Hearing Of The Defense Subcommittee Of The Senate Committee On Appropriations - Fiscal Year 2010 Department Of The Air Force Budget Overview

Statement

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. INOUYE: This morning the committee convenes to hear testimony from the Air Force on its budget request for FY 2010. And I am pleased to -- I welcome the secretary of the Air Force, the honorable Michael Donley, and the chief of staff of the Air Force, General Norton Schwartz.

Gentlemen, welcome. And I realize this is your first time here, but I can assure you that we are looking forward to working with you in the coming years because we believe that the Air Force is a very important part, not just of the Defense community, but of the United States.

So let me begin by commending you both for the measures taken to strengthen the stewardship of the Air Force's nuclear arsenal. The FY 2010 budget includes several key improvements, including an increase in personnel for the nuclear mission and the establishment of the Global Strike Command. Your leadership has been essential, and we look forward to continued progress.

For FY 2010, the Air Force is requesting $160.5 billion in the base budget and $16 billion in the overseas contingency operations budget. This budget submission is notable in a number of ways. First, it funds a more robust Active Duty end-strength level of 331,000 personnel rather than continuing the draw-down that we have witnessed up until now.

It's important to stabilize the Air Force manpower levels, especially now when mission demands are increasing. More personnel will help to meet the needs of irregular warfare, aerial surveillance support, cyberspace and acquisition excellence, and in restoring the nuclear enterprise. The committee will be interested in how the Air force plans to allocate personnel across these critical missions.

It's noteworthy that this budget supports the continued emphasis on irregular warfare and building up the intelligence, surveillance, and recognizance assets needed in today's fight. It will increase the Predator and the Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicle coverage to 43 combat air patrols. The budget also supports the training and operation of the MC-12 Liberty ISR aircraft. The Air Force has made great strides in improving its posture in this mission area.

Third, this budget reflects the hard and controversial decisions that the Department is making on future investments. In this request, the F-22 Raptor, the C-17 Airlift, and the transformational communications satellite programs are terminated. The Joint Cargo Aircraft Program is reduced from 78 to 38 aircraft and is no longer a joint program with the Army. The request restructures the combat Air Force and it retires 249 fighter aircraft.

The committee will be interested in understanding both the risks and benefits of these choices.

Gentlemen, I remain concerned about the aging aircraft tanker fleet, especially the tanker fleet. The average aircraft age is now over 24 years. The average age of the KC-135 fleet is close to 50 years. The tanker aircraft must be replaced. And I have several questions on this program and many others today.

And I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. Your full statements will be made part of the record, but first, I'd like to turn over to the vice chairman of this committee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, for any opening remarks he may wish to make.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R-MS): Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to work with you on this important subcommittee and to join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses before the committee today. The Air Force is playing a unique and important role in the defense of our nation. We respect all of you who are involved in that. We thank you for your dedicated service and bringing to the challenge the expertise and results of the training and experience you have had in the defense of our nation.

The aircraft and forces of the Air force have been protecting our nation's interests in a very remarkable and praiseworthy way. We especially appreciate the dangers that are faced in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas around the world where the Air Force is playing a very important, active role in helping ensure that our nation's policies succeed in those areas. We look forward to hearing your testimony to help us determine how best to allocate the resources that are available to this committee for the Air Force and in carrying out your missions.

Thank you very much.

SEN. INOUYE: (Off mike.)

SEN. : Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I join with the chairman in congratulating you on the good work you're doing to restore the reliability and assurance of our nation's nuclear mission, and we welcome Secretary Donley. We thank both of you for your distinguished service.

Gentlemen, as you know, we've had discussions about concerns over the attack fighters' air shortfalls, and as the chair mentioned, 24 age years on the Air Force fleet -- last year before the Air Land Subcommittee of the SASC the Air Force testified it was facing a shortfall of 800 plus aircraft Air Force wise, and the Air National Guard testified that over the next eight to nine years Air Guard is facing a fighter shortfall that will result in 80 percent of the aircraft used to defend the skies of the United States, the Air Sovereignty Alert mission being retired.

And it is clear from what the GAO has told us that accelerating the GSF will not prevent the fighter gap. In March of this year GAO concluded it would cost $33 billion to accelerate the GSF program and said, quote, "Accelerating procurement in a cost reimbursement contract environment where uncertainties in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed price contract places very significant financial risk on the government."

My view -- now is not the time to be placing significant financial risk on the government, and it's never time to place the country at a security risk, but it's my view that's what the President's budget is proposing. I know a lot of people will talk about the QDR, but as in years past, we've seen that. We've got the T-shirt.

I know that it will be an attempt to justify the budget productions by saying we don't need as many fighters, and it's a massive budget drill, but none of that analysis -- and I will review that when it comes out. We'll be available in time for this budget (session ?).

So I remain convinced, and we will discuss whether it is time to rethink the plan. GSF is too big to fail, so we're not going to let it go, but is it time to look at 85 percent solution at one half to two thirds of the cost, giving the Air Force the proven platforms that will bridge us to the time if and when the GSF can complete its mission.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.

Senator Shelby?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL): Mr. Chairman, I ask that my opening statement be made part of the record, and I --

SEN. INOUYE: Without objection.

SEN. SHELBY: -- just want to say welcome to secretary Donley and General Schwartz. I look forward to their testimony, and, of course, I have some questions, especially, as the chairman mentioned, in dealing with the tanker and the competition, and also, Mr. Secretary, with the UAVs and so forth. We'll get into that after your testimony.

Thank you.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary?

SEC. DONLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of the committee. It is indeed a privilege to be with you today to testify on the FY '10 budget and the Air Force's future plans.

It's been almost a year since General Schwartz and I took on these roles, and I will tell you that it has been both a pleasure and a privilege to work with General Schwartz in this effort. He has been an outstanding partner and wingman in our work together over the last year.

In recent months, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen led a constructive dialogue about necessary changes in our national defense priorities and areas of emphasis. Our discussions emphasized taking care of our most important asset, which is our people. Rebalancing our capabilities to fight and win the current and most likely conflicts in front of us while also hedging against other risks and contingencies and reforming how and what we buy.

We've contributed our analysis and judgment to these discussions throughout. With OSD and our sister services and interagency partners, we've undertaken several strategic reviews of the Air Force in the last year. Last fall, we refined the Air Force mission statement, articulated our five strategic priorities, refined the core functions of the Air Force to more clearly articulate our role in the Defense and national security establishment.

We also made progress in areas that required focused attention in the near term, such as strengthening the Air Force's nuclear enterprise, preparing to stand up our cyber numbered Air Force, articulating our strategy for irregular warfare and counter-insurgency operations, consolidating our approach in the Air Force for global partnerships, and advancing stewardship of our energy program.

Our reviews were guided by the concept of strategic balance, which has several meanings for us. As Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have described, balance means prevailing in today's fight while also being able to respond across the spectrum of conflict to emerging hybrid threats. Balance also means allocating investment across our 12 diverse, but complementary core functions. And balance also means organized training and equipping across the Air Force components, Active Reserve and our civilian workforce as well. Our budget proposal recognizes that our people are the heart and soul of America's Air Force, and without them, our organizations and equipment would simply grind to a halt.

In FY '10 we are reversing previously planned reductions in Air Force Active Duty duty and strength with commensurate addressments in the Reserve components as well. We will also grow our civilian cadre with focused attention on the acquisition workforce. At the same time, we'll continue to reshape our skill sets with particular emphasis on stress career fields and missions that need our attention now, such as intelligence, surveillance, and recognizance, acquisition, maintenance, cyber operations, and nuclear matters.

For FY '10, we're also driving more balance into our force structure. In theater, the demand for ISR and Special Operations capabilities continues to increase, so we will increase unmanned aircraft system combat air patrols, as the chairman mentioned, from 34 today to 43 by the end of FY '10, as well as increase our Special Operations forces end strength by about 550 personnel.

We also took a broader strategic look at the total combat Air Force capability. And there is a general view in the Department's leadership that the United States has enough tactical air capability. With that in mind, we determined that this was a prudent opportunity to accelerate the retirement of older aircraft, as we have done in this budget. As a result, we will reshape the portfolio of the fighter force by retiring about 250 of our oldest tactical fighters. We'll complete the production of the F-22 fighter at 187 aircraft and continue our planned modernization of the F-22 going forward.

And we are readying another fifth generation fighter, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, to become the workhorse of our new fighter fleet in the future. We'll ensure balance for joint airlift needs by completing the C-17 production, subject to continued congressional action in that area. Continuing to modernize our C-5s, reinitiating the C-130-J production line, and transitioning the C-27-J program office from the Army to the Air Force.

In particular, the Department made a judgment that the 316 strategic airlift tails in the program of record is adequate to meet our needs. We also conducted a business case analysis that identified alternatives to improve our current strategic airlift fleet at less cost than simply buying more C-17s. We know that is an issue with Congress, and we look forward to further discussions with you on that subject.

Our plan is to enhance the stability and remove risk in our military SATCOM programs by extending our AEHF and WGS inventories and continuing our partnerships with commercial providers. While AEHF does not give us all the capabilities projected for the TSAT program, adding additional AEHF and WGS satellites provides additional SATCOM capability until we can gain confidence about the affordability and the requirements for TSAT-like capabilities in the future.

We've also placed additional emphasis on Air Force acquisition. We recently published an acquisition improvement plan to focus our efforts in several key areas; first, revitalizing the Air Force acquisition workforce, second, improving our requirements generation process, third, instilling more budget and financial discipline in our work, fourth, improving Air Force major systems source selections in the Air Force, and last, establishing clear lines of authority and accountability within our acquisition organizations. We will continue to work on these issues going forward with Secretary Gates and Dr. Carter.

Over the coming months, we will, of course, participate in several major reviews underway in the Department; the QDR, the Nuclear and Space Posture Reviews, and from these analyses we will better understand the needs, the requirements and available technologies for long-range strike, as well as our requirements and potential joint solutions for personnel recovery.

Mr. Chairman, stewardship of the United States Air Force is a responsibility that we take very seriously, and we know this committee does as well. We thank you for your support for our airmen and for our national security in general, and we look forward to the continued support of this committee and working with you in the future.

Thank you.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and now may I call upon General Schwartz?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, and other members of the committee, I'm proud to be here with Secretary Donley representing your Air Force. The United States Air Force is committed to effective stewardship of the resources the American people place in our trust, a commitment founded on our core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do. Guided by our core values, American airmen are all in, working courageously every day with precision and reliability.

I recently had a chance to take a trip and visit with some of our airmen performing at several locations around the world, and they are providing game changing capabilities for the combatant commanders in the air and on the ground. Last year, American airmen conducted 61,000 sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom, some 37,000 sorties in Operation Enduring Freedom, and that's about 256 sorties a day.

Airmen also serve in convoys and in coalition operation centers and deliver two million passengers and some 700,000 tons of cargo in the United States Central Command area of responsibility. And dedicated airmen directly support CENTCOM operations from right here in the United States by providing command and control of unmanned aerial systems, while our nuclear operations professors support the umbrella of deterrents for the nation and our allies across the globe. And our space professionals are providing truly amazing capabilities ranging from early warning to precise global positioning navigation and timing.

Through Secretary Donley's guidance and his leadership, we have set the course to provide even greater capabilities for America, and to balance our priorities across and to meet the spectrum of challenges. The top priority is to reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise, as outlined in our nuclear roadmap. We are fielding capabilities that allow us to innovate partnerships with joint and coalition teammates to win today's fight.

By expanding intelligence surveillance and recognizance with the procurement of 24 NQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems -- and at the same time we will continue to support our most precious asset; our people. We are focused on providing programs that develop and care for our airmen and their families with world class quality of service and honor our commitments that we all have made to our wounded warriors.

Part of ensuring support for our airmen means providing the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Therefore, we are modernizing our air and space inventories, organizations and training with the right, if difficult, choices. In addition to the programs that Secretary Donley just mentioned, we are committed to providing a robust air refueling capability. We also intend to increase efficiency by retiring aging aircraft, and we will complete production of the F-22 at 187 aircraft in the C-17 at 205 aircraft subject to congressional approval.

In recent testimony, Admiral Mullen stated that we are what we buy. Following his lead, we intend to maintain stewardship of America's resources for our war fighters in the field and our taxpayers at home by recapturing acquisition excellence and fielding the right capabilities for our nation on time and within budget.

Mr. Chairman, with our core values guiding us, the Air Force will continue to provide the best military advice and stewardship, delivering global vigilance, reach, and power for America. Thank you for your continued support of the United States Air Force and particularly for our airmen and their families.

Sir, I look forward to your questions.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you very much. As both of you are well aware, this committee has been deeply involved in recent weeks in what we call the supplemental appropriations process. It seems likely that this week we will close the shop and sign the bill, and hopefully we'll have this matter sent to the White House. In all likelihood, this measure will include eight additional C-17s. It will have five additional C-130s and several other items. But I will leave those matters up to my colleagues, who are experts in this area.

But I'd like to touch upon other items that may not be touched upon by my colleagues. Secretary Gates has been speaking of irregular warfare as being just as important as traditional warfare. And in your proposal you have requested funds to build this capability, to carry out your mission in this irregular warfare. For the record -- because many of my colleagues who are not on this committee may not be familiar with what irregular warfare is all about. And would you tell us what it is, and secondly, how you hope to build up the capability to involve yourself in this?

General?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Mr. Chairman, irregular warfare -- I would describe it as something different than the traditional confrontation of major maneuver units on the battlefield. It is a distributed battle. It involves high concentrations of civilian populations. It involves having to exert governance and control in the battle space in a way that might not typically the case in more conventional employment of our forces. And significantly, I think it requires a level of precision that perhaps is, again, not as needed in sort of traditional force-on-force engagements.

Now, our basic approach to this is, again, not just for the Air Force, but rather recognition that this kind of employment requires a joint team that is very well integrated and can employ forces across the spectrum. So that includes for us things that -- all the way from lift and transportation to strike -- very precision strike -- importantly, intelligence surveillance and recognizance capability, because that is -- intelligence is a key factor in success in this domain. And likewise, a whole range of skills that are required to build partner capacity.

So, for example, while the traditional aspect of training others is air crew skills, it's much, much broader than that now. It includes -- how do you run an air field? How do you operate a safety shop? How do you maintain a runway? How do you maintain a budget? These are things that are necessary for nascent air forces to achieve a capability to serve their nations well and effectively. And typically, they are not as sophisticated as we are, and certainly don't have the benefit of the resources that you all put at our disposal.

And so it means in terms of equipage perhaps having things that allow us to train others on. That is something that they might be able to employ. It's not so sophisticated that it can't be maintained, or so sophisticated that perhaps it's beyond the natural ability of a growing, maturing Air Force.

I guess I would finally conclude, sir, by indicating that this is an area that requires skills that as I was growing up were not sufficiently appreciated. Language and the capacity to interact with other cultures and appreciate that -- how we sit, how we present ourselves, how we interact with elders matters a lot in terms of our ultimate success. That's how I would capture it for you, sir.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, you have anything to add to that?

SEC. DONLEY: I think the chief has captured it very well. I would also add I think as we have approached our role in helping to train the emerging Afghan and Iraqi Air Forces, we are learning some good lessons along the way. I think the secretary's challenge to us is not just to improve our IW capability in specialized areas that we're all familiar with in the Special Operations forces, and we have additional resources put against our soft forces, additional investments that are well understood by the committee, the CB-22s coming online, MC-130s. These kinds of capabilities will continue to be improved.

But what the secretary is asking us to do is to think about how to use our general purpose forces more effectively in the irregular warfare part of the conflict spectrum. He has not asked us to fundamentally overhaul the capabilities of the United States Air Force or the other services, which are required to meet a full range of potential contingencies across the conflict spectrum, all the way from irregular, all the way up through high-intensity operations, and, of course, we have the nuclear deterrent mission as well in the Air Force.

He's asking us to figure out ways to use the bulk of our forces, which are deployed across this conflict spectrum, figure out ways to be able to tailor those capabilities more effectively for IW work. So as the chief has I think laid out pretty well, our issues are focused on how do we use our education and training system and our support for other nations to build up their capabilities more effectively? And we're seeing that come through in a couple of different areas. One is, for example, the JCA, the C-27, which our department has been working on. That mission, as you know, is transferring from the Army to the Air Force.

But a light mobility aircraft such as this is of interest and is of use potentially to partners like Iraq and Afghanistan that may or may not have a C-130 kind of capability, or if they do, it will be fairly circumscribed. They're not going -- they certainly won't be in the C-17 business, for example.

So we think having a capability like this in the United States Air Force makes us better teachers for potential partners who are not going to be buying JSFs, C-17s, (and sort of the ?) F-35s, the high- end capabilities that we will produce. So we see that in mobility, in the C-27. We see it also in the ISR platforms, in the MC-12 capability that we are building that might in the future have some applicability. That Beechcraft kind of airframe has applicability at the -- for partners who cannot afford and will not be in the unmanned aerial systems business and will not have thousands of personnel in their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. But yes, they may be able to operate that MC-12-like capability going forward to give them an ISR capability.

And as we -- and the third area is in our trainers (which in ?) -- and consistent with past practice are often able to evolve from a training aircraft to a light-attack aircraft and there are different options for how to do this. So certainly in our T-6 training -- trainer programs there are opportunities going forward to make T-6 and/or Super Tucano or airplanes -- propeller-driven airplanes of this class into light-attack aircraft that could be utilized by partners, again, who are not going to be able to and do not have a need to operate at that higher end of the conflict spectrum -- can't -- they can't afford to do that.

So having these capabilities inside our force structure we think will help us be better teachers and better partners and help us build up the security capabilities of partners facing counter terrorist operations, counter insurgency operations whom we have an interest in building up to be not only better partners for us internationally but to be good regional partners and able to take care of their own neighborhoods. I apologize for the lengthy answer but this is a good question.

SEN. INOUYE: Well, the secretary said it's just as important as traditional warfare. Your 24th Air Force is going to be a focal point for cyber warfare. Can you tell us what you have in mind to carry out this mission, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. DONLEY: Well, sir, I'll let the chief discuss it in more detail, but in general, we have information operation wings and network warfare wings which -- and a network operations capabilities that are responsible for taking care of Air Force networks, for defending them against cyber threats, which are growing and are of increasing -- have been at risk and are -- and we're -- so we're growing this capability in the Air Force.

We made a decision last fall to put those capabilities under a numbered Air Force, which is our operational level inside the Air Force, to more effectively manage and oversee this work.

SEN. INOUYE: General?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: (Inaudible) -- just to emphasize, the thrust here is on two basic themes within -- what really is emerging is a contested domain, and that is one, as the secretary mentioned, to defend ourselves, to defend our (nets ?), because increasingly these networks are not just administrative conveniences but they are in fact the way that we bring the integration and the magnitude of all of our capabilities to bear and command and control them in real time. So defending our nets is vital to our combat capability and that's a major function for the 24th Air Force.

As well, there are more offensive kinds of capabilities here. For example, one can envision that it might be prudent to disable an integrated air defense array that might -- we might want to penetrate by use of cyber rather than kinetic means, or some mix of the two, and advancing our capabilities in this regard will also be within the portfolio of the 24th Air Force.

I would conclude, sir, by indicating that as you know the president announced a cyber initiative last week. As part of that, there will likely be an organizational realignment within the Department of Defense and 24th will be the Air Force contribution to that larger enterprise for the entire department.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you, sir. Senator Cochran?

SEN. COCHRAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you. General Schwartz, I understand that the Air Force has established as one of its top priorities greater support for the Army and coalition forces overseas in nontraditional Air Force missions on the ground. Could you give us some examples of this activity and the impact that that may be having in terms of your overall end strength? Is it going to require you to reorganize or ask for more authority from the Congress to continue to carry out this mission?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Sir, the proposal which is embedded within this FY '10 program proposal at 331,000, 332,000 active duty end strength is where we need to be and I don't see us climbing much higher than that, if at all. With regard to the so-called nontraditional tasks, our sense is and the leadership of our Air Force acknowledges, recognizes the country is at war and there are needs at this time that need to be fulfilled. They are requirements that the joint team needs to have accomplished, and if your Air Force can do this -- if we can make a contribution that we're going to do so.

We will do whatever is required wherever it's needed for however long it's needed provided that our youngsters are properly trained. That is our obligation. And so, sir, we have folks that are doing convoy duty in Iraq. I visited with some at Arifjan not but a couple of months ago, and believe me, these folks do not see what they're doing as peripheral or not worthy.

They know very well how important the work they are doing is and that's true whether it's medics or transportation folks or security forces operating outside the fence, whatever the discipline. This is -- it's needed, it's part of the joint effort, and the Air Force is proud to do it, sir.

SEN. COCHRAN: Well, I compliment you for the initiative and showing the flexibility of responding to something that's clearly needed and in our national interest, and we hope we'll be able to provide the resources that you need to carry out these important activities. Secretary Donley, I understand the Air Force intends to reduce its reliance on contracted workers by hiring several thousand government civilians to replace contractors. Has the Air Force identified what positions or functions it intends to resource from within your organization and what savings, if any, do you anticipate through this initiative?

SEC. DONLEY: Sir, this is a DOD-wide initiative what you're referring to. It's a very important one. I believe there's a strong consensus in the department and I believe also here in Congress that the reliance of the department on contractors to do some work that was previously done within the government has probably run its course and the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way. We are much more sensitized at this point to the need to bring back into the organic government capability some of those functions that had been contracted out, and our target for FY '10, as I recall, it is about 4,000 of these conversions.

Almost -- about 2,000 -- about half of that is targeted for us on our acquisition workforce and growing our acquisition workforce in some critical areas that need reinforcement. Contracting, systems engineering, cost estimating -- these are examples of capabilities we plan to beef up by relying less on contractor support and bringing those capabilities in house.

SEN. COCHRAN: As you know, we have a very large training facility on the Mississippi Gulf coast at Keesler Air Force Base and very proud of the role that they played over the years in our national defense organization. They are currently hosting the 81st Training Wing and I think it's the largest technical training unit and is a so- called center of excellence for computer and electronic training.

Anyway, I'm going to put in the record some facts and figures that I understand are currently reflected in the hiring and the activities there. But they're being tasked now with developing infrastructure capacity to potentially host a new mission -- the undergraduate cyber training mission for the Air Force. I wonder, General, if you have taken a role in this or have any information that you can give us about this possibility of a new center of excellence for electronics and computer-related training at Keesler.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Sir, as you know, Keesler has been for decades the center of excellence for training our entry level communications and electronic specialists, and an actual extension of that could very well be the training of the workforce that 24th Air Force will employ in this increasingly digital and cyber era. That decision has not been formally taken where that element will go.

But clearly, Keesler is a very strong candidate and we will have a range of courses from entry level on the cyber side to obviously what we call five- and seven-level courses -- increasingly more demanding courses -- so that our people have the breadth and background required to do this work. That's an important piece of 24th too. My focus, naturally, was on operations but you have to make sure that the workforce has the skills necessary to do this and that's the task that we're about on that, sir.

SEN. COCHRAN: Well, thank you very much and thank you for your excellent leadership in the roles that you have. We appreciate it.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you. Senator Bond?

SEN. BOND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned earlier, General Schwartz, I have some very real concerns about the intermediate term plans or, to be honest, what I see as a lack of intermediate plans. I said that right now we have available proven platforms that have about a 85 percent solution. They're not fifth generation but they're 4.8, 4.9, and you yourself mentioned the ability of externalities to enable some of those fourth generations to do things that one would have expected we could only achieve with the fifth generation.

We won't go into that here but we have discussed that previously, and though I am asking if you and the secretary would be willing to take a look at the outstanding shortfall in the Air National Guard and their air sovereignty alert mission as well as the other needs in the Air Force to determine whether the -- there are fourth-plus generations of planes that will be needed that are affordable and that will be available unless and until the JSF or the F-35 is able to get online which, at this point only having completed, as I understand, 2 percent of its flight tests, may be some time.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator, as we have exchanged in the past, there's nothing off the table. I certainly am willing to revisit the formula and our positions that we've developed. As new information comes in be foolish to do otherwise, and in fact, we met as recently as yesterday on this issue with Bud Wyatt from the Guard and others.

SEN. BOND: I understand. I'm well aware of that -- well aware of those discussions. I'm not going to bring out the chart or anything like that because --

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Right.

SEN. BOND: -- we -- I know the discussions.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. But I think the -- what I'd like to do -- it is still my view that the high-confidence path for us is to make the leap to the F-35. That is -- that is -- will populate the preponderance of our force as we go forward and so -- and the vital thing here is that in order for the F-35 to do the work that's required, not just for us but for the Marine Corps, for the Navy, and importantly, international partners, the F-35 needs to be produced at rates which will help us manage our fleet-aging issue that you mentioned. Not less than 80 and probably higher, maybe as high as 110 a year. And the other not insignificant benefit that has is to keep the average unit cost down for F-35 so that it can compete internationally.

SEN. BOND: It's -- as we know it's already -- our international partners have already made the decision. What your -- the other broader question that needs to be considered is the aircraft industrial base. Earlier this week, Secretary Mavis (ph) said they need to maintain a competitive shipbuilding base. Right now, we know we've gone from five or six primary aircraft producers down to two, and this budget annihilates one of those two.

If this budget were carried out we would be down to one, and a quite frankly, let's look -- I ask you to look at the performance, the timeliness, the performance, and the cost to see whether you would be comfortable going down to one, and I think there is a very good argument not to go down to one. And I just ask you to look at that.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: I -- you have my commitment to do so, sir.

SEN. BOND: Next generation bomber is part of that. Actually, next generation bomber and the sixth generation fighter have to be competing. They have to bring in these others and the next generation bomber was designed to force our adversaries to invest in their own defensive weapons. Current bombers are in -- having increasing access challenges.

The next -- the Warfighters Analysis of Alternatives completed in '06 said that they were very comfortable with the NGB. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis replied to a question on NGB saying, we've studied the NGB issue to death -- the need, the requirement, and the technology are in hand and reasonably well understood. And I believe Secretary Gates last week said, "My personal view is that we probably do need a follow-on bomber." I'd ask you, Mr. Secretary, and General, whether it is time to be moving forward, looking at the industrial base as well as the need for the NGB.

SEC. DONLEY: Well, Senator, I think there is a pretty good consensus that our national defense capabilities need to include more long-range strike and that we need to get about modernizing that part of our force structure. My sense is that the secretary -- the secretary's decision in this regard earlier this year was based on the fact that we did -- did not quite have all the parameters of this capability locked down. I'll let the chief talk to those in more detail.

So we made a decision to cancel the program that we had laid in. I do think we'll need to return to this issue in the QDR. I do think there needs to be a good thorough discussion about the attributes of the long-range strike capability we need. Its relationship to the Nuclear Posture Review is going to be very important.

Obviously, that had not played out yet earlier this year. So I think the secretary will -- as he's indicated will be open to further discussion.

SEN. BOND: Well, we'll look forward to discussing that with you. I won't take up the time of my colleagues here. One final question -- you were talking about the C-5, General Schwartz. You mentioned retiring obsolescent aircraft. I know you are constrained by congressional mandate not to retire those C-5s, some of which -- not all of which -- may be a very uneconomical way. Modernization isn't going to cut the mustard.

Should we be revisiting that to give the Air Force more flexibility to save costs by retiring inefficient outmoded aircraft that will not meet the current need so you can put it into other areas?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator Bond, too much aluminum is almost as bad as not enough, and we -- as the secretary indicated earlier, 316 tails (ph) is about the sweet spot right now, and if it's the decision to have the Air Force take on additional C-17s it makes sense to begin to alter the fleet mix in a way that maintains that (top line ?). So yes, retiring older less reliable C-5As certainly makes sense in the context if we go above 205 C-17s.

And sir, if I may take one minute of perhaps -- of your privilege just to address the bomber briefly -- your earlier question. This is important. Long-range strike is an essential capability for the nation. As the secretary indicated, we weren't quite together with the secretary of Defense on how we define this thing is -- what's the range; what's the payload; is it supersonic; is it subsonic; is it manned; is it unmanned; is it nuclear; non-nuclear; is it low observable; very low observable.

These are the parameters we need to get together with the secretary on. There is an unfunded request that we have come forward with that addresses this -- to keep a concept development activity going so that we can answer these questions as well as to keep certain technology efforts underway that apply regardless of how we define the platform. These are antennas -- low observable antennas. These are data links. These are radars -- stuff like that.

SEN. BOND: These have application with others --

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Yes.

SEN. BOND: -- across the fleet, not just long strike?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: They do. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir, for --

SEN. BOND: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you. Senator Shelby?

SEN. SHELBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been my long-held belief that our military should procure the most capable tanker possible for our airmen using a fair, open, and transparent acquisition process. In separate discussions with both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Acquisition Chief Dr. Ashton Carter, they assured me that this would be the case. Do you both agree on that?

SEC. DONLEY: We do, sir.

SEN. SHELBY: Okay. This process, I believe, should also utilize a best value method that does not contain an option based purely on lowest cost. I will closely follow, as this committee will, the procurement process to ensure that our men and women in uniform receive the best equipment possible. Secretary Donley, the Air Force tanker competition is scheduled to begin later this summer with the release of their request for proposal. There has been some discussion that a lowest price technically acceptable process could be utilized in the competition.

I have concerns with this acquisition method because it clearly would not reach everyone's stated objective -- that is, that the Air Force procures the best tanker for our warfighters. Mr. Secretary, is it your belief that our pilots should fly the best, most capable tanker possible and not just the cheapest?

SEC. DONLEY: Sir, we always -- we always balance capability and cost --

SEN. SHELBY: Right.

SEC. DONLEY: -- in our acquisition process.

SEN. SHELBY: (That balance it ?).

SEC. DONLEY: We'll continue to do that going forward. We have -- we are working on the acquisition strategy for KCX at -- right now at the senior levels in the department and we are committed to sharing with the Congress the results of our work when the secretary has made a decision exactly how to proceed.

SEN. SHELBY: General Schwartz, I know there's been some concerns about protecting, and should be, about the industrial base as the tanker competition moves forward. We're all concerned about jobs in the U.S. I believe any assertion that the Northrop Grumman tanker program steals jobs from American aerospace workers and sends them overseas is factually incorrect. By assembling the Northrop tanker in a new aircraft assembly and militarization facility this proposal would create almost 50,000 new jobs in 50 states and comply with all current procurement laws in the Buy America Act.

Do you agree that given the vast quantity of jobs that would be created in selecting either Northrop Grumman or Boeing as the winner will have a -- would have a positive impact on our nation's industrial base? Either one.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator, as you are well aware, my role is to define requirements --

SEN. SHELBY: That's right.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: -- and so on. Clearly, as others have suggested, what we want is to get the best possible airplane as quickly as we possibly can and so I, frankly, am agnostic about how this exactly gets done provided -- provided, you know, we get on with it, and that's where I certainly have offered my secretary as well as the secretary of defense as my best advice.

SEN. SHELBY: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, if I could do a little transition to the UAVs -- I know you're working with the Army and the other services to develop the UAV acquisition roadmap. While I understand the benefits for the services to work together on this vital issue -- I think it's important to do so -- I have stated the importance of the Army retaining tactical control of their -- of the UAVs, of theirs. Do you feel that you can continue to work together with the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to allow them continued control of the tactical assets that are so critically important to our troops on the ground and commanders in the field, especially as we move forward through the QDR?

SEC. DONLEY: Senator, these are very important capabilities that are being developed for our defense establishment. I'll let the chief address the operational piece of this but let me just say at the DOD level we do cross level and work -- look very carefully at production capacity and how that is spread across different platforms -- Predators versus Reapers and other classes of UAVs.

SEN. SHELBY: Absolutely.

SEC. DONLEY: And that is well balanced at the DOD level in terms of who's investing how much where to get the best balance across the services when we put together the budget.

SEN. SHELBY: General Schwartz, do you have any comment?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. Senator Shelby, there -- what George Casey and I want is what works best, and whatever the division of labor is --

SEN. SHELBY: Sure.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: -- is a very pragmatic call, and there's no emphasis within the Air Force of trying to assert ownership. This is a question of how one can best employ the fleet. Now, the reality is is that, for example, unmanned systems you have to take account for them in the airspace. You don't want airplanes running together, so on and so forth. If you have an air defense situation you've got to know who's friendly and who's not. So there is a need for a level of coordination that must continue regardless of who's operating the platform.

SEN. SHELBY: Absolutely.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: But the bottom line is that you should have little concern about whether the Army and the Air Force can collaborate on this. We can and we are.

SEN. SHELBY: And the Marines and Navy too.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Of course. Of course. Yes, sir.

SEN. SHELBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you. Senator Dorgan?

SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have been at a markup of the Energy Committee so I've been delayed. Senator -- or General Schwartz and Secretary Donley, welcome. I want to ask about the UAV and UAS issues.

My understanding is that you plan to go from 34 Predator/Reaper combat air patrols to about 50 by the end of 2011. Do you -- have you decided where you might assign additional units of personnel to operate that many additional combat air patrol units?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator, we have not done specific assignment of those assets which will be coming on down the road. We're -- you know, those which are coming on in FY '10, you know, we have much firmer idea. Those beyond not quite as firm at this time.

SEN. DORGAN: All right. What's the status of the C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft program?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Sir, let me start big on that, if I may, and then get small. What -- at the strategic level what this is a question about is who will do the direct support mission for the ground forces in the United States Army in particular. We do, in the Air Force, traditionally do general support very well. As the Secretary of Defense has commented, it's sort of like being an airline, and you get to both accomplish the tasks assigned but to do it as efficiently as possible.

On the other hand, there is a different model, which is a direct support model which means that certain assets are dedicated to certain commanders or maneuver units, maybe not quite as efficient but improves the reliability of that service to that particular organization or commander. And what George Casey, the Chief Staff of the Army, and I have agreed is that the United States Air Force -- if the decision is that the C-27 should migrate to the United States Air Force -- we will do the direct support mission of the United States Army the way they think it needs to be done. And that is a commitment.

Now, with respect to the program, the Secretary of Defense made a decision. It's not an instantaneous change. The Army is currently in charge of the program and has a program office. We have Air Force people assigned there. We will increase that number of Air Force people assigned or attached. And so there will be a migration of the program management responsibility over about a year's time from the Army to the Air Force.

And a significant mark on the wall is the deployment of four aircraft to Central Command later in FY'10. That is driving us in terms of how we make the transition to make sure that we've got crews and maintainers and so on who can operate these aircraft forward. Frankly, it might be a mix of Army and Air Force for that first deployment. That's not a problem, I don't think. But ultimately, we will incorporate the C-27 mission into the Air Force and provide the capabilities to the Army that they need and want.

SEN. DORGAN: What kind of experience are you having with recruitment and retention?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator, we actually are in pretty good shape. Arguably, the economy is an asset in this regard in terms of recruiting, and retention has been good. In the NCO ranks, there is a little bit of softness, not something to be alarmed about. There's a little bit of softness in the middle grade NCOs. And we're watching that carefully. In both officer and NCO recruitment and retention, we have difficulty in the medical career fields. There's keen competition for medical professionals, nurses, physicians and so on. And that is an area where we have increased bonuses up to, I think, $88 million in the Ten (ph) Program in order to try to compete better to bring medical professionals into our Air Force.

SEN. DORGAN: Sir, just two other questions, if I still have time. What is your status with respect to standing up the new B-52 squadron at the Minot Air Force Base?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: On track, sir, and that is part of a nuclear (ph) roadmap to do that, and it's on schedule -- (inaudible).

SEN. DORGAN: And could you just give the subcommittee a general description of the Air Force presence and activities in the war theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, so we get a sense of assets and personnel and so on?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. Of the 48,000, roughly, folks that we have deployed overseas, about 40,000 of those personnel are in Iraq and Afghanistan or in the adjacent spaces. Of that, about 8,000 are reservists -- 5,000 National Guard, 3,000 Reserve. And they're performing a range of missions, certainly from lift to strike to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. We run the hospitals at both Bagram and Balad on behalf of the Joint Team. We have, as I mentioned earlier, some of the youngsters performing convoluted from Kuwait into Iraq. Security forces, engineers, the whole array, it is a significant commitment.

We will grow in Afghanistan from about 5,000 today to maybe 6500 total Air Force personnel as the numbers increase in theater. It's a significant commitment and on we do proudly.

SEN. DORGAN: Well, let me thank you, Secretary Donley and you, General Schwartz, for your willingness to be always available to us. And I would like to send you some additional questions on the C-27 and the Combat Air Patrol futures. So I'll submit those questions. And again, let me thank both of you for the work you do. I'm very pleased.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much. Senator Bennett.

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT (R-UT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say to our two witnesses, thank you for coming to Utah and for the experience you have. I hope the weather was good enough for you and hospitality, et cetera. We appreciated your being there, and they were there for the Air Force association meetings last week.

I trust I can be forgiven for being a little parochial and discuss some of the issues relating to Hill Air Force Base and also the ICBM Solid Rocket Industrial Base. On that latter issue, let me thank you for the news that I've received that the Air Force is going to maintain the Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base that supports the Minuteman III. What is the status of your request to reprogram fiscal 2009 funds?

SEC. DONLEY: Sir, we do intend to request a programming just to beef up this program.

SEN. BENNETT: Right.

SEC. DONLEY: The department is looking at the reprogramming right now, awaiting first the results of the OCO work that the chairman referred to earlier. So once we have seen the results of the OCO, then the department will proceed with its reprogramming work.

SEN. BENNETT: Do you have any idea how many solid rocket motors you're planning to buy?

SEC. DONLEY: Off the top of my head, I do not have that information, but we'll get you that for the record.

SEN. BENNETT: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Now, I want to talk about what appears to be something of a donut hole on the fighter situation. Naturally, we are disappointed to learn that Hill is going to lose one of its three F-16 fighter squadrons as a part of the restructuring. And I understand the restructuring has to go forward and that there are logical reasons for it.

But as I look at the locations where the F-16s are going to be removed around the country, they seem to be focused primarily in bases in the Inner Mountain and Southwest regions. And that will be, geographically, the area where you'll see most of the F-16s withdrawn. And yet, the Utah Test and Training Range is most accessible to those regions.

And it seems to me that it would make more sense to take the aircraft away from something that's farther away from the Utah Test and Training range. I know Senator Cochran is very proud of the training range in Mississippi. But UTTR is the biggest land-based training range we have, and I think a major, major asset to the Air Force. So has any thought been given to the fact that it might make more sense to keep the airplanes closer to a training range and take the reductions, perhaps, someplace else?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator Bennett, we have given thought to -- in the way of considerations, the model of aircraft, their age, the proximity to training opportunities, the arrangements related to total force initiatives and so on and so forth at various locations. Just to give a sense, the rough reductions were predominately actually in the training area. Air Combat Command took substantially less reductions than did our Air Education and Training Command.

The bottom line is that we've looked at that. It is true that Hill is a candidate for at least 24 F-16. That's, from a people point of view, sir, that's 591 spaces. We know that's not trivial. But we have looked at this as a package, and yes, Tucson will lose some airplanes, largely training platforms. Hill will take some down. The split is some overseas, some in Europe, some in the Pacific, a number here in the Continental United States. But I think that the key thing here is that we've done this from a fleet management point of view, from a construct which suggests that if we do this now it will allow us to leap to F-35 more rapidly and that we need to look to the future and less to the past.

SEN. BENNETT: All right. That brings up the donut hole I'm talking about, because you're going to combine the 388th and the 419th, merge them as a prototype for further efforts to mix active and reserve fighters. And that's an effort that's seen good results so far. But the impact on the depot is that they're going to see not just the 500 people they're talking about, but you're going to see a significant drop in depot work. And it's fine to say, well, the F-35 will come in at some particular point. But if that particular point is stretched out, you then lose -- we're back to the question of manufacturing base, only in this case it's maintenance base. You lose the expertise that is there that could be maintained if there were some way to deal with the question of the F-16s.

Now, it's been over a year and a half, the other side of the donut hole, stretching it out. But I've been told that Hill would be one of the first Air Force bases to receive an operational F-35 squadron, and now I understand that there's some backing away from that commitment, at least on the timing. So do you still say that Hill is going to receive one of the first two operational F-35 squadrons? And if so, can you give me some hope that it will come sooner rather than later so that the donut hole can be filled with work?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Senator, I can't. I can't tell you it'll be the first. We haven't made that decision yet. And one thing that the secretary and I have tried very hard to do is not to make promises we can't keep. And so I'm being straight.

SEN. BENNETT: Sure, well, obviously we prefer that.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Understood, sir. Just to give you a sense of what's at play here, there are multiple demands on the new system, as you can well imagine. Our commander in the Pacific Air Forces and certainly Admiral Keating at TACOM has levied a demand signal for modernization in the Pacific with regard to potential threats on the Asia Pacific rim. Likewise, John Craddock in the European Command has indicated that because the allies will gain F-35s in Europe, there will be a need for us to have F-35 presence or we'll be out of synch with our allies on the European continent. And likewise, we know very well that we have these donut holes, if you will, in the United States.

So there are a lot of moving parts on this. The bottom line is that -- and I'm not saying anything that I don't think anybody believes here -- it was a great place to fly airplanes. And that is well-known, and that certainly will be factored into basing decisions as we sort of integrate all of these demand signals.

SEN. BENNETT: Well, I thank you for that. And it's not just a great place to fly airplanes; it's a great place to repair airplanes. And my concern is that if we see the work force on the repair side, on the depot side drop down because of the action with respect to the F- 16 and then a delay in bringing in the F-35, we wake up to discover that the capacity that we have always identified with Hill suddenly isn't there -- well, not suddenly isn't there but isn't there. So I would ask you to take a look at that and say, is there any way we can kind of nudge both of these, that is nudge the F-16 in one way to close that end of the donut hole and nudge the F-35 in the other way to close that end of the donut hole.

Yes, it's parochial on my part, but I also think it makes sense for the Air Force's capability to service the F-35 when the time comes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much. Senator Murray.

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having this hearing. General Schwartz, Secretary Donley thank you to both of you. It's good to see you again. And let me just start by saying thank you to all the work you and the men and women serving in the Air Force do today to successfully perform the very critical missions that they are doing to safeguard our country. It's really important to me that our airmen have everything they need to fight our wars overseas, both today and in the future. So I'm going to start my questions today with a shocker. Can you tell me about tankers?

But before I do that, let me just frame that question about the upcoming tanker competition from the standpoint of our domestic industrial base. Mr. Chairman, I am very worried about our domestic industrial base. I'm worried about its long-term ability to provide our military forces with what they need to accomplish their national security missions. During last year's KC-X competition, everybody had real high hopes that it was going to be the best and brightest example of how the acquisition process could function and provide for the need of our war fighters. And here we are today without a much needed replacement of our aging fleet of refueling tankers.

And I applaud the work of Chairman Levin and Senator McCain. They have championed efforts here to move acquisition reform through Congress. And as part of that, I included a provision that requires DOD to report on the effects that cancelling an acquisition program would have on our nation's industrial base. I've talked with both Secretary Gates and Secretary Carter about this issue. And I want to make sure that we maintain a domestic industrial base that can respond to the ongoing need of our war fighters.

This is of particular concern to me as a senator from a state that represents really the entire spectrum of constituencies on this issue. At one end of the scale, we have end users who are the service members at the many military facilities in Washington State. We've got two outstanding Air Force bases, Fairchild and McChord who rely on the goods and service this industry produces. At the other end, we have the hardworking men and women of the industry, including the smallest supplier companies to the major manufacturers that tirelessly work to support our service members. So how we move forward with this acquisition is very important to me and to everyone I represent.

So I'd like to ask you today if you can tell me if you are taking into -- or how you are taking into account -- the health and longevity of our domestic industrial base as you tackle acquisition reform in the Air Force. General?

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Ma'am, the basic approach -- the mandate for doing this is clear to our Air Force. The way it has traditionally been done -- and I frankly think it is appropriate -- is that industrial based considerations are typically not considered within specific source selection activity on specific programs. The acquisition, technology, and logistics organization, NASD, has the role to do that at particular milestones in the acquisition process. So they have the more global perspective, if you will, not just whether it's a tanker or a fighter or a lift platform or a satellite, but rather that the broader implications for an industrial base. And so again, not completely in my lane, but the way that it is currently being done makes sense to me. And it is clear that the civilian leadership understands the mandate.

SEN. MURRAY: Secretary, you want to add anything?

SEC. DONLEY: No question that the department has an interest in tracking how industrial based issues get affected by departmental level decisions and making sure those are taken into account as we go forward.

SEN. MURRAY: We have to think about the future while we're thinking about today. Well, let me talk about the timeframe for the tanker competition. Secretary Gates said that he needed a full team in place before this competition could be restarted. Now Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, you're here. Secretaries Lynn and Carter, they've been confirmed. They're in place, and I've been told that we're going to begin work on this competition process this summer.

That's a couple of weeks away from now. Can you provide an update on the timing for the RFP and how this process will follow that?

SEC. DONLEY: Ma'am, we have been working on this issue for a couple of months now fairly intensively with Deputy Secretary Lynn, Secretary Carter and other members of the acquisition team. And we're in the process of carrying forward the results of that work to the secretary for his consideration. And we still do hope to get an RFP out this summer on the street and --

SEN. MURRAY: Hope to is not --

SEC. DONLEY: Ma'am, this is our intent. This is our intent. And we have pledged, as I say -- as Secretary Gates has, and I would certainly echo it, that when we have completed the results of our internal work and we're ready to go out, we will be briefing the Congress on the way forward.

SEN. MURRAY: Okay. So we're still in the timeframe of summer.

SEC. DONLEY: Yes, ma'am.

SEN. MURRAY: Okay. Can you tell me what measures are being taken to prevent the claims of an unfair evaluation or scales being tipped to one side or the other?

SEC. DONLEY: Well, we are committed, from the get go, to a fair and open competition. There's no doubt of that. We've taken measures inside the Air Force to strengthen our source selection process. We have, since the events of last summer, increased our focus training on lessons learned from the two protests that were sustained last year, the KC-X and the CSAR-X, to get those lessons into our source selection process. With respect to the KC-X program in particular, we've put a few more senior people into that program office. We have moved contractor approval authority up to the Secretary of the Air Force level. And we are undertaking other measures to strengthen the KC-X team and our source selection process as we lead into this RFP process going forward.

SEN. MURRAY: Well, this is a difficult process, and all of us want the best aircraft as soon as possible. But I think I share with everyone on this committee; we want to make sure it's fair and transparent. And we are really urging you to make sure that that is very clear. We want it to be good for the war fighter and good for the taxpayer, which leads me to the question of whether a dual buy is a viable option.

SEC. DONLEY: Well, we share the secretary's view that a dual buy would be more expensive for the taxpayer in at least three dimensions. It would require the development of two airplanes instead of one. We would end up with two logistics and two sorts of depot infrastructure processes in support of that effort instead of one. And in the near-term especially, we are concerned about the impact on the Air Force's budget and the Department of Defense's budget, generally, by going to a dual track approach.

Our program has been structured around a buy of about 15 airplanes per year. To accommodate a dual award strategy, where you're buying airplanes from two providers, probably the minimum order quantity for each is 12 aircraft. So that means instead of buying 15 per year we would need to be buying about 24 per year.

SEN. MURRAY: And we do not have the budget capacity for that.

SEC. DONLEY: Well, this would eat significantly into our procurement program going forward. Potentially, it would double almost the tanker piece of the Air Force's procurement program going forward.

SEN. MURRAY: Which means other things would be left off the table.

SEC. DONLEY: At the same time, we're trying to ramp up JSF, et cetera. So this is of concern to us, and this is basically the reason why we think the dual award would not make sense.

SEN. MURRAY: Okay. I appreciate that, and I want this tanker competition done. You, of course, know I'm hoping one plane company wins it, and just as high for me is making sure that we protect our taxpayers in this process. So I very much appreciate your answer to that question.

Beyond the tanker competition, you're simultaneously working on tanker bed downs, so I want to talk about Fairchild Air Force Base in my home state and how it is uniquely positioned to support the KC-X bed down. We have two air wings and who have a very proud refueling history there. I've seen them in action; they're incredible. We have a large runway in a strategic location for the execution of a global reach mission, which is important.

I recently met with the wing commander at Fairchild, and we talked about the excellent relationship that Fairchild has with the Spokane community as well as some of the challenges that they've faced of late. I'm sure you're well aware that last winter one of Fairchild's key training facilities had its roof collapse during a major snowstorm there. And even though its runway is the right size, it is due as well for some very important maintenance and continued upkeep. So it's ready for this KC-X. And can you confirm for me that we are doing everything we can to make sure that Fairchild is ready for the KC-X when the time comes?

SEC. DONLEY: Again, ma'am, I don't want to suggest that, again -- promises, not a promise. But certainly, Fairchild is an obvious candidate for early bed down. There are others in the country too, and we'll see sort of what the production rate allows us to do. But Fairchild certainly is in the long-term plan.

SEN. MURRAY: Okay. Well, I stand ready to help you do whatever we need to do there to make sure we're ready for that as well. In addition to supporting the refueling mission, Fairchild is also home to the 36th Rescue Flight. They're very important to -- they support the 336th Group and Air Force Survival School.

We know that these helicopters evacuate and help locate students who become lost during their survival training. They're very important. It also supports civilian search and rescue operations. They've actually saved about 600 people during recent missions in a variety of states, not only mine but Idaho, Oregon, and Montana. And they are just extraordinary; their crew members are unbelievable. And everybody is just amazed at their capabilities, so first of all, my thanks to them. But I wanted to make sure that you all were committed to work with us on the future of that 36th Rescue Flight so that we can maintain that very critical training and emergency rescue operation that they have.

SEC. DONLEY: Yes, ma'am. And I would also indicate that that is related to the decision to discontinue the CSAR-X program. And the secretary made call on that particular program. But wholly, the mission remains important for the Department of Defense, and that unit is part of that tapestry.

SEN. MURRAY: Okay. Well, they're very important to us; I know they're important to you. And I will work with you to make sure we have what we need within the budget process on that. So thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. INOUYE: Senator Shelby, do you have any questions?

SEN. SHELBY: I have no questions.

SEN. INOUYE: Then, Mr. Secretary, General Schwartz, I'd like to thank both of you for your testimony today. I will be submitting questions on the tanker fleet. I'm concerned personally because of the age factor. And I will also inquire into your thoughts further on dual purchase, because I have received a report suggesting that there may be massive savings if you have two sources. But I'll leave it up to you. I am also asking questions on the possibility of developing an export version of the F-22. I've had inquiries from our friends and allies abroad indicating strong interest in acquiring such aircraft.

And so with that, I'd like to thank you once again. And this subcommittee will meet next Tuesday, June the 9th at 10:30. At that time, we will receive testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert Gates, and from the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. And with that, we'd like to thank the men and women of the Air Force for their service to our country. Thank you very much, sir.

SEC. DONLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support.

Source