 12, 2013 

(83) 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. The GAO High Risk Report identified ‘‘Potential gaps in environmental satellite data beginning as early as 2014 . . . have led to concerns that future 

weather forecasts and warnings—will be less accurate and timely.’’ 

Is the Air Force considering commercial data purchases from American companies 

as an alternative to some sensors on the next-generation DMSP satellite to reduce 

cost and as a way of mitigating this ‘‘data gap?’’ 

The Space Commercialization Act established incentives to build new American 

companies to provide military and commercial space capabilities. Are there additional authorities Congress could add to the Space Commercialization Act authorities to assist the Air Force in incentivizing American commercial sources of weather 

data as another viable alternative for the DOD follow-on satellite program? 

Secretary DONLEY. As part of the ongoing Department of Defense Space Based 

Environmental Monitoring Analysis of Alternatives, we considered commercial data 

purchases from American companies as an alternative to sensors on the next-generation Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite. Once the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) concludes its analysis, the Department will look for the most affordable means to deliver those needed capabilities, including commercial data 

purchase. 

At this time, the Air Force has no recommendations for additional authorities to 

the Space Commercialization Act. We will reevaluate our assessment as required 

based upon the outcome of the ongoing AoA. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We have been told by U.S. Transportation Command that some 

of the C–5 and C–17 overflight hours can be attributed to a lack of availability of 

certain aircraft in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. 

What is the Air Force doing to preserve the service life of its aircraft by shifting 

B747 eligible cargo to the CRAF carriers and flying the C–17/C–5s only for outsize/ 

oversize cargo? 

Secretary DONLEY. The programmed flying hours we execute today are based on 

steady-state, non-mobilized scenarios that for the most part assume only voluntary 

participation from the Reserve Component. C–17/C–5 over-flight is a direct result 

of organic oversize/outsize capabilities and access to hostile environments that the 

Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) cannot support. When U.S. Transportation Command receives an air movement request, they flow the request through a lengthy 

logic process to determine the most appropriate asset to accomplish the task. The 

logic process is designed to optimize the participation of our Commercial Augmentation and CRAF partners. CRAF augments organic airlift, but we utilize CRAF carriers to the maximum extent possible. All Department of Defense (DOD) commercial 

missions are conducted in compliance with the Fly America and Fly CRAF Acts. The 

‘‘Fly CRAF’’ statute (49 USC 41106) requires that DOD contracts for air transportation of passengers and cargo on ‘‘CRAF-eligible’’ requirements be awarded to 

CRAF carriers if ‘‘available’’ (for flights within the United States and between the 

United States and a foreign country) or ‘‘reasonably available’’ (between two nonU.S. points). 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Secretary, I continue to be concerned about the overall 

strength and size of the Nation’s cybersecurity workforce. What type of education 

and training is the Air Force implementing to recruit and provide our young airmen 

with the cyber skills they need to make up the new teams that General Alexander 

announced during a recent Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing? What is the Air Force doing to encourage them to stay in uniform to maintain the Services’ advantage? 
84 

Secretary DONLEY. Air Force cyberspace training programs develop Total Force 

cyberspace professionals from numerous career fields. Core training includes Undergraduate Cyberspace Training and Cyberspace Defense Operations at Keesler Air 

Force Base (AFB), Mississippi, and Intermediate Network Warfare Training at 

Hurlburt AFB, Florida. We have also developed an Intelligence Cyber Analyst 

course at Goodfellow AFB, Texas, to train our digital network analysts. This analyst 

training is complemented with a six-month follow on Joint Cyber Analysis Course 

at Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida. Cyber personnel attend further joint cyberspace and related courses based upon position requirements and work roles. In addition, the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, conducts 

graduate-level cyber curricula and professional continuing education. Growth and 

change is constant in the cyberspace domain, and these schools adjust as technology 

and tactics evolve. 

Currently, retention for Airmen in most cyberspace career fields is healthy. Where 

we have challenges (e.g., digital network analysts), we have increased the use of assignment availability codes to ensure mission continuity and tour stability. We have 

also established active duty service commitments to ensure a return on training investments. Furthermore, the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program is one of 

the Air Force’s most flexible and responsive force management tools. It provides 

monetary incentive to retain existing members in critical skills that have low retention and/or low manning, as well as entices Airmen from less critical skills to retrain into critical career fields receiving SRBs. Cyberspace Airmen have multiple opportunities to advance in their careers. They are deliberately force managed to acquire breadth in their career fields and depth in the cyberspace field. For example, 

certain specialties will serve consecutive operations tours in cyberspace positions at 

different locations to build depth as they progress through their career. This experience is coupled with continuing professional cyberspace education to build cyberspace experts. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Secretary, as we negotiate these challenging budgetary times, 

we must attempt to preserve the investments needed to succeed in the future, even 

as we deal with the constraints of the present. In particular, in your view, are we 

adequately protecting the investments in advanced research and development, such 

as directed energy, IT, materials, and other fields that we will depend upon to maintain technological superiority in the future, as well as investments in advanced education for the officers and airmen that will become the leaders who must cope with 

future challenges that we cannot yet envision? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. The fiscal year 2014 President’s Budget reflects the Air 

Force’s commitment to protecting science and technology funding as a share of our 

total resources. This includes investments in advanced research and development in 

many areas including basic research, directed energy, information technology, cyber, 

materials, aerospace systems, human effectiveness, sensors, munitions, and space. 

Today’s strategic environment presents a broad range of threats and an unpredictable set of challenges, ranging from non-state actors to nuclear armed nations. We 

must continue to invest in our science and technology base to ensure that the future 

balance of power remains in our favor. 

To maintain an airpower advantage, we must ensure that we remain the most 

technically proficient, best-educated, and best-trained air force in the world. Changing trends in technology and a dynamic threat environment dictate that we reserve 

resources for advanced academic degrees in science, technology, engineering, and 

math (STEM), nuclear, and cyber education. These developmental educational requirements are necessary to ensure the development of future capabilities. As such, 

these educational programs will be protected to the extent possible. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Air Force announced late last year that 

certified New Entrants would be allowed to compete along with ULA for up to 14 

rocket cores through FY17. Given that the incumbent provider currently receives 

over $1.2B annually in cost-plus payments under the Launch Capability contract 

line, how does the Air Force intend to ensure that the competition will occur with 

a level playing field when the incumbent competes against New Entrants? What actions will the Air Force take to ensure that the incumbent does not offer artificially 

low prices in the competition, given that the Government is providing payments for 

all of its fixed costs? 

Secretary DONLEY. The specific method in which the current incumbent Evolved 

Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) Launch Capability (ELC) and EELV Launch 

Services (ELS) costs will be competed with new entrants has yet to be determined, 

but will be addressed in the source selection plan. The details of the competition 

are being developed and will ensure the best value for the Government among all 

certified providers and will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition 

Regulations. 
85 

Mr. LANGEVIN. The Launch Capability cost-plus contract structure was instituted 

in 2006 as a measure to ensure ‘‘assured access’’ for the Government by maintaining 

the industrial base capacity of the only remaining domestic company capable of conducting space launch. However, as the Air Force recognized by opening launches to 

competition, there now exist new American providers in the market, providing redundancy and lowering costs. Once multiple providers are competing for all 

launches in the program, does the DOD have a plan to phase out the ELC cost-plus 

contract after the current round of acquisitions? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. Given that the Air Force and, to some extent, the National Reconnaissance Office currently fund infrastructure and other facility support costs for the incumbent provider, can you help us understand why the 

funding of fixed costs requires a cost-plus contract? What requirements are unknown? 

The Phase 1 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) Launch Capability 

(ELC) efforts will continue under the cost plus incentive fee (CPIF) construct. The 

EELV program requires operational flexibility to meet its National Security Space 

(NSS) mission. ELC provides the program flexibility to manage changes to mission 

requirements without requests for equitable adjustments or schedule penalties. Potential unknown requirements include launch slips due to satellite vehicle acquisition issues, first time integration delays, and anomaly resolution from a previous 

mission. The Air Force is examining options to restructure ELC to allocate appropriately the discrete and unambiguous costs to the launch vehicle and each individual payload customer. Our plan is to incorporate these adjustments into the 

Phase 1 contract and consider them for future acquisition phases of the program. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. General, in your view, what must the Air Force do next in order 

to ensure the total force—the Active, Guard, and Reserve—is coordinating the right 

cyber effects? Specifically, can you speak to the interactions of how the Guard, such 

as the 102nd Network Warfare Squadron in Rhode Island, can interact with the Air 

Force to support the global fight in cyberspace? 

General WELSH. The sudden growth in demand levied on all Services based on 

increased dependence on cyberspace and emerging threat profiles requires cooperation and innovative approaches to capitalizing on expertise across the Total Force. 

Proper balance across the Total Force will ensure sustained ability to meet mission 

requirements today and in the future. 

The Air Force already relies heavily on Guard and Reserve cyber units and has 

integrated them into its operations run by the 24th Air Force. For example, the 

Cyber Command Readiness Inspections conducted by the 102nd Network Warfare 

Squadron (NWS) (Rhode Island Air National Guard (ANG)) are a key pillar of the 

Air Force’s network defense posture, and are tasked and tracked by the 624th Operations Center at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. The Air Force leverages the Guard 

to fulfill its commitment to provide forces to U.S. Cyber Command’s (USCC) new 

Cyber Mission Force construct. This construct will be the primary means through 

which USCC defends the Nation in and through cyberspace, and it integrates cyber 

effects to meet the combatant commanders’ requirements. The 166th NWS (Delaware ANG), 175th NWS (Maryland ANG), and 262nd NWS (Washington ANG) augment active duty forces to meet the demand for these cyber teams. We plan to further develop this construct to determine the optimal integration of the Total Force 

into USCC’s Cyber Mission Force. The Total Force Task Force (TF2) is exploring 

the integration of the Total Force into USCC’s Cyber Mission Force. 

The Air Force also partners with the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in multiple cyber 

missions including cyberspace defense, cyberspace security, and cyberspace command and control. AFR is an integrated part of the Air Force’s commitment to 

USCC. The Air Force Personnel Center and AFR are working together to identify 

the missions which best fit AFR strengths. Currently, AFR believes that the missions of cyberspace vulnerability assessment, cyberspace intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance, and offensive cyberspace operations are well-suited for the 

AFR. These missions require a high level of experience that are best suited to AFR’s 

strengths of retaining highly skilled personnel, low turn-over, and allowing members to leverage their civilian experience. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. General, are you confident in the ability of our networks, sensors, 

and datalinks to operate in the complex cyber and electromagnetic environment 

likely to be a part of any future anti-access/area denial battlespace, and are you satisfied with your ability to train to cope with such challenges? What can we do to 

help the Air Force train as part of the joint force to operate in such highly contested 

environments? 

General WELSH. The ideas behind anti-access/area denial are not new. Adversaries have tried to keep each other out of areas since the beginning of warfare. But 
86 

what is new is that our adversaries (state and non-state actors) can challenge us 

in the air, at sea, in space, and on land simultaneously. They can use cyberspace 

independently as well as to enhance attacks everywhere. Our operations will likely 

be heavily and comprehensively contested—something that we have not faced in 

decades. Meeting these challenges will require new capabilities and tactics so that 

we can conduct missions across the range of military operations. Together with the 

other Services, we are aggressively preparing to operate in this future environment 

by investing in and exercising new capabilities and tactics. I am confident that we 

can do this with our planned investments, enhanced by the innovation of our Airmen. This will help us meet our strategic mission to project power in even the most 

challenging and contested environments. 

Future adversary strategies could include both cyberspace and electromagnetic attacks to disrupt and deny our networks, sensors, and data links. We are working 

to field systems that seamlessly exchange information across all joint platforms, 

sensors, and weapons in a heavily contested environment. We will not be satisfied 

until we have this infrastructure in place and have trained combat forces who can 

conduct effective kinetic and non-kinetic fires against the most capable adversaries, 

in the most challenging environments. This will enable our Air Force, as part of 

joint forces, to provide an integrated and war-winning response. 

The Air Force recognizes the importance of developing capabilities and tactics, 

techniques, and procedures to operate in contested environments. The Air-Sea Battle concept was developed to meet the challenges of operating in current and future 

contested environments under heavily challenged conditions. Through implementation of this concept, the Air Force is partnered with our sister Services to explore 

the development of advanced capabilities and tactics in order to prevail now and in 

the future. This effort involves the integration of capabilities in the air, at sea, and 

on land, and includes cyber and the electromagnetic environment. We are also actively involved in integrating these capabilities into future exercises, including both 

the Air Force’s future capabilities and Unified Engagement wargames. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. We understand that the Air Force has a requirement for 1900 tactical fighter aircraft, and that that inventory would meet the requirements of the 

National Military Strategy with moderate risk. Last year, the Air Force did not predict any fighter inventory shortfalls through 2030. However, with sequestration in 

fiscal year 2013, some aircraft or engines that had been planned for depot modifications may not be inducted. How will sequestration affect the tactical fighter inventory and do you expect any near-term or short-term tactical fighter inventory shortages as a result? We also understand that the Air Force has requirements for both 

capability and capacity in its tactical fighter inventory. Do you have any concerns 

about the capabilities or capacities of the tactical fighter inventory to meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy? 

General WELSH. Sequestration itself will not affect the tactical fighter inventory, 

but we are concerned that sequestration will result in significant readiness shortfalls that will have an impact on our ability to meet future warfighter requirements. 

Sequestration does impact the fighter force by delaying field-level maintenance activities and depot inductions, reducing depot production, and slowing down modification and modernization efforts. We estimate that the existing depot backlogs alone 

will take up to five years to correct. Analysis of warfighting requirements in the defense strategy and increased aircraft service life expectations allowed the Air Force 

to reduce fighter force structure capacity from 2,000 total active inventory (TAI)/ 

1,200 primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI, or combat-coded) to 1,900 TAI/ 

1,100 PMAI. This force meets the National Military Strategy, but with greater aggregate risk. The capability of this force against potential future adversaries is reliant upon planned modernization efforts to be able to meet high-end threat 

scenarios. 

Mr. TURNER. In the FY budget request, there seems to be a significant reduction 

in Air Force UAS accounts compared to last year. This seems counterintuitive based 

on the critical role ISR performs and the demand from the combatant commanders. 

In your opinion, does the FY 14 budget request meet combatant commander requirements for unmanned aerial ISR systems? 

General WELSH. The fiscal year 2014 budget request meets the Joint Staff adjudicated requirements levied on the Air Force to support the combatant commanders. 

This includes achieving the Secretary of Defense-directed 65 combat air patrols by 

May 2014 and continuing Global Hawk Block 30 operations through calendar year 

2014. The remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) systems are a key element of airpower, 
87 

and we will continue to ensure that we have the right mix of systems, both manned 

and unmanned, as we continue to work through the challenges of sequestration. The 

Air Force remains committed to leading the world in all aspects of airpower, including RPAs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS 

Mr. FRANKS. To ensure that adequate aircraft are available for training and operations at Luke, as well as to provide certainty for the level of operations and investment at Luke for the F–35A mission, I would ask the Air Force to reach a favorable 

decision in Calendar year 2013 on the assignment of Squadrons 4–6. This would 

allow environmental reviews and infrastructure investment to be queued up. Would 

you provide me with your thoughts, and hopefully assurances, that this objective 

can be met this year? 

Secretary DONLEY. The August 1, 2012, record of decision (ROD) assigns 72 F– 

35A aircraft to Luke Air Force Base and stipulates that the next basing decision 

will be made no later than December 2014. Since the ROD was signed, several foreign nations have shown an interest in purchasing aircraft through the foreign military sales (FMS) program. These foreign nations have requested to base their initial 

training programs in the United States. This drives another Air Force basing decision, and is linked to the next training basing decision for the U.S. Air Force aircraft. Given that the first FMS aircraft is scheduled to be delivered in fiscal year 

2016, it is not appropriate to make the basing decisions for the FMS aircraft and 

the additional U.S. Air Force training aircraft in calendar year 2013. 

Mr. FRANKS. Secretary Donley and General Welsh, as you may know the DOD relies on the commercial electric grid for 99% of its electricity needs. That concerns 

me because the commercial bulk power grid is incredibly vulnerable to EMP and 

severe space weather. Can you please update me on what the Air Force is currently 

doing to protect your assets and other aspects of the power grid from this growing 

threat? 

Do you feel that the power and electricity needed to carry out your mission is important enough to require those commercial providers of the power grid to successfully harden their grid from severe space weather or manmade electromagnetic 

pulse. Can the DOD require that of commercial providers of the grid? Do you feel 

that this issue is important enough that legislation is needed to force the hand of 

industry to act? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. The deployment and sustainment of military forces are increasingly a function of interdependent supply chains and privately 

owned infrastructure within the United States and abroad. However, in many cases, 

this infrastructure falls outside Department of Defense (DOD) direct control. The 

Air Force’s dependency on the commercial power grid represents a critical asymmetric vulnerability that must be addressed through partnerships with industry, 

state, and local governments. The Air Force conducts critical asset risk assessments 

(CARA) to identify key critical assets and supporting infrastructure. Identification 

of critical assets focuses within installation boundaries, and extends to the first critical infrastructure nodes outside perimeters. The Air Force has identified over 900 

critical assets, and 62 of those are Tier 1 assets, where loss or degradation of energy 

would impact strategic-level missions. Of the 62 Tier 1 assets, 22 of them are defense critical assets (DCA); the loss of a DCA would result in mission failure for a 

DOD capability. The Air Force is also a member of the Department of Defense’s Energy Grid Security Executive Council (EGSEC), which exists to discuss grid concerns 

across the Services and coordinate with other federal agencies. As the EGSEC chair, 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense & Americas’ Security Affairs would be in the best position to provide information on the need for future legislation. 

It does not appear that the Air Force can require commercial providers to harden 

their grid from severe space weather or man-made electromagnetic pulse. As discussed in its recent Energy Strategic Plan, the Air Force supports the concept of 

improved resiliency and increased energy security and will continue to work to ensure that it has the ability to recover from energy interruptions and sustain the 

mission. By reducing the energy needed and diversifying generation and distribution 

options, the Air Force puts less reliance on an already vulnerable electrical grid 

system. 

Mr. FRANKS. As the Air Force looks down range—is there a benefit to have a 

blended wing of combat-coded and training F–35As at Luke AFB to support both 
88 

the F–35 training mission and contingency operations, given that USAF is seeking 

increased efficiencies in this constrained budget environment? 

General WELSH. The addition of combat-coded F–35As at Luke Air Force Base 

would drive different training requirements and different weapons storage facility 

requirements, ultimately changing the use of the range airspace and requiring a 

new environmental impact statement. Combining both training and combat-coded 

aircraft at one location would also force different inspection timelines and criteria 

onto an already dynamic base with two F–16 foreign military sales squadrons. This 

adds complexity for little benefit, and a blended wing at Luke AFB would not result 

in increased operational efficiency. 

In addition, future decisions concerning Luke AFB may expand training operations to include three additional F–35A squadrons, which would fall within the 

constraints of the environmental impact statement. Luke AFB also is under consideration as the location of F–35A partner pilot training, to include participants from 

seven countries. This would make Luke AFB a critical component of U.S. Air Force 

and international F–35A training. The Air Force’s only other F–35A training location is Eglin AFB, which is currently limited to 24 F–35As. Program and service 

analysis shows that all of these squadrons need to be used for pilot training in order 

to meet Air Combat Command demands at combat units. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SHUSTER 

Mr. SHUSTER. I understand that since 2001 at least 8 CRAF carriers have gone 

out of business. In 2012 alone, 5 CRAF carriers declared bankruptcy. I am concerned that if we lose these carriers, we may not be able to accomplish our operational plans and objectives due to a lack of available airlift capacity, particularly 

for cargo carriers. What steps is the Air Force taking in conjunction with Air Mobility Command to maintain this asset through decisions to increase cargo movements 

for CRAF carriers whenever possible? 

Secretary DONLEY. Air Mobility Command is in the final phase of a two-phase 

post Operation ENDURING FREEDOM Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) study which 

we hope to complete in calendar year 2013. This expansive body of work will assess 

the near-term health and future viability of the CRAF program. Upon the study’s 

conclusion, we will have formulated the recommendations for the most effective 

methodology for restructuring policy, practices, and procedures for the CRAF that 

most accurately reflect the volatile business environment. We have integrated our 

industry partners throughout this process to fully vet their concerns, ensuring we 

maintain a collaborative approach. Furthermore, we’ve been proactive by providing 

our industry partners requirements and forecasts of the drawdown period via semiannual executive working groups. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARSON 

Mr. CARSON. With the F–35 plagued by continual cost overruns, some suggest 

that we could achieve significant savings by cancelling the ‘‘B’’ variant. I strongly 

disagree with this argument. But I am interested to know how cancelling a variant 

would change the load on Air Force F–35s and whether you anticipate that such 

cancellation would require additional procurement down the line. And how would 

such a cancellation change mission cooperation between the Air Force and Marine 

Corps? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force currently plans to procure 1763 F–35As to replace F–16s and A–10s. The consequences of cancelling the the ‘‘B’’ variant are speculative, but could include an increased load on Air Force F–35s and the need for 

additional procurement in the future. Cancelling the ‘‘B’’ variant would result in the 

Department of the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Joint Program Office and the Air Force, determining the best way forward 

to support Marine and Department of Defense requirements. Specific changes to F– 

35A procurement numbers and mission cooperation between the Air Force and the 

Marine Corps would flow from that decision. 

It is important to also note that if the Marine Corps canceled production on the 

‘‘B’’ variant, Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) costs would increase for the remaining 

production aircraft for the Air Force, the Department of Navy, international partners, and foreign military sales partners. Additionally, development costs and production would continue for the ‘‘B’’ variant, despite a withdrawal by the Marine 

Corps, as the ‘‘B’’ variant is being purchased by the United Kingdom and Italy. The 

ramifications of this decision, to include an increase in URF, could cause these two 

partner nations to reassess their commitment to the program. 
89 

Mr. CARSON. While it is clearly past time for us to end our combat mission in Afghanistan, we know that our departure will not also mark the end of terrorist presence and operations in the region. So, it seems likely that we will need to continue 

flying missions to target terrorist leaders. How will the conclusion of combat missions in Afghanistan impact our ability to fly drone missions in the AfghanistanPakistan border region? What efforts are being made now to ensure our continued 

access to this region after 2014? 

General WELSH. As demonstrated by the Chicago Summit in 2012, the United 

States and our partners in the International Security Assistance Force are committed to the goal of preventing Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven 

for terrorists that threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world. Our counter-terrorism mission in this region will continue after the conclusion of our combat activities in 2014, but any potential basing strategies and locations inside Afghanistan 

are still being discussed as part of the ongoing bilateral security agreement currently being negotiated between the United States and Afghanistan. To ensure access and to provide the greatest number of basing options in support of the counterterrorism mission, we are also investigating potential ways to increase the range 

and endurance of our unmanned aircraft in the event in-country basing becomes an 

issue. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Mr. SCOTT. We know the importance of our A–10 aircraft fleet which provides 

close air support for ground personnel and the need for the fleet to have new wings 

to complete this critical mission. In FY13, Congress appropriated $226.5M for acquisition of wings for the A–10 aircraft. 

a. How many wings did the Air Force acquire or intend to acquire before the end 

of FY13? 

b. When does the Air Force intend to purchase additional A–10 wings with the 

remainder of the FY13 appropriation? 

c. There are 283 A–10 aircraft in the Total Air Force inventory. It is Congress’ 

understanding that all aircraft require new wings, and the current contract for 

wings expires in FY16. Through FY13, Congress has appropriated funding for approximately 181 wings. What is the Air Force’s plan to acquire wings in order to 

refit the entire 283 aircraft fleet? 

General WELSH. In fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congress appropriated a total of $251.1M 

(Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF)) for the A–10 program, PE 0207131F. 

Within the $251.1M (APAF) total, $161.2M was for ‘‘retain A–10 force structure.’’ 

a. The Air Force intends to acquire 50 enhanced wing assemblies (EWA) in FY13, 

which is the maximum allowed annually per the existing contract. This will bring 

the total number of EWAs procured to 167. 

b. The Air Force intends to use the remainder of its FY13 APAF funds to purchase 14 additional EWAs in FY14. These funds will be added to FY14 APAF funds 

which are currently slated to purchase nine EWAs. This will bring the total number 

of EWAs purchased in FY14 to 23, and the total program to 190. 

c. The Air Force plans to acquire a total of 190 EWAs by the end of FY14. The 

Air Force’s contract with Boeing allows it to acquire as many as 50 EWAs in both 

FY15 and FY16. The Air Force has the option to acquire the remaining 93 EWAs 

over those two years to complete EWA acquisitions for the entire 283 aircraft fleet. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force Energy Plan recognizes the need to increase supply 

in light of the fact that avaiation in FY 11 represented 86% of energy consumption 

for the Air Force at $8.3 billion. With this in mind, would Air Force leadership be 

supportive of legislative efforts to pilot a program at Scott Air Force Base to do research and develop of effective biofuels for use throughout the force? With Air Mobility Command being headquartered at Scott AFB this would appear to make perfect sense. 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. The Air Force has a global aviation mission and must have assured access to reliable supplies of energy to meet operational 

needs. Alternative fuels are a critical part of that effort and helps the Air Force address availability, price volatility, and energy security. Since 2006, the Air Force has 

been working to test and certify its fleet on alternative aviation fuels, led by the 

Alternative Fuels Certification Office located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 

(AFB), Ohio. Based on an evaluation of market conditions and discussion with commercial partners, the Air Force has evaluated three processes: Fischer-Tropsch (FT), 
90 

hydro-processed renewable jet (HRJ), and alcohol to jet (ATJ). FT and HRJ have 

been evaluated in a 50/50 blend with traditional JP–8 and have been fully certified 

for the entire fleet. With the current efforts already underway at Wright-Patterson 

AFB, the Air Force does not feel a similar program at Scott AFB is necessary and 

would not be the best use of taxpayers’ dollars. 

Mr. ENYART. During your testimony you stated there was 20% excess capacity 

that needed to be addressed through a BRAC process. How much of this excess capacity would come from the Active Duty versus the Reserve and National Guard 

Component? In addition, how much of this excess capacity would come from CONUS 

versus OCONUS installations? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. Parametric techniques used to analyze aggregate assessment of excess capacity in 2004 indicated that the Department of Defense had 24 percent excess overall relative to the force-structure plan developed by 

the Joints Staff. Because BRAC 2005 eliminated only about 3 percent of the Department’s capacity (very little being Air Force infrastructure) and since then, the Air 

Force has retired approximately 500 aircraft and reduced its total manpower by approximately 7 percent, we believe we have significant excess today. The Air Force 

has not conducted a capacity analysis and therefore cannot specify a percentage of 

infrastructure reduction needed from the Components or the locations from which 

that reduction would come. The Air Force is participating in the Office of the Secretary of Defense-led European Infrastructure Consolidation study and will determine if there are opportunities for reducing its European infrastructure. If legislation is enacted authorizing another round of base realignment and closure for 

United States installations, the Air Force will base its analysis on an approved force 

structure plan and will evaluate all bases equally to determine what bases may be 

candidates for closure or realignment. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROOKS 

Mr. BROOKS. The goal of the Air Force acquisition strategy is to promote competition. While it may be fair to give new entrants an opportunity to become certified, 

to what degree does the Air Force feel it is the Air Force’s responsibility to ensure 

that new entrants can meet the certification requirements? 

Does the Air Force intend to fund development of any changes necessary for new 

entrants to meet certification or capability requirements for EELV payloads? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. The Air Force does not intend to fund the 

development of new entrant launch vehicle systems or development of any changes 

necessary for new entrants to meet certification or capability requirements for 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) payloads. Space vehicle (SV) mission 

specific requirements, should they arise in the future, will be included as part of 

any competitive launch service, and funded with procurement funding by the SV 

program, as they are for current EELV missions. The New Entrant Certification 

Guide (NECG) outlines the process and requirements that must be met for new entrants to become certified to compete for National Security Space missions on the 

EELV program. The NECG makes it clear that the Government is not funding the 

development of new entrants’ launch systems. 

The Department will issue an early integration contract with any new entrant 

provider who has submitted a statement of intent in accordance with the Air Force 

NECG and has successfully launched their first launch vehicle of the configuration 

intended to meet certification. These early integration efforts will help the new entrant provider and the potential SV programs understand the environments (shock, 

vibration, acoustic, etc.) and performance capabilities of each system and begin development of interface control documents. 

Mr. BROOKS. Does the Air Force believe a new entrant must meet all requirements in the EELV Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Systems Interface Specification (SIS)? If not, what requirements are new entrants being allowed 

to ignore and please explain the rationale? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. The Air Force published a New Entrant 

Certification Guide that states, ‘‘a new entrant must meet . . . specific reliability and 

interface requirements,’’ and comply with the ‘‘standard payload interface’’. To encourage competition the Air Force is planning to compete missions which can be potentially launched by new entrants in the fiscal year (FY) 2015–2017 timeframe. 

Not all ORD II key performance parameters (KPP) will have to be met for this potential competition. In this timeframe, KPPs that new entrants may be unable to 

meet are mass to orbit and standard launch pads. However, all KPPs will have to 

be met in order to compete for the next phase starting in FY18. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles standard interface specification (SIS) outlines the stand-
91 

ard mechanical and electrical interfaces as well as the required launch environments to include shock, acoustic, and thermal envelopes of multiple launch vehicle 

configurations. Any new entrant must meet the requirements of the SIS prior to certification completion. Therefore, existing space vehicles (SV) that currently meet the 

SIS, such as GPS III, should not require modification as the SV is already compatible with the SIS requirements. In the event modifications need to be made to the 

launch vehicle to accommodate a SV, those mission unique modifications will be incorporated into the price of the launch service in a manner consistent with how we 

procure launch services from the incumbent. 

Mr. BROOKS. Has the Air Force or DOD done an independent cost estimate on 

new entrants to launch an EELV class mission? Please provide the estimate. 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. No, neither the Air Force nor DOD has 

done an independent cost estimate on new entrants to launch an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class mission. The Government does not yet have the necessary 

insight into the new entrant’s costing/accounting processes to complete a formal assessment of new entrant costs. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT 

Mr. NUGENT. After 4 years and $40 million, the CHAMP program had a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration last year. The Air Force described this JCTD as 

‘‘a very successful flight test.’’ You have developed and now tested a working capability that can knock out all the electronics of an enemy target without doing any 

physical damage to the facility or people. This is a remarkable achievement that has 

produced a nonlethal weapon with broad application that is cheap to make and expensive for our potential adversaries to defend. 

Why are you not requesting funding to get CHAMP beyond the research phase and out to the Combatant Commanders? The FY14 budget request is for $209,000 

less than this year to conduct an Analysis of Alternatives on a new reusable platform. Why are you not finishing development on the platform that you have and 

works, while asking Congress for the money to begin procurement? 

Secretary DONLEY. As this was an S&T demonstration, the JCTD was limited in 

scope and did not account for weapon survivability and effects delivered in an operational relevant threat environment. A CHAMP JCTD final report is currently being 

drafted by United States Pacific Command. The Air Force will use this final report 

and any additional information/data from the demonstration to feed the Air Force’s 

non-kinetic counter electronic (NKCE) weapon concept of using HPM technology to 

affect real world electronic equipment in an operationally relevant threat environment. The Air Force is completing the NKCE comprehensive concept analysis (CCA) 

in fiscal year (FY) 2014. The CCA will define the technological characteristics required to integrate HPM technology into a weaponized platform and be survivable 

in an operational relevant threat environment long enough to deliver the intended 

effects. CHAMP, along with other potential solutions, will be part of NKCE analysis 

of alternatives (AoA) notionally scheduled to take place during FY15. 

FY13 and FY14 funds supporting these analyses has been requested in a system 

development and demonstration program element (PE) 0604429F, Airborne Electronic Attack. 

The referenced decrease of $209,000 occurs in PE 0603605F, Advanced Weapons 

Technology. This S&T PE was the primary source of funding for the CHAMP JCTD. 

Since the CHAMP S&T program has been completed, the S&T funding requirements 

for further counter-electronics research and technology development in FY14 are 

less than requested for FY13. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The United States Government has performed four independent 

studies on the C–130 AMP solution between 1998 and 2008 and found it was the 

most cost-effective solution to modernize the C–130 fleet and at the same time, consolidate the multiple configurations and increase equipment reliability and availability. It appears from the FY14 President’s proposed budget that a new start effort, named Minimize CNS/ATM option, has been identified. Will this new start provide less capability than the current program of record? Is the current Institute for 

Defense Analyses (IDA) study evaluating the C–130 AMP program of record against 

the Minimize CNS/ATM option identified in FY 14 PB document? 

Secretary DONLEY. The fiscal year (FY) 2014 Minimize C–130 communication, 

navigation, surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) program is a less robust 

avionics modification program than the current program of record. The Minimize 
92 

program is an airspace compliance only program to ensure the C–130H fleet meets 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s January 2020 CNS/ATM mandate. The current IDA study, which will be delivered to Congress in October 2013, will evaluate 

all three C–130H modification alternatives: C–130 Avionics Modernization Program, 

FY13 Optimize Legacy C–130 CNS/ATM, and FY14 Minimize C–130 CNS/ATM. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. At the Air Force posture hearing in FY 12, then-Chief of Staff 

of the Air Force General Norton Schwartz commented that ‘‘the Air Force C–130 

AMP provides military capability equal or greater than alternative programs and 

at less cost than those programs.’’ What requirement or mission changed that would 

allow for a change of direction of this magnitude? Has an acquisition strategy been 

developed for the FY14 Minimize CNS/ATM new start option? 

Secretary DONLEY. The C–130 mission and requirements have not changed. Many 

of the upgrades with Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) dealt with modernization of the aircraft and enhancing its viability. Given the current fiscal environment 

and the impacts of sequestration, the Air Force does not have sufficient resources 

to fund the AMP program. The Air Force has decided to pursue a lower cost program that provides the minimum required upgrades for communication, navigation, 

surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) compliance. 

The Air Force, in compliance with Section 143 of the fiscal year 2013 National 

Defense Authorization Act, has not taken ‘‘any action to cancel or modify the avionics modernization program for C–130 aircraft.’’ 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The FY14 President’s Budget states, ‘‘with termination of C– 

130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), the Minimize C–130 Communication, 

Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) option provides minimal airspace compliance focused program to modify 184 C–130H aircraft.’’ As directed by the FY13 NDAA, have you begun the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) 

study and what is the current status and projected completion date to report back 

to the committees? Has there been any analysis of long-term cost savings the current C–130 AMP provides versus the proposed for FY 14 Minimize CNS/ATM 

capability? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. The directed study was placed on contract 

with the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) on March 1, 2013. IDA is currently 

in the data collection/clarification phase of the study and met with appropriate military and defense industry organizations in May. The study plans to conduct life 

cycle cost comparisons for the three C–130H modification alternatives: C–130 AMP, 

fiscal year (FY) 2013 Optimize Legacy C–130 CNS/ATM, and FY14 Minimize C–130 

CNS/ATM. We anticipate the study will be delivered to Congress in October 2013. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO 

Mr. PALAZZO. As you know, last year’s NDAA contained language that set up 

a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force; I believe last week the 

committee actually named General Raymond Johns and Erin Conaton to the 

commission. 

That Commission is tasked with the job of completing a comprehensive study of 

the structure of the Air Force to determine whether, and how, the structure be 

modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Air 

force in a manner consistent with available resources. 

It would seem to me that we may be putting the cart before the horse here and 

we should be waiting until after this committee completes its job before we actually 

move any planes around. 

So, my question is why would the Air Force already start moving planes around 

before we have the recommendations of the Commission? It just doesn’t make any 

sense. 

And if cost savings is the issue, then what is the point of having the commission 

at all? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. All Air Force force structure adjustments 

occurring in fiscal year (FY) 2013 were authorized by the FY13 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) and funded in the Appropriations Act (Public Law 113– 

6). In addition, these FY13 actions were part of a long-term plan submitted by the 

Air Force which included force structure adjustments through FY18. This plan, as 

adjusted by subsequent dialogue with the Congress prior to and after enactment of 

the FY13 NDAA, is the basis of the proposed Air Force force structure adjustments 

in the FY14 President’s Budget submission. 
93 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BARBER 

Mr. BARBER. General Welsh, thank you for your service to our Nation and your 

testimony today. I know you agree that we must be good stewards of the taxpayers’ 

money. Sustaining our current inventory is one way the Air Force is doing this, and 

I applaud you for it. For example, the budget mentioned maintaining the C–130 for 

airlift capability rather than procuring a new, more expensive airplane. The budget 

also noted the Department will retain F–15 and F–16 fighters to fill a critical role 

in the Air Force’s global strike core function. While we greatly anticipate the continued procurement and fielding of the F–35, the fact remains that the Air Force currently lacks the necessary fleet of F–35s to replace the A–10. Yet, also within the 

budget, the Department continues with its plans to either shift to the Air Force Reserve, or retire, the A–10. The President’s budget requests no funding for A–10s beyond FY14 even though the Air Force continues to transition A–10s to the Reserve. 

In my district, we have Davis-Monthan Air Force Base that is home to the 354th 

Fighter Squadron, a squadron of A–10s. They just returned from Afghanistan this 

week. Wouldn’t you agree that these pilots, and the A–10s that they fly, provide a 

critical close air support role not readily filled by another airframe? What measures 

is the Department undertaking to ensure sufficient numbers of A–10s are kept mission-ready and able to support our forward forces and Combatant Commanders? 

General WELSH. The A–10 Thunderbolt II has served the country very well for 

the last 30 years. Through two wars in Iraq and for the last 12 years in Afghanistan, the A–10 has been operated by all of the Components—the Active Duty, 

Guard, and Reserve—and has been a significant battlefield force multiplier. The A– 

10 continues to undergo a series of airframe structural changes to ensure viability, 

has completed Precision Engagement (integration of data links with a cockpit/avionics suite upgrade), carries advanced targeting pods, and employs the latest in 

guided weapons. The Air Force will continue to invest in the A–10 for the foreseeable future, while still planning for the F–35 replacement process to fulfill future 

close air support (CAS) needs. We continue to train A–10 pilots and our budget ensures that the requisite number of A–10s necessary to support combatant commander requirements are available. Until we have sufficient numbers of F–35s, the 

Air Force intends to keep the A–10 viable and combat-ready. 

In short, the Air Force is ensuring A–10 availability, reliability, and maintainability with procurement of enhanced wing assemblies, scheduled structural inspections, replacement of aging fuselage longerons, and operational equipment upgrades. 

Combined, these efforts extend the A–10 service life to 14,000 hours. The A–10 will 

be kept operationally viable through software suite development that enhances the 

capabilities of its targeting pods and weapons upgrades. The Air Force is equipping 

the A–10 with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System to satisfy an Air Force Central 

Command (AFCENT) urgent operational need. Overall, these efforts ensure our A– 

10s are kept at a mission-ready status and are able to support our forward forces 

and combatant commanders. As the Air Force reallocates aircraft within its Components, the A–10 will continue to provide CAS as it has for the last 30 years, no matter where the A–10 resides—the Active Duty, Guard, or Reserve. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. NOEM 

Mrs. NOEM. Since cost savings will obviously be the goal of any future BRAC Congress would authorize, how important is proximity to military training areas—especially considering cost of fuel for ground transport and cost per flying hour? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. Developing Airmen with a warrior ethos 

and an expeditionary mentality requires a robust and flexible training infrastructure. Basic and special skills training require diverse industrial, academic, and support facilities. Mission-oriented training requires airspace and ranges, ground maneuver areas, as well as simulators and other training aids. The Air Force will 

evaluate each of these areas during capacity analysis and Military Value determination, and shall retain and invest in installations that rate high in those areas. 

One of the Air Force basing principles used during previous base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) processes was maintaining flying squadrons within operationally efficient proximity to Department of Defense controlled airspace, ranges, military operations areas, and low-level routes. The Air Force must keep ranges and airspace 

relevant to our missions and develop basing strategies that use them efficiently. 

During previous rounds of BRAC, as we determined the Military Value of an installation, Criterion 1: Current/Future Mission included proximity of ranges as a 

geo-locational attribute. We anticipate this attribute will continue to be an important aspect when determining Military Value. 
94 

Mrs. NOEM. In any future BRAC, will the Air Force focus on eliminating any particular category of excess base infrastructure, more than others? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. The Air Force has no installation or category specific plan at this time, and will comply with any future authorizing legislation and Defense Department policy. Should Congress authorize another round of 

base realignment and closure, all United States installations will be considered for 

realignment or closure. The Air Force will conduct the required analysis to identify 

the infrastructure necessary to satisfy operational and support requirements, with 

a focus on closing unneeded installations and eliminating excess infrastructure. 

Mrs. NOEM. If the Air Force believes it has excess installation capacity and needs 

to close some bases or consolidate certain activities, do you think a least disruptive 

approach to our National Security readiness would be to first focus on consolidating 

those bases that primarily only have service support functions, such as logistical 

centers or military schools, rather than seeking to close bases that house fighter or 

bomber wings? 

Secretary DONLEY and General WELSH. An authorized base realignment and closure process would provide the only effective way to reduce excess infrastructure in 

the United States and under that process the Air Force would consider all bases 

equally. 

Æ