tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN February 19, 2016 12:03pm-2:04pm EST
program's had some struggles and we've extended the risk reduction phase of the program to lower overall risk, it delays emd roughly a year and we'll get the program back on track. the service cost position right now is being looked at, we'll have an addendum to that for lack of a better word. we won't do a new surface cost position but they are going to modify and add an addendum to the program. >> i'm sorry, would that plan, is it going to factor an unmanned platform at all? >> that i do not know. >> i'm with bloomberg news. how much did it cost to retain the a-10 through 21, i guess it is and, two, if you match up the five-year plan for the long-range bomber between 17 and 20, there's about a $3 billion detriment. your critics are going to say uh-oh, the program is slipping, can you explain that and tap down the twitter world on this
one? >> i'll take that while he's looking up a the a 10. for lrsb the program content has not changed from the last budget to this budget. all that's happened is we've had a new service cost position, new cost estimate. because we've had a competition. we've down selected, we have a winner, we know that winner's business strategy, their technology strategy, that's an update to a cost estimate that caused that delta. the program content is the same. >> is that what you used when you rolled out in the winter? >> yes. >> and to keep the a-10 is about $3.4 billion. about $900 million in fy-'17. yes, ma'am? >> i'm with "inside the air force." it looks like the gps ocx program is seeing a funding increase in fy-'17 and more than $400 million. what's behind that plus up? is that related to the new
service cost estimate as well? >> so the surface cost estimate did come in basically with a delay and that, of course, drives up cost so our new -- our budget reflects that new service cost position. it's a 24-month slip to the apb and they amended the service cost position. the biggest risk in gps ocx is we want to get it out there for gps satellite constellation. right now the air force is looking at contingency operations that if we have to off ramp off of that we can, they're run with the current control system until block one can be fielded. >> so that -- so there is a new service cost estimate now? >> the budget is based on the new service cost position. it's 5.6 -- sorry, wrong number. i don't. let me ask -- ask another
question, i'll look it up. >> i wanted to ask you about your observation about readiness, the challenges with readiness, you said that it would take eight to ten years to get to full readiness. what exactly is full readiness and why does it take so long? >> well, when we talk full spectrum readiness, that's ability to provide training so we're across a full -- a spectrum of operations. so our challenge right now while we continue to fund all the readiness components, our challenge ises have shortfalls in maintenance manpower and the time to train because of the ops tempo. >> so when the eight to ten years, that's just a function of all the time it takes to get all the equipment and the people and what is the implication of an eight to ten year lag in full
readiness? >> so, again, you know, we continue to assess our ability to train and to provide that full spectrum training and every year we assess how long it will take. but, again, we'll have to reduce our ops tempo to get to that full spectrum training. >> can i hai have your number o. the ocx program is $393 million in 17 and the other is 1.1 billion. $1.1 billion. sorry, i should probably stand in front of the mic. >> i'm with reuters. i wanted to ask you to go on the fidep numbers, how many are you sacrificing and can you say what -- can you just maybe draw up the ramp for us and whether
you had any kind of thought about how quickly you'll be able to get back to that ramp? >> on the f-35 program we declad the ramp to 1763 over ifydp. we deferred 35 aircraft which costs -- which is about $4.9 we slowed the ramp to -- sir, can somebody help me? are you okay? i'm going to sit you down. can i get a chair?
>> what happened? >> it's okay, you're all right. that's what the f-35 will do to you. >> sorry. it's all right, sit down, sit down, i'll take it. of course now i have to do without my glasses which god only knows i won't be able to read. you okay? >> i'm okay. >> he told me he was going to pull this. just have a set. he kept threatening to pull a hammy, i didn't think he meant it. so all right, f-35. basically we've slowed the ramp. we're programmed to 60 aircraft in fy-21 again. >> [ inaudible question ] >> so fy-'17 is 43, fy-'19 and '20 are 48 and '21 is 60. you asked about cost on ef-35. that program has three services and so right now we don't expect
the reduction in air force quantities to affect the cost of the platform this is ed fienga. >> given the delays in the f-35, what does this mean for the f-15 and f-16 fleets. i don't see very much in here about that excement wiring for the f-16. can you explain what this is about? >> we do have that in our budget. >> it's an excellent question. as general martin was talking about that full spectrum readiness earlier and the risk wes had to take with the bba to our modernization, you're right, we would have to bolster our fourth gen aircraft. so we have dollars for both f-16 and f-15 service life extensions, modernization programs here now, this is an area we have to take risk in in
this budget so we don't have robust programs and that, too, is a result of the reduced amount of dollars that the bbi gave us but we do have some dollars in there. >> so what do you get? do you get the structural upgrades or radar? >> with the f-15 we do a couple things. we put structural dollars in there and we have the f-15 e-pause program as well so that will make it viable in those environments against higher class adversary. for the f-16, as you know, perhaps you've heard we do fund some asa radars in two trenches. the first is 24 f-16s for the national capital region. that's a homeland defense scenario. then there's another trench of radars with digital radar warning receivers of 52 asa
radars. that's to put more of the asa radars throughout the fleet over the course of the fydp. the first trench we'll get in fiscal year -- >> do you keep them all together somewhere? >> for homeland defense purpose we'll have three different sites with eight aircraft each for a total of 24 aircraft serving that role with the asa radars. >> we have time for one last question. >> out of the 52? >> that's 24 separate and another separate trench of 52 asa radar. >> jennifer ladd from air force magazine. you talked about building up the rpa force, nuclear enterprise, cyber, are those going to be new members of the air force or are you going to build that up, maybe make some of the other enterprises smaller? are people going to move around a lot or just how are you going
to do that, i guess? >> this is an actual question we had to ask ourselves as we built this budget. how are we going to get enough people to do all the things we're being asked to do and that the nation and the combat and commanders have asked us to do. excellent question, we ask that of ourselves and we recognized we need many more airmen than we have. so we initially went in with a larger number recognizing there are validated requirements we have for a much larger air force than what we're asking for but as general martin alluded to, in many areas we're producing at our max executable rate so even though we wanted more airmen for fiscal year '17 we could only get them through the training pipelines so what we do first is put more instructors at places like bmt, basic military training. we put more instructors at the rpa units so they can get more students through the classes and open those pipelines so we can
get those operators out to those specific locations where they would conduct that operation. in this case for '17 it's more airmen and in the case arepas and cyber but in other cases like aircraft maintenance over the course of the fydp as we draw down certain aircraft, we'll take those maintainers and move them on to the next f-35 oar other situations so we're repurposing. >> that's all our time. appreciate your patience. e-mail me and i'll take the questions for follow-up. >> i'm going to go make sure he's okay. thank you for your patience with that also, appreciate that a lot i'm not letting him brief the f-35 anymore. yeah, i'm fine.
but he better never threaten to hammy again. thank you again. >> in about three or four more minutes we'll have the admiral up here to talk about missile defense. he's sitting down, we're waiting for some folks to come up and take a look at him. supreme court justice antonin scalia's body is lying in repose in the court's grand chamber. he passed away last weekend at the age of 79. the public is allowed into the viewing and c-span has live coverage throughout the day. it will last until 8:00 p.m. eastern. justice scalia's funeral is tomorrow and c-span will once again have live coverage of the funeral mass at the catholic basilica in washington, d.c. vice president joe biden is one of the dignitaries attending. he'll be able to watch it live tomorrow morning at 11:00
eastern. coming up tonight on c-span 3, we're showing you american history tv in prime time. it's the american historical association's annual conference with panels on the history of the death penalty, the 1969 selection, and the history of terrorism, that's tonight here on c-span 3 at 8:00 eastern. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour hosted by our charter communications cape partners takes you to greenville, south carolina, to explore the city's history and literary culture. on book tv. >> in 1939, september of 1939 when europe went to war, our allies, primarily england and france, looked to washington, d.c. for goods and materials that they needed. so washington, d.c. looked down to the textile capital of the world and all of a sudden government contracts came funneling into this area asking
the mills here to begin producing for the war effort, initially for our allies and then, of course for the united states as well. >> and on american history tv -- >> so we're standing right here at the falls and this was a pretty nasty spot. it's hard to believe now looking at it, one of the best parks in the country, but this was a very depressed, nasty place and it's a great story of how a community can get behind a park and start to appreciate and cherish its river and its waterfall again. >> watch the c-span cities tour saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the countr
country. >> c-span's coverage of the presidential candidates continue this is week with campaign events in south carolina and nevada leading up to the south carolina gop primary and the nevada democratic caucuses on saturday, february 20. live coverage starts on saturday at 7:30 p.m. east we were the candidate speeches and your reaction to the results on c-span, c-span radio, and cspan.org. air force vice chief of staff general david goldfine testified before the house arms services subcommittee on readiness regarding the president's 2017 air force budget request. he talked about restoring aircraft readiness levels, restocking munitions and personnel recruitment and training. this hearing is about 1:15.
>> good morning, i want to call to order the subcommittee on readiness of the house arms services committee and i want to welcome everybody this morning, thank our witnesses for joining us. i'd like to a number of our great young airmen that are here from langley air force base. i want to welcome you here to washington. we appreciate the lang lay air force association, we've got a great working relationship as well as the civic association. taylor thanks for your leadership, we appreciate that. i know i have that to compete with ms. bordalio. is there anybody here from anderson air force base? >> is there? we have a little competition. wherever we go there's always somebody there from guam so i wanted to make sure to have the opportunity to recognize them this morning. >> would you kindly stand up, please? [ laughter ] >> i knew it! i knew it. i knew it. [ laughter ]
fantastic. she always does. she always does. good morning. i want to thank all of you for being here for our readiness hearing on the department of air force 2017 budget request and readiness posture. this is the first of four hearings on the services' budget request and readiness postures and in december and january the services testified on increased readiness risked due to reduced installation investments and today i look forward to hearing how the air force budget request enables a readiness recovery plan and where we continue to take risk. i'd like to welcome all of our members and distinguished panel of air force experts. this morning we have with us general david goldfine, u.s. air force, vice chief of staff, lieutenant general john raymond, u.s. air force deputy chief of staff operations, lieutenant general john cooper, u.s. deputy air force chief of staff for logistics, engineering and force protection. thank you for testifying today. we look forward to your thoughts and insights on these issues.
the purpose for this hearing is for the committee to receive clarification on air force choices for its budget requests, to address funding priorities and mitigation strategies and to gather more detail on the current and future impacts of these decisions on operations and training once again, i want to thank our witnesses for participating and i look forward to discussing these important topics, now i'd like to turn to our ranking member madelyn boar dahl owe for any remarks she may have >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and i would like to thank the witnesses, general goldfein, nice to see you again, general raymond and general cooper and all the airmen that are here and committee people, good morning. i have no doubt that your testimony before our subcommittee this morning will proven inside full and i thank all of you for your service. the air force has been engaged in constant operations overseas if ar quarter of a century while
conducting global transport and mobile operations and we know, we do know, this has taken a toll on both our airmen and their equipment. you are accomplishing this feat today with a force that has considerably fewer personnel and aircraft than it did 25 years ago. our forces continue to be deployed throughout the world, countering threats ranging from terrorist organizations to near peer adversaries. the requirements placed upon the air force and our military as a whole can never be understated because of unreliable and unpredictable funding results from sequestration and numerous continuing resolutions over the past several years, you've had to maintain a delicate balance between readiness and modernization. at times this balance has cost readiness and the further we get behind this curve, the harder it will be for our force to recover to full-spectrum readiness. through our discussion today, i
hope we can gain a better understanding of the air force's plan to maintain readiness through personnel training and infrastructure improvement. again, thank you all for your service and i look forward to your hearing and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go to general goldfein. i understand you'll be providing the statement for the panel. i want to remind our panel members that your statements will be entered into the record so we will have that and if you would like to add anything we can do that through the questioning period. general goldfein. >> change chairman wittman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. on behalf of our air force secretary and chief of staff, it's an honor to be with you today and a privilege to sit beside these two great airmen and in front of these incredible airmen. together we're honored to represent the 660,000 total force airmen serving today and we request our written statement be placed in the record. a little over 25 years ago then captain dave goldfeinpiloted an
f-16 fighter in the opening hours of operation desert storm. during ground were that followed the air campaign, the air force along with our fellow joint and coalition partners provided by the same blanket of air power that had shielded u.s. forces since april of 1953. the last time an american service member was killed by enemy aircraft. in addition to providing top cover, america's airmen defended the base perimeter, refuelled and maintained aircraft, controlled air traffic, managed supply lines, tended to our wounded, air dropped humanitarian aid and supported the joint team with global vigilance, reach and power. to many americans and others across the globe, operation desert storm set the standard for american air power and it's what they remember in the quarter century since dessert storm, your air force has remained engaged in combat operations without respite. as we sit here today, airmen are
standing watch over our nuclear enterprise and conducting the lion's share of strike, air refuelling and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance sorties over iraq and syria. however, 25 years of continuous combat operations coupled with budget instability and lower-than-planned top lines have meat the air force one of the smallest,.2 holdest and l ready forces in its history. to put our relative size, age and readiness in perspective, in 1991, we deployed 33 of our 134 combat-coded active guard and reserve fighter squadrons in support of operation desert storm, we were 946,000 airmen strong. the average age of our aircraft was 17 years and 80% of the fighter force was ready for full spectrum conflict in contrast, today we have just 55 total force fighter squadrons and
approximately 660,000 total force airmen. the average age of our aircraft is 27 years and less than 50% of our combat air as far as ready for full spectrum conflict. cup this will significant readiness reduction with a rising china, russian aggression in eastern europe and syria, iranian influence in the middle east, north korean nuclear and space ambitions and our ongoing fight to degrade and ultimately destroy isil and you have an air force that is too small, too old and less ready for what the nation requires. simply put, if we are to remain the most lethal and effective airspace and cyberspace force on the planet we must take steps to rebuild readiness now in order to accomplish this goal, the fiscal year 2017 budget aims to build, train, and equip an air force capable of responding to today's and tomorrow's threats. it balances capability, capacity
and readiness in support of our five core missions -- air and space superiority, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, rapid global mobility, global strike and command and control. our number-one priority is our nuclear mission and our budget reflects this importance, including investments in icbms, command control and communications as well as b-2 and b-52 bomber modifications. the f-35, kc-46 and lrsb will change the calculus of any potential adversary and will be critical to success in any future high-end fight, for an air force, failing to push the technological edge equals failure and when the air force fails, the joint team fails. our fiscal year '17 budget request includes the funding requires to reclaim the power needed to ensure the health of our nuclear forces, aircraft maintenance team, battlefield airmen and other critically
undermanned and overtasked career fields. this budget marks the return of a committed investment to global vigilance, global reach and global power for america, a return to bca level funding in fiscal year 2018 will further decimate our readiness and modernization and will place the nation at unacceptable risk. mr. chairman, decisive air, space, and cyberspace power and the ability to command and control these forces have become the oxygen the joint force breathes and are fundamental to american security and joint operations, the fiscal year 2017 president's budget and the flexibility to execute it as we have recommended is an investment in the air force our nation needs. america expects it, commanders -- combat and commanders require it and with your support our you are amen will deliver it. on behalf of our secretary, our chief of staff and the 660,000
active guard and reserve airmen who give our service life, thank you for your entireless support and we look forward to your questions. >> general goldfein, thank you for your testimony in getting our air force back to where it needs to be. i want to ask in that context where we are in restoring readiness. we know that the rebuilding point for readiness is set for the air force essentially at fy-2020. so if you can give us perspective on stying on that glide path based on what the budget request is this year and the resetting beginning at a benchmark in 2020, how far are we going to be able to go in restoring air force readiness and give us some ideas of the time frames. along the way obviously you're going to have to make tough decisions about risk. tell us what core functions you
will have to make some tough decisions about, where risk will be placed in this readiness recovery effort. >> thank you, sir. so we have stated previously that our readiness recovery plan is dependent on a couple of key variables. the most important is reduction in deploy-to-dwell time which actually allows us to have the time to do the training that we need for high-end conflict. that's something quite frankly that we really can't control given the global situation and while we're incredibly proud of the fact that air power is a requirement in all of the contingencies we face, both current and potentially in the future, it has resulted in a demand signal that has reduced our ability to do the high-end training we need. so while we testified previously that we believed that we would be able to achieve full spectrum readiness on a given date, it's a rolling time frame and as our
chief and secretary have testified, it's about an eight to ten-year time frame when we get the conditions set to rebuild that readiness. so we can -- the last time we testified and said 2025 was what we were targeting, that was based on assumptions that haven't panned out. some of those asusumptions were that we wouldn't be increasing activity in the pacific, that we wouldn't be increasing activity in europe and that we wouldn't be increasing activity that we are seeing in iraq and syria. so as long as that demand signal is there, what you'll see from us as a continual rolling eight to ten-year cycle to get to full spectrum readiness, our prediction right now is that for the next two to three years we'll probably just be able to hold our own in terms of current staid of readiness, as the chief and secretary have testified, where we currently sit and where i mentioned in my opening statement is we're approximately 50% ready across the total force
for full spectrum conflict. >> does your 2017 budget reflect maintaining the necessary effort and core functions going forward? and secondly does 2017 budget, does that help you in setting the conditions for restoring readiness? if not, where are the shortfalls or the things we need to consider as we develop the policy to lay the framework for appropriations? >> thank you, sir. so when we submitted this budget we worked to get the best balance we could given the top line we received between capability, capacity and readiness. so what you'll see in the readiness accounts is that we funded our readiness accounts to the capacity that we can generate so that with the addition of oco funding on top, we're able to fly to the capacity that we can generate. you asked before about the core
functions or about where we're taking the greatest risk. the two core function s where i believe we have the greatest risk are air and space superiority and global strike. the reason far is that is where we have to train to the high-end fight against a peer adversary and that's where we're not getting the down time to train to that level. so when we talk about combat air forces and gaining and maintaining air superiority, that requires training at a high level against sophisticated adversaries and we're struggling to find the tomb to do that. >> thank you. i'm going to go to miss boar dahl la. >> thauchk very much, mr. chairman. general, the air force is facing a modernization bubble with several major problems competing for budget space as evidenced by the f-35 procurement decrease.
what is the one thing congress can do to improve air force readiness while addressing the modernization changes? >> yes, ma'am, so first let me tell you that you'll hear a consistent answer from in terms of what congress can do and this is repeal bca. because when we go back and look at what happened to the united states air force in 2013 when we were sequestered, it devastated our readiness and we're still recovering, so now when i look at the budget we've submitted, we had to make trades between modernization and readiness and like i said we funded to our capacity, our current capacity in the readiness accounts but we had to take risk in modernization that we didn't want to do, deferring f-35 procurement, deferring c-130 procurement, pushing to the right modernization of our right modern saugs of the aircraft required if that are high end
fight are risk trades we had to make to keep our readiness accounts at capacity. >> thank you. the air force has been a leader in advocating the total force concept, integrating the active and reserve components. what -- general, what opportunities do you see in this and future years for leveraging the cost saving nature of the national guard to contribute to increased readiness and where can congress play a role in facilitating these engagements? >> thanks, ma'am, for an opportunity to showcase our guard and reserve. we are one force, one air force and all three components are actively participating. as the former air component commander for central command i traveled around the region as you might imagine and it never ceased to amaze me when i would go into the cockpit of a c-17 and i would ask "which one of you is active? which one is guard and which is reserve?" and i'd have all three in the
same cockpit, that gives you one vignette of how closely integrated we are across the force. so where we continue to look for opportunity is where we can leverage very often the higher experience level and the stability in the guard force and our reserve force as we look to continue to associate in ways that can bring more and more capability to the fight the secretary in her testimony previously this week made a comment one of the activities we're looking at is how do we take the large number of active duty service codes that are out there and start combining them to make it easier for folks to come into the guard active reserve and transition between these components so that we can leverage the most we can from the individual components. i'll give you one quick vignette. our chief master sergeant of the air force came back from a visit to lewis mcchord in washington
and he noticed a young senior airman driving to work in a tesla. so he pulled the airman over and said "okay, talk to me. how is this?" and he said "well, sir, i'm in the air national guard but when i'm not, i'm the director of security for a "fortune" 500 silicon valley tech company. but i also want to serve and so when i'm not working security for this particular company i'm a senior airman doing cyber business for the united states air force. we want to make that easier. and so anything that congress can do to help us to make that continuum easier would be extremely helpful, that's what we want to leverage. >> thank you very much. i have one final question for you, general and i will say that we as members of congress whenever we travel on a military
air operation, the guard is there for us doing a great job. the budget request indicates the air force will continue to take risk in facility sustainment, restoration and modernization, what will impacts will reduced f fsrm spend having on our airmen's quality of life. >> i'd like to field that. the simple truth is there's not enough money to go around so we did this budget -- this budget request takes risk in our installation, that's where we take the risk at the expension of modern sags and readiness. so what you'll see as you dive into the budget is that we've constructed installations around military construction and around fsrm, facility sustainment, restoration and modernization. we have to get at construction. we have put more money into our military construction and we've
putless money into our restoration modernization, we kept roughly the same amount in sustainment because we have to keep buildings moving. that does push us into a strategy of worse first. we have a black log of $12 billion in facility restoration modernization projects so we're addressing the worse force. worse first focuses around the mission so quality of life is competing against mission requirements and we are opting for our mission requirements so internally we are working processes on those core services to make sure our airmen can get the best we can give them. things like child development centers, things like gymnasiums and fitness centers and dining facilities. we're using transformational efforts to make sure we can expand hours, provide those services so airmen can conduct a mission at the funding level, we
have to focus on modernization and readiness. >> thank you gentlemen for your candid answers to your questions and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i'll now go to mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here and for your service and i wonder, is that plane still flying? what were you flying 25 years ago? is that one still in the air? >> i've been told it's now being used for an unmanned drone. i'm hoping not. >> but it's probably still in the air. that's something most people don't recognize is that while we had that many decades edge 25 years ago, the fact that we haven't recapitalized has given our adversaries to maybe not catch us but get closer to us. i want to talk to you about the j-star which is is an isr platform that flies out of warner robins.
obviously there's some money in the budget this year for it. there was more money last year for it, i'm concerned about the reduction in that. but the recapitalization of the j-stars fleet continued to push a year here a year there and when i look at the charts that show what's going to happen with our current planes that are flying when they go in for maintenance, we're going to end up with a capability gap that's going to force us to either keep very old plane, much older than the ones that you were plying 25 years ago in the air or not be able to provide that moving target indicator and battle management platform to forces that need it on the ground. the other aspect i see is a new system would save money on an annual basis. it's a new plane, more efficient
it can gather more data at one time and i just don't understand why a program that uses existing mature technology that is relatively inexpensive compared to the other platform wes talk about with with regard to recapitalization has taken so long to deliver. and my question is, what are the plans for the capability gap that's going to exist when the current planes which are many, many decades old go in for depot maintenance if the new planes are not ready to go? what plans would you have for accelerating the timeline to make sure we don't have those capability gaps? >> so when we went -- when we were -- as we had been in discussions about j-stars, part
of the discussion has been do we shift to an unmanned versus a manned large aircraft man platform. we want out to the come babat a commander to revalidate individually the environment for air born battle management as a critical component of their war plans and that was validated across all commanders. that's important because when we talk j stars we talk about the sensors but i would argue that wln what they bring is air born battle management. i use that platform in a number of ways in addition to what traditionally is considered air born battle management. i used in the the maritime domain covering the straits of hormuz so first and foremost we have validated that air born battle management is a critical requirement for combat and
commanders now the challenge becomes a technology discussion at what point do we transition and can we transition to an unmanned platform of the future versus a manned plat snowstorm and the reality is that technology we would need to put on an unmanned platform doesn't exist to get the same capability. it's not miniaturized enough. it can't give the same level of fatality of the ground moving target indicator that the j-stars does today so the air force's position for two reasons, one, we don't have the technology to put on a manned platfo platform we need to push forward with a manned air born platform. that dialogue has slowed us down and i'll turn to general cooper to talk about covering the gap in the middle. >> the j stars is an old
airplane, 47 years old. 50% of the airplanes are in depot and that takes longer to keep them going. that's emblematic of our larger fleets. we have to recapitalize our fleets. we have a number of fleets almost as old as j stars and we have to keep recapitalizing our fleet. >> the j stars fleet is a relatively small fleet, though and the total cost for recapitalization is less than it is for most of these other fleets. it seems to we could push forward with an aggressive rapid acquisition process that we could get newer planes, better technology that are going to save us money on an annual basis and instead of spending so much money on depot maintenance for plane wes know we'll put owl as soon as we have the new platform, why not push this thing up? we're talking about we talk
multibillions for a lot of platforms, hundreds of billions and this is not one that will cost anywhere close to what most of the platforms cost, as you said it can't be done with any other platform. so thank you for your service. >> thank you, mr. scott, we'll go to mr. courtney. >> thank you mr. chairman and to the panel for being here this morning. general, last year's ndaa we came up with good arrangement for the c-130 modernization with the new afternoon one approach that hopefully is going to short circuit some of the problems that existed before. on page 14 of your testimony you mentioned the c-130 modernization. i wonder if you could talk about what's in the budget? it seems like a relatively small number for 2017 and 2020, as you know, is coming up fast for the global navigation requirements
so i was wondering if you could elaborate. >> yes, sir, thank you. so we have broken up the afternoon program into, as you know, two increments, so increment one, which makes us -- makes the c-130 capable of flying in all international airspace and meets faa requirements. the previous budget we had that completing in 2022. we were able to accelerate that 2020 which allows us to be in line with the expectation for the faa on being amp one complia compliant. we've also been able to fully fund increment two which does the physical upgrades to the c-130 and that will complete in 2028. so we feel good about the amp program right now. we've actually -- the chief of staff led an effort through our total force to talk to all of the states that have c-130s, all of the adjutant generals are part of this plan, when we work through the issues we have that
dialogue so they're part of the process so going into this budget we feel good about the program. >> again, i'm sure later in the process we'll have more conversations with you and your team it's just -- is there in i space or possibility that congress can help in terms of accelerating it more or flexibility in the 2017 budget to help push this along. >> we'll take that one to see if there's any help we can require from congress, right now we thought the program is well funded for what industry can support. i'll tell you where we could use your help. we had to take some decisions -- make decisions to delay critical modernization to get the balance in this budget. one of the decisions we made was to defer some c-130j procurement so any help we could get to bring those back would be much
appreciated. >> thank you very much, general, and to all the witnesses for your service. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. courtney. we'll go to mr. lobiondo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the panel and thank you for your service. for general goldfein. in procurement line 22 in the aircraft procurement for radars, the air force requests and states an expedited delivery schedule. it's imperative to operationally field the asa radar. can you please update the subcommittee on how the research design, test and evaluation as appropriated in last year's omnibus is progressing? what phase are you currently? and how will this be completed and when do you see an award coming? ! >> thank you sir. as you know the department originally pursued a joint
urgent operational need a juon, from the combat and commander to procure the radars for those capital region. it speeds up the acquisition process. that was not supported. we are now in a competition for those radars. the air force fully funded 24 of those sets to be able to take care of those aircraft that are part of the ncr. but now what we will need to do, what we're pursuing is an acquisition strategy that allows for those 24, and the money's been laid in for that. the remainder of the fleet will also be able to go into a full and open competition so that we can continue to modernize the remainder of the f-16 fleet with
radars. but we do have to get to 24 although we're not able to go soul source. >> you are attempting to expedite? >> but we have to follow the acquisition rules for competition. the money has been laid in for the 24. >> i recently received word that the ops 5 and 6 for the air national guard basing criteria has been pushed back to later in the spring of 2016. can you update the subcommittee on how that is progressing? >> yes, sir. as you know, we build our basing process so that we can be fully open and transparent with all of congress to ensure that not only do you see the criteria but that you see how each base scores out in the criteria. so what we're looking at right now with the f-35 ops 5 and 6 is what criteria do we need to make sure we have ready to go? as soon as that is ready, we will put that out. then we will start the process
that goes through not only setting the criteria, but then actually then scoring a certain number of bases against that criteria, sharing how that occur and making the final decision that the secretary makes in terms of the basing. >> do you have any idea on time line on when we will see that? >> let me see if we have that. do you have any timing? can we take that and get it back to you? >> sure. i obviously have a great interest in that. i'd like to think that i represent if not one of the premiere homeland security bases in the country, because of our strategic location to new york and to washington. and we think fair objective and transparent, we would score well in that. >> yes, sir. we will try to get that answer to you even before the hearing ends if we can. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you.
we will go to mr. peters. >> thank you. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. i wanted you to expand on training. one is, i would like to you explain why it is that a delay in the annual budget for -- diminishment for training lasts beyond the year. people don't understand there's a permanent affect to underfunding training. i want you to address your sense of how -- what any additional challenges for the training budget are posed by the additional new air frames like the f-35. >> thanks, sir. first on the delay and the lag affect that goes into training. the way we do our program is we budget in two-year cycles as you know, sir. so we project in the future how much we think we're going to fly in contingency flying. given the capacity of any weapon
system, will take the f-16 as an example. it's designed for depression of enemy air defenses. very high end fight center focused community. so we look at all of the capabilities in that way to -- and the weapon system to produce flying hours. that's a fixed capacity. and then we project how much of that we think in that weapon system will be flown down range. that becomes part of the oco. and so what -- you can't go up, because that's the fixed capacity of the weapon system. the only thing that can happen is that you project what you project doesn't pan out and the assumptions change. what we found year after year is that we actually fly more down range activity than we have left for home station training. so what that means in the block 50 f-16 for instance is that air crew that are supposedly -- that are trained and designed to do high-end peer to peer conflict in a contested environment are
actually focusing more and more of their training on the lower end close air support, violent extremist fight. so they lose their skills over time. you can't build those back immediately. you've got to build them back so they can be in that community. they have to be wing men. we have to be flight leads. instructors. they have to be certified for all of those. the less amount you have to train to the high end fight, the less readiness that you have. so it actually takes you more and more time to actually build that back. when it comes to bringing the f-35 and other weapon systems, the challenge for us in both -- the challenge and the asymmetric opportunity is that we approach joint warfare from a networked perspective. the vignette i would share with you, i flew the f-117 as the last pilot. when i took off and flew the f-117 first generation, it was a very closed system approach to
using l.o. i actually had a switch that would turn everything off, all of the sensor would stow and i would lower my seat and go to work. in the f-35 when you power up the aircraft, it starts doing machine to machine collaboration and discussion on the initial powerup. it starts comparing amongst it in the network. it's talking to airspace, cyber. it's doing the full spectrum look and it's doing a human machine collaboration that actually places symbolic on the visor of the aircraft. so it's a very network approach. when we bring the f-35, the f-22 on, it's about the network approach to warfare and that makes it in its own training challenge, because we have to be able to simulate that network and go to training as opposed to a single aircraft going out. >> just sort of -- i know quantitatively -- how short are
we given that we have been lagging already? >> as i testified earlier, we're at 50% or less in overall full spectrum readiness across the air force. that vignette i shared with you in terms of the fact that we're not training at this level, that's what that means. we're not able to train to the suppression of enemy air defenses mission because we are using that weapon so much in the fight against isil. so at 50% readiness, the challenge is if you look at the -- what our secretary of defense is laid out as the major strategic challenges we face and a condition of violent extremism that we will likely have to deal with for the next decade, that covers the spectrum of the potential conflict we may face. if we are 50% ready, we are 50% ready against the higher end threats. >> i want you to know, that's something that's been on my mind since i've been on this subcommittee.
it's something that's not easily observe. so i wanted to take a little time to draw it out. i appreciate the emphasis on it. hope we can be responsive. thank you for your testimony and your service. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. peters. we will go to mr. bishop. >> thank you. general, i appreciate the opportunity of you being here. mr. whitman, i appreciate you having a hearing at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. i realize you think there are no other issues that conflict with that. there is one. it's called my mattress. i wish you would get one that's comfortable for you so we wouldn't be doing this. general, can i also just -- before i ask a question, just say one thing. your complaints are accurate. but it's too narrow. there were four other cuts in addition to that as well as the 25 years of constant combat flights you had to do. when you have the criticisms, don't narrow it. there are other things that have screwed you up in addition to
that. it's much broader than that. can i ask you a question? you did mention the written testimony about things that are important to me. i have some concern over the transition that's going forward, especially as we look in what's going in the future. is there any concern because the 380 is a combined unit. are they going to be tasked more or less in the future? >> thanks for the question. the reserve component at hill like all of our reserve components are critical to our force. and great partners. we do have a transition plan. those f-16s will be transitioning in the '18 time frame. what we have done to fund that transition is to put some funding in to make sure the aircraft can be flown while we're waiting for the transition. >> but the maintainers are still a problem. it has to be dealt with. >> i can field that.
maintainers are a problem in the air force. we have taken steps to make sure we will transition well to ioc for f-35. i am concerned on any f-35 bed downs. we are 4,000 maintainers short. we are focusing on hill to make sure we can get the maintainers for ioc. right now at hill specific, we moved as you know the fourth fighter squadron came back. we moved the maintainers over to begin training for f-35. we received -- we have six airplanes there. will be out there making sure we get ioc right. the reserves are taking care of the f-16s. when the 421st comes back, the maintainers will move over. then the reserves will manage the f-16s. >> that seems to indicate there's a greater emphasis put on the reserves taking more capacity. >> yes, the reserves will -- we
will let the reserves work on the -- use those aircraft at hill air force base until transitions in the following years. >> can i transition slightly and see if you can do this? i do have a concern about hiring practices. i wonder if the air force is going into that. some of them are taking up to 160 days to hire people. is the air force looking at trying to devolve some of the authority? once again, i think opms's goal is 80 days, which seems to be an outrageous goal. if you cannot hire those people -- i understand you have to augment them with contractors which may not necessarily be a cheaper way of doing it. is the air force moving in something to try and deal with civilian hiring practices? >> yes, sir. our secretary of the air force is leading that. she tasked our director of personnel to look at all of our policies across the air force relative to civilian personnel to see how we can speed up the process of hiring when we need to hire, especially for critical
skill sets. she's also having us take a look at the continuum of service between the three components and allowing civilians to come into the air force, especially when we need critical skills. the challenge we have, as you know, is that most of the rules associated with civilians don't reside within the service. most of those are above the service. so while we're looking at everything we can and why we're brushing our individual policies, it's above us. that's where we could use your help. >> thank you. we will try and do that as best we can to help out. i appreciate your comments about fourth generation modification that have been delayed. you are clear on the readiness capabilities are being lost. i have a -- it's not a question. i'm saying, i also have concern of how it's affecting contracts,
depot workloads, everything else. you don't need to respond. thank you for your presence. in an hour i will be awake so i can understand what you said. >> thank you, mr. bishop. we will make sure that when we have an opportunity, we convene at a later time. >> then we will talk indian bills after that. >> yes, we will. now i go to mr. o'rourke. >> thank you. i wanted to ask general about the nuclear cruise missile part of this budget. i will tell you my limited understanding and some of my concerns, which should take no more than a minute. then offer you the remainder to answer. my understanding is that this is a $30 billion price tag for a weapon that will be carried on the aging b-52 platform. i want to know what would happen
should we not pursue this strategy. what is the risk to the united states? two, what are your thoughts on the british decision a few years back not to pursue this as a strategy because of their concern that it would produce miscalculation and unintended consequences? it kind of departs from traditional nuclear deterrents where each side has a good understanding of the other's capabilities. and their conditions for using them. so if you would take the remaining four minutes to answer those questions and tell us what would happen if we didn't do this and where we could apply the $30 billion if we didn't. >> thanks, sir. just to talk about just the funding part of it right now, just for -- the long range standoff weapon that will
replace our air launch cruise missile is currently scheduled to be integrated not only on the b-52 but on the b-2. so for us the way we look at this is it has to do with 21st century strategic deterrents. and what the nuclear aspect of that is. and we as and air force, we like to joke that we're responsible for three of the four legs. because if you add nuclear command and control, which we're responsible for, it's actually almost a leg in and of itself to assure we have assured communications. so for us, it's about how do we ensure that we have a reliable, assured, secure nuclear deterrent to be able to hold targets at risk so that we can show that we have that capacity and capability? and so there's a number of ways you do that. you do that through the bomber force. you do that through the -- of course the ground based force, our minuteman 3. then transition into ground -- the gbsd.
we also do that with the navy with the submarine force. so for us, when you take a look at the long range standoff missile, it's about being able to have the right standoff to be able to actually go into be able to service targets that the commander and chief may ask us to service. so when we look at it, we need to have both that capability, which is standoff, plus we need gravity capability, plus penetrating capability with gravity, which is why we are putting money into the b-61 as well. and we have to modernize the nuclear missile fields. so that's why you see an increase of $4.3 billion in this budget to be able to modernize the nuclear. what we would tell you is we believe that's a critical component of the three legs of the triad. in terms of the risk that we would have in terms of employment, modernization of a particular weapon system does not actually indicate that you
would have -- you would be more susceptible to use. that's purely a commander in chief decision. so we would say as the employers of the nuclear enterprise, that we don't think it increases risk. so one of the areas that we're going to need help from congress on is that if you take a look at the nuclear enterprise, most of it was built in the '40s and '50s. it's aging significantly. and we have some bills that are going to come due after this fight in the 2022 time frame that are significant. so we're working within the department to look at all aspects to ensure we are putting the best dollar forward to ensure we have a safe, secure, reliable nuclear deterrent for the 21st century that has all three legs plus command and control intact. >> do you not share the british concern or the concern of former defense secretary perry about the risk of miscalculation or unintended consequences?
you think this is the wisest use of the $30 billion? >> i do. >> for whatever reason congress were not to support that request and still allow for that $30 billion to be used within the air force, where would that money go? >> sir, you know, to be honest with you, we would take a look first at our stewardship of the nuclear enterprise. the first place we would look is, where do we need to place that within the nuclear enterprise as our number one priority for our service. after that, we would look at it like we look at everything else, which is look at a planning choice. we would look at the trades that we have to make between capability and capacity and readiness. i can assure you the first place we would look would be within the nuclear enterprise. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. o'rourke. we will now go to mr. gibson. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i appreciate the panelists. i thank you for your service and your sacrifices and those of your family. my question has to do with joint
inoperability training and readiness. with regard to the budget, if you could lay out where the commitments are in terms of joint forcible entry exercise, how many commitments, how many rotations do you see this budget year. and then also, commitments to the national training center and the scope of that. and any other modelling and simulation for the year, if you can lay out where the budget is. >> thanks, sir. 15 years of continuous combat has actually produced the most joint force in our history. and i can say that also personally having been the combined forces air component commander deployed for two of those years. so what we have found is that our forces who are down range are not only training but executing jointly every day.
when we come back at all of our major training venues, if you go out and take a look at red flag, green flag, cyber flag, ntc rotations, air warrior rotations, you will have a joint element of every one of our exercises. the service chiefs and the threes, the directors of operation work that hard every day. you know, we are very proud of the fact that when it comes to training of the united states army and the joint force entry capability when it comes to especially airborne, that we provide lift that they require to do that mission. so working with general abrams in forces command and not only our army but marine corps and special forces, what we ensure is that we understand the requirement for the number of jumps that we have to support. then we look across our enterprise at the global mobility to ensure we have what is required to support the
jumps. >> appreciate that. as you know, and i thank you so much for an incredible career you have had, the whole piece comes together with electronic warfare, with fighters, bombers, command and control. so specifically the question is, how much joint forcible entry exercises are in the budget for this year? >> we have really focused on putting resources to the training effort. in this program that -- budget that was just submitted, we have over $398 million going to training, the exercises you talked about. we have invested over $235 million into our training ranges to make sure the ranges are high-end capability fifth generation capable to get the most out of the training events. we spent $345 million on live, virtual and constructive training, looking at how do you
do that better in the simulator to maximize those training events. >> thank you. it may very well be my failings in not framing the question right. will lay out a few points. over the years as we -- we're working to sustain the joint peace of this, the forcible entry piece of this. we can have anywhere from eight in some years ten joint forcible entry exercises. last i looked at it, think we were down to about four a year. understand, the war has played a big role on that in terms of where the resources need to go understandably. but you know, this is among the reasons why, gentlemen, i would say i'm concerned about the decision the air force has take within regard to the 440th. and the reason is we're all managing risk. up here we're managing risk. air force is managing risk. all the joint forces are managing risk.
among the things that the 440th could do is really allow for smaller units in the 18th airborne corps to sustain as was mentioned. you take -- you are proud of the fact that you help joint forces maintain their readiness. but it's especially difficult today at the company and battalion level to keep up on the eaches when it comes to their requirement knowing that the four major packages that we have, the joint forcible entry exercises, is important for exercising higher level staff for integration, but it's getting tougher to the one offs, the people go to school and come back. that was managed by the 440th actually being at ft. bragg. >> very quickly. our objective -- we're working with the command of general townsend. we met with him regularly. our objective is that when a soldier walks out to the flight line to get on a c-130 for a
jump, he doesn't know the 440th is gone. what we have done is we put an aircraft there and he gets the training he needs. that's the objective. so we do that for a number of bases around the world that do airborne and do training and so we do that in italy. we do that across -- we think we have a good template for that. the army leadership agrees. so if we get this right, it will be transparent to your soldiers. >> my time has expired. >> thank you. we will now go to ms. gabbard. >> thank you. good morning. you spoke a little bit earlier in your commends of the necessity of increasing cyber capabilities. i'm wondering if you can talk in more detail about two things, recruiting and retention. we look at the talent that exists and the innovation and how quickly evolving this world is in the private sector. what kind of creative efforts are you taking to be able to bring those folks in to be able
to work with us as well as to retain them once they are there? >> yes, ma'am, thank you. so we're working quite frankly very hard with effort that the secretary of defense is leading called force of the future. one of the elements of that is permiability to come into the military when we need it and vice versa. sharing what talent and exper advertise and capability we have with the private sector. we continue to look at those capabilities. right now as an air force, our contribution to the cyber force is 39 teams, represents about 30% as you might imagine, it's about right for our contribution, 39 teams. cyber com has three missions. defend the nation, defend the network, support the combatant
commanders. we have 13 teams that we're building to support each of those requirements and each of those mission areas. so 13 times three equals 39. right now we have 26 teams. we're on track to complete our build of 39 by 2018. we feel pretty good about where we are, where we're going. i will tell you that you can never stop looking at managing this talent. because we have got to have the incentives in place for not only them to want to join us out of more than just patriotism but because we are a good place for them to reside. because of how we take care of them and the value of their service. so those total force continuum that we are working on are incredibly important. >> if i could add, we have done a review of the retention across the cyber force. we're not seeing retention issues with the cyber force.
the retention levels mirror the rest of the air force. they are about equal. as general goldfein mentioned with the vignette of the airman driving the tesla. people join because they want to serve their country and protect the country. >> somewhat connected with that but really on the overall broader scale is, as you talk about the total force and integrating the guard and reserves, how are you integrating those elements in your deployment to dwell ratio in a way that's sustainable for the future? >> thank you for the question. we are a completely integrated force. as general goldfein mentioned earlier, you look in the cockpit and you won't be able to tell the difference. there will be guard reserve and active duty together.
that is that way across our service. when you look at the readiness levels across service, we mirror each other. because we operate together. if you look at the deployed, the same concerns are there with total force as it is with the active duty force. we mirror each other in readiness levels. we watch that very closely. we are the most integrated service with our guard and reserve and they are critical partners to us. >> what is the ratio now? >> across the board, for on average it's about one to 2.5. >> can i offer that you do get a capacity stop? regardless of how integrated we are, we still only have 55 squadrons to do the nation's work. so at that point, you actually can't get any more out of what you have already got. so that's why i go back to the point that we're too small and you are seeing us trying to bill up the force size and our capacity to do what we believe the nation needs. >> thank you. >> thank you.
general goldfein, in your testimony when you spoke about the shortage on maintainers, i would like to get your perspective in a little more of a drill down as to the nature of that. you talk about needing to use contract maintainers for your a-10s, f-16s, c-130s in order to get people transferred over to spin up to maintain the f-35. there seems to be another aspect to it though when you look at the nature of the shortage. and that is some of the shortages are occurring with your senior ncos that are indeed your trainers for airmen coming in. tell me, how do you address that? that's a long-term issue. the short-term issue is contract maintainers. but the long-term issue is as you bring new air force personnel in, how do you get them to stay in the air force so they can become that senior nco, that's a master maintainer, but also the trainer for the new airmen that are coming in the
air force? tell me how you address that. that wasn't related in your testimony. >> i would like to answer that. we are 4,000 maintainers short across the air force. the issue is we're bringing two f-35s in a month and they require 20 maintainers. we add to that that deficit every single month. as we go forward. next year it will be three f-35s. we're addressing it on how can we grow our fleet? what we have done to date is we have balanced as much as we can safely do with our legacy fleets, even with our large airplanes, moving to fighters. it's most acute in the fighting air force. in our fighters. so we have moved like crew chiefs from c-130s to f-35. congress authorized us to
transfer 36 a 10s to bai status. we used 18 because we needed the fighting force as well as the maintainers. we split the difference. we have done as best we can there. we have offered numerous retention incentives to our older maintainers, our tech sergeants and master sergeants so they will stay in and retain the training expertise. we have seen growth there up to 1,000 maintainers have taken retention bonus and have stayed in, which is good. but we're digging a hole as we go forward, because we have the structure we're not able to divest and we're growing f-35s. internally, since '13 we under assessed. our new airmen coming in, it was a challenge. we had an $8 billion challenge after sequestration going '14 into '15 how to close that gap. the first place that we went to, the easiest place to go to get dollars that quick, that soon, is the personnel count.
we under assessed into maintenance. we are reversing that trend. we did it in 2015. at the exception of other critical afscs and career fields in the air force. we're doing it in '16 up to 1,000. at the expense of critical career fields not maintenance in the air force. this budget asks for a growth of maintainers in the '17 budget. part of the -- a large part of that is maintenance. the initiative we just started was looking at the contract maintenance in areas across the air force where there are not combat coded units. they are mostly training units. they don't have a deployment requirement. we feel we can contract in those locations, take them and move them to f-35. but that's a challenge. that's just a short-term challenge.
we need to continue to grow and really that only gets us two years and we will have the same problem in two years. >> just seems like a cascading effect, especially across the mos at ever level of experience. >> it is. we are challenged especially in the fighter fleet. we have six career fields below one to two dwell, meaning they are slightly at home slightly longer than they are deployed. >> i would add that when we look at readiness and the impact of that, we have a critical skills availability is a key piece of that. it's not just the numbers of people but it's the right level of people as you mentioned, mr. chairman. that's why it takes time to grow that readiness. we have made that initial investment. we bring new airmen in. but it will take five years or so to grow those to a level where we have the senior leadership that we need to build that readiness back up. >> i just want to make sure that
we reflect the proper policy so you can continue to grow both at capacity and the capability it has to be grown on both levels. let me ask about a comment you made concerning infrastructure. and capacity. and excess capacity. as you know, we look at that. there's a requirement from last year's ndaa for each of the service branches to provide a report back to congress concerning capacity issues, overcapacity, excess inventory, those things as well as what we had hearings on earlier. what are we doing to support the existing critical infrastructure and facility support? which is one of the elements of what we used to generate readiness. one of the concerns i have going forward is to make sure that we don't get too short sighted. everything we have done recently has been very short sighted. what do we do to make it to the next budget, to move money around? i understand the need to generate dollars and the dollars
that come out for older facilities. i think there's a logical way and risk way to do that. my concern is this. on other side, too, the air force with its assets is going to continue to grow. we're going to have new fighter aircraft coming on board and new long-range strategic bomber, a new tanker fleet that lift capacity that's there, even a few more c-17s, modernized c-130s. there's a need for infrastructure to support that. my concern going forward is saying, well, let's reduce base structure or that infrastructure. we know we need that. i want to make sure those two curves don't cross and we say, guess what, now we have more aircraft than we have facilities necessary to keep the aircraft and maintain them. in my idea, how do you find the right balance in saying we need a brac in light of we need to
build more aircraft in. >> thanks. i will start and turn over to general cooper to give you more detail with where we are with our infrastructure. a couple key points. first, no surprise to you that as airmen, we project air power from our bases. so they are part of our fighting platform. when we actually talk about infrastructure, we're talking about part of how we fight. so it shouldn't be surprising that we're going to put significant amount of resources against our infrastructure. in this budget, we made a strategic trade and a decision to emphasize combatant requirements and new miss bed down. as you stated, as you bring on new weapon systems, there are capabilities you have to build to bed those down. so you will see those two priorities.
as we testified previously, you have seen we have taken risk in our facility restoration modernization accounts to do that. as i transition to general cooper, what i will tell you is that we have about 30% -- we are about 30% over in terms of the infrastructure versus our capacity. so right now today, we would tell you that we are keeping a number of facilities on these large bases up and running because we're not going to tear them down. and we don't have the forestructure to require us to use them. we could use at least a reorganization to be able to get more right sized. but we also look at it through the lens of where we're going to be in the future when we get the new missions on. so when you look at the tanker trade, as you will see, we will build up before we come back down and keep it balanced. we think that 30% over capacity we have now will actually continue to exist as we make the trades of the future. let me turn it over to general cooper.
>> thank you. too much, too old, too expensive. so i'm on the business side of the air force. i'm responsible for trying to -- and the readiness side. we're trying to make sure we have the appropriate readiness to give general raymond and the operations the most to give america. our infrastructure is too big. we know that. so i can -- i have a litany of testimonials here. where we train our pilots we have a 50-plus-year-old drainage system which just gets rid of the water off the flight line that can't handle large rains. three times a year, it floods. we can't conduct pilot training. last year, we lost 370 sorties because it rained. that facility project is still competing for funds. there's other more critical facility projects.
we have -- we avoid $2.9 billion in expenses because of previous bracs every year. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have a couple of questions i would like to ask. the first is to what extent are weapon shortages affecting prepositioned munition inventory and consequently readiness to address conflicts around the globe? >> in this budget, what you will see is we are funding munition to the capacity the industry can produce. the challenge we face is that while we have the munitions we require for the current fight, it takes us upwards of four years to actually replenish ammunition that we drop just based on how we do a budget cycle and the time frame it takes. as we drop more and more munitions, what happens is -- by
the way, as we have more and more allies and partners that join who are looking at the same preferred munitions primarily small diameter, what we do is we do take the others around the globe down to a certain extent. we have a plan to continue to replenish them. but there's a lag factor because of the four-year period. so part of that readiness for contingencies in a high-end fight, if you were to have the commander here, they would probably both tell you that they are not satisfied with the current stock levels that we have had to deplete and to have what we need for current fight. in addition, when our allies and partners come to us and say, listen, we are part of this coalition and we need your
support with munitions and by way, here is what we would like to have, that further exacerbates the challenge we have. so what we're working to do is to be able to work to project future expenditures based on historical averages. we have been in this for 15 years. we think we can probably project about what we're going to drop two to three years from now and be able to shorten the cycle time to be able to replenish the munitions to keep our stocks high. >> thank you. thank you very much, general. i guess now is the $64,000 question. if the current operational temple were to increase, say budget constraints, sequestration, whatever else, what would be the real effect on the total air force and of course readiness is most importantly? can you -- i'm talking, like, 2020 or whatever the case might be. if you could answer that? >> yes, ma'am.
it will, as i said before -- the one element that we can't control is demand. demand of the things that we look at to generate and sustain readiness levers if you will. it's the demand signal keeping us from doing high-end training. if that demand goes up with the capacity that we have, if we don't get bigger, if we don't bring these maintainers on, if we don't bring our capacity up, we will be less and less ready over time for the high-end fight. so it goes to the -- if i can fly this many sorties and that's all that i can generate and i need this many sorties here to be able to generate full spectrum readiness and reality is the nation calls on me to do this, i'm going to have less to do high-end training and be less ready. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. i go to mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. will be brief about this. i want to go back to one of the last points.
munitions and -- that's hard for us georgia boys to say. we call it ammo. doesn't matter what size it is. it's ammo. our private sector partners that provide a lot of those things for us when we're not able to give them consistency in their production, that creates tremendous turmoil on them and in many cases we have lost our partners in the private sector and have moved -- ended up with sole source or in some cases having to go to other countries that quite honestly aren't friendly with us to do certain things. but i do want to encourage you to do one thing. the people on the committee, the armed services committee i think will support you regardless of what party they are in. we have historically been able to work together on these issues. but i would ask that you expand and meet with members that are not on the armed services
committee. this patch, if you will, that is going to temporarily stop the reduction in readiness from 50% on down, this is a patch. and that's all it is. and i think that members who are not on the armed services committee or on the appropriations probably don't understand the current situation. some of them are very anxious to cut spending no matter where the cuts come from. my concern is not with any of the members here or of this committee. my concern is with members who have not had the opportunity to listen to people who we respect as much as we respect the three of you. so i would encourage to you speak with all of the members as well. take somebody from their state. >> yes, sir. >> very good. thank you, mr. scott. i think that completes our
questioning. thanks for joining us. i want to thank not only you but all your colleagues there, our airmen that have joined us today. great opportunity to see how the process works. we appreciate your perspective. it's important as we develop the policy to make sure we get it right. restore as much readiness as we can within this particular window. thanks again for your service. we appreciate the sacrifice of your families. our subcommittee is now hereby adjourned.
supreme court justice antonin scalia's body is lying in repose today in the court's grand chamber. he passed away last weekend at the age of 79. the public is allowed into the viewing. and c-span has live coverage throughout the day. it will last until 8:00 p.m. eastern. justice scalia's funeral by the way is tomorrow. c-span will once again have live coverage of the funeral mass at the catholic basilica here in washington, d.c. vice president joe biden is one of the dignitaries attending. you'll be able to watch it live tomorrow morning starting at 11:00 eastern. coming up tonight here on c-span3, we're showing you american history tv in primetime. it's the american historical association's annual conference with panels on the history of the death penalty, the 1916 election and the history of
terrorism. that's tonight here on c-span3 at 8:00 eastern. this weekend the c-span cities tour hosted by our charter communications cable partners takes you to greenville, south carolina, to explore the city's history and literary culture. on book tv. >> in 1939, september of 1939 when europe went to war, our allies primarily england and france, looked to washington, d.c. for goods and materials that they needed. so washington, d.c. looked down to the textile capital of the world. and all of a sudden government contracts came funneling into this area asking the mills here to begin producing for the war effort, initially for our allies and then of course for the united states as well. >> and on american history tv. >> so we're standing right here
at red river falls and this was really a pretty nasty spot. hard to believe now looking at it one of the best parks in the country, but this really was a very depressed, nasty place. and it's a great story of how a community can get behind a park and start to appreciate and cherish its river and its waterfall again. >> watch the c-span cities tour saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. american history tv on c-span3 features programs that tell the american story. this weekend we continue our special series on the 1966 vietnam hearings, 50 years later. we'll hear special consultant to president johnson, general
maxwell taylor's opening statement followed by committee member questions. >> our purpose is equally clear and easily defined. in his baltimore speech of april 7th, 1965, president johnson did so in the following term, our objective is the independence of south vietnam and its freedom from attack. we want nothing for ourselves, only that the people of south vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way. this has been our basic objective since 1954. it has been pursued by three successive administrations and remains our basic objective today. >> and next saturday secretary of state dean rusk gives his testimony defending johnson's vietnam policy. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. the navy's budget deputy assistant secretary updated reporters on the department's budget request.
president obama unveiled his 2017 budget request of $4 trillion last month. included in that budget is the pentagon's proposal of nearly $583 billion for defense spending. good afternoon and thanks for sticking through all these briefs to include the one today. so you know the department of the navy this smorng morning submitted an fq-17 to congress of $165 billion. in this brief i'll provide an overview of the content of that request. start with the national level mission guidance that defines the missions the navy are going to execute in this budget, the operational context of how it's been -- we'll also talk about the evolving nature of the operational context.
the dynamics that are driving changes in both the character of the environment and the nature of the competitors themselves. these operational context elements are foundational to many of the investments we'll talk later in the budget request ranging from the generation of combat readiness to the modernization of capabilities. also briefly highlight for you the fiscal context that bounds the department's options in balancing capabilities, capacity and readiness requirements. and then we'll address the specifics. we'll talk about some of the focused ninvestments, hard choices and innovation and reform elements that we force a global base force. the guidance spans the national security defense and military strategies. secretary of the navy's guidance on people, platforms, power and partnerships and the service chief guidance including the newly released including maritime superiority and update on advanced to contact guidance. this mission guidance directs
the navy marine corps that executes the mission shown here ranging from providing an effective nuclear deterrent and fighting terrorism in order to protect the homeland to providing a stabilizing presence across the globe in order to build security globally, to projecting power and winning decisively when called upon. this reflects the navy and the marine corp implementation of this guidance. today's execution of that guidance is a result of resources provided and hard choices made in prior years to resource today's navy marine corps. in meeting the combatant commander's requirements to execute the qdr mission set the navy marine corps today provide forward posture c base forces as shown 36,000 sailors and 5,000 marines deployed on 44 ship, three carrier strike groups and two amphibious ready groups. there's an additional 33,000 sailors and 31,000 ma veens forward ashore including 41,000 in the east asia and the pacific. these are among the forces that
over the past year provided immediate response options and assured allies including the deployments of five carrier strike groups and five amphibious readiness groups to combatant commanders around the globe. the south china sea operations and challenging excessive sovereignty claims demonstrating freedom of navigation as a matter of fundamental principle. and the trueman carrier strike group's combat operations with the french carrier charles din the fight against isil. also today the navy marine corps continue to remain engaged high tempo in harm's way providing immediate options, deterring r. concurrent with funding that collectively provided $30 billion less than requested levels has stressed the force in recent years. this chart shows fleet size, annual deployments in blue and deployment in green.
the chart shows while the navy has progressed from the earl' 90s of deploying a quarter of the battle force each year to a third of the force in recent years, continue to be oversubscribed combatant commander's demand for naval forces. operational employment summaries for years '13 and '14 show the sustained consumption above planned deployment levels depicted by the red line. this oversubscription of the service generated readiness and constrained funding has resulted in deferred maintenance of ships, accelerates con sums of aircraft service lives and aircraft readiness in order to meet the tempo. and placed heavy demands on sailors and marines as the average deployment lengths increased by a third show in the upper left quadrant in green. over this time as well the marine corps deployment to dwell ratio continued at 1-2 against a sustained goal of 1-3. so as you know last year's budget made specific targeted investments to attack these
readiness issues with investments in shipbuilding and shipyard infrastructure and in shipyard and aviation depo hiring. concurrent with those investments the calendar year '15 shown in the lower right, readiness consumption that closely matched plan deployment levels. the fy '17 budget bills on those investment with these trends with additional critical and aircraft readiness investments as we continue to cover and reduced ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs. at the same time this budget also adapts to reflect key changes in the security environment. as shown here we're seeing increased reliance on the maritime system with shipping traffic increasing, new arctic trade routes are opening and new technologies making undersea resources more accessible. overall the maritime system is more heavily used, more stressed, and more contested than ever before. concurrently growth of the
global information system is driving an accelerating rate of change. and the rate of technology adoption is surging spanning new materials to artificial intelligence. beyond those key trends it's important to note that the competitors themselves are changing as you've heard a number of times in the briefs today. for the first time in 25 years the united states is facing a return to great power competition with both russia and china advancing high end military capabilities. others exploit the key trends as well to include north korea's focus on nuclear weapons and missile programs, iran's pursuit of missile and nuclear capabilities and threaten security around the world. the character of warfare is dynamic. those who adapt succeed, those who don't die. this budget addresses that imperative by making nvlsmentes to sustain our ability to fight with decisive capability over a full range of operations, at sea, from the sea and from expediti expeditionary bases across all domains.
the fiscal context for executing the department's missions in that dynamic environment remains challenging. navy marine corps base budget funding is shown in 2016 dollars here, constant dollars in blue, it's $43 billion less over this fit up than the green pb 14 level submitted with the qdr 14 strategy. this includes a 3.9% reduction this year in base in oco from the fy '17 funding levels of pb 17. this fiscal context drives new tough choices and thinking in order to provide the best balanced force as we continue current operations, reset our equipment, maintain wartime readiness and modernize. in this budget the navy department leadership integrated that mission guidance, that operational context and the fiscal constraints across a spectrum of focused investments, hard choices and innovation reform to provide the best balanced force. the next section of slides i'll take you through will provide an overview of that balance by appropriation title including focus investments that span people initiatives, ships,
aircraft, readiness and weapons, the hard choices required to achieve that balance including trade-offs in fore structure, military construction and facility sustainment and the strong focus on innovation and reform that sustains our war fighting advantage including an unmanned systems, weapon prototyping and cradle-to-grave tracking of each appropriated dollar. so start with military personnel. our ability to execute our mission depends completely on the navy and marine corps team, sailors and marines, active and reserve, navy civilians and their families. key initiatives such as the 21st century sailor office continue with this budget leading efforts to improve the physical and mental health of our sailors and a new sailor 2025 initiative will propose adjustments to improve how we attract, train, develop and inspire the best force in the world. in the military personnel accounts both services align and strength with the fore structure required by the mission guidance. the budget funds a1.6% pay rais.
additions to navy personnel include added for installations, depth of manning in our helicopter mine community and t officer manning levels. in military personnel decreases, all of which will be achieved through natural attrition, the department will seek via legislative proposal to deactivate the 10th carrier air wing. this proposal will allow the navy to match ma the air wings to the number of deployable aircraft carriers. reflects the practice of having one carrier in a fuel complex overhaul, and one carrier in extended maintenance availability at any time. it improves readiness reducing the dwell time between air wing deployments which currently can be up to four years for those wings attached to carriers and extended maintenance phases. overall this approach provides the best balance for supporting
the long-term carrier fore structure an the optimized fleet response plan. the sailor 2025 ready relevant learning initiative is piloting a new approach for training sailors through mobile learning, new content and distributed infrastructure. this is a phase training modernization and redesign concept that will decrease the number of sailors in classrooms over time. on the right-hand side of the slide the navy's reserve component continues the pb 16 funded profile which reflects increases in area spanning cyber warfare to ship maintenance p personnel. highlighted adjustments provide the best alignment from military personnel to mission requirements. the marine corps has come down from a peak end strength of 202,000 in fy 09. this end strength provides overall dwell ratios of 1-2 for the active force against a sustained goal of 1-3 and 1-4
for the reserves. at this force level, the commandant has testified that the marine corps major combat operations in one theater would entail risk in deter and deny operations elsewhere with the forestructure sufficient including security cooperation. this budget funds the work force required to support the workforce forestructure sustaining efforts in nuclear assurety and continues our focus on recovering stress readiness. to accomplish this the department's full time equivalent or fte profile increases slightly in fy 17 but decreases through fy 21. ship maintenance backlogs are addressed in fy 17 to increase ship maintenance capacity. while overall navy working capital fund declined from fy 16 to 17 this budget grows fte in
naval aviation depos to address aviation backlogs. the budget also funds an additional 750 navy and marine corps civilian guard under the same initiative highlighted earlier to increase military security personnel. the department continues reductions at our major headquarters activities from the 20% reduction in fy 14 which reduced fte by over 2,000. this budget cuts an additional 5% of funding primarily for headquarters contracting support. overall, the civilian personnel numbers highlighted here reflect a vital role our civilian personnel continue to play in making force capability come alive. the department's readiness accounts are focused on reporting operational tempo requested by the combat and commanders in executing their mission guidance, properly sustaining ships, and ground shipment to their service lives and properly training under a preparing our people to deploy forward. fy 17 are funded to the historic
levels shown here. ship readiness as with the fy 16 request, the budget fund ship operations, 24 days under way per quarter when not deployed. ship depo maintenance is funded to 1 00%. this includes funding of initiatives highlighted earlier to improve ship maintenance through put as well as additional fy 17 investment of $150 million. in aviation readiness the budget funds navy and marine corps to deploy all units at a 2.0 t rating. flat hour funding increases from the fy 16 level but continues to reflect the reduced availability due to depo maintenance backlogs and reduced number of readiness. aviation maintenance is funded to capacity at the fleet readiness centers. that's an increase from the 83% level funded in fy 16.
this funding specifically targets the depo maintenance and ready basic aircraft issues through critical chain initiatives, increased hiring of civilian engineers and artisans and with program related engineering and program logistics investment. the marine corps o and m budget provides a ready and capable marine corps across a range of military operations. however, the fy 17 o and m budget is leaner than in fy 15. stretching the marine corps to maintain current readiness while modernizing to keep pace with evolving adversaries. the budget prioritizes a readiness of deployed and next to deployed units to meet today's operational requirements. nondeployed units won't have the resources in time to maintain their readiness required to deploy immediately. marine corps ground equipment readiness, 70% of the equipment has been reset and 50% returned to operating forces. this budget funds 79% of the remaining baseline active force requirements.
the foundation of the navy essential to both the geographic and functional combat and commanders. key ship building efforts include the ohio replacement program with advanced procurements starting in fy 17 leading to procurement to the first boat in fy 21. the replacement program has fully funded at $13.2 billion in scn and r & d. with fy 21 proposed to be the first three years of full funding for the initial boat. funding continues in fy 17 for the "uss john f. kennedy," which delivers in fy 22. and for the second year for advanced procurement. both ships are on track to deliver within their respective cost caps. two virginia class submarines funded from fy 17 to 20 and one to fy 21 when the first ohio rebasement boat is introduced. the second fy 19 virginia are funded through virginia payload module variance which provide an increase in payload capacity
from 12 to 40 tomahawks. continued fund something provided each year for two dedestroys. the second fy 16 destroy is projected to be the first flight three variant incorporating the missile defense radar recorded . two tutorial combat ships are funded in fy 17 and one in fy 19. one in '20, one in '21. a total of 40 ships. we continue to procure lcs mission packsages. changes to align the mission package requirements occur beyond fy 21. in am phibs, the first replacement for the lsd class is funded in fy 20 with a delivery in fy 17 and fy 19, it gross to
33 ships by fy 19. the first taox replacement oiler was funded in fy 16 following procurement of one oiler per year. total procurement is forecast to be 17 oilers. this budget includes advanced procurement in 17 for a block buy for the next five ships and acquisition strategy expected to yield savings of $45 million per ship which is reflected in the budget. the department appreciates the strong support of congress in the fy 16 navy ship building appropriation. changes in this budget reflect that fy 16 congressional action. they also reflect the reduction of seven small surface combatants and they reflect the phasing of a tago ship from fy 21 to later while those ships' service lives are studiestudied. in fy 17, 13 ships are delivered, six retired bringing the fy 17 battle force count to
287. this plan grows to 308 ships by 2021. in cruiser moderation ecurrently have two cruisers inducted in the modernization availabilities. in fy 16 we induct two more. the balance between current and future capability that fits within our budget compels the navy in this request to propose to congress inducting the remaining seven newest cruisers into phase modernization in fy 17. this is an approach that leverages savings of $3 billion in operate being costs to provide the best overall force balance. it maintains air defense commander capable platforms in the force into the 2040s allowing us to reallocate personnel elsewhere in the fleet. this is the best way to update our cruisers relative to the evolving threat within the resources we have available. we are choosing to retain a more capable future cruiser fleet longer into the future over a lesser capacity today. the department has committed more than $500 million in the
fit-up to ensure the return of these cruisers to the fleet to meet our future air defense commander requirements. aircraft procurement reflects the department's strong emphasis on fielding forces that fight decisively over the full spectrum of combat. 94 aircraft are procured in fy 17, including two f-18 combat loss replacements and 20 f-35s. f-35 hit production increases in aircraft accelerating the fifth generation fighter transition. in combination with the giv additional f-18s in fy 16, two in 17 and 14 proposes in fy 18, this helps mitigate the strike fighter shortage. our plan to accelerate procurement of one additional p8 in fy 16 and maintains the plan to complete the buy in fy 19. on the rotary wing side, fy 17 reflects small decreases in
aircraft for fiscal balancing. the ch-53k replacement for the 53 echo helicopter completed its first flight this year in 2015. an initial operational capability in fy 20. over fy 18 to 21 the request funds the first 24 to 48 navy v-22s to replace the c-2. forecast ioc for the navy variance is fy 21. finally the procurement quantities for mq1 tritan reflect accelerated buys in 2017. in weapons procurement, a net increase of 53 weapons. the navy begins procurement in fy 17 of two new missiles, the joint air-to-ground missile and the long-range antiship missile. a multi-service air launch missile will be used with an ioc
of fy 19. in other aircraft weapons the advanced extended range have been refined driving the addition of a technology maturation and risk reduction phase. this missile sl expected to be completed operational testing in early fy 24. in ship board weapons, tomahawk missiles were increased until the session in-line funding starts. the navy's initial buy of long boat hellfire begins in fy 17. overall while weapons procurement decreases over the fit-up this budget invests $11.5
billion over that same time frame to develop new weapons that place adversaries at risk including the next generation land attack weapon, the offensive antisurface weapon increment 2, standard missile 2 improvements, tomahawk upgrades and enhanced lightweight torpedo capabilities. the fy 17 budget request also provides substantial investments to modernized systems to continue to overhatmatched a varies. the consolidated afloat network and enterprise services program advanced to outpace the threat. canes provides all information networks including cyber security. it has been installed on 25 ships to date, 12 installations on in progress. this budget funds an additional 10 installations. upgrades to our surface ship warfare systems which provide detection and protection from antiship missiles. this advanced